What level do you start your campaign at?

[MonsterMash]

Level one, though I've got an idea for a scenario to use that is going to be too tough for first levels so I may let the characters start at level three, but they need to have a decent backstory and justification for any combinations of classes, not just an excuse for min/maxing.

 

[alaric]

I've always started at first for campaigns, I think combat at first level is some of the most memorable, and can have a big impact on character growth. My campaign is 3 years old now, and the characters are 14th level, but one of the combats that's looked back on most often is a raid on a caravan at first level. The ranger found himself face to face with a "mighty warrior" (Fighter 1) that they had been warned about. The ranger wore him down, but eventually gets hit hard and drops, and nearly bleeds to death before help arrived. The ranger decided at that point that he wasn't a hold the line kind of fighter, he was a stick and move kind of fighter. The group has the warriors great scimitar mounted on the wall of their castle, and from time to time reminds themself of his name. Maybe it's just that I like a more gritty feel, but I really enjoy low level combats and can't imagine a campaign where you just start out as "heros". Even hero's didn't know which side of a sword was the dangerous one at one point.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

With the advent of 3e I started sending the characters off on their merry ways at 2nd level, so that those folks who really wanted to play fighter/magic users could. (As it turned out most people quckly started prefering single class characters. )

The Auld Grump

 

[The_Gneech]

With the advent of 3e I started sending the characters off on their merry ways at 2nd level, so that those folks who really wanted to play fighter/magic users could. (As it turned out most people quckly started prefering single class characters. )

The Auld Grump

Hmm ... funny you should mention that, given my history of fascination with warrior mages. Fighter/Wizards most definitely suck -- thank heaven for the Eldritch Knight PrC, even if it DOES have a lame name!

-The Gneech

 

[kamosa]

I've started having people role up characters at 3rd level so they have some options on ECL and they can bring in some of the non-standard PC races.

 

[dead]

I never like to start playing a character at anything more than 1st Level because somehow the character doesn't feel "complete". I know this is silly because level is just a game mechanic and if you start, say, a 3rd level PC it just means you've got a bit more background to develope. Nevertheless, this is always how I've felt.

I'm the same when I GM. I rule that new players have to start at 1st Level. Admittedly, this does create some issues. For example, low level PCs will not get into "the thick of it" when I'm running an adventure for the high level characters. So far, however, it hasn't been a major problem.

At the moment, my game has PCs of quite varied levels yet we still have loads of fun. Their levels are: 19th; 16th; 11th; and 7th.

And I mean, look in the 1E Forgotten Realms box. In there they have lists of adventuring companies and the NPCs listed in each company have widely varying levels. These are NPCs, though, and I do understand that for player characters you should, ideally, keep there levels even so that each can equally "shine" in the game.

However, looking on the bright side: Due to the way XP is granted in 3E, the lower level PCs in my game are steadily catching up to the high levels.

 

[tetsujin28]

I like around 3rd. Maybe it's just my fixation with Dark Sun, but I find that if you start the PCs off at 1st, they never get over that "Run away! Run away!" attitude that's so necessary for survival. At 3rd, I find that the death rate is lower, and players don't mind investing some time into their PC's personality.