So, have a few questions. What level are most people starting at? level 1 and working through the other apprientce tier levels? 4+? Is it possible that WOTC might ever publish an adventure path that doesnt start at the level 1?
My group just started the Princes of the Apocalypse, the free level 1-4 little booklet. It of course starts at level one since the point of Adventures league is to bring in new people. How ever, levels 1-3, or is it 1-4, are apprentice tier. Which to me makes me thing of them as old optional Level 0 rules. More so with some subclasses then others; but some of the things seem like bits of function that should already be in your past. Primary sources of agnst for that are the Eldritch knight and Arcane Trickster. Paladin oaths also seem liek something that should have been taken at first or second level, given the very different stories each one represent. IN the end though, all that is pushed aside if you start at level 3-4, as your creation story is already complete.
Thoughts, comments?
I've been starting all my 5e campaigns at 3rd level or higher.
I believe that the full version of PotA actually starts at 3rd level but includes optional side quests for any group that wants to start from 1st. They just baked those optional encounters into the AL version.
pukunui wrote:
We tend to start at at least level 3.
So tha all classes have chosen their subclass, and the choice of subclass can be intergrated into the characters backstory.
1. Levels 1&2 last one session each. It's truly a blip.
I've always started my games at Level-1. To me, and this is just my opinion, it gives the best ground for the character building. There's so many things you can do, and story elements to bring in, when PCs are still squishy that ends up defining who they are.
I start any campaign in which the PCs are meant to already have a couple adventures in their back-story at level 4 - espeically because that gives the players the ability to begin the game with any concept-enabling feat they want and to have already chosen their subclass.
I only intend to start at level 1 if the characters are meant to be the greenest of the green among adventerous folk - especially because starting at higher level gives me much more freedom in the variety of monsters I can use and the encounter styles I can use them in (1st level characters don't do so well against a kobold raiding party).
1st.
I've noticed, in the three homebrew campaigns we've started since 5e was released, the fragility of 1st level characters tends to set a mood even at higher level play.
We've had a few PCs get killed early on. One due to death save fails. But its the deaths from low level PCs getting hit hard enough to reach negative their HP. Or even just the near deaths when someone almost hits that magic number. Whew.
For whatever reason, shades of those early memorable moments linger and create a sustained sense of mortality. Even when it becomes far less likely later on as we level up.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I always start at level 1. I don't know why, but I just feel more attached towards my character when I start at 1st level, compared to starting at a level higher than that (yes, even level 2). I have heard many opinions from people who hate starting at level 1 (even had some derogatory remarks tossed my way for preferring a level 1 start), but none of them have resonated with me. The most common opinion is "1st level characters are so weak!" to which I just shrug at them and say "So?"
I see nothing wrong with people wanting to start at a higher level, and if that's what they find fun, then more power to them. What I don't get is why they think it pertinent to throw derogatory remarks at me for finding a level 1 start as fun?
1st.........you tend to romp to 4th
I prefer to start new characters at level 1 and develop them though play. I always have.
The way I look at it, a higher-level character is not just one with more hit points and more class features, it's one that has more stories to tell about the people he has adventured with, the perils he has survived and the problems he has overcome. In other words, he has experience. Yes, I could invent that experience as a fiction for a higher-level character ab ovo but it would be no substitute for the real thing. Things will have happened to him in actual play that I wouldn't have thought of. His narrative will be more real.
There's also an element of "survival of the fittest" A 1st-level character is so weak that it takes a special something to survive those first few encounters at all. It takes luck. The unlucky ones don't make it. If a character is going to be unlucky, I want to know, before I invest too much care and thought into it. The only way to find out is through play.
An example of this, from a session last week. A friend of mine had rolled up a level-1 water-genasi bard called Ebb, to see how it would play. On paper, Ebb looked good. He had some useful spells and seemed all set to go. In the first session, he rolled consistently high for intiative, saves and skill rolls. Great, we thought, the sea gods are with him. Welcome to the party. Until it came to combat. In five encounters, nearly half his attack rolls were natural 1's and half the rest were 2s and 3s. It was uncanny. Statistically, it's so unlikely you'd think it can't happen. Except it did. I was there. I saw it happening. The player was a dumbfounded as the rest of us. Ebb wasn't just useless in combat, it was as if the dice gods were having some sort of private joke. He did survive to the end of the session, but only because word got around and the monsters didn't bother attacking him any more and concentrated on the rest of us. The player has said that the first thing Ebb is going to do back in town is to throw his rapier in the river and buy a new one. But we all know it's not the rapier. It's him. Someone or something has cursed him. Now he has to find out who it is. He has a new personal goal. That character is interesting in a way you just couldn't make up.
*starts the slow-clap for BI.*
It depends. I liked to start 3.5 between level three and five. But I did sometimes start at one. With 5e, I intend to start at one or three, depending on what players want to play. If one of them needs to be level three for concept to turn on, then the party will start at level three. I've been debating giving guys who want to go Arcan Trickster or Eldrich Knight one of their cantrips at level one.
For the last couple of campaigns I've run, we've started at level 1. As has been said, 1 & 2 don't last that long, and to me it helps build a deeper connection to the character. I'm not saying people who start at 3 don't have that connection, just that I (and my players agree) feel more connected having played through levels 1 & 2 rather than filling in the details about what would have happened.
Really good asnwers. Like I said, most subclasses arent to much trouble, but EK and AT really just make my eye twitch when they all of a sudden start understanding spell casting. But its not huge, the one time I did play an AT, I was fairly buddy buddy with a wizard charactes by happen stance, so I just used that for story of learning spells. but if there isnt a wizard in the class, it just feels really gamey to start casting spells when you didnt have any spells or knowledge ect. ugh. Its really not a big deal over all, espically since most people know they will be taking subclasses fairly quickly, so anny ways, thanks for comments.
cowleymen wrote:
I usually just say it's something they've been working on or playing with in the background, when they have a bit of down-time.
We started 5e at level 1. I think for our group we are taking the time to learn the classes and how they play. 5e has made D&D new for our group. We want to explore it from the begining. A lot of my players were unaware or even cared that WotC designed the first 3 or 4 levels as apprentice level. They were pleasantly surprised and lke they had time to make some big decisions until later.
I feel it depends on the campaign and the feel of the group. Sometimes we don't want to start at lvl 1 and want to be established heroes or figures in the world.
Currently, my two groups both started as lvl 1 noobs. With only one death, and a few near death experiences, my one group is level 6 and the other is level 4 (we don't play as often as the other).
We tend to see instances when we want a campaign to start at lower level when everyone is in a more RP mood, while starting at say 10 or so, we are more in the mood for a dungeon crawl or possibly a continuation of a past campaign.
I have no problem thinking that either the EK or the AT characters have been dabbling in magic through levels 1 & 2 (and even before that) to explain their suddenly accomplishing their first successful spell casting at level 3. The same goes for half caster classes, even full caster classes.
Why do people think that the new features gained at each level happen in a vacuum, or a puff of smoke? I've always played that the PC has been working towards those things for at least a level (or pre-first level) before attaining them.
I always prefer to start games at level 1, regardless of system. Starting out at higher levels makes me feel less attached to the character, thus caring less about survival and feeling less invested in roleplaying.
Yeah don't worry too much about such things.......if you have played a PF AP, then one bright spring morning you are straight out of wizards school and by summer you are throwing wish spells. Levelling is just a game thing we just have to adapt too
BoldItalic wrote:
Unless I have been invited to join a campaign that has already been active for a bit, I always start at 1st level. 
It helps me get a much better "feel" for a character that way. 
It depends on the campaign or adventure I'm running.
As far as the power of levels...coming from AD&D and 3e, levels seem to be more powerful to me in 5e. I have years of experience getting a feel for what levels mean in AD&D, and levels in 3e felt a little more powerful, but nothing all that relevant. In 5e, after playing through Lost Mines of Phandelver and throwing in some extra hard challenges (including a TPK dream sequence and a near TPK post-official adventure dragon fight) for calibration purposes I've come to the conclusion that characters of levels 1-5 calibrate to about 50% higher level than AD&D/3e characters. Now, they are a bit squishy compared to 3e characters at level 1 if you fight goblins or more powerful humanoids, but that quickly vanishes and things like ogres and other creatures are properly balanced for calibration.
So, in my experience, overall, a 1st level 5e character feels like about half way to 2nd level, 2nd level feels like 3rd level, 3rd like somewhere between 4th and 5th, 4th like 6th, and 5th like somewhere between 7th and 8th. It's uncanny how the percentage holds for each of those levels. I'm not sure when that percentage will change, but I expect it to drop at higher levels.
So from that perspective, skipping levels 1 and 2 means character miss a lot of adventuring experiences they would otherwise have. They jump straight into anhilating ogres and other creatures you'd think would be a challenge for starting adventurers. As I said, I start at whatever level I feel fits the campaign, but I wanted to point out that if you skip those early levels your characters are significantly more powerful and lower level challenges just aren't relevant any more. Sure, low-level monsters are relevant in greater numbers--but that isn't the same as a low-level challenge being relevant.
I will always start the campaign at level 1. I did an advanced start at 8th level once, because that was what the prior DM had done, and regretted that for the rest of the game. There’s something lost by not starting in the crucible of low levels.
Akeisha wrote: