My group has never started above 1st level, but we have sometimes "fast forwarded" through the early levels, requiring fewer encounters than normal to gain the next level.
We have noticed a significant power gap between players who are in the campaign from the beginning and those who join later -- even though the latter group gets to buy magic items of their choice while the former group is largely stuck with what they found adventuring, the lack of opportunity for the latter group to fix problems with the choices they made at lower levels during character creation has very noticeable adverse effects.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like to start somewhere between 1-4, though I bring rather different characters to each. (some builds suck for the first 2-3 levels) I would never want to start at level 14, but I don't like Pathfinder much past level 12 anyway since the system, especially balance, starts to really breakdown. Moreso with mythic. (I wouldn't touch mythic with a... 39 and a half foot pole! *cue Grinch music*)
It sounds like you prefer crazy over-the-top powers while I prefer gritty tactics. Nothing wrong with either, but it leads to rather different play-styles.
I had normally started at lv.1 most if the games I've been in, except this last one. Due to losing all the paperwork from a kingmaker campaign he was running, our DM started up a new campaign. We were lv5 in kingmaker, so we asked to start at lv.5 here. He agreed, and so far it has been the most enjoyable game to date.
My DM says he normally prefers to start at lv.1 because he just prefers the lower levels. Easier to challenge us I suppose.
As an intermediate level DM, I'm going to be running Rappan Athuk and having them start at lower levels (but higher point buy). They know the game is supposed to be really really difficult, so I figured starting them at lv.1 fits that bill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Level 3-4 seems about ideal to me.
Characters are competent and should be capable of dealing with most environmental conditions. They are getting some of their special powers at this point, which helps differentiate them. Lastly, the magical gear carried generally doesn't eclipse what the character can do by themselves.
|
|
I feel like this really depends on the experience of the players making each character imoI like to start somewhere between 1-4, though I bring rather different characters to each. (some builds suck for the first 2-3 levels) I would never want to start at level 14, but I don't like Pathfinder much past level 12 anyway since the system, especially balance, starts to really breakdown. Moreso with mythic. (I wouldn't touch mythic with a... 39 and a half foot pole! *cue Grinch music*)
It sounds like you prefer crazy over-the-top powers while I prefer gritty tactics. Nothing wrong with either, but it leads to rather different play-styles.
I didn't say that I couldn't build higher level characters. I do so sometimes just for the heck of it. But past level 12 you can just throw game balance out the window, and mythic makes balance into a kite that you throw out the window - no telling where that sucker is going.
I still prefer to start at first, especially if I'm playing a class I haven't before. Honestly, it really depends on who the GM is going to be. Some can start at higher levels and do fine... others not so much. I'm usually the GM though, so I almost always start at 1st. I like to see the characters develop over time, rather than being instant powerhouses from the start.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I generally like to start campaigns at level 1 and then level at one level per session for "awhile," even if this means that the characters are technically getting too much treasure and XP for the two encounters they managed on Thursday night.
I prefer this to starting at level 5 (or whatever), though, because it gives players, especially novice players or experienced players trying new things, a chance to experiment (and redesign a few times) without being overwhelmed. In my experience, based mostly on published modules, it's not fair to hand someone a 15th level cleric and say "here, pick your spells" because there's simply too many of them. (And this can perplex even an experienced player who has mostly been playing fighters or mages or what have you.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My preference for when I'm GMing is start at level 2. Whether it's a home game or AP. Not so much because level 1 sucks, which it does, but because I don't want to one shot a PC from a lucky crit, and I usually roll in the open. Then, if it's a home brew campaign, either fast track to level 4, usually one session at level 2 and 3, or going right from 2 to 4. Once you hit level 4, almost everybody should be well on their way to having actual, functional characters. All casters should either have second level spells, or 4 level casters have access to spells. Most builds should have their basics to function, like precise shot or an improved maneuver feat. Dex to damage builds are at worst one level away from functioning. And players actually have enough money to make meaningful choices with their cash instead of pooling it all for healing wands and masterwork items. Then from level 4 on is up to the group, but I personally prefer play around level 8-12 and am happy to fast track to that point as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Levels 3-4 usually.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I've said, we've had no problem with balance...
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Maybe balance doesn't matter much to you. That's fine; it's true of a lot of players. But please don't try to argue that such issues don't exist - they've been proven time & time again.
|
2nd or 3rd. I've been in too many new campaigns that start at 1st and sputter out by 3rd. I've played those levels more than any other and just want to get into a range that I haven't had as much experience in. Organized play has helped a lot by allowing me to keep my experience between games and actually experience high level play.
I recently started my second campaign, again at level 1. My players seem to enjoy it - they don't expect super powers from the beginning, but wouldn't like to wait more than ~5 sessions per level. Roleplay is somewhat level-independant anyway, so it helps to reduce the 'must level up!' urge.
Most settings already work at level 1, and you can already foreshadow the more dangerous ones (Worldwound, planes, giants' fortress etc.). Each bestiary has numerous monsters till CR 1, so potential for variety is there. If you want to pull a CR 4 creature or so, there are boss fights or degenerate / young template as options. I try to avoid killing them that early (just x2 crits, no save or suck spells, no skill check success or die situations) but they won't get their precious XP for free.
I can imagine some people want to start high for a change, but personally I am fine with level 1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like starting at 3. Most classes miss out on key tools until 2-4 and level 1 is very, very rocket tag in combat.
High level can be fun, but I'd rather level characters up more quickly than start there, personally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Levels 3-4. Allows some mechanical character building, and I can have a character who is experienced in something, meaning I have more possibilities for backgrounds. Also I'm kinda jaded that I've been playing 3.x/PF for 16 years and played only 2 sessions with a character of a level higher than 10 (I'm hoping our Reign of Winter campaign won't end prematurely, we're at lvl 10 now :/
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Start at level 0. Make the players work for that first level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally I start my campaigns at level 3, to reflect some experience in the adventuring world and to give the players a slight edge. I did, however, start my current city based campaign at level 1 and most of the players are nearly level 13 now, with everyone committed to going all the way to 20th.
Over the years that i have been a DM...gah, 30 now?
I've run a mix of long games and short games, starting at all kinds of levels. I'm generally comfortable running in all the ranges, but my group these days enjoy longer running games so the lower ranges tend to be where we begin.
Depending on the general campaign premise, sometimes starting higher then 1st is fine with me and everyone else.(example: it's hard to feel like an elite operative of anything at level 1)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like 4 or 5. I'd never really liked 1st level because spellcasters are pretty much useless. I can see bored players staring longingly at the great sword wielding bruisers that just steal all the glory. 5 everyone has some tricks, and spellcasters do get to contribute some.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4th level. Spells start showing an impact but don't inherently overshadow, med BAB classes start on cool tricks without being tricked out, power attack starts mattering more than the 2d6 base weapon damage, the "class skill crutch" doesn't hurt as much, and a bunch of cool stuff is still on the horizon for players. Also lets me use encounters that are more fun for me without killing them.
As a player, it lets me have a cool backstory that doesn't fit a 1st level character. Even being freshly graduated from fighter college/wizard school, basic enough ideas, I feel like training wheels are on too much at levels 1, 2, & 3 because I don't feel like I really graduated, just that I got lucky (or unlucky). Let alone "valedictorian of wiz school" or "successfully fought in a few skirmishes in the military." Its also nice to see encounters when death is an avoidable but still real threat. Much later and raise dead is affordable. Much earlier, and death is purely a factor of luck and GM mercy, but here I feel like actions can influence the outcome more than a stray crit from an orc.
Our group has been gaming together for about 20-some-odd years. For the last couple of campaigns, really since we started playing Pathfinder for any length of time, we've had options for starting above level 1. Typically one option is providing a really good, meaty background for the GM, to build good subplots and storylines off of. The second option is something we borrowed from Deadlands, wherein your character starts a level higher, representing some previous pre-game experience, but is then given some randomly determined quirk, usually a slight hindrance, as a result of having 'seen the elephant'. A combination of greed for power and everybody-else-is-doing-it ensures that all the characters start at 3rd level.
I've done it as both a GM and a player, and it really is nice not being terrified of each encounter, having put such thought and care into creating a really interesting character, then having him killed by a lucky crit from a stinkin' kobold. I started running Iron Gods about a year and a half ago, and the players, starting level 3, didn't experience the buzzsaw that the first book seems to be for a lot of players. And really, in the long run it amounts to about 5K extra experience, which quickly becomes lost in the XP white noise of the next 2 or 3 levels.
Bottom line for me, my players having fun is absolutely paramount (always remember, fear is fun sometimes...once you've survived), and feeling just a little studly at the early levels can really feel heroic from the get-go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer starting at level 3. Everyone has at least 2 feats, they can afford some nice gear , and they've at least gotten started on gaining their class features. Or if they want to play "X, but with a dip in Y" they can get that out of the way from the get-go and focus on playing their character as X.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer to start at 3rd level as a minimum, but no higher than 7th.
Level 1, though the 0-level apprenticeship is also fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My favourite level to begin is 4. I hate level 1, and the lasts years we have seen level 1 only for APs; homebrew we begin between 3-5
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
5/6th to start with generally, though I've done games that start at 15th level (discounting the things like epic level one-shots).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Next campaign I'm planning to start 'em off at 5th and use the slow advancement. Probably use Ultimate Campaign and maybe Mythic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on the campaign. There are some stories where it makes sense for the players to start out from meager beginnings, there are others where it ends up being really contrived as to why such relatively weak beings can interfere with the plans of powerful beings without being simply erased.
My personal preference is to start between 4 and 6. I feel like that is where characters sort of reach the thing they are going for but are still not all powerful.
Level 1, but we tend to level up fairly quickly to level 3 and then slow down. Either that or we follow the AP and level up by the pace they tell you to set rather than using XP. We never use XP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Barring org play...
As a GM: depends on the premise of the campaign, how long I expect it to last, and the experience / competence of the players. Some stories are better told at different levels.
As a player: minimum 3rd if I can help it. Having gone through hundreds of first level characters in previous incarnations of our "roll a d20" system and having more than 50 1st L characters put together for PFS, I've no real desire to play the "please don't let that house cat be hostile" level of the game any more than I have to.
Now i realize the norm is lv1, obviously, but I've been playing DnD since i was in 6th grade and have lost count of the number of 1st lv campaigns ive started, or played in that have not lasted farther then lv 4 or 5. Once i got older and out of school it was no easier with players having conflicting job schedules, I've finally got a good group and we've been playing foralmost two years quite consistently once a week. I'm DMing and i started it at lv 14 and did an in depth solo mission with each character giving them a deep personal story, and character development as well as giving me plenty (and i mean plenty) of stuff to use against them later on. Each solo mission gave them a mythic tier as well so needless to say we were badass lol. We play in the forgotten realms setting with the timeline advanced forward from the books series to allow me some room to do what I want.
*If your too lazy to read tht*
Back to my point, I've never had so much fun dmimg, and playing, as i have in this high level campaign. Does anyone else like to start it off high level and get the kid stuff out of the way?
1st level isn't kid stuff in the games that I run. I've seen 20th level campaigns that were Kindergarten level in the silliness they had and low level campaigns that were soid grit.
The level that a campaign operates in or goes to doesn't really mean anything. A campaign that ends at level 5 can be just as memorable as one that ends at 15.
I pretty much always start at first unless it's a one-off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4th. It's a good, round level. It's also the level where a lot of classes get, have just gotten, or are just about to get their signature class ability (Wild Shape, Studied Combat, Weapon Training, etc.).
Starting at 1st some classes lack identity and focus, particularly those with a Fighter component (Fighter, Warpriest, Brawler).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4th. It's a good, round level. It's also the level where a lot of classes get, have just gotten, or are just about to get their signature class ability (Wild Shape, Studied Combat, Weapon Training, etc.).
Starting at 1st some classes lack identity and focus, particularly those with a Fighter component (Fighter, Warpriest, Brawler).
You see that as a weakness, I see it as a strength. The best form of character development is when the character is defined through experience rather than just written up in advance on a character sheet.
My magus didn't become a bladebound because she was already written up one at fourth level. she became one because she was gifted with a Tienese sword and granted proficiency in the course of her play history.
Defining identity and focus is one of the most enjoyable parts of running a character. Something you lose out on when you start it at high level. All of the characters I've truly enjoyed were ones I started at first.
My favorite starting level is 2-3.
Anything higher and you cut too much of the half-way balanced part of the game. And first level is too luck dependant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You see that as a weakness, I see it as a strength. The best form of character development is when the character is defined through experience rather than just written up in advance on a character sheet.
Thing is, unless your starting play at the characters birth, your character is going to have their past written up in advance on a character sheet. Playing from a level past 3 does not prevent character develop from experience anymore than playing from level 1 does.
I like starting at 1 but having rapid advancement for the first few levels, almost like a prologue section. Lets you get to know your character a bit better.
My games have started at level one. We use the older (1e-esque) experience progression, so level two usually comes after six or seven sessions. Our campaigns also last quite long, so it's more of a "slow and steady" approach.
The first campaign lasted 10 years, the second 15 years, and now this one just began about eight months ago, and we're expecting it to keep going for quite a while.
The reason I mention duration is that players start at first level, but they know that, as they earn levels, they will not be going back to those experience levels again for quite some time. If we burned through games at a faster rate, we'd also level quicker, too, but I suspect we'd still start at first level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3-5th ideally unless I am running an AP. Even then I'd fast run 1st level.
I really dislike first level both playing and GMing for. If I can avoid it I will.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3-5