I am sure some of you may have seen the massive Facebook post that started around this topic. It created some interesting conversation. Here are just a few of the reasons given for starting out at level 1 or 3.-
The DMs that wanted to start new players at level 3 cited that level 1 characters were too easy to kill and that characters of that level were just to weak and ill defined to be heroic. Level 1 and 2 "were a slog".
The DMs who wanted new players to start out at level 1 stated that they could more naturally progress into the more defined advanced classes and the extra mechanics of level 3 might make other gameplay elements more difficult to absorb.
I personally think new players should start at level 1 and it's the DMs job to ensure that the players understand that teamwork and creative problem solving are required to survive combat. If the players are simply matched up against goblins on a plain surface with no terrain, then yes the numbers mean that a goblin can one shot a low HP character. That is something for the DM to overcome. I am not quite sure where this idea comes from that 3rd level characters are much more durable than first level characters. A leveled fight is a leveled fight and 3rd level adventurers could easily come up against something that could one shot them.
Also the idea of natural progression of a character through actual gameplay kept coming up in the conversation. During my first game I played a Barbarian. Had I started out at 3rd level I would have chosen the Berserker no question. However, during that first session I had an encounter with some wildlife and I figured it would be really interesting to be able to talk with animals. And thus I changed my mind and took the Totem Path. It's very interesting to me that some DMs were arguing at a brand new player with no tabletop RPG experience would want to play a specific advanced class and that "it would make no sense" to have an Eldritch Knight character with no magical ability at level one. My question would be to wonder how a brand new player would even know what an Eldritch Knight was or how that Martial Archetype mechanically worked. I have never met a brand new player that had memorized the PH. Apparently there are some out there.
Having a 2 hour session for new players to understand the core concepts of a tabletop RPG as well as the simply mechanics is very important in my opinion. There are are many different ways DMs accomplish this. What are some of your methods?
Personally, I think if the players are new, you should run them at Level 1. If they're used to 5e or DnD/RPGs in general, starting at Level 3 isn't that bad of an idea.
One of of my brand-new players completely learned the Bard section, memorized his entire spell list and their effects and actually wrote a 2 page background revolving around his trinket without ever playing. He leads the other players without breaking a sweat.
Natural Roleplayers are out there and they can be a treat or a curse. If they're new, you can guide them into enjoying the game for what it is instead of walking down the munchkin path earlier than expected.
Edit: I tend to start with level 2 unless they are completely and utterly lost without a notion of what D&D is and how it works. That's where you whip out the level 1 sheets.
In the Light, we gather to empower our brother. In its grace, he will be made anew. In its power, he shall educate the masses. In its strength, he shall combat the shadow. And, in its wisdom, he shall lead his brethren to the eternal rewards of paradise.
I'm a fan of starting at first level and awarding a level after each of the first two sessions. Third level by third session.
First and second level aren't a "slog" so much, and it gives new players two full sessions to flesh out how they want their characters to act in combat, interact with the world and each other, and make a much more informed decision on what might be a very important topic (their third level class feature). Even if you're not entirely new to D&D.
Bumping straight along to third level, I think, makes sense for advanced groups where the players know each other well and can naturally design characters to suit from the start.
I used to play 2nd edition until 5E came out and it was so hard in 2nd edition to start out characters at first level since they died very easily. Since I started to play 5E I have always started out at first level and have loved it. The players really feel like they are endanger starting out so low level even from a goblin ambush. And they can grow into their characters as they level and get stronger.
I DM'd for a group that were all entirely new to the game, I started them out at level one but I made sure that the adventure actually didn't have terribly difficult or challenging combat. The fun part of 5e versus earlier editions is that you can run campaigns were the fun isn't necessarily in fighting giant monsters - even though that's still Really Good. But it is also in having your players learn how they can interact with their environments - so that when you are in big boss fights they are acclimated to using their environment and the mechanics in interesting ways rather than just saying "I hit it with my sword".
Personally I have run several one hot games for completely new players. Some at lvl3 some at lvl1.
From experience I now believe to know, that lvl1 is superior for any but the most interested players. If the players were that interested though, in 1 or 2 quick sessions it would be possible to reach lvl3 without having to know everything at the same time.
I am of the conviction that one should have played every level of a class before you should be allowed to skipp (there are alot of exceptions, but that's the baseline)
That actually reminded me of another method I heard about. Give the players the HP of a third level character (so as to avoid the slog and general...squishiness) and after the first session, advance them to level 2, and after the second session advance them to level 3, and then start from there.
Really depends on the atmosphere of the campaign and the group. I'm soon going to run a game for some new players, and I plan on starting them at first, to keep the learning curve manageable. On the other hand, I have found that both my more experienced groups I have run games for find starting at level 1 a lot more tedious. That being said, I prefer starting them at 1st level, unless it's a one shot or a short module.
Personally, I can think of few things more rewarding than building a character from level 1. For new players, starting at level 1 seems essential. It keeps things very simple and there is a lot less to learn. As they grow in understanding the game system, their character grows in levels. Thus, levels of complexity are added as the players are able to grasp them. In my experience, the higher you allow players to start the less rewarding the levels are and the more they must master immediately in order to play their character effectively.
I like starting my campaigns at level 4. That way every character being built has already attained meaningful features and choices, and yet there aren't so many choices to make as to cause character creation to take more than about 30 minutes.
That's where I would start completely inexperienced players, unless those players were telling me they wanted to do the equivalent of setting a video game's difficult to the hardest setting available, or were visibly overwhelmed by the still quite small number of choices having to be made (which is a hypothetical I don't expect to happen, given that anyone making a character at my table has me and the rest of the group to receive assistance from if they want it so getting overwhelmed is even less likely to happen).
Where I would start a campaign at level 1 is if the story of the campaign made it a more attractive option, such as if the premise is that the characters are still working toward becoming adventurers rather than actually being adventurers at the opening of the tale.
A large part of this is, I have to admit, because my group has other RPGs that we prefer to use for the "zero to hero" style of character progression (specifically HackMaster and Dungeon Crawl Classics), so we appreciate being easily able to make our D&D playing feel different from them.
I'd suggest to start at level 1. Then if the players are gaining confidence quickly, use a milestone xp bonus (usually at the end of a chapter or session), and go to level 3 - 5.
Start at level 1. The problems you described are DM problems, not character problems.
Agreed - the ease of character death, or not, is entirely in the hands of the DM and the challenges posed to the party.
It is really weird that so many people responded to this on Facebook and reddit by saying "Players die too easily at level one". As if there is no possibly way to avoid that. DMs have the tools to easily control that aspect of the game by planning out combat a bit. It makes me wonder how many people are running D&D sessions as dice rolling games. The mechanics for rewarding creative combat are right in the rulebook.
It is really weird that so many people responded to this on Facebook and reddit by saying "Players die too easily at level one". As if there is no possibly way to avoid that. DMs have the tools to easily control that aspect of the game by planning out combat a bit. It makes me wonder how many people are running D&D sessions as dice rolling games. The mechanics for rewarding creative combat are right in the rulebook.
I've seen the difference between every character living through first level, and some getting dead, come down to things as simple as the DM deciding to roll damage dice for monster attacks. Usually, it is because that's how the person DMing has always run things with prior editions, so they didn't even consider using the option 5th edition presents to use non-rolled damage and how that option might benefit them.
If you aren't tailoring the encounters and numbers towards the skill-level of your party, you're not DMing correctly. A level 1 character dying is a product of a DM not preventing such. Even if a character is actively trying to get himself killed, there is always an alternative the DM can intervene with to disrupt the combat or keep a player alive.
As this isn't the case referenced in this thread, I don't see how a level 1 character must be avoided when players are interested in progressing. Strict book stats and dice rolls doesn't make a DM, but a robot.
I am sure some of you may have seen the massive Facebook post that started around this topic. It created some interesting conversation. Here are just a few of the reasons given for starting out at level 1 or 3.-
The DMs that wanted to start new players at level 3 cited that level 1 characters were too easy to kill and that characters of that level were just to weak and ill defined to be heroic. Level 1 and 2 "were a slog".
The DMs who wanted new players to start out at level 1 stated that they could more naturally progress into the more defined advanced classes and the extra mechanics of level 3 might make other gameplay elements more difficult to absorb.
I personally think new players should start at level 1 and it's the DMs job to ensure that the players understand that teamwork and creative problem solving are required to survive combat. If the players are simply matched up against goblins on a plain surface with no terrain, then yes the numbers mean that a goblin can one shot a low HP character. That is something for the DM to overcome. I am not quite sure where this idea comes from that 3rd level characters are much more durable than first level characters. A leveled fight is a leveled fight and 3rd level adventurers could easily come up against something that could one shot them.
Also the idea of natural progression of a character through actual gameplay kept coming up in the conversation. During my first game I played a Barbarian. Had I started out at 3rd level I would have chosen the Berserker no question. However, during that first session I had an encounter with some wildlife and I figured it would be really interesting to be able to talk with animals. And thus I changed my mind and took the Totem Path. It's very interesting to me that some DMs were arguing at a brand new player with no tabletop RPG experience would want to play a specific advanced class and that "it would make no sense" to have an Eldritch Knight character with no magical ability at level one. My question would be to wonder how a brand new player would even know what an Eldritch Knight was or how that Martial Archetype mechanically worked. I have never met a brand new player that had memorized the PH. Apparently there are some out there.
Having a 2 hour session for new players to understand the core concepts of a tabletop RPG as well as the simply mechanics is very important in my opinion. There are are many different ways DMs accomplish this. What are some of your methods?
Personally, I think if the players are new, you should run them at Level 1. If they're used to 5e or DnD/RPGs in general, starting at Level 3 isn't that bad of an idea.
One of of my brand-new players completely learned the Bard section, memorized his entire spell list and their effects and actually wrote a 2 page background revolving around his trinket without ever playing. He leads the other players without breaking a sweat.
Natural Roleplayers are out there and they can be a treat or a curse. If they're new, you can guide them into enjoying the game for what it is instead of walking down the munchkin path earlier than expected.
Edit: I tend to start with level 2 unless they are completely and utterly lost without a notion of what D&D is and how it works. That's where you whip out the level 1 sheets.
In the Light, we gather to empower our brother. In its grace, he will be made anew. In its power, he shall educate the masses. In its strength, he shall combat the shadow. And, in its wisdom, he shall lead his brethren to the eternal rewards of paradise.
I'm a fan of starting at first level and awarding a level after each of the first two sessions. Third level by third session.
First and second level aren't a "slog" so much, and it gives new players two full sessions to flesh out how they want their characters to act in combat, interact with the world and each other, and make a much more informed decision on what might be a very important topic (their third level class feature). Even if you're not entirely new to D&D.
Bumping straight along to third level, I think, makes sense for advanced groups where the players know each other well and can naturally design characters to suit from the start.
I used to play 2nd edition until 5E came out and it was so hard in 2nd edition to start out characters at first level since they died very easily. Since I started to play 5E I have always started out at first level and have loved it. The players really feel like they are endanger starting out so low level even from a goblin ambush. And they can grow into their characters as they level and get stronger.
I DM'd for a group that were all entirely new to the game, I started them out at level one but I made sure that the adventure actually didn't have terribly difficult or challenging combat. The fun part of 5e versus earlier editions is that you can run campaigns were the fun isn't necessarily in fighting giant monsters - even though that's still Really Good. But it is also in having your players learn how they can interact with their environments - so that when you are in big boss fights they are acclimated to using their environment and the mechanics in interesting ways rather than just saying "I hit it with my sword".
Personally I have run several one hot games for completely new players. Some at lvl3 some at lvl1.
From experience I now believe to know, that lvl1 is superior for any but the most interested players. If the players were that interested though, in 1 or 2 quick sessions it would be possible to reach lvl3 without having to know everything at the same time.
I am of the conviction that one should have played every level of a class before you should be allowed to skipp (there are alot of exceptions, but that's the baseline)
DM/PC ever open to reasonable discussions
That actually reminded me of another method I heard about. Give the players the HP of a third level character (so as to avoid the slog and general...squishiness) and after the first session, advance them to level 2, and after the second session advance them to level 3, and then start from there.
Using milestone progression for the first few levels is one very usefull way to go about this.
DM/PC ever open to reasonable discussions
Really depends on the atmosphere of the campaign and the group. I'm soon going to run a game for some new players, and I plan on starting them at first, to keep the learning curve manageable. On the other hand, I have found that both my more experienced groups I have run games for find starting at level 1 a lot more tedious. That being said, I prefer starting them at 1st level, unless it's a one shot or a short module.
Start at level 1. The problems you described are DM problems, not character problems.
Personally, I can think of few things more rewarding than building a character from level 1. For new players, starting at level 1 seems essential. It keeps things very simple and there is a lot less to learn. As they grow in understanding the game system, their character grows in levels. Thus, levels of complexity are added as the players are able to grasp them. In my experience, the higher you allow players to start the less rewarding the levels are and the more they must master immediately in order to play their character effectively.
Creator, writer, and producer of Heroes Not Included
I like starting my campaigns at level 4. That way every character being built has already attained meaningful features and choices, and yet there aren't so many choices to make as to cause character creation to take more than about 30 minutes.
That's where I would start completely inexperienced players, unless those players were telling me they wanted to do the equivalent of setting a video game's difficult to the hardest setting available, or were visibly overwhelmed by the still quite small number of choices having to be made (which is a hypothetical I don't expect to happen, given that anyone making a character at my table has me and the rest of the group to receive assistance from if they want it so getting overwhelmed is even less likely to happen).
Where I would start a campaign at level 1 is if the story of the campaign made it a more attractive option, such as if the premise is that the characters are still working toward becoming adventurers rather than actually being adventurers at the opening of the tale.
A large part of this is, I have to admit, because my group has other RPGs that we prefer to use for the "zero to hero" style of character progression (specifically HackMaster and Dungeon Crawl Classics), so we appreciate being easily able to make our D&D playing feel different from them.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Brand new to D&D, always start at Level 1. This way they have the ability to learn the ropes, and goblins and kobolds re a terrifying experience. :P
Site Rules & Guidelines || How to Tooltip || Contact Support || Changelog || Pricing FAQ || Homebrew FAQ
If you have questions/concerns, please Private Message me or another moderator.
Wary the wizard who focuses on homebrew, for he can create nightmares that you wouldn't even dream of
I'd suggest to start at level 1. Then if the players are gaining confidence quickly, use a milestone xp bonus (usually at the end of a chapter or session), and go to level 3 - 5.
If you aren't tailoring the encounters and numbers towards the skill-level of your party, you're not DMing correctly. A level 1 character dying is a product of a DM not preventing such. Even if a character is actively trying to get himself killed, there is always an alternative the DM can intervene with to disrupt the combat or keep a player alive.
As this isn't the case referenced in this thread, I don't see how a level 1 character must be avoided when players are interested in progressing. Strict book stats and dice rolls doesn't make a DM, but a robot.
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] --- [ Homebrew Rules & Guidelines ]
Send me a message with any questions or concerns