People so commonly bypass Levels 1 & 2; that I would like to see sample 3rd Level characters, from the start.

Many people start at Level 3, or Level 5.  That allows them to step into fun, functional, useful characters.

Quote from: Razor 007;1081222People so commonly bypass Levels 1 & 2; that I would like to see sample 3rd Level characters, from the start.

WoTC's 5e D&D website has pregens at every level from 1 to 10. I think that's a good approach - though they could probably have just done 1, 3 & 5 and covered 90% of demand.

Re starting with functional characters, I've found that just giving full CON score + max hit die in hit points at 1st level solves this for 5e D&D. It gives around 16 to 28 hp at level 1. The starting characters already have a decent number of options & abilities.

I seem to remember reading somewhere (not sure if it was during the playtest or later) that WOTC 'suggested' using 3rd level as the default starting point.

Which edition are you talking about?

I bypassed the first four levels for my ACKS game, though if I were to do it again I'd start at 3rd. Or else use my 0th+1st level idea so that 1st level isn't a "novice".

Has a lot to do with the experience of the players.  With a group of nothing but veteran players for a given version, you can start at any level you want for the campaign.  With a new system, it's usually useful to start at the lower end, just to simplify the acclimation.  

With brand new, casual players?  I'm starting at level 1 every time.  The leveling itself is a bit of a novelty for them.  Once a person has been through that a time or three, some still enjoy it, others just want to get to the level "where the action kicks in."

Quote from: Razor 007;1081222Many people start at Level 3, or Level 5.  That allows them to step into fun, functional, useful characters.

Starting at level 3, 5, 10, 20, 100 in no way at all guarantees such things and for some would be the diametric opposite.

I happen to like starting out at level 1 in a campaign and trying to survive to the top. Its alot more fun than being just handed the power for no effort.

That said. The greater majority of TSR's modules started you off, or required you have an existing character, at a higher level. Some provided pregen's of appropriate level even. Same with a DM's campaign. It might be part of the opening setup that the PCs start off allready seasoned adventurers. Or perhaps they are skilled non-adventurers suddenly thrown into the fray.

The Dragonlance modules start off with the pregen PCs between levels 4 and 6, with Raistlin the exception at level 3 since he is a mage and needs more EXP to level.

Which brings up a method I was introduced to and have used for pre-3e D&D. Setting not a level. but an EXP amount.
For example say for a 2e campaign you set a starting EXP amount at 16000. That puts your fighter Cleric, Druid, Thief and Bard at level 5. While your Paladin, Ranger and Wizard are at level 4. Or say start off Multiclassed as a level 4/4 Fighter/Thief. With each class being at varying points towards their next level.

Quote from: Omega;1081252Which brings up a method I was introduced to and have used for pre-3e D&D. Setting not a level. but an EXP amount.
For example say for a 2e campaign you set a starting EXP amount at 16000. That puts your fighter Cleric, Druid, Thief and Bard at level 5. While your Paladin, Ranger and Wizard are at level 4. Or say start off Multiclassed as a level 4/4 Fighter/Thief. With each class being at varying points towards their next level.

Yes, we had several players at the time that really enjoyed that aspect of play for a module or a few modules strung together for a mini-campaign.  For one thing, it tended to break people out of their ruts.  Someone who "always played a fighter" might be tempted by having a higher-level character.  It was a tiny bit of character maximizing that was one involved decision, and didn't really hurt anything for the players that didn't partake.

Quote from: Kiero;1081236Which edition are you talking about?

I bypassed the first four levels for my ACKS game, though if I were to do it again I'd start at 3rd. Or else use my 0th+1st level idea so that 1st level isn't a "novice".

I've read and witnessed people skipping Level 1 in lots of editions.

Any Palladium RPG I've ever played, we started off at second level.

Nobody starts their character at birth.  

It's not weird that you'd 'pick up' your character's adventures at the appropriate time.  Personally, I like starting the campaign with characters that have a significant amount of backstory.  It makes it easier to tie events into the adventures.  If the PC had talked about being a member of a mercenary company, for instance, you can introduce a 'war buddy' as a helpful contact or an antagonist (or BOTH) and it can help a lot.

But it really only helps if you want the PCs to have independent backstories.  If they're all from the same village and all started adventuring at the same time, you might as well pick up the story from there.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1081238Has a lot to do with the experience of the players.  With a group of nothing but veteran players for a given version, you can start at any level you want for the campaign.  With a new system, it's usually useful to start at the lower end, just to simplify the acclimation.  

With brand new, casual players?  I'm starting at level 1 every time.  The leveling itself is a bit of a novelty for them.  Once a person has been through that a time or three, some still enjoy it, others just want to get to the level "where the action kicks in."

I agree with this. New characters ought to experience the entire range of levels, including level one, so they can see how the characters develop and grow. Once you've played a lot you can skip over some levels if you like. On the other hand, I prefer to cap my campaigns at level ten or so, which means that I hate to skip over too many early on.

Also wanted to throw in that I think Monte Cook's World of Darkness rulebook started characters off at the equal to level 3. I think he renumbered the levels to make them read 1,2,3... but I think they were actually 3,4,5...

I think bypassing early levels is okay for two reasons, first is because you are playing a one shot or short more story based campaign like Dragonlance. The other being one player keeps getting killed over and over and needs a character that can contribute and keep up with the others. The other option is for a GM to just quick level characters in an intro level adventure so they easily survive it, have a reasonable number of magic items and some actual play experience together.

I was in one group where some of the players had versions of their characters made up for every level from 1-20. The GM decided what level the adventure required, and they used the appropriate version of the character. I remember that they played an adventure calling for 11th level characters and then the next one called for 7th level characters. This was 3.5 so items were assigned via wealth guidelines and anything not accounted for by that was lost/stolen/spent between adventures. The fact that they played back and forth across the lives of their characters out of chronological order didn't bother them at all--they remarked that it was like the tales of Conan (which started near the end of Conan's tales).

Quote from: HappyDaze;1081327I was in one group where some of the players had versions of their characters made up for every level from 1-20. The GM decided what level the adventure required, and they used the appropriate version of the character. I remember that they played an adventure calling for 11th level characters and then the next one called for 7th level characters. This was 3.5 so items were assigned via wealth guidelines and anything not accounted for by that was lost/stolen/spent between adventures. The fact that they played back and forth across the lives of their characters out of chronological order didn't bother them at all--they remarked that it was like the tales of Conan (which started near the end of Conan's tales).

Wow, I'd love to do that in ASOIAF. I suppose the characters were not supposed to die young/low-level, however?

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081374Wow, I'd love to do that in ASOIAF. I suppose the characters were not supposed to die young/low-level, however?

It was D&D. Death was a temporary setback. Besides, they laughed it off to playing "Crisis on Infinite Oerths" where each adventure was an alternate reality.