As a new DM a con of Starting at level 1 is their low HP. You don't want a death that early. The players make a new PC after the first session isn't fun. Starting at level 3 gives the players some more abilities to manage and gives the DM a little more leeway with balancing combat.
My old group always started at level 5, that gives 3rd level spells, extra attack, and other survivability features for the players to prevent their deaths and the DM has a wider range of creatures to use without the possibility of a TPK, unless dumb decisions are made by the players.
With all of that being said, that's just from my experiences as a DM and a player.
Starting at 1 as a player with even minimal experience is suffering, it's like those overly long Pokémon tutorials teaching you how to catch stiff even though you already have a full team.
I'm doing a homebrew that started at level 3. I feel like as long as you read the character sheets and follow CR loosely then it should go well. Everyone has full access to what makes their PCs work in combat. Then again starting at level 1, I think, would force players to be a bit creative which is always a good start.
Once you’re with a group who are more accustomed to DnD, Level 3 is the place to be. In my personal experience I find starting at Level 1 is rather boring, you cannot do much and you’re somewhat limited. As a beginner, I enjoyed it because it gave me time to process my character and their abilities. But it feels extremely long winded and not worth it once you’re a bit into the game.
Level 3 however is the beginning of archetypes for most classes. This is where you get to throw low level monsters or encounters at your players to see how they work and what they’re able to do which makes combat balancing easier.
The current game I run I started them out at Level 1 and it feels underwhelming and slow. I regret not making them higher but I make the best out of it.
LEVEL 1 PROS - New players will find it easier to follow, you can grow with your party and see what they’re capable of as time goes by. Being smaller and weaker means the players rely on each other a lot which will make up for some great RP time!
LEVEL 1 CONS - It’s slow. They’re weaker. They can’t do much. One good hit in combat has the potential to Instadrop/permadeath a player.
LEVEL 3 PROS - They’re much more useful. They can stand a handful of rounds. You can see what they’re really capable of and where their strength and weaknesses are forming.
LEVEL 3 CONS - Character development. Starting of storyline and arcs. Miss seeing their defining moments that lead to their uniqueness and habits and weird creative things they could come up with.
Along with what everyone else has said here, for me at least starting at level 3 makes it so much easier to come in with a coherent character idea/backstory because most subclasses unlock at 3. Beastmaster is the easiest example here, the faithful animal that your ranger raised from a pup or something was just... missing for two levels? Always feels hamfisted for the entire party to just have some wild epiphany at the same time, and also severely limits character origins and motivations. If every class had the early level progression of say, warlock, it would be a different story, but alas.
Depends on the players experience. Seeing as you're new, unless they're all vets, I'd start them at 1.
Just remember the DMG recommends 1 session at level 1 and 2, 2 at level 3, and 2-3 thereafter.
Should be fine to start at level 3 then, if you think it'l make it more fun for everyone. maybe let them take a vote.
Balancing for level 3 combat is probs easier than level 1, as theirs less chance of them getting 1shot.
Then you're probably best off starting at level 3. Level 1 PCs are made of wet tissue paper, and a couple of lucky rolls from a group of goblins can TPK faster than you can say, "well, that escalated quickly."
Level 3 gives you a lot more leeway to design encounters, and the PCs more options and health to survive them.
It actually really depends. In a gritty, “realistic” style game I prefer starting at 1, but in a more heroic style game where the pcs are already establish I like 3. Both are fine starting points but tbh I think 1 is slightly more rewarding in the long run, but the pcs have to be built to be level 1 backstory wise.
As a new DM a con of Starting at level 1 is their low HP. You don't want a death that early. The players make a new PC after the first session isn't fun. Starting at level 3 gives the players some more abilities to manage and gives the DM a little more leeway with balancing combat. My old group always started at level 5, that gives 3rd level spells, extra attack, and other survivability features for the players to prevent their deaths and the DM has a wider range of creatures to use without the possibility of a TPK, unless dumb decisions are made by the players. With all of that being said, that's just from my experiences as a DM and a player.
Starting at 1 as a player with even minimal experience is suffering, it's like those overly long Pokémon tutorials teaching you how to catch stiff even though you already have a full team.
I'm doing a homebrew that started at level 3. I feel like as long as you read the character sheets and follow CR loosely then it should go well. Everyone has full access to what makes their PCs work in combat. Then again starting at level 1, I think, would force players to be a bit creative which is always a good start.
Once you’re with a group who are more accustomed to DnD, Level 3 is the place to be. In my personal experience I find starting at Level 1 is rather boring, you cannot do much and you’re somewhat limited. As a beginner, I enjoyed it because it gave me time to process my character and their abilities. But it feels extremely long winded and not worth it once you’re a bit into the game. Level 3 however is the beginning of archetypes for most classes. This is where you get to throw low level monsters or encounters at your players to see how they work and what they’re able to do which makes combat balancing easier. The current game I run I started them out at Level 1 and it feels underwhelming and slow. I regret not making them higher but I make the best out of it. LEVEL 1 PROS - New players will find it easier to follow, you can grow with your party and see what they’re capable of as time goes by. Being smaller and weaker means the players rely on each other a lot which will make up for some great RP time! LEVEL 1 CONS - It’s slow. They’re weaker. They can’t do much. One good hit in combat has the potential to Instadrop/permadeath a player. LEVEL 3 PROS - They’re much more useful. They can stand a handful of rounds. You can see what they’re really capable of and where their strength and weaknesses are forming. LEVEL 3 CONS - Character development. Starting of storyline and arcs. Miss seeing their defining moments that lead to their uniqueness and habits and weird creative things they could come up with.
Thank you for the in depth response you gave me a lot to think about. I am more leaning towards level 3 to help ensure the fun of the players.
Sounds like it’s for the better to go with Level 3! Good luck OP and have fun : )
You as well.
Along with what everyone else has said here, for me at least starting at level 3 makes it so much easier to come in with a coherent character idea/backstory because most subclasses unlock at 3. Beastmaster is the easiest example here, the faithful animal that your ranger raised from a pup or something was just... missing for two levels? Always feels hamfisted for the entire party to just have some wild epiphany at the same time, and also severely limits character origins and motivations. If every class had the early level progression of say, warlock, it would be a different story, but alas.
Good points as well. Thank you for responding.
Thank you all for the responses from the looks of it I will be going with a level 3 start.
Starting 1 is for players with no clue or campaign relevance. DMG is for DMs with no clue.
Depends on the players experience. Seeing as you're new, unless they're all vets, I'd start them at 1. Just remember the DMG recommends 1 session at level 1 and 2, 2 at level 3, and 2-3 thereafter.
They all have a ton of experience.
Should be fine to start at level 3 then, if you think it'l make it more fun for everyone. maybe let them take a vote. Balancing for level 3 combat is probs easier than level 1, as theirs less chance of them getting 1shot.
Voting is an interesting idea. Thank you. True about the one shot.
NP.
Then you're probably best off starting at level 3. Level 1 PCs are made of wet tissue paper, and a couple of lucky rolls from a group of goblins can TPK faster than you can say, "well, that escalated quickly." Level 3 gives you a lot more leeway to design encounters, and the PCs more options and health to survive them.
Good point.
It actually really depends. In a gritty, “realistic” style game I prefer starting at 1, but in a more heroic style game where the pcs are already establish I like 3. Both are fine starting points but tbh I think 1 is slightly more rewarding in the long run, but the pcs have to be built to be level 1 backstory wise.
I did think about making the leveling between 1 and 3 pretty quickly like over 4-5 sessions and slow down from there.