D&D is not a supers game.

[Drowbane]

Maybe it is. But I am wondering if we will ever see an official version of D&D where beginning characters are actually vulnerable in a fight again? As it stands a 'killing blow' from a NPC can't kill, while PCs can literally kill some monsters at will. It doesn't create a D&D feel that I grew up with.

Oh, I'm on your side. In my new 3.5 Campaign the PCs get Average +1 hp. d4 = 3.5, d6 = 4.5, d8 = 5.5, d10 = 6.5, d12 = 7.5... plus Con mod.

The PCs managed to survive the first session, though a couple of them nearly died.

 

[Ichneumon]

Maybe it is. But I am wondering if we will ever see an official version of D&D where beginning characters are actually vulnerable in a fight again? As it stands a 'killing blow' from a NPC can't kill, while PCs can literally kill some monsters at will. It doesn't create a D&D feel that I grew up with.

Remove hit dice, background, theme, and the negative hit point buffer, and you're three-quarters of the way home. You can do that. The rumors of swiftly descending skies have been greatly exaggerated.

 

[Li Shenron]

I like my starting character to be competent.

Why?

Because I am tired of inventing an great personality and background for a PC only for him or her to be slain by a goblin or rat. Then having to us his or her sibling... omly for him or her to die too.

It's not entitlement. It's the ability to stay in character.

And I am sometimes tired of players who invent a great personality and background... for a freakin' 1st level PC!

There's nothing wrong with starting the game at level 3, 10 or epic, except that normally if you're not familiar with the rules system you may need to get used to them when you have less options i.e. lower level. You don't need to change the rules or risk destroying some balance by starting at higher level.

But if the game has 1st level characters who are very competent, then you cannot play that grim-n-gritty style of RPG at all without risky house rules. My favourite style is actually mid-level, but I would still want the game to support as many styles as possible, maybe one day I'll feel like playing grim-n-gritty without the need to buy another system.

BTW, it seems to me that your concern is on survivability, but that is not exactly the same as having another power creep step in next edition. It might be even possible that 1st level 5e PC are more survivable than higher level 5e PC, when pitted against presumably balanced encounters.

 

[IronWolf]

I'm not of the persuasion that my friends who have decided to sit down to enjoy a game in their free time should have to earn anything in order to have fun, or to enjoy the things their character can do.

I think it is very dependent on the group playing. Some want to unwind after a long day of work or school and play fully competent characters right out of the gate with minimal chance of their character meeting an untimely demise.

Other groups want their games a little grittier in those early levels.

Neither play group is doing it wrong. You just have to figure out which group yours is.

The notion that players should have to "earn" their enjoyment is nonsense, and I'm tempted to say it comes from a place of gamer elitism, which this hobby has no room for.

For you and your group maybe. Other groups do enjoy the grittier style of play. There is nothing wrong with a group enjoying this style of play. It is no more elitist than the groups that want strong, powerful characters to start at 1st level saying the folks that like a gritty game are doing it wrong.

 

[Minigiant]

And I am sometimes tired of players who invent a great personality and background... for a freakin' 1st level PC!

Hey.
There is a reason why I run from "First level only" DMs now.


Problem is ½ of all DMs are "First level DMs".. it is hard to get a game. And I prefer purity in my character's roleplay.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Remove hit dice, background, theme, and the negative hit point buffer, and you're three-quarters of the way home. You can do that. The rumors of swiftly descending skies have been greatly exaggerated.

I'd rather just have the game make the changes I suggested in my original post actually. I actually like the idea of Background and Theme. I just don't grok with inequitable HP levels and automatic death powers at 1st Level.

 

[IronWolf]

There's nothing wrong with starting the game at level 3, 10 or epic, except that normally if you're not familiar with the rules system you may need to get used to them when you have less options i.e. lower level. You don't need to change the rules or risk destroying some balance by starting at higher level.

This has always seemed the solution to me. Don't like a 1st level character's competence? Then start at 3rd, 4th, or 5th. Or whatever level has the power band you like.

 

[Steely_Dan]

This so easily an optional thing, you have many ways to start off 1st level character's HP: the current Con score + 1/2 HD, or just Con score, or max HD, or roll 1 HD + Con modifier, or 2 HD like a 1st Ed monk and ranger, and so on; many ways to mix it up.

In my 1st/2nd Ed campaigns I like to start off all character's with 2HD (max) + Con modifier at 1st level (so a wizard has 8 + Con modifier etc).

 

[IronWolf]

This so easily an optional thing, you have many ways to start off 1st level character's HP: the current Con score + 1/2 HD, or just Con score, or max HD, or roll 1 HD + Con modifier, or 2 HD like a 1st Ed monk and ranger, and so on; many ways to mix it up.

That addresses durability.

There is still the question of whether some of the "powers" at first level or at-will magic that is considered a little strong would be at first level.

 

[Jorunkun]

It is a fact that in Basic D&D as well as AD&D (1st edition) 1st level PCs were less powerful than later editions.

By the RAW, A/D&D 1st level characters rolled for HP, which could well leave you with 3 points or less. Fighters had no special attack powers and only marginally better attack-bonuses than other characters. Spellcasters, wizards in particular, knew only a select few spells, and had no at-will powers. Some people liked this, others didn't but this is how it was.

With every edition, 1st level characters were given a larger number of relatively more powerful abilities, culminating in 4e granting a signifcant increase in HPS and things like at-will powers and teleport-like "shifting". Again, some people liked this, others did not, but it's a fact.

I don't see why 5e couldn't accommodate both playstyles in the form of optional rules. WotC should introduce an optional 0-level rule, where PCs start with low HP (maybe just CON) and only the most basic abilities, to emulate old-school play. It should also relegate spells that always hit and powers that do damage even on a miss to levels 2 or 3, and optionally allow players who want their characters to have these powers from the start to just begin play at a higher level.

This way, both historical extremes of power (or lack thereof) are covered and the "official" game is somewhere in the middle.