Does anybody else miss 1st L Characters

[gloomhound]

They get hit points equal to their Constitution score (not modifier) plus 6

I like this idea and have used it myself in my game for starting PC's.

 

[Celebrim]

The players in my game are ALWAYS(even at 1st)the ONLY heros in town, first doent ever have to be about ratcatching!

My first level characters faced off against a 30' high tidal wave that swallowed a city (they heroicly ran away, then heroicly provided assistance to the survivors, and heroicly rescued a higher level character) and an invading army of Saughin (they heroicly stood alongside the defenders). No rats were harmed before 2nd level, and they were big rats.

 

[SlyDoubt]

I have extensive experience running 1st lvl 3.X and PF.

PCs die RARELY. Get knocked out and down? Sure, happens frequently but die outright? Why was your wizard being critted by a greataxe? What the hell were your players doing?

And if your players are so incompetent and/or don't care about helping each other than what were you, the DM doing?

Low level should be scary. A bugbear should be a big deal, that's part of the enjoyment. Making low levels weak and swingy/extreme emphasizes the growth of the characters as they level. It does a MUCH better job than 4Es perfectly even treadmill which has absolutely no relative value. Each level feels identical in 4E. Do NOT want to see this in 5E.

Would I still support the edition even if it follows 4E in this way? Yes depending on everything else. But I do not at all prefer that style and think it diminishes part of the experience. If you want to be stronger when you start playing, Start at level 3-5. Very simple.

 

[Deadboy]

I don't understand why making the gritty part level 0 is such a problem. It seems to me that wanting it to be level 1 seems to be not only wanting to get your preference but to make sure said preference is foisted on as many people as possible even if they don't share that preference.

 

[web.geek]

One of the problems I have with having large numbers at 1st level is that by 10th level they are 10 times as big, which means 5 times as many modifiers from buffs, and 10 times as many dice being rolled. There is a certain point were the simple number of dice being rolled slows down the game.

Bingo!

The first one is the 'housecast problem'. It's probably familiar to anyone in D&D, and the basic problem is this: there just aren't many useful numbers smaller than '1'. If a 1st level human is a 1HD monster, then there isn't much room for things smaller and weaker than a 1st level human.

This sounds like a great use for low level minions. A camp full of one hit goblins or kobolds sounds like a fun challenge for a level 1 party. While there are many issues I have with 4e, the minion idea is one of my favorites.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't understand why making the gritty part level 0 is such a problem. It seems to me that wanting it to be level 1 seems to be not only wanting to get your preference but to make sure said preference is foisted on as many people as possible even if they don't share that preference.

*At the moment, there is no level 0.
*There should be and have been a couple of levels of relative weakness, not just one token level.
*I don't understand why making the gritty part level 1 is such a problem. It seems to me that wanting it not to be level 1 seems to be not only wanting to get your preference but to make sure said preference is foisted on as many people as possible even if they don't share that preference.

The first one is the 'housecast problem'. It's probably familiar to anyone in D&D, and the basic problem is this: there just aren't many useful numbers smaller than '1'. If a 1st level human is a 1HD monster, then there isn't much room for things smaller and weaker than a 1st level human. Therefore, mechanically speaking, wasps, mice, rats, cats, dogs, and humans are all roughly comparable in attack power, and indeed their is a good chance that a wasp defeats a cat in combat or a house cat defeats a farmer.

For this reason, it makes more sense to spread the different 'tiers' of the game out over more levels than it does to take the low levels and squash them into a new 0th level.

***

PCs die RARELY. Get knocked out and down? Sure, happens frequently but die outright? Why was your wizard being critted by a greataxe? What the hell were your players doing?

This is another good point. With a death window that has historically been greater than the hp of many low-level characters, it's common to get knocked into negatives but still pretty rare to actually die. Increasing 1st level hp would be one of those cases of fixing a problem that didn't exist in the first place. Lethality is pretty low even in 'gritty' D&D.

 

[Tallifer]

i think this can be done easily without resorting to negative levels, that just gets confusing. "I'm a level -2...um, Ratslayer? Dishboy?" And especially if 5e ties in skills or bonuses to level, dealing with negatives will be problematic.

But that is exactly what such levels are like. Look at Warhammer with its ratcatchers and stableboys and pages. And I remember playing farmers and woodcutters in 1st edition, because a 1st level fighter who rolled poorly could only afford some leather and a club and had 4 hit points.

Also I distinctly remember the AD&D Cavalier who started play at -2 level.

 

[Tallifer]

The first one is the 'housecat problem'. It's probably familiar to anyone in D&D, and the basic problem is this: there just aren't many useful numbers smaller than '1'. If a 1st level human is a 1HD monster, then there isn't much room for things smaller and weaker than a 1st level human. Therefore, mechanically speaking, wasps, mice, rats, cats, dogs, and humans are all roughly comparable in attack power, and indeed their is a good chance that a wasp defeats a cat in combat or a house cat defeats a farmer.

I think the solution is to make believable situations. The -5 level pre-heroes cannot defeat even one monster without using wits and numbers to gang up on just one. Indeed quests to find things or solve mysteries are better suited to powerless farmboys, milkmaids and ratcatchers.

The worst thing would be for pre-heroes to send their time killing vermin like in World of Warcraft. Indeed, if you want the player characters to start fighting monsters out of the box, that is what Heroic Tier should be for. And I think that is why the Wizards made the Heroic Tier very heroic from level 1 in Fourth Edition.

When I played extremely low level in the past, it was mostly youngsters exploring their world, interaction with non-player characters and learning from their masters. We would roleplay the training and the tests of endurance which our mentors would set for us. For example surviving on the mountain for a week, or searching for magical herbs while avoiding wild boars and ferocious bears and misanthropic faeries.

 

[Iosue]

I don't buy into the dichotomy. I started with Basic D&D, where a first level fighter was a Veteran, not a recruit, and a 1st level magic-user was a Medium, not an apprentice. What I've always wanted was the abilities that reflect those kinds of titles. That doesn't mean my 1st level characters have to be super-badass right off the bat. But a little more durability, a little more combat ability would be nice. I like 4e's take; sure the characters have quite a bit more hit points, but then so do the kobolds and goblins, and the latter have a bit more ability as well. But heck, even if it were just a matter of old style (A)D&D with slightly better hit dice and slightly better to-hit chances, I'd probably be happy.

 

[Deadboy]

I don't understand why making the gritty part level 1 is such a problem. It seems to me that wanting it not to be level 1 seems to be not only wanting to get your preference but to make sure said preference is foisted on as many people as possible even if they don't share that preference.

Nice try turning my words back around on me, except that's not actually the case at all. It doesn't work at all in reverse, because with zero level as the gritty levels, players who want to play that way DON'T HAVE TO SKIP ANYTHING. You start at 0 and play on through, experiencing everything. Players who want to play heroic do skip something, but they don't have to skip level one.

Seriously, who wants to skip level one? That would be crappy. But under your way, if I don't want to play a mook who have few to no combat options and dies in a shot or two, I would have to. I would have to miss an important part of my character so you can have your playstyle.

And level 0 wouldn't have to be just a token level; they could work some way into that to give room for a little growth within that before you get to level one. Like, maybe, instead of calling it zero level, you remove the number and call it Beginner, Novice and Apprentice levels (those are just three words I came up with off the top of my head, I'm sure with a little thought they could come up with something that would better imply the growth between those levels).

Which brings me back to my point - you're trying to foist your preference off on those that don't share it by making them skip something that should be integral to the D&D experience - level one. Under my suggestion, you don't give up anything and also get what you want. Under yours, I have to give up something if I don't want to be subjected to your playstyle.

And its not like I would never consider using those 0 levels myself... I have some campaign ideas I would want to do the "zero-to-hero" thing and there's other campaigns where I would want the players to be heroic off the bat (but wouldn't want them to have to skip level 1 to achieve that). I like it much better as a tool in my DM belt rather than a requirement.