How heroic should a PC be?

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Maybe because RPG video games won't let you get to the next level until you discover the magical Sword of Xahaivaqvoeosgsga?

Actually I've played video RPGs that let you get in over your head.

 

[markkat]

Actually I've played video RPGs that let you get in over your head.

Yeah, I should have said 'many' and not implied all video RPGs are like that. There's a few good ones. Nothing like the "OH SH*T!" factor to make a game exciting. -Tabletop or video.

 

[the Jester]

Much less.

The PCs should be world-beating badasses, but only after lots of hard work, determination, perseverance, and uphill battles. They shouldn't start the game that way.

And the world shouldn't automatically scale itself to fit the power level of the party. Certain mountains should be too dangerous to explore, certain seas should not be sailed until the party is strong enough, and certain lands should be avoided until the magical Sword of Xahaivaqvoeosgsga (or whatever) is found.

Maybe my DM Goggles are clouding my view here, but that's my two coppers.

Well said, and I agree 100% on this.

"You must spread some xp around etc."

Can someone cover me please?

 

[Psion]

I`m not sure if heroic=powerful as you seem to suggest, Hairfoot,

I'm pretty sure it's A definition, and I'm pretty sure it's the one he meant.

This hair splitting isn't helpful or insightful.


AS FOR ME,

How heroic a starting PC should be varies depending on mood and intent of the game, but I do think you should have the OPTION of starting weaker-seeming than 4e provides for.

 

[Ahglock]

I'm cool with the heroic tier power, but the paragon tier and epic tier seem kind of lackluster to me. once i am wrastlin full grown dragons etc. i want my fighters running across water and smashing through walls.

 

[Trickstergod]

AS FOR ME,

How heroic a starting PC should be varies depending on mood and intent of the game, but I do think you should have the OPTION of starting weaker-seeming than 4e provides for.

This.

While I generally preferred starting my previous editions games off at around 2-5th level, I like at least the option of starting them as relatively unimpressive nobodies one sword's blow away from death.

4th lacks that option and I think that's a problem.

 

[justanobody]

This.

While I generally preferred starting my previous editions games off at around 2-5th level, I like at least the option of starting them as relatively unimpressive nobodies one sword's blow away from death.

4th lacks that option and I think that's a problem.

Nicely put!

 

[Gothmog]

4E got it pretty much right in terms of PC power IMO. Characters in previous editions were a little too fragile at 1st level as evidenced by a giant rat or housecat being able to maul them to death pretty easily. Conversely, at higher levels (10+) PCs were almost invulnerable and were world-changing entities who would routinely kill gods. Thats WAY too much progression in power IMO. Going from hiding from housecats to slaying gods is too wide of a power disparity.

4E starts PCs at about the equivalent of 3rd level, and they progress to somewhere around 15th-17th level in power in old editions, but without the major world-breaking spells (Wish, etc). So characters in 4E get a slight bump in power initially, but end up MUCH less powerful at the apex of their careers. In addition, the power gain is more linear than exponential in nature, which feels more natural. And to correspond with the PC bump in starting power, monsters have gotten a major bump in power (which was sorely needed in IMO). Normal monsters are now actually a credible threat, and elites and solos are things to truly fear. I make these statements after playing two campaigns from 1st-6th level now, and from doing several one-shot adventures at 10th, 15th, and 25th levels. In 4E, high-level play is actually something to look forward to rather than dread. So I think Wizards got the power curve and levels just about right in 4E (although the option of doing 0-level PCs would be cool to have as well).

 

[Mallus]

...I like at least the option of starting them as relatively unimpressive nobodies one sword's blow away from death.

4th lacks that option and I think that's a problem.

Couldn't you just ask the DM to increase the difficulty of first few encounters in the campaign?

I mean, I made no such request in the first session of the our first 4e campaign, and my Dragonborn paladin should have died. All it took was one or two bad rolls on my party's part (and the right mix of opponents... stupid drake swarm...).

 

[Trickstergod]

Couldn't you just ask the DM to increase the difficulty of first few encounters in the campaign?

I mean, I made no such request in the first session of the our first 4e campaign, and my Dragonborn paladin should have died. All it took was one or two bad rolls on my party's part (and the right mix of opponents... stupid drake swarm...).

What's easier, fiddling with every low-level beasty to make it more of a challenge or having the option to start 3 levels lower?

I'd rather 4th edition gave us the 1st level nobody and then stated that 4th level is the default starting level.