• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Poll: What is a Level 1 PC?

What is a Level 1 PC?

  • Average Joe

    Votes: 21 6.1%
  • Average Joe... with potential

    Votes: 119 34.5%
  • Special but not quite a Hero

    Votes: 175 50.7%
  • Already a Hero and extraordinary

    Votes: 30 8.7%

I'm curious where the majority falls on this. Are first level characters average folk, Everymen, or something special?

With the change in 4e, there must have either been a majority who wanted the assumption PCs were above average or a vocal minority. I'm curious if this is still the case.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Quickleaf

Legend
If Average Joe was on one side and Hero was on the other side of the spectrum, I'd like a level 1 PC to be smack dab in the middle.
 

Kinak

First Post
Mechanically, I like the character's main "schtick," as it were, to be active at first level. Fighters should be cutting things up in melee, wizards should be meddling with forces man was not meant to know, clerics should be getting honest-to-goodness responses to their prayers, and rogues should be tricky enough they seem as cool as the other three.

That means it has to shoot past everyman a bit. They don't need to be heroic, but they need to have taken that first step down the path.

Cheers!
Kinak
 

A 1st-level NPC could be a minion, regular, elite or even solo! IMO, a typical everyday person is a 1st-level (or at least a low-level) minion, less than 6th-level. A 1st-level "ordinary" is in essence a character who can fight.

A high-level skillsy character could be a high-level minion. Einstein doesn't need to fight, but he does need those skill boosts. The head of the Church of X could be a high-level minion, and can probably even perform powerful rituals, but if fighting breaks out, he's hiding behind his paladin bodyguards.
 

gweinel

Explorer
As a dm who loves the dark and gritty games i vote for average joe with some potentional.
The sensation of being a lil thing at the start but you rise slowly to a hero is something i like. Being a hero from the start just deprives me this route. :)
 

GX.Sigma

Adventurer
I'm curious where the majority falls on this. Are first level characters average folk, Everymen, or something special?

With the change in 4e, there must have either been a majority who wanted the assumption PCs were above average or a vocal minority. I'm curious if this is still the case.
What "change in 4e?" Even in 3rd Edition, 1st-level PCs are greater than average folk:
3rd Edition DMG said:
A typical conscript is a 1st-level commoner...Most soldiers are 1st-level warriors...These soldiers are professionals or experienced conscripts...Actual members of the fighter class are rare on the battlefield. Typically, they...serve as armed knights.

Even in 1st Edition it was similar:
1st Edition DMG said:
Note that regular soldiers are 0 level men-at-arms with 4-7 hit points each...All serjeants are 1st-level fighters but incapable of progressing further...
Basic D&D makes it even more explicit:
B2 Keep on the Borderlands said:
Normal Man = LVL 0
It really depends on what you mean by "average." Anyway, I think the better question is "what is a 5th-level character?"
 
Last edited:

Grydan

First Post
I don't view "Hero" as a power level. Rather, it's a role open to anyone at any power level, and not one that all characters inevitably embrace.

That said, I don't think that D&D has ever, as a system, put forward the idea that 1st level characters are just Average Joe. I'm quite certain many people have chosen to play it that way, perhaps even from the earliest days of the game, but they're working somewhat against the system's assumptions rather than with them. The system has, as far as I can see, always assumed you're already at least somewhat ahead of the pack, unless you assume a world in which all people have a class (are all tavern wenches Fighting Women?).

The Fighting Man was explicitly a Veteran at first level. He'd already seen combat, already mastered the use of dozens of weapons and the best armour. He's not the farmhand who's never held a sword before, thrust into the midst of unexpected adventure and surviving by the skin of his teeth.

Joe Average, last I checked, cannot cast any spells per day, not even the paltry one per day of a first level Magic User. You're not the sorcerer's apprentice on his first day, here.

A priest, even one without training in armour and the ability to call upon divine magic, generally has to train for years in order to be ordained. The Cleric is not the altar boy.

Later versions of the system are even more explicit in this above-ordinariness. If the average ability score is 10/11, then a system that encourages you to use 4d6 (drop lowest) to generate ability scores (mean outcome: 13) is telling you right from the start that you're above average. Nevermind that there's a specific Commoner class: anyone who starts elsewhere clearly is not the common man.

4E never made any bones about it: the system simply assumes you're already an adventurer (or "heroic adventurer", as they phrase it). When thinking about your character's background, you're encouraged to answer the question "Why did you decide to become an adventurer?", treating the fact that you did so as a fait accompli before your character even sees play at the table. It then backs this up mechanically by ensuring that your first level character is robust enough and knows enough combat techniques that you can go four or five rounds of combat without repeating yourself once. A fighter who can control his opponent's movements at-will is clearly not a greenhorn. A wizard who can do magic at-will isn't wet behind the ears. A cleric who can successfully call upon their god to bestow healing twice every five minutes has obviously gone a little beyond his first prayer-meeting.
 



Cadence

Legend
Supporter
I've been thinking a lot about this recently in my Pathfinder campaign --including how levels should be used for NPCs and the like. My campaign has the spell casting availability in settlements of different sizes shifted by one or two rows compared to the canonical table (higher levels being more rare).

I picture 1st level being a competent journeyman. You've finished something equivalent to a good formal apprenticeship and are now on your own (although there may have been nothing formal about it - maybe formal training to be a knight, or maybe being a grunt who served a tour or two and made the best of it). Taking that somewhere between 50% and 80% of people are out working in the fields, and others scrape by doing menial or semi-skilled labor in the towns and cities, that already puts the PC pretty high up there. Sure, they're something special in a small home village, but there are lots of others at their level in the large towns, cities, and armies (although maybe not a lot in their particular PC class).

As @Grydan noted though, the PCs also have higher ability scores which further separate them... part of the "pc aura". They might not currently be that much more skilled than those who they served or trained with, but good judges of talent might note that they have lots of future potential left. They haven't topped out.

I picture 5th level, clearly being a well-known master by any reasonable standard (its the level where craftsmen can make magic items, and casters get things like fireball and dispel magic). Most of those that served with you in the past probably never made it past 1st level, let alone gotten this far.

I picture 9th/10th level being true giants in their fields - teleport, raise dead, able to take on the greater undead, and some of the things from the outer planes.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top