D&D 5E Poll: What is a Level 1 PC?

[hamstertamer]

NPCs are built differently in 4E, and this has not happened in that system.

Don't know if has not happened at all, but for any reasonable take on "many", definitely not.

For 4E, that is because NPCs are built to fit around the PC system, as game constructs that the players get their PCs to interact with. Having an NPC or monster build for your character would be a bit like playing as the Candlestick in Clue . . .

I'm definitely not down for the way 4th edition did things. Like I said I would rather go for an all out point buy system if that's going to be the case.

If you need to houserule to get the system to work right, it's not a good system.

Well not everyone likes D&D that's for sure. Every edition in D&D history has had houserules. For 4th edition I didn't even bother, that one's a start to finish re-write for me. Strange you post on a D&D forum if you think all editions of D&D are a bad system.

I only offered some advice for those with issues. I was being helpful. I didn't have to house rule to create NPCs I wanted with the 3rd edition system as I have shown. In fact, that was kinda my point.

 

[Bluenose]

It is kind of problematic that things like base attack and saves are mandatory aspects of advancement by level, while other things are not.

That being said, the same issue is still present in PC classes. I don't imagine the typical wizard, bard, or cleric as doing much training with weaponry (and certainly not every member of those classes has substantial combat experience or training). Yet they get weapon proficiencies and BAB. Again, this is what happens with class systems, not an issue with the way NPCs in particular are treated.

Well, yes. In D&D, advancing in level leads to advancing in combat ability, regardless of whether the character devotes any attention to it. That's a function of how the game works. Extending that, which is not particularly plausible, to everyone in the world regardless of what they do, is hardly a way to increase verisimilitude. Just give people the skills they need to do their jobs, perhaps add some for colour, and don't bother about their ability scores, hit points, level, or NPC class. Of course this means most NPCs aren't built the same way as PCs. It's not as if the characters can look at the NPCs character sheet and complain that they're breaking the rules somehow; unless you're playing for comedy, I suppose.

 

[S'mon]

Just give people the skills they need to do their jobs, perhaps add some for colour, and don't bother about their ability scores, hit points, level, or NPC class. Of course this means most NPCs aren't built the same way as PCs.

I agree, this is the best approach.

1) A small number of NPCs are "PC type" and should be built like PCs, or simplified PCs. 4e falls down here in that you can't really make NPCs with the PC rules at all; PCs hit much harder and have fewer hp than do NPCs of equivalent power. 1e-2e is good here as PC rules are simple enough to be used for NPCs. With 3e it's painfully difficult to make high level NPCs 'correctly'.

2) Most NPCs should have combat ability and skills entirely dissociated. 4e is much better than 3e here. Though IMO the 4e DMG advice goes too far into "don't stat friendly NPCs at all!" territory, it's easy enough in 4e to assign NPCs skill bonuses and ritual caster levels that are dissociated from combat ability, if any. With skills this is also easy in 1e, due to 1e not having a skills system, though the 1e DMG does not make it very clear that it's ok to arbitrarily assign NPCs hit dice, the only example I can think of are the 2 hd 'ruffians' in the city/town encounter table. 3e strongly discourages this approach and leads to madness such as systems for Commoners gaining levels (and thus hit dice & combat ability) just for living and working at their job.

Having criticised 3e, I think it can work ok for low level campaigns. Where a +11 skill bonus is a big deal, then you can make a 1st level NPC 'legally' and make him an expert by giving him 4 skill ranks, +4 stat bonus, +3 for skill focus. Running Pathfinder recently in the 1-5 level range, again I've found that I can use feats and stat allocation to make competent 1st level NPC Commoners, Experts and Warriors. And that kind of number crunching is quite fun, sometimes. But it swiftly breaks down when you move away from 'almost everyone is 1st level', another reason for 3e/PF to stick to single-digit campaigns.

 

[Mattachine]

What are the rules in each version of D&D that specifically discuss making higher or lower-powered heroes, at level 1, based on the type of campaign?

I recall that the 3e DMG makes mention of this when determining point-buy systems for ability scores, and there is also a discussion about making very high-powered heroes as gestalt characters in the UA.

What else was out there in the different editions (for rules suggestions for different power levels of campaigns, starting with character creation)?

Also, it seems that folks favored rules that raised stats for high-powered campaigns, but did not use rules that lowered stats for low-powered campaigns. In the less-heroic games I've played in, the heroes had the same stats as usual (roll 4d6, or standard point buy), but started with less money, or had to go through a "level 0" first. I really disliked "level 0" characters.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yeah but your attacking the whole idea of the class level rank system.

No you aren't. You are attacking the whole idea of a universal class level rank system. You are attacking the idea that classes and levels should be universally applicable to all people within a given world rather than make a reasonable approximation for professional adventurers. A professional baker advances completely differently so this approximation is not relevant.

And more importantly I think if NPCs are being made in different type of system (like a point buy system) then players are going to ask "Why can't I build my character uniquely like a NPC?" Good question right. The situation will be of course, that many people may start building their PCs like NPCs even if the rules state they shouldn't.

I'd appreciate some evidence for this - the experience of 4e says that this doesn't happen.

It is kind of problematic that things like base attack and saves are mandatory aspects of advancement by level, while other things are not.

That being said, the same issue is still present in PC classes. I don't imagine the typical wizard, bard, or cleric as doing much training with weaponry (and certainly not every member of those classes has substantial combat experience or training). Yet they get weapon proficiencies and BAB. Again, this is what happens with class systems, not an issue with the way NPCs in particular are treated.

The Cleric is a front line plate-wearing fighter in D&D. And even an adventuring wizard probably seems more weapons combat than the average professional soldier (even if the wizard's main goal is to just fend them off long enough for the fighter to get there). I'm happy saying that across the ten or so fights to the death against multiple opponents even a wizard learns a little about weapons.

 

[delericho]

What are the rules in each version of D&D that specifically discuss making higher or lower-powered heroes, at level 1, based on the type of campaign?

I recall that the 3e DMG makes mention of this when determining point-buy systems for ability scores, and there is also a discussion about making very high-powered heroes as gestalt characters in the UA.

What else was out there in the different editions (for rules suggestions for different power levels of campaigns, starting with character creation)?

In most cases, that's done by adjusting the method for generating stats.

The 1st Ed DMG includes a whole bunch of die-rolling methods for generating characters that are more or less generous than the default (which, IIRC, is 4d6-drop-lowest). There are then some further methods given in "Unearthed Arcana". I don't think there is a 'true' point-buy method amongst them, but I stand ready to be corrected.

The 2nd Ed PHB includes 7 methods, with the default being 3d6 in order (!). Indeed, the 2nd Ed DMG gives DIRE WARNINGS that if you dare to use 4d6-drop-lowest you're liable to break your campaign. Again, I don't recall there being any 'true' point buy method in there - the closest you get is one where you roll 7d6 and then assign those values to the stats. 2nd Ed is the only edition change ever to reduce the power of PCs, and it also featured "The Complete Book of Priests", the only supplement I've ever encountered that did the same.

3e you've already mentioned. I'm not aware of any 'official' variants in 4e or BECMI D&D, but again I stand ready to be corrected.

Once we get into house rules, there are obviously many options. In 3e, this seems to take the form of just varying the number of points in point-buy, although quite a few do "4d6, count 1's as..." or similar. It's also quite popular to give one or more bonus feats at 1st level.

And, of course, you can vary the power level by adjusting starting funds or by assigning starting gear, although I'm not aware of any official rules for doing so.

Also, it seems that folks favored rules that raised stats for high-powered campaigns, but did not use rules that lowered stats for low-powered campaigns.

Yep, arguing for raising the power level never seems to be an unpopular option. Arguing for reducing it, or even for just maintaining it, is a much harder fight.

 

[Mattachine]

I would like 5e to specifically provide several versions of character creation, that explicitly discuss the power level of the first level PC. It would only take a column of text or so.
Also, I think it might come to more than just different methods of generating ability scores. Other things factor into the power level of first level PCs:

1. Class features
2. Starting hit points
3. Starting wealth
4. Racial traits
5. Backgrounds and Specialties

All of these could be changed a little to make 1st level PCs more like heroes or more like commoners.


I am reminded of how the second playtest packet has variants for natural healing. Something similar could be done for making first level characters.

 

[Obryn]

Well not everyone likes D&D that's for sure. Every edition in D&D history has had houserules. For 4th edition I didn't even bother, that one's a start to finish re-write for me. Strange you post on a D&D forum if you think all editions of D&D are a bad system.

I only offered some advice for those with issues. I was being helpful. I didn't have to house rule to create NPCs I wanted with the 3rd edition system as I have shown. In fact, that was kinda my point.

"System" in this case is the NPC Class/Level system, not "3.x as a whole". Narrow use of the term, not broad. So there's no intended edition war broadside you need to return.

As for "the way 4e did things," there's not much difference between that and how 1e did things. NPCs have whatever stats are reasonable and necessary, and can do their jobs as well as they need to. Adding an inappropriate class/level system where you need to actually assign complete stats, skill points, and feats in order to figure out the local blacksmith's weekly wage is just altogether more detail than is needed for a consistent game.

-O

 

[Obryn]

The 2nd Ed PHB includes 7 methods, with the default being 3d6 in order (!). Indeed, the 2nd Ed DMG gives DIRE WARNINGS that if you dare to use 4d6-drop-lowest you're liable to break your campaign.

...Which is double-crazy because half the reason you use 4d6s3 in AD&D 1e is because your stats make nearly no difference whatsoever unless they're 15+. It's one of the ways 2e just seems bland. (Remembering, though, this was also the edition that gave us a setting with PC races that could start with a native 24 strength.) Either 1e or 2e had a kind of "dice assignment" scheme where you start with 8's and add the values on whole dice to your stats as you wish.

And yeah, AD&D 1e had a ton of different variants, including the infamous Unearthed Arcana "just roll all the dice for your Strength, Mr. Fighter" system. Most of that book, though, is composed of questionably-balanced stuff like svirfneblin and drow.

-O

 

[delericho]

...Which is double-crazy because half the reason you use 4d6s3 in AD&D 1e is because your stats make nearly no difference whatsoever unless they're 15+. It's one of the ways 2e just seems bland.

Aye, well, I doubt many people actually used 3d6-in-order!

(Remembering, though, this was also the edition that gave us a setting with PC races that could start with a native 24 strength.)

True. Though Dark Sun never used the standard methods. Default there was to roll stats on 4d4+4 in order. The optional variants were:

1) Roll 5d4 twice for each score (in order), keeping the better one.
2) Roll 5d4 six times, and assign.
3) Roll 5d4 twelve times, keep the best six, and assign.
4) Roll 6d4-drop-lowest, then assign.
5) Each score starts at 10. Roll 10d4. You then assign the dice to the stats, with no stat being allowed to go above 20. And you could only assign a whole die to any given stat; you couldn't split them up.

(Yes, in Dark Sun stats could easily go up to 20.)

Either 1e or 2e had a kind of "dice assignment" scheme where you start with 8's and add the values on whole dice to your stats as you wish.

That was 2nd Ed. I don't know if the method existed in 1st. It worked the same as option #5 above, except that stats started at 8, you rolled 7d6, and the max stat was 18. That was our preferred method for 2nd Ed, except for a single short-lived campaign that ended because 3e was released. (And that campaign used 4d6-drop-lowest... oddly, the dire warnings came to nothing.)