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

[Obryn]

I know, but it makes no sense at all that a housecat's claws are better at punching through full plate than Jet Li's fists!

Versimilitude!

...

-O

 

[Lanefan]

I know, but it makes no sense at all that a housecat's claws are better at punching through full plate than Jet Li's fists!

You obviously haven't met my cat.

Lan-"and once done with the plate-wearer he'd shred Jet Li too"-efan

 

[JamesonCourage]

That's the problem though. I don't think Joe Fisherman is really modeled as a fighter or rogue very well. Too much baggage. And, outside of those two classes, you don't really have any strictly mundane classes for PC's. Everyone else gets magic toys. Which plays all sorts of merry hell with world building.

And, IMO, this gets right to the root of the problem with classes and world building. Classes aren't really geared for world building. Classes, by and large, deal with the biggest mechanical element of the game - combat. And, for most NPC's, outside of interacting with PC's, it's just not needed.

Guess we should start making some non-combat NPC classes, for both PCs and NPCs. It's about time, in my opinion. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

You obviously haven't met my cat.

And now I don't want to!

 

[Neonchameleon]

The way I see it, there's something wrong with the system if a torch-and-pitchfork mob can't run a low-level party out of town.

I'm pretty sure they can in 4e. A mob's probably using swarm rules anyway.

And, unless you're obsessive about statting everything that moves, you never have to. But on the off-chance that the 3rd goblin on the left decides (or is ordered) to throw his spear at the party cleric I want a quick-and-nasty framework for what makes him tick; and as I've already got all the info handy about what makes PCs tick why not just use the same stuff?

Because the PC framework involves feats and skills. The goblin just needs an outcome based number or two.

A peasant vs. a peasant and a 1st-level Fighter vs. her equal should take about the same amount of (rounds) time to resolve. In 1e this is about the case.

Not by my estimate. The 1e peasants in are probably AC 10, THAC0 20, about 2hp, and with a weapon that can one shot them. Hit on a 10, first hit wins. Not going to last much more than a round. The Fighters are probably AC 16, THAC0 19, and have a 50% or so chance of surviving the first hit. By my estimate of 1e the fighters take about three times as long as the peasants.

(Yes, I know 1e doesn't have THAC0 but that's what it amounts to).

The other comparison - F-1 vs. F-1 in 1e as as opposed to 4e - I still think the 4e version is going to take more rounds than the 1e version - which means more real-world time is required to resolve it.

Oh, indeed. But the 4e combat is also going to be more interesting than the 1e one. In the 1e case it's a dice-off; the PCs can't leave engagement without taking nasty free strikes. You're rolling until one drops. In 4e the combat is much more fluid (assuming the fighters aren't Fighters), you have more choices in combat, and more ways to bring the scenery into play.

Speed isn't the only issue. It's signal to noise ratio that matters - and 4e might take longer in combat but has a lot more signal in the rules.

Right now a character's level drags a bunch of assumptions into itself:
- its "fight level", or how good it is at combat
- its hit points, or how much punishment it can absorb before collapsing
- its proficiency at various skills dictated by class
- its proficiency at various skills and abilities that may have nothing to do with its class

In 1e the first two are true for monsters as well as defined by their HD.

Class-proficient skills, i.e. skills that are part of what you do as an adventurer, I have no problem with. But as for the other three, out-of-class skills (this to me includes almost all non-adventuring skills) should be divorced from level and either chosen by player as in "before adventuring I was a blacksmith" or randomized as in "roll a d10 to see how good a natural swimmer you are".

Non-adventuring skills to me normally fall under the rule of "Don't sweat the small stuff".

Meant to get back to this earlier. I asked a question ("What do you do when there's an NPC you want to use that the system cannot generate?"), @Ashtagon went to the effort of responding, so I figured I should probably address his response.

Ask why I'm using this ruleset. Marvel Supers and 4e both give me massive freedom to generate NPCs. The only game I know that doesn't give me overwhelming freedom is 3.X.

If the trained guard is a level 1 Warrior, what was he before he finished his training?

L0? A L1 fighter is explicitely a veteran.

The journeyman earns his day's wages, working alongside the master at his forge. He's nicely modelled as our level 1 something-or-other. But what about the master's apprentice? Doesn't he need to be statted as well?

It's worse than that if we look at chefs.

The apprentice chef down at the local villiage pub can barely boil water without burning himself. He's notably dim and commonly scalds himself (wis 8, 1 rank in Profession (Chef)). Despite this on an average week he earns an average of 5.5GP rather than having people walk out. On the other end of the scale we have Fantasy Heston Blumenthal, level 9 expert (12 ranks) and bane of young fighters. Wis 16, Skill focus (Profession (Chef)). Masterwork tools. He's rolling at +20. He's very possibly the best chef in the land - and if not, he's certainly damn good. Thanks to his incredible profession score he earns ... 15.5 GP per week or around three times our incompetent apprentice. This for a chef of legendary status. (Of course using the Perform income table would solve most of this, making this a system bug not a theoretical problem).

We must also hope that the system provides us tools to adjust character stats based upon youth, or the infant daughter will be as strong as she will be in adulthood already, as she can't modify her stats until level 4 at the earliest.

To be fair most systems do.

Once that concession has been accepted, one can start worrying about where the line between those who need stats and those who don't should be drawn.

This. Definitely this.

That Emperor of China might be 9 years old.

So might the Hihg Priestess of the Silver Flame...

 

[Hussar]

Guess we should start making some non-combat NPC classes, for both PCs and NPCs. It's about time, in my opinion. As always, play what you like

Again, why?

Why would you make a PC class whose basic premise runs counter to the basic premise of the game? Non-combat PC classes are pointless. D&D is not a simulation game and never has been. Sure, you can play that inn-keeper, but, at the end of the day, what's the point? This is a Heroic Fantasy Game. Whether you want to lean on a Sword and Sorcery tradition, or an Epic fantasy tradition or somewhere in between, D&D has not ever been a game about mundane medieval people living mundane lives.

People complain about how much 4e changed the game and you want to rewrite the entire premise? I'm thinking that's not going to fly very well.

Now, as far as a non-combat NPC class goes, again, what's the point? If he's non-combat, then the only stats he actually needs are skills. So, again, assign whatever you want (since that's what you're going to do in any case) and be done with it.

Classes are the basis for combat mechanics. Remove the combat elements of a class and there isn't a whole lot left. Skills are about it. Possibly a few feat choices that only relate to skills. Everything else is combat. So, again, why use a system for something that it's not meant to do? Class and level measures combat ability. That's what class does, for the most part. Very, very little of class isn't directly combat related. So, why not strip class out of the equation and just give the NPC skills?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Again, why?

For people that want to play a non-combat PC, and have been trying to bend the system for years? I guess, you know, so that the people that want support for that play style have it. You wouldn't ever even have to look at it. Why have those classes? What a weird question. As always, play what you like

 

[DEFCON 1]

For people that want to play a non-combat PC, and have been trying to bend the system for years? I guess, you know, so that the people that want support for that play style have it. You wouldn't ever even have to look at it. Why have those classes? What a weird question. As always, play what you like

But why should the game default to those outliers? Why not start in the middle with what is truly necessary, then just tell people "hey, if you want to go out in these weird directions... take the base rules and then add X, Y, and Z".

Some players like playing HealBots. Most players apparently do not. Thus, you don't design the base of the game to start at HealBot and then tell the majority of players to go on from there... you do it the other way around.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But why should the game default to those outliers? Why not start in the middle with what is truly necessary, then just tell people "hey, if you want to go out in these weird directions... take the base rules and then add X, Y, and Z".

It could do that. As always, play what you like

 

[Mattachine]

For people that want to play a non-combat PC, and have been trying to bend the system for years? I guess, you know, so that the people that want support for that play style have it. You wouldn't ever even have to look at it. Why have those classes? What a weird question. As always, play what you like

Why not have those classes? Those classes take design time and book space.