At 1st level, how powerful would you say PCs are in any edition of D&D?

[S'mon]

I liked the sage/hireling concept from 1E and 2E, a sage had plot related knowledge or skill that you had to pay (in some manner) to access. It wasn't suggested or required that you have stats for these characters...

You're clearly unfamiliar with the 1e Sage - he had 8d4 hit dice! A wide suite of spells! He kicked butt!

I definitely think that with 4e, if the GM wants an NPC baseline for world-building purposes, he needs to set it himself. Taking the equivalent of the AD&D 0-level man-at-arms, it could be as low as minion-1, or at least as high as the MM Soldier-3 Human Guard. Personally I think I've settled on minion-5 for the typical, non-heroic, experienced human soldier.

 

[fanboy2000]

The game has changed so much since then that I'm not sure what the exact equivalent would be in a 4E encounter. But I do know that if you got something in the ballpark, the results would be more evenly distributed. If the average was, "win, barely," then most of the results would be that, and most of the rest would be "lost, barely, or ran to avoid same" or "win, a little easier than barely."

In 4e, combat is designed for an approximate 1:1 ration of PC to Monster/bad guy. Generally speaking, adding more minions or monsters below the PCs level won't make the combat more difficult quickly. Adding non-minion monsters or monsters at or above the party's level will quickly add to difficulty of the combat. Also, some monster types, like soldiers, are more "grindy" than others.

So if the PCs engage monsters in room 1A, and monsters from room 1B join the fight, how much difficulty they add to the encounter will mostly be a function of it's level and minion status.

Of course, difficulty will vary from party to party. Party's with more co-operation have a tendency to do better with difficult combats. This was true in both 3.x and 4e. (I suspect this is true for earlier editions as well, but I haven't played them enough yet.)

I definitely think that with 4e, if the GM wants an NPC baseline for world-building purposes, he needs to set it himself. Taking the equivalent of the AD&D 0-level man-at-arms, it could be as low as minion-1, or at least as high as the MM Soldier-3 Human Guard. Personally I think I've settled on minion-5 for the typical, non-heroic, experienced human soldier.

Interesting. I actually haven't consciously set a baseline for my game. I'm currently running an Eberron game, a setting known for it's extensive use of NPCs with NPC classes. Ironic.

 

[Herschel]

Your question is off base to begin with, as 1st level pcs range from ordinary (1e and earlier) to superheroic (4e). It depends on the edition- they really are different games.

Actually, your answer is off base to begin with. Way back in 1E they explained how PCs were "a cut above" normal humans and why you wouldn't see an army of first-level fighters, for example. PCs have always been extraordinary.

Take attribute scores, for example. "normal" or "average" is from 9-11. In 1E, you may have a character with only a 9 in their primary attribute and teh rest of their stats lower, but how many times do/did people actually PLAY those characters for any length of time? Try to learn new spells with a 9 INT as you level and see how many you actually learn.

Then take gear. Using a fighter as an example, a suit of chainmail was often more than an average person could ever afford, let alone adding that shining shield and nifty sword. Most soldiers were given cloth or leather and a spear. The nobles were the ones who could afford the metal armor.

Then take starting money. PCs START w/ more cash than many average people would make in their lives. PCs start in a higher tax bracket and it's only upwards from there.

In 4E, they're generally not quite as extraordinary even though they have more HP and generally good attributes (with only one negative possible most times). The system differentiates a little more as town guards now have a couple of levels to reflect their martial training over other people.

That said, PCs have always started as extraordinary folks, but they've never been superheroic at first level. That's been pretty much a constant.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So if the PCs engage monsters in room 1A, and monsters from room 1B join the fight, how much difficulty they add to the encounter will mostly be a function of it's level and minion status.

Of course, difficulty will vary from party to party. Party's with more co-operation have a tendency to do better with difficult combats. This was true in both 3.x and 4e. (I suspect this is true for earlier editions as well, but I haven't played them enough yet.)

That is true, with the addition of environment and situation to level and minion status on the difficulty of the added monsters.

However, I managed to obscure my main point with the example: I think it highly unlikely that someone could devise a 4E encounter for, say, five to six reasonably competently played PCs, play it 20 times with essentially the same tactics, and get results similar to my 1st ed. example above. If this hypothetical deadly 4E encounter will TPK the party somewhere north of 50% of the tries, the chances that the group will manage to pull out a smashing victory are vanishingly small. Chances for a non-TPK retreat, or even a partial victory are there. But outright victory? No.

It isn't surprising, since 4E is designed to produce this result. In part, it does this by having more rolls, thus reducing the chances of a string of 1s or 20s being all determinative. In 1E or Basic, a string of 3 20s or 3 1s at the right moment could be the difference in "Smells like Victory" versus "Time to roll up some new guys." In 4E, such a string is more like a difference between "Smells like Victory" verus "Had to use another daily", OR "Pulled out all the stops in desperation and squeaked by" versus "Time to stat up some new guys". I'm not sure of the exact number, but I think you'd need a string somewhere around 6-8 such rolls (good or bad) to swing a 4E encounter into as wide of a likely range as 1E.

Caveat: Because 4E is so team focused in its tactical combat, it is true that a few bad or good rolls at the wrong moment can have a domino effect that, in hindsight, will be seen to have turned the fight. Getting "Leader of the Pack" off, or not, from a Tactical Warlord, is one roll that can do so. However, the many rolls before or after it will still have significant say in the matter, making this a somewhat different dynamic.

This affects perception of how ordinary or amazing the characters are. Played more or less according to the book, a party of 1E characters that has made it to around 7th level are "superheroes" because they have made it. All those "ordinary" characters you played that TPK'd at 1st level, 30 minutes after play started? They are a big part of the character pool, but a relatively small part of the play experience. In some ways, they are color--part of the universe in the same way as the Travellor characters that died during char gen. It is merely that the D&D "char gen" was a combination of rolling up the character and running through those first few encounters.

 

[S'mon]

Interesting. I actually haven't consciously set a baseline for my game. I'm currently running an Eberron game, a setting known for it's extensive use of NPCs with NPC classes. Ironic.

I chose minion-5 for the typical barbarian nomad, human soldier, etc partly because 5th or 6th level stats have the greatest utility in being useable across the Heroic tier. This reduces the need for 'grade inflation' where baseline NPCs increase in power to match the PCs, even though the 9th level PCs are still in the same (eg) Nentir Vale they started in. 5th level minions can be used in small numbers vs 1st level PCs, and in large numbers vs 9th level PCs, and still work.

 

[fanboy2000]

However, I managed to obscure my main point with the example: I think it highly unlikely that someone could devise a 4E encounter for, say, five to six reasonably competently played PCs, play it 20 times with essentially the same tactics, and get results similar to my 1st ed. example above. If this hypothetical deadly 4E encounter will TPK the party somewhere north of 50% of the tries, the chances that the group will manage to pull out a smashing victory are vanishingly small. Chances for a non-TPK retreat, or even a partial victory are there. But outright victory? No.

Actually, I think I obscured my point. My point is that I agree with you. If I understand you correctly, that in some combats a continuum exists where there is a real possibility of a TPK or a smashing victory depending on die rolls, then I think that situation can only happen in 4e in small number of circumstances.

1) More monsters than PCs, no minions, all at greater than or = to the PCs level. This kind of combat takes away a lot of advantages the PC might have, it's harder to gang up on monsters (instead, they'll gang-up on you) and thus it's more difficult for combat advantage. If the party's only striker is a rogue, then their damage-out just went down significantly.

This kind of encounter also goes on for a while, meaning that late into the combat, heroic tier PCs will have run out of high damage dealing resources.

But, good rolls and taking out a few combatants early on can change that. If the combat reduces to the number of PC or lower in the first couple of rounds, then the combat turn around fairly quickly. If, however, the PCs get bad rolls and monsters get good rolls, then it's the PCs who are in trouble. It really all depends on how those first few rounds go in this kind of situation.

2) A solo monster several levels higher than the party. If the monster gets in some good hits early on, then we could be looking at a TPK. If the PCs get in some crits early on though, we could have a resounding victory. I think this situation is really the most swingy.

This affects perception of how ordinary or amazing the characters are. Played more or less according to the book, a party of 1E characters that has made it to around 7th level are "superheroes" because they have made it. All those "ordinary" characters you played that TPK'd at 1st level, 30 minutes after play started? They are a big part of the character pool, but a relatively small part of the play experience. In some ways, they are color--part of the universe in the same way as the Travellor characters that died during char gen. It is merely that the D&D "char gen" was a combination of rolling up the character and running through those first few encounters.

I hesitate to say anything about 1e, as generalizing about it has a tendency to generate many posts along the lines of "I played 1e back in the day it wasn't like that at all", but I think you are right, for a certain kind of play style. I get the impression that some groups made an effort to create PCs with some staying power out of the gate, while others did not.

 

[pemerton]

Played more or less according to the book, a party of 1E characters that has made it to around 7th level are "superheroes" because they have made it. All those "ordinary" characters you played that TPK'd at 1st level, 30 minutes after play started? They are a big part of the character pool, but a relatively small part of the play experience. In some ways, they are color--part of the universe in the same way as the Travellor characters that died during char gen. It is merely that the D&D "char gen" was a combination of rolling up the character and running through those first few encounters.

Great post! Still can't XP you, though.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I hesitate to say anything about 1e, as generalizing about it has a tendency to generate many posts along the lines of "I played 1e back in the day it wasn't like that at all", but I think you are right, for a certain kind of play style. I get the impression that some groups made an effort to create PCs with some staying power out of the gate, while others did not.

I meant played strictly by the book, no fudging, no rerolling characters until you get one you like, etc. No bailing out the party with letting "imaginative" substitute for "clever". Perhaps a few of the optional rules are used or not used. That won't change the general effect.

But yeah, a lot of people changed things around, in no small part so that the game did not play out that way. And because real people are playing characters, there is some fuzziness on exactly where, "my character did this clever thing" crosses over from, "I had this imaginative idea."

No matter where you set the bar though, even very generous on ways out, you will not get the same distribution of results as you'll get with 4E. Set the bar "easy" enough, and 1st level party in 1E merely changes from "high likelihood of death, slight chance of smashing success" to reversing those odds. You could hit a similar average with both system. Heck, I've managed that with Basic, 1E, 3E, and 4E--because I like a particular average. But the distribution will be different, absent pure fiat or heavy house rules.

 

[FireLance]

Played more or less according to the book, a party of 1E characters that has made it to around 7th level are "superheroes" because they have made it.

Technically, they would have to be 8th level. And even then, only the fighter would be a Superhero.

 

[LostSoul]

You're clearly unfamiliar with the 1e Sage - he had 8d4 hit dice! A wide suite of spells! He kicked butt!

I definitely think that with 4e, if the GM wants an NPC baseline for world-building purposes, he needs to set it himself. Taking the equivalent of the AD&D 0-level man-at-arms, it could be as low as minion-1, or at least as high as the MM Soldier-3 Human Guard. Personally I think I've settled on minion-5 for the typical, non-heroic, experienced human soldier.

That's interesting. I went with human rabble (minion-2) as the regular joe, the human bandit (skirmisher-2) as the guy who's been in fights and knows how to defend himself but hasn't really been trained, and the town/human guard (soldier-3) as the standard well-trained soldier.

I consider minions to be non-combatants. (I ignore minions where that would make no sense - human thugs (minion-7), for example.)

If you approach the MMs in that manner, you can see the differences between different races: there are no non-combatant dragonborn, dwarves, elves, eladrin, or tieflings; halflings, kobolds, and goblins are weaker than humans, but hobgoblins, orcs, and gnolls are tougher.

S'mon, you might be interested in my Lairs system - basically it's a group of monsters built with enough XP to raise a party of 5 at the Lair's level to the next level. A level 1 Lair has 5000 XP worth of monsters, for example. At a certain point I start treating monsters as minions, so high-level goblin lairs will have 300+ of the little bastards. (Minions are not included in the XP calculations.)

I'm not sure you will be able to use it, but it might be interesting. Let me know.