D&D is not a supers game.

[Campbell]

I'd prefer the Constitution Score Kicker and HD mechanic be the default to ease players into the game, but I can still see a place for an OD&D style module without the kicker, HD, 3d6 drop lowest ability scores, a daily limit on minor spells, no themes, and possibly no backgrounds with explicit guidance on the careful considered approach to adventuring that requires. Game balance should still be roughly up to the tolerance of the target audience.

Honestly my issue with D&D as a zero to hero game is that given the level of abstraction in the game encounters where PCs engage 3 or 4 kobolds are not very engaging and I'm very much of the mind that especially for new players all elements of the game should be engaging.

I've been reading through Legend, Mongoose's fork of Runequest now that they've lost the license, and I think it's default highly precise rules is more appropriate for gritty action. I'm also somewhat enamored of its optional rules modules to increase the level of abstraction presented by enemies lets you scale up the level of detail for more experienced adventurers. That along with the presence of a character generation process that grounds you more firmly in the world and the ability to dial up heroics with optional meta resources (hero points and heroic feats) along with a variety of magic systems makes it suit zero to hero far more effectively than D&D. It's still too precise for what I prefer to use D&D for but that's why there are multiple RPGs on the market.

 

[TrippyHippy]

So ...what would the expectation be ... ? Play the game being play tested and come away thinking ... wow! My character was really crap! This game rocks!!



Being hopeless at level 1 is not a core expectation of D&D. They can build in that option for play style, but it's not something you want to have be the core of a game.
And despite some people being in denial about it, D&D is a game. People play it to have fun. Not everyone's definition of fun is being crap and having to work your way up to defeating an angry cat in a fight.

And neither is it mine. Having an equitable level of HP to everybody else in the fantasy world does not equate to 'being hopeless' or 'crap'. Nor does it mean that it isn't fun, or that people didn't have fun for the decades in which D&D actually operated this way at 1st level. Straw man again.

 

[jbear]

And neither is it mine. Having an equitable level of HP to everybody else in the fantasy world does not equate to 'being hopeless' or 'crap'. Nor does it mean that it isn't fun, or that people didn't have fun for the decades in which D&D actually operated this way at 1st level. Straw man again.

Well, I want my character to feel like a hero at level 1.

So what are we going to do now?

Who is right?

 

[Elf Witch]

Well, I want my character to feel like a hero at level 1.

So what are we going to do now?

Who is right?

At first level your character is a hero because he taking chances instead of hiding in his cottage letting other people face the kobold hoarde. A hero is not a hero just because he is stronger and better than everyone else.

 

[ren1999]

Never again will I allow any character with HP5 on the battle grid. Never, never, nevaaa!

If you don' like static hit points, fine. I can live with allowing you to roll hit points every level. But you will add your constitution score to your starting hit point roll.

We've all wasted too much time rerolling new characters over and over at 1st level. It is depressing and people have been known to walk away from the game over this before.

 

[Khaalis]

Coming in very late on this and I admit I have not read the whole thread so this may already have been said, so I apologize for that up front.

My response on this topic is, as Morrus stated, that D&D has always been, is, and will always be a game of HEROIC Fantasy. D&D characters are heroes and a cut above the "average" NPC, otherwise the whole world would be adventurers.

The game is about telling extraordinary tales by extraordinary people. This is what the core of the game is and will be designed around. Why would a village need to hire adventurers to protect them from marauding [insert monster here] if the adventurers were no more talented than all the people in the village?

However, with that said, it has already been stated that there will be a set of "modular" options that will allow you to change the basic playstyle from "Heroic" to the "I'm just an average Joe", "Grim & Gritty", "I'm an Apprentice" etc. style games if that is how you want to play your D&D.

IMHO this is a great way to do it. So long as they include the options to play the game how you see fit, I have no problem with the "core" retaining its heroic fantasy roots.

 

[jbear]

By "your" I assume you mean "a" character, and are referring to how you see things.

Which is my point.

As a baseline concept of what type of hero should be the starting point for a game these positions don't have a point of reconciliation.

I don't want what you want in so far as what it means to be a hero. I want my hero to be better than average out of the gate. I don't want his past to be limited to shovelling horse dung in a barn.

I want my character to already have an interesting and rich past when the came begins, which represents the talents I have already acquired.

And I also think that should be the baseline starting position of heros in D&D. Want to start in the barn ... fine, then use the optional rules to make level 0 characters.

I understand that you don't agree. Do you understand that I also do not agree with you?
So we have a point that can't be reconciled.

So what do we do?

 

[TrippyHippy]

Well, it's very simple what we do. We give feedback to the play test programme, then wait and see. If the final product is to our liking then we might buy it. If it isn't then we don't.

If we have a D&D game with unequitable levels of HP to NPCs at 1st Level then, for me, it's a deal breaker. Quite simply, it doesn't replicate the D&D experience I want and can find from other RPGs. And that is the feedback I am providing.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I accept that at different tiers, different types of fantasy are represented, but to simply deny an aspect of the game that was present in previous iterations (and that is basically all I am asking for!) is hardly an inclusive attitude.

I don't mind low-level D&D being gritty as long as people stop trying to make high-level D&D gritty-- in worlds that were clearly not designed that way. If my PC is the same level as the authors' pets, my PC should be as important and powerful as the authors' pets if not moreso.

 

[Li Shenron]

I agree with the OP. I've said elsewhere that the 5e draft feels to me a lot like D&D, but not like 1st level D&D. The power creep across editions is undenyable, although each step is not particularly large.

The problem is that while those who want more power can easily add stuff (who didn't shell out a few bonus feats in 3ed?), replace rolls with maxed numbers, or just start at higher level, those who don't like to start powerful have a more difficult time toning it down in a way that keeps everybody balanced.

Right now, I think 5e 1st-lv PCs can be toned down in the easiest way by removing Theme and Background, and adding them back later on, but still...