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

[Ryujin]

This is if you consider "NPC classes" to be something worth preserving. I don't. I think 90%+ of the world doesn't need statted out at all. Nor should a Blacksmith need to have several levels (with the corresponding increases in HPs, saves, attack bonuses, and feats) in order to get the +X to Blacksmithing you want him to have. NPC classes only serve as a patch on a system which pays altogether too much obsessive attention to classes and levels already.

-O

Agreed. Player stat math is for players. The rest of the world can operate however you want it to.

 

[Jester David]

I understand your methodology. Unfortunately though, not everyone see's RPG's in such a rigid, black & white manner. There are a lot of RPG's, and even a lot of different flavors of D&D, and many gamers enjoy different games and flavors at different times. When I have a buffet to choose from, I lean different directions at different times, as most people probably do to one extent or another...

The results of this poll are essentially useless for any real impression of gamers as a whole. Ignoring the fact that it's self-identifying and self-limiting just because it's here at ENWorld (it's an entertaining toy at best), the choices you made available limited the responses to only a subset of gamers: gamers that have one clear-cut preference. I'd posit that this subset of gamers hardly represents a majority of gamers, or even a diverse cross-section of gamers.

You haven't "seen" anything as concerns gamers in general. All you're seeing is the preferences of those that have one preferred flavor only.

If you had asked "How do you as a gamer prefer to view a 1st level character?", rather than "What is a 1st level character?", you might have had a chance of gathering some worthwhile information.

But even then, you're not getting a sense of a majority of gamers. You're only getting a sense of the predominant group of gamers that frequent and post at ENWorld, which is a self-selecting group of gamers that are far less casual than the average gamer, and skew heavily towards DM's.

Yes, it will be a bias poll that might not be reflective of the entire gaming community worldwide. But, the same could be said for all polls, even the ones WotC are collecting. They clearly skew to people who have the interent, speak English, and have been interested enough in D&D to check the website this year. Lapsed D&D players are very unlikely to have heard of 5e or the playtest, let alone the surveys.

If you start looking at all the ways a survey could fail the answer always becomes "why bother?" Which is lame. I choose to believe that while the poll *might* not be reflective it *might* also actually be reflective and give me a better view.

Had I designed the poll differently and had a middle of the road option or "depends of the campaign" the poll would have told me nothing. Those would have been the go-to options. With the choice it's easy to see that people swing to PCs being special and extraordinary rather that slightly more potent Everymen.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

A first level character should be a little better then their NPC class counterpart. But not overwhelmingly so.

2 characters, one a 1st level warrior and one a 1st level fighter with equal equipment. The fighter should be able to beat him about 80% of the time. He should even be able to take 2 of them around half of the time. Any better odds then that its too much. IMO.

80%? That's way too high. Here's a 1e comparison of a fighter and an npc warrior - a non special npc, not a henchman, or otherwise stronger npc.
Fighter S16 I9 W10 D14 C14 CH12 +1 damage. 6 hp
Warrior S12 I10 W11 D12 C12 Ch12 4 hp

The fighter has a 5% better chance to hit.

I used an online dice roller to roll these stats, btw. I don't know the exact statistics, but I'd wager the warrior will win a lot more than 20% of the time. This is how I see a 1st level pc. 1e got it right. Now, 5e doesn't have to follow this exactly, but it makes a good guideline.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I like the idea of 1st level PCs being newbies with potential, or even nobodies.

But I see a definite role for 1st level PC's being something more in some games.

Thankfully, tiers-as-treasure means you can eat your cake and have it, too.

 

[Libramarian]

I'd like to turn this argument around a bit, because the philosophical "what is a 1st level PC" distracts from what is, IMO, the main issue - "what is the purpose of a 1st level PC?" That is, what's a 1st-level PC for?

My answer is, "It's an introductory character which will be fun and easy for a new player." Ideally, I think this should be a character that will grab a brand new player's attention, help them have an entertaining session of D&D, and that they'll care about enough to advance. Having a character who dies in their first skirmish with rats is a big, giant wall thrown into a newbie's face.

This fits into the "swinginess" argument above. Fewer random, brutal deaths at 1st level is, IMO, a feature and a draw for new players. I've been playing D&D and other systems for close to 30 years. I get the appeal of ordinary, fragile, and weak characters, and I think there should absolutely be a module for this*. But when a new player - a new entire group, learning D&D together - is just starting out at 1st level, I think the game system should be encouraging rather than discouraging. And today that means a character capable of doing neat, interesting stuff influenced by fiction, movies, and better television. And which won't die immediately for one mistake or bad die roll.

Saying, "Just start at higher level!" misses the point that when players new to the game dig in for their first adventure, it's going to be Level 1 PCs they're making.

-O

* my own "module" is called WFRP2e

As masochistic as it sounds I think random, brutal deaths at first level are pretty important to the feel of D&D for me.

It's like that old Simpsons episode where Homer goes to college and describes playing D&D:
"We played for 4 hours..and then I was slain by an elf."

That's a pretty good one-liner about D&D. It's kind of a defining feature of the game. It looks and feels in many ways like you're inside a fantasy novel or movie...but then you get slain by a random elf. You're not guaranteed plot immunity or even a heroic death. I like that.

I don't know that new players nowadays need to be guaranteed an easy, fun first experience. Almost all new TTRPGers are going to have experience playing RPG videogames, many of which are quite difficult (Dark Souls anyone?). I think making sure that the DMing experience is smooth and easy is far more important than the playing experience when it comes to creating and sustaining new gaming groups.

Also I'm not convinced that starting at higher levels would be impossible for new groups. I think that option could be explained well enough in the game text that new groups who would enjoy it would do it. Again new gamers today are completely familiar with the basic ideas of classes and level and power progression and such.

 

[Hussar]

Meh. Making encounters more lethal is easy. Just add three more baddies. Or whatever number floats your boat.

But, if, in a fairly expected fight - say JRRNeiklot's example above of a normal warrior vs a 1st level PC, means that the PC dies 40% of the time, that's WAY too high. In an AD&D game, I should be having dozens of fights per level. This is pretty expected. How on earth am I ever going to hit level two if I'm dying every third fight?

I know how it was for our groups - I never saw a PC with stats like that, everyone had at least one 18 and die rolls were... perhaps less stringently adhered to. In other words, we simply drifted the game to be less lethal because rolling up a new PC every third encounter is boring.

So, no, I don't agree that AD&D got this right. I think they got it very, very wrong. As was mentioned earlier, randomness (swinginess) only favors the baddies. It only makes the game more difficult for the PC's. I hate 3e's critical hit system. Far, far too lethal.

I'd much prefer the baseline be back to about 10% chance of NPC beating PC (in a fairly average, standard fight) and then let the DM worry about making it harder. It's much more difficult to make the game less lethal.

 

[timASW]

This is if you consider "NPC classes" to be something worth preserving. I don't. I think 90%+ of the world doesn't need statted out at all. Nor should a Blacksmith need to have several levels (with the corresponding increases in HPs, saves, attack bonuses, and feats) in order to get the +X to Blacksmithing you want him to have. NPC classes only serve as a patch on a system which pays altogether too much obsessive attention to classes and levels already.

-O

I couldnt disagree more. NPC classes are a positive to the game and to world building IMO and losing them would be losing an extremely valuable tool for fleshing out your game world.

 

[stevelabny]

Well, I think this poll is explaining to me why I'm at odds with most gamers nowadays.

I voted "Average Joe" but I guess it should've been "Average Joe...with potential" mainly based on the idea that PCs have higher stats than NPCs.

I look at 1st level PCs as high schoolers. For modern comparisons, a 1st level fighter would be a high school athlete. Slightly better at sports than most people, but still no guarantee he will become a college player, or a pro. And while he may be better than an "average joe" at sports and possibly other physical activities, he IS an average joe or worse at computer programming, crime or theology. And saying an "average joe" can't play sports, commit crimes, program, or pray is just disingenuous. Having one skillset does not make someone special.

I understand that some roleplayers don't like this because they despise the cliche of all 1st level PCs being young farmboys, and think it limits character types and prevents old PCs, but I feel its better to adjust a specific PCs backstory, providing some reason why they are so low a level with all their life experience (held captive, amnesia, sickness, researcher, etc etc), than it is to have every 1st level PC already being special and 10th level PCs ruling the multiverse.

 

[timASW]

80%? That's way too high. Here's a 1e comparison of a fighter and an npc warrior - a non special npc, not a henchman, or otherwise stronger npc.
Fighter S16 I9 W10 D14 C14 CH12 +1 damage. 6 hp
Warrior S12 I10 W11 D12 C12 Ch12 4 hp

The fighter has a 5% better chance to hit.

I used an online dice roller to roll these stats, btw. I don't know the exact statistics, but I'd wager the warrior will win a lot more than 20% of the time. This is how I see a 1st level pc. 1e got it right. Now, 5e doesn't have to follow this exactly, but it makes a good guideline.

Never played 1e so how it was back then isnt really of interest to me. My earliest game was AD&D and we houseruled it so much it would have been barely recognizable to anyone comparing it to RAW

 

[Ashtagon]

Since a few of us seem to have touched on NPC classes, I think I have sometng to say there.

Those NPC classes that exactly clone a PC class (warrior, adept) should not exist. Such NPCs should simply be low level versions of a PC class. The only NPC class that should exist is "expert", which should have a small variety of "kits" (2e term) that mould it into the various civilian specialists. That said, the aristocrat is the only one worth salvaging and fleshing out into a full PC class (I see it as a "non-magical bard")

Any NPC that emulates a PC class (village priest cleric, town guard = fighter or ranger or scout, local lord = fighter or warlord or bard) should simply use a PC class, possibly with pre-selected character options. Players don't get to see NPC character sheets anyway, so it won't really matter so much if two village priests in neighbouring villages have identical stats.