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

[I'm A Banana]

... and to get better, he has to do what, exactly ...

Can he get better and still without improving his hit points, attack bonuses, and saving throws?

Also... if he can take 20 on his performances, so can anyone with 10 Charisma and 1 rank in perform. That's "Great performance. In a prosperous city, you can earn 3d10 sp/day. In time, you may be invited to join a professional troupe and may develop a regional reputation" regularly.

Well, with that last bit, I'd personally say that Perform isn't a skill you can ake 20 on -- not impressing an audience is a penalty for failure. You can take 10, though, so it's something a beggar could earn her bread off of. Of course, a commoner doesn't have Perform as a class skill, so it'd take twice the points to raise it to 1, but...

Anyway, I personally think that the 3e rules make sense if you work from one basic assumption: getting better at anything requires adventure.

If you want to be a better singer in 3e D&D-world, it takes more than just practice. You need to have some personal experience of things to sing about, some direct conflict in defense of your singing, some friggin' adventure.

I don't think it's necessary to keep that baseline in 5e, though I like it as part of 3e, myself.

 

[Obryn]

Anyway, I personally think that the 3e rules make sense if you work from one basic assumption: getting better at anything requires adventure.

Which is, IMO, an issue mainly because your max skill ranks are tied to your level which is in turn tied to everything else. It's an inherent flaw to a class/level system that tries to cleanly integrate skills for everyday tasks and pigeonhole the world into classes. You don't run into the same issues with a completely skill-based system or with a class-based system that doesn't have sharply defined and limited skills.

If the universe were populated with 1st-level Experts, Warriors, and Commoners ... well, no big deal so long as you let them advance their skills in a sensible (meaning, "not tied to level or adventuring") fashion. 20 years of practice should net you something without killing a goblin, eh? Personally, I think the 0-level system combined with reasonable DM assumptions is dandy, and there's not much daylight between that and Level 1 NPCs with reasonable skills running around.

It's fine if you want to use "you must adventure" as a baseline for a world. But it's not ... um ... versimilitudinous.

-O

 

[Bluenose]

Well, three things about that:

1) Why is the warrior using substandard weapons and armour? Surely he should be using appropriate gear, or it's not a fair comparison?
2) We're comparing the most extreme outlier amongst farmers with the run-of-the-mill warrior. I'm not sure I have a problem with the Commoner winning in those circumstances.
3) In any case...

Bob, Joe's Warrior Cousin
1st level Warrior
Str 13, Dex 10, Con 12, Int 9, Wis 11, Cha 8
Skills: Intimidate +3
Feats: Weapon Proficiency (simple, martial), Armour Prof (all), Shield Prof, Weapon Focus (longsword), Toughness
Hit Points: 12
AC: 16 (scale mail, large shield)
Fort +3, Ref +0, Will +0
Attack: Longsword +3, 1d8+1 damage
Attack: Light Mace (thrown) +1, 1d6+1 damage

Reasons not to wear scale armour, No 1. 20' movement speed. Run, Bob, Run. Chase that thief who moves faster than you because he's not in heavy armour. Oh, you aren't catching him. What a shame.

Didn't want him to have magic, so went for expert over adept. The Hypertext d20 SRD has a 4th level expert at +3 BAB. Is it in error?

It's +2 according to the books. Of course he/she could have memorised Web, or Scorching Ray, or a few other spells that could turn the fight slightly in their favour.

I'm picturing a college-based comedy where a group of distinguished full professors of math and English go beat the snot out of the football team, or a military parody where the congressmen on the armed services committee take out the group of marines fresh from training camp.

Hey, professors can be very mean.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Which is, IMO, an issue mainly because your max skill ranks are tied to your level which is in turn tied to everything else. It's an inherent flaw to a class/level system that tries to cleanly integrate skills for everyday tasks and pigeonhole the world into classes. You don't run into the same issues with a completely skill-based system or with a class-based system that doesn't have sharply defined and limited skills.

What you see as an "issue" I see as a compelling ludonarrative. It's a world of adventure. Farming your fields means killing goblins. Being Einstein means fighting off mind flayers. That's awesome. That's why professional adventurers are required.

I get that not everyone wants that kind of world, and that even if you do you can make it without NPC classes, so I'm not married to the mechanic. But I don't think it was silly.

Personally, I think the 0-level system combined with reasonable DM assumptions is dandy, and there's not much daylight between that and Level 1 NPCs with reasonable skills running around.

Reasonable DM assumptions is certainly the easy way out! Fortunately, I bet bounded accuracy helps make that a reality -- and easy to implement -- in 5e.

It's fine if you want to use "you must adventure" as a baseline for a world. But it's not ... um ... versimilitudinous.

I think there's an important distinction to make between "realism" and "like the real world."

"Getting better requires adventure!" isn't very much like the real world. Getting better in the real world requires hours and hours of endless tedium and repetition. Which wouldn't be very fun in a game.

But if you make a small willing suspension of disbelief for the purposes of playing an engaging RPG, and are willing to entertain the idea that in this world, you can't get better by repetition, and you only get better by risking your life...

You can base a consistent, logical, not-insane world on that foundation. If getting better at anything requires risking your life, as you get better at studying obscure works of art in a D&D world, you get better at a whole host of things alongside that, which are useful in generally violent life-threatening situations.

In a D&D world where you're a 1st level commoner and Einstein is a 20th level expert, Einstein isn't just smarter than you, he's also a hero who has faced death in pursuit of knowledge. Einstein could kick your butt. And he's super-wealthy, too. And his INT isn't just slightly bigger than average, it is like unto prescience.

That's appealing to me. But it certaily doesn't fit with certain styles of game, and it doesn't require NPC levels to do.

 

[Obryn]

Actually look again 1/3 is the slowest.

Going back here. I did - 1/2 is the slowest, used by both Commoners and Wizards. You round down, of course.

Also, you gave your 1st level minstrel 6 ranks in Perform. And let him take 20 when, as was pointed out, there's a consequence for failure.

Are you sure the math in 3.x can't get overwhelming at times?

It's +2 according to the books. Of course he/she could have memorised Web, or Scorching Ray, or a few other spells that could turn the fight slightly in their favour.

Adept's +2. Expert's +3. Experts advance like clerics for BAB and commoners advance like Wizards.

-O

 

[delericho]

Reasons not to wear scale armour, No 1. 20' movement speed. Run, Bob, Run. Chase that thief who moves faster than you because he's not in heavy armour. Oh, you aren't catching him. What a shame.

Of course, per 3e RAW, it's impossible for the warrior to catch that thief anyway - if they're both moving at 30' per round, stalemate is inevitable!

So much for versimilitude!

 

[delericho]

Incidentally, on arriving home tonight I re-acquainted myself with the demographics tables from the DMG, and I agree - they're absolutely insane. I still don't believe there's any great problem with the NPC classes up to about level 5 (although they're usually more hassle than their worth), but those tables are routinely throwing out Commoners and Warriors with levels in the mid-teens. As written, it just doesn't work (for me).

YMMV, of course.

 

[Cadence]

It's +2 according to the books. Of course he/she could have memorised Web, or Scorching Ray, or a few other spells that could turn the fight slightly in their favour.

I should have been clearer in my original post, was using Expert not Adept for my sage.

Hey, professors can be very mean.

 

[tuxgeo]

Frankly, I usually look at a 1st level PC as being below average, but with potential. No poll option for that one, though. I assume that NPCs are much more competent than the DMG would suggest. A 1st level PC is 18 years old (or the nonhuman equivalent) and has little to no meaningful experience. . . .

. . . and some other 1st level PC is 62 years old (or the nonhuman equivalent) and just started adventuring after retiring young from some other job.

The rules acknowledge such variation explicitly:
For example, the 4E PHB says (page 30), "Most adventurers begin as young adults–say, 18 to 25 for humans." [Emphasis on "Most" added.]
For another example, the 3.5E PHB has a table on page 109 for random starting ages, wherein Humans start at 15 years plus 1d4, 1d6, or 2d6 depending on class—so a Human Cleric could start at anywhere from 17 to 27 years of age, while an Elf Ranger could start at anywhere from 116 to 146 years of age.

Starting at 18 for humans isn't baked into the rules at all; and the age differences between humans and other races vary greatly depending on edition.

 

[B.T.]

Average person can do a fine job of crafting stuff without being high level.

• +2 for 14 in the relevant stat (seems pretty reasonable).
• +5 for skill ranks (we'll say he's level 2).
• +3 for Skill Focus: Profession (whatever).
• +2 for masterwork tools related to the profession.

+12 total. Taking 10, that's a guaranteed success for quite a few tasks. Taking 20, that's a guaranteed success for most everything.