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

[Imaro]

I'm not even sure that's true though. I mean, you have Mook rules in a lot of RPG's going back to the old 007 RPG back in the 80's. Most non-level based systems do not worry about this at all.

I never claimed mook rules didn't exist prior to 2012... I claimed the more popular systems tend to have PC's and NPC's built the same. I might be wrong but I don't think 007 is or ever was anywhere near as popular as WHR 40K or oWoD/nWoD...

And, let's not forget, D&D, particularly 3e, has one of the most complicated character build systems out there. Granted, point buy systems are complex at the outset, but, after that, there's virtually little to differentiate once character from the next. It takes, for example, a lot of points to really distinguish two characters that started the same initially in GURPS. By and large, the character you start with at the beginning of the campaign isn't going to be terribly different than what you end with.

This is just untrue... You can have a wide breadthe of difference in point buy characters depending on how many points you allocate and what you choose to spend them on. This statement doesn't really make sense.

That's simply not true in D&D. There are worlds of difference between even a few levels of classes in D&D.

Same with the equivalent of a point buy system and the multitude of abilities one can buy. Again this comparison doesn't make sense as is is too dependant upon the individual games for a blanket statement like this to be true. Do classes in OD&D have worlds of difference between them?

 

[Neonchameleon]

How much difference should there be between "Dude, normal" the commoner and "Dude, cool" the raw-recruit first-level guy in terms of stats, abilities, etc.?

I thought you played AD&D? Where the first level fighter is not a raw recruit. He's a veteran. Explicitely so.

My point was moreso that NPC's and PC's follow the same rules of creation in the majority of roleplaying games...

And your point has been shown to simply be wrong. Even GURPS says to throw the character generation rules out of the window for most NPCs and just write down a small collection of useful abilities. There aren't many games like 4e where the NPCs stats are entirely different from PC stats. But I'm struggling to think of a non-simple game other than 3.X where the advice to DMs for designing NPCs doesn't boil down to "Write down the abilities you think the NPCs should have - here are some guidelines."

For Spirit of the Century to use the same PC and NPC construction rules you'd have to put the NPCs through Phases with their names on book titles. Does any SotC GM do this? Anyone?

For Vampire you'd have to work out how many XP you had to play with for the NPC rather than just filling in the dots. Did you seriously do that?

The only games I can think of off the top of my head other than 3.X where you create PCs and some NPCs by the same rules are Wushu and Marvel Heroic Roleplay - and that is because they cut out the middle part of the levels and classes and you jump straight to the point of defining the PCs by the abilities you think they should have.

4e is a slight outlier here. On the other hand 3.X more or less stands alone on the far side with clear water between it and any other system I can think of.

To put things another way in almost every system I can think of you build PCs using defined and clear cut rules in which only certain options may be chosen. You build NPCs by deciding what they should do and then writing down the numbers that match that. A few games (mostly superhero games) tell you to build PCs as if they were NPCs. 3.X (including Pathfinder) is literally the only game I've ever read that tells you to build NPCs as if they were PCs.

 

[Imaro]

And your point has been shown to simply be wrong. Even GURPS says to throw the character generation rules out of the window for most NPCs and just write down a small collection of useful abilities. There aren't many games like 4e where the NPCs stats are entirely different from PC stats. But I'm struggling to think of a non-simple game other than 3.X where the advice to DMs for designing NPCs doesn't boil down to "Write down the abilities you think the NPCs should have - here are some guidelines."

For Spirit of the Century to use the same PC and NPC construction rules you'd have to put the NPCs through Phases with their names on book titles. Does any SotC GM do this? Anyone?

For Vampire you'd have to work out how many XP you had to play with for the NPC rather than just filling in the dots. Did you seriously do that?

The only games I can think of off the top of my head other than 3.X where you create PCs and some NPCs by the same rules are Wushu and Marvel Heroic Roleplay - and that is because they cut out the middle part of the levels and classes and you jump straight to the point of defining the PCs by the abilities you think they should have.

4e is a slight outlier here. On the other hand 3.X more or less stands alone on the far side with clear water between it and any other system I can think of.

So it's not that you've proven me wrong at all. You're just claiming that for the many games where NPC creation = PC creation your assumption is that no one in the world actually created NPC's in such a way... I don't think you should make such large scale assumptions. As anecdotal evidence when first starting out with WoD... yes I assigned XP points and built NPC's with them (especially until I got a feel for the game at which point like all DM's I did what I wanted with it but the system gave me a basis to start with until my familiarity was at a comfortable level). SotC, I have no experience with so I can't comment on.

 

[Imaro]

Double Post...

 

[Neonchameleon]

So it's not that you've proven me wrong at all. You're just claiming that for the many games where NPC creation = PC creation your assumption is that no one in the world actually created NPC's in such a way...

No. I'm claiming that for the many games you claim NPC creation = PC creation few created NPCs in such a way - and the game indicated that you shouldn't do this. 3.X is literally the only game system where I have ever heard people say that "How does that level 1 NPC have a +15 in craft" could be a problem. Saying that "no one" did something is not my experience of any aspect fo any RPG system.

 

[Desdichado]

With the change in 4e, there must have either been a majority who wanted the assumption PCs were above average or a vocal minority. I'm curious if this is still the case.

That has nothing to do with the change to 4e. It was never assumed that Average Joe Blow Shopkeeper, or whatever, had any levels at all in a PC class.

 

[Desdichado]

I just spent over 40 minutes trying to figure out how 3.x's CR system works, and as far as I can tell, a 1st-level commoner is CR 0, so a 1st-level PC can massacre the entire civilian population of an infinite number of universes in a massive encounter that, while level-appropriate, will surely take several sessions to resolve.

Based on these findings, 3.5's PCs are clearly overpowered.

That's absurd. Even 1st level commoners with farm implements will do damage against 1st level PCs frequently enough that a rabble of them can easily overwhelm a typical 1st level party within a few rounds. Sure, it'll be a massacre, but infinite commoners? That's ridiculous, and doesn't make any allowances for actually rolling any dice to attack or damage, just CRs.

 

[Imaro]

No. I'm claiming that for the many games you claim NPC creation = PC creation few created NPCs in such a way - and the game indicated that you shouldn't do this. 3.X is literally the only game system where I have ever heard people say that "How does that level 1 NPC have a +15 in craft" could be a problem. Saying that "no one" did something is not my experience of any aspect fo any RPG system.

So... WoD... you design NPC's as PC's....
Dragon Age... gives you the option not to but the system is still NPC's as PC's
MRQ...NPC's as PC's
Pathfinder... NPC's as PC's
DarK Heresy... Again, advice on when a NPC should be fleshed out but the system is still the same as the PC's.

In other words the actual systems for these games are NPC's as PC's with advice about disregarding it when you want to... but that's exactly what I advocated for pages ago. I also don't see how this would be any different from putting a paragraph in 3.x that says... "Hey if you really don't see the need for a fully fleshed out NPC... don't use the class system."... which experienced DM's will do anyway if they want...

 

[Neonchameleon]

why does improving my skill as baker also make me better at dodging explosions and swallowing toxins?

Because you're a truly terrible baker who learns through trial and error?

So... WoD... you design NPC's as PC's....
Dragon Age... gives you the option not to but the system is still NPC's as PC's

Dragon Age tells you to Fiat the NPCs. It says "NPCs can [have classes] but don't have to." This has been quoted to you upthread by [MENTION=79401]Grydan[/MENTION]. For you to continue to claim that NPCs and PCs use the same character design rules when the rules say they literally don't and that part of the rules has been quoted to you makes me wonder why I continue this conversation.

Pathfinder... NPC's as PC's

Pathfinder is D&D 3.X. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't know the other two systems you cite but for you to continue to claim Dragon Age when the rules have been quoted to you and say the opposite of what you are claiming means I don't accept your unadorned word on them.

 

[Jester David]

That has nothing to do with the change to 4e. It was never assumed that Average Joe Blow Shopkeeper, or whatever, had any levels at all in a PC class.

I wasn't saying or arguing that first level PCs were equals of shopkeepers, but that they were closer to Joe Blow Shopkeeper in earlier editions, and that 4e made 1st level PCs a little more badassly at Level 1. The baseline assumption shifted upward.