Why PCs should be competent, or "I got a lot of past in my past"

[Clint_L]

I just thoroughly disagree with the notion that first level D&D characters are generally depicted as inexperienced. As noted above, the game's backgrounds often imply that characters are quite experienced. And this is reinforced by the game's mechanics. I would consider a level 1 character a reasonable match for a half dozen commoners, 2-3 regular bandits, or guards, etc. per the Monster Manual. So the level 1 character is already exceptional by most standards.

IMO, what is happening in the game, as the player levels from 1 to X, is that the player is going from exceptional to heroic and even legendary at the highest levels.

IRL terms, I would consider a level 1 character the equivalent of a varsity athlete or graduate student: already pretty far ahead of most folks in their speciality. As they level up they are becoming the equivalent of pro-athletes or PhDs, and maybe eventually superstars or Nobel prize candidates.

Edit: in terms of acclaim, a level 1 character isn't super well known but probably has a bit of a rep amongst those in the know - they are promising. By mid-levels, they have some fame in regions where they've been active. By high levels, they are well known by most, including those in power. By level 20, they are living legends (if they choose to be).

 

[Staffan]

Can you post the D&D book and page number that states created characters must be young and inexperienced? I looked at D&D Beyond and it reads " You choose your character’s age and the color of his or her hair, eyes, and skin. To add a touch of distinctiveness, you might want to give your character an unusual or memorable physical characteristic, such as a scar, a limp, or a tattoo." So this thread begins like so many others: with someone erecting a scary strawman and then telling everyone how terrible the imaginary monster is.

Second and third edition have randomized starting ages for PCs. For humans in 2e, this is 15+1d4 years, so a starting PC will be 16-19 years old. In 3e, the base is still 15, but the random part varies depending on your class: still 1d4 for "talented" classes like rogue, barbarian, and sorcerer, 1d8 for educated classes like wizards and clerics, and 1d6 for classes in between. That's page 32-33 in the revised 2e PHB and page 109 in the 3.5e PHB. Both do state that you can choose your age, but by offering a random method that generates teenagers it is pretty clear that that's the expectation.

Also, a starting character in D&D is, by definition, inexperienced and fairly incompetent. That usually correlates with youth unless you're playing someone who has lived a rather sheltered life.

It looks here like your confusing how books and movies are written with how rpg campaigns are created. They are not the same.

They are not, but they are similar. Characters are more interesting when they are actually good at what they do, and when you have some sense of their backstories. This does not need to be a detailed backstory, but some sense of where they come from. Parker's backstory is basically "bounced between abusive foster homes while becoming good at various criminal activities, until an older gentleman thief took her under his wing and taught her for real."

Okay wait. First you suggested good stories only have experienced characters in them then you flip everything to suggest when presented with experienced D&D characters by CR you didn't like their backstories?

No. I liked the first Critical Role campaign, where we got to meet Vox Machina more or less in medias res at 9th level or so (maybe slightly lower, but I do remember that the first leg of the campaign has them do some underdark stuff, and they flee by means of their sorcerer casting teleportation circle, but they may have leveled up somewhere in between those). I could not get into their 2nd or 3rd campaigns, where they started at 1st-2nd level and had to go through the whole getting to know one another bit, as well as a lot of being separated until they actually meet.

Are you good, friend? There's never been anything in D&D that forced players to make young characters. This feels like you were in at least two groups that played that way, maybe? I hope you found the right group of people.

My problem is that I don't want to play in a campaign for a year or two before having a character that actually knows what they're doing. I want to play Amos Burton, Parker, John Sheridan, Inigo Montoya, Elim Garak, Han Solo, or Legolas, and be as skilled as they are when we first meet them. And having those kinds of skills should come with at least some backstory. And as a GM, if each character has a reasonably rich backstory on their own before joining up, that's more interesting stuff for me to work with.

 

[MarkB]

Well why are there old NPCs without lots of levels? These are honestly things some folks wrestle with and one of the biggest reasons I love bounded accuracy. The world can have folks of variable power across any age range. So, unlike WoW the PCs are not fantasy Avengers unless you want the to be.

As a note, one of the tenets of the Eberron campaign setting as originally published in 3.5e was that PCs are exceptional. Most folks in the world don't level up swiftly as a result of their everyday experiences, whether extraordinary or mundane. Veterans of the century-long Last War, spiritual leaders or rulers of nations may still only have a couple of class levels.

The 5e version doesn't specifically address level progression (since 5e NPCs don't use class levels by default), but does call out PCs as exceptional, noting that they're unlikely to find help from experienced NPCs, and it states that even a 1st level PC is considered remarkable within the setting.

That being the case, a 1st-evel PC could easily be a person of any age who has been suddenly thrust into a life of adventure.

 

[payn]

As a note, one of the tenets of the Eberron campaign setting as originally published in 3.5e was that PCs are exceptional. Most folks in the world don't level up swiftly as a result of their everyday experiences, whether extraordinary or mundane. Veterans of the century-long Last War, spiritual leaders or rulers of nations may still only have a couple of class levels.

The 5e version doesn't specifically address level progression (since 5e NPCs don't use class levels by default), but does call out PCs as exceptional, noting that they're unlikely to find help from experienced NPCs, and it states that even a 1st level PC is considered remarkable within the setting.

That being the case, a 1st-evel PC could easily be a person of any age who has been suddenly thrust into a life of adventure.

and that’s Eberon which ain’t the default

 

[MarkB]

and that’s Eberon which ain’t the default

Oh certainly, just pointing out a good representation of age being decoupled from class level that's been around in D&D for twenty years.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As a note, one of the tenets of the Eberron campaign setting as originally published in 3.5e was that PCs are exceptional. Most folks in the world don't level up swiftly as a result of their everyday experiences, whether extraordinary or mundane. Veterans of the century-long Last War, spiritual leaders or rulers of nations may still only have a couple of class levels.

The 5e version doesn't specifically address level progression (since 5e NPCs don't use class levels by default), but does call out PCs as exceptional, noting that they're unlikely to find help from experienced NPCs, and it states that even a 1st level PC is considered remarkable within the setting.

That being the case, a 1st-evel PC could easily be a person of any age who has been suddenly thrust into a life of adventure.

Fair enough, I did not know that. Really not my preference to call out how oh so special and unique the PCs are.

 

[Umbran]

It does - every collection you get to rewrite and get one free reroll per session. That's very minimal, but not none. The rerolls are actually quite useful.

With respect, I specified, "in the classic sense".

As in, the character stats, scores, and abilities all stay the same. The rewrites in question specifically do not increase in power - it is always maintaining die types.

 

[Maxperson]

One thing I had discovered, decades before I ever was introduced to Traveller and its character creation was a great product by the dear, missed Jennell Jacquays, Central Casting: Heroes of Legend (1988 - https://www.amazon.com/Central-Casting-Heroes-Paul-Jaquays/dp/0922335001)

This had so many ways to get a backstory going, and possibly tie the group together. The first campaign I joined outside of my family used this book, and gave such a complete backstory that even decades later, I still remember that my character had been born decadent, had military service and had been blessed by the goddess Sif - for some reason - with unnaturally beautiful hands.

In games I run of D&D, I try to find a way to tie the characters together and my players generally work out reasons why their characters are friends and remain loyal to each other - I call this an example of 'Good Metagaming' instead of the bad cheaty metagaming. There are no mechanical ways currently for D&D players to randomly roll lifepaths to connect, and as much as I love them, I don't think they'd be a better option than sitting down and working out the tale of how you all were members of the thieves guild or under their protection before the Fire Knives came to destroy them and wiped out all but the PCs. YMMV

I have that product and my players often roll backgrounds with Central Casting. Central Casting: Dungeons is also a fantastic product for making various kinds of dungeons.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fair enough, I did not know that. Really not my preference to call out how oh so special and unique the PCs are.

You really need to do one of three things with D&D here:

1. Accept PCs are not typical.

2. Force downtime so that progression is not fast.

3. Accept there's a heck of a lot of high level characters out there.

I don't really see a fourth case.

 

[Campbell]

Why make up a new background? Plenty of the existing ones assume that you're experienced and have been in that role for some time.

Criminal states in its first sentence that you're experienced and have a history of breaking the law, and portrays you as a well connected member of the criminal underworld.

Folk Hero explicity gives you a heroic past.

Guild Artisan specifies that you've risen to being both well-established within the mercantile world and a master of your craft.

As a Hermit you've lived in seclusion long enough to have made some remarkable philosophical discovery.

A Sage, like the Guild Artisan, has spent long enough in their profession to achieve mastery, this time in a particular field of scholarly study.

Soldier carries with it a sufficient military rank to command the respect and deference of others, not something easily achieved without a significant career.

Even the backgrounds that don't explicitly make you an adult with a job you've been in for years or even decades don't preclude such a thing. I don't think any of them come with the assumption that you're still young and inexperienced, except possibly Urchin.

It's just not credible given what you are actually capable of as it bears out in play vis a vis the antagonists you face or even basic NPCs who lack proficiency in the things you are supposed to be good at. It is more credible in say Pathfinder Second Edition where basic goblins and kobolds are -1 level creatures, but still a significant stretch.

It's mostly fine. You just start out at a higher level. Nothing wrong with that.