D&D 4E 1st level 4E characters are already Heroes

[Just Another User]

In 2E most NPCs were level 0s with 4-6 HP and no other stats of note.

and most 1st level Pcs were the same.
2nd ed don't have max HPs at first level and standard rolling method is roll 3d6 in order.

Personally I agree with who said that this is power bloat, I like the concept of "farmboy go to adventure with a sword and 50 gps in his pouch" in 3rd edition you can still do it (even if the farm boy is better than many city guards), in 4D! apparently this would not be possible.
I don't see why they can start to a more "reasonalbe" level and if someone want to start with Heroes he'll just start from 2nd level or more.

If this goes on I suppose that in 6th edition 1st level wizards will start with meteor storm and time stop as at will abilities and as they level they'll pick up the real poweful spells.

 

[hong]

Of course you can still do the farmboy thing. Just halve everyone's starting hit points. Easy as pie.

 

[Glyfair]

1. Starting with Max hit points at 1st level, seems to be a universal house rule.

Not a house rule. Why do people keep referring to this as a house rule?

It's the standard rule for 3.X (page 23 in the PHB). To roll hit points for first level would be a house rule.

 

[Alaric_Prympax]

Not a house rule. Why do people keep referring to this as a house rule?

It's the standard rule for 3.X (page 23 in the PHB). To roll hit points for first level would be a house rule.

Yes in 3.x I know that was in PH but I was referring to my D&D experience to when I first started to play. When I started AD&D I don't remember max hp in the PH, it was just something we did, thus a house rule, one I think that everybody did so that's why I called it a universal house rule.

 

[Glyfair]

Yes in 3.x I know that was in PH but I was referring to my D&D experience to when I first started to play. When I started AD&D I don't remember max hp in the PH, it was just something we did, thus a house rule, one I think that everybody did so that's why I called it a universal house rule.

Ah, that wasn't clear. Yes, that's why I think the rule was put in 3.x, because it was a very common house rule. If you didn't use it then the magic-user would on occasion start with more hit points than the fighter.

 

[Alaric_Prympax]

Ah, that wasn't clear. Yes, that's why I think the rule was put in 3.x, because it was a very common house rule. If you didn't use it then the magic-user would on occasion start with more hit points than the fighter.

No problem. Sometimes I wonder if I over explain my posts so I try to get to the point, because I don't really want to run on and on and...

 

[ptolemy18]

From a practical standpoint, I'm guessing this means that 1st level 4E characters are comparable to 2nd or 3rd level 3E characters. 1st level 4E characters aren't wimps. They're heroes and adventurers. This is a great idea.

I disagree completely. It's *fun* starting out as a 1st-level stripling, just making your way in the world. Think how how many fantasy novels start out this way. Harry Potter isn't an awesome ass-kicker at the start of the first book, and that's fine.

And obviously if you want to play a "hero" character, then -- DUH! -- just start play at a higher level! If it means incorporating this option into the 4.0 Player's Handbook and devoting a few pages to it ("Heroic Option: Start out as a 4th level Character", "Epic Option: Start out as a 13th Level Character"), then that's fine. In all of the D&D3.0/3.5 campaigns I've played, people would invariably die along the way and then have to start new characters at the approximate level of the other characters. THIS is when you "play a hero right from the start." And that can be tons of fun. I played a D&D3.0/3.5 campaign which lasted six years, and in the process I made a 1st level character, a 2nd level character, a 5th level, 7th level, 9th level, and 13th level. The 1st level character was a brave but inexperienced hero. The other characters were, to varying degrees, established heroes. So what's wrong with that?

IMHO, the only reason to want 1st level characters to be heroes is if you're impatient. If you prefer to start with a heroic character, start your campaign with higher-level characters... it's not like there's some Central Role-Playing Authority which is going to say "You're cheating because you didn't start at 1st level."

 

[ptolemy18]

I'd point out that WotC does a LOT of market research when they do this sort of thing. If they're making it so it's harder for low level characters to get killed, you might want to consider the idea that it's because a lot of people have told them they didnt like this. It might not be more fun for your particular tastes, but they cant cater to every individual person. They'll go with what the more numerous market wants.

Yeah, but I can still complain about it on the Internet. (And they can still ignore me, of course...)

Now that I think about it, when I was first starting out as a gamer at the age of 6 years old, my DM -- some teenage guy -- obviously fudged the dice to keep me and my friend from dying. If I hadn't beaten that Minotaur as a 1st-level fighter, who knows, maybe I would have gotten ticked off and not had a good time and never wanted to play D&D again. (Quite likely, in fact.) But this is because my DM was smart enough to tailor the game for a temperamental 6-year-old... it doesn't mean that Wizards should tailor the game for them.

 

[airwalkrr]

So does that mean we may get more than 4x the normal amount of skill points at first level?

Rather, I think it means they are expanding that kind of mentality to include hp, like in SWSE, where each class gets triple maximum HD at 1st level. They also get "defense bonuses" based on class, which is functionally similar to bonuses to saving throws and AC.

 

[ptolemy18]

1st-level PCs in 3.5 were ALREADY pretty tough compared to the warriors and commoners around them. Max HP, elite ability score array, better equipment, and better classes. These make a HUGE difference.

Totally. I completely agree. And if one lucky critical hit can still kill your character... well, life sucks, luck is always a factor in RPGs, and maybe the DM should have made sure the NPCs didn't have weapons with a x3 crit modifier. A 10-point death buffer (from zero to -10 hit points) is already a big help at 1st level.

What can I say, y'all -- I'm an experienced gamer, I'm used to the idea that my character might die at any time. As long as the DM is tough but fair and doesn't act like a jerk about it (rubbing it in, or having the NPCs do something sadistic and humiliating to my character, or acting like I'm stupid because I made some bad decision or didn't max out my character enough -- there really are awful DMs like that!) and doesn't show favoritism towards one of the players over the others, then I generally don't mind dying in RPGs. But if you're a newbie who hasn't played that many RPGs, then obviously you want to win.

However: in the long term, this is a bad thing, and I think newbies should eventually get used to the idea of losing their characters. Otherwise they're just sore losers. For me, the turning point was when I switched from D&D to Call of Cthulhu. I've sinced switched back to D&D, but ever since then, I've been MUCH more agreeable to the idea of deadly, cutthroat campaigns.

Jason