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

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yes, but I said "starting out weak *and getting strong*." In GURPS Fantasy, or Rolemaster, the rate of advancement is so slow and granular that you're essentially a normal human throughout the entire game, albeit possibly a normal human who's an expert swordsman. It's only in D&D that you start out kinda "slightly above average" and then by 13th level you're teleporting around and laying waste to entire cities. And so you get your choice of low and high fantasy in one game! It's a D&D standby!

Jason

So, increase the rate of reward. Problem solved. If your GURPS fantasy characters get 10-20 character points per session, they'll be superheroes before long.

 

[ptolemy18]

In the old Dying Earth, I don't recall too many of the heroes, including the meanest of the rogues, Cudgel, getting eaten. Nor do I recall the Twain ever getting eaten.

The threat of death on the other hand? Yeah, solidly there.

True, Cugel himself doesn't get eaten. But what I mean is, he is a distinctly "low level" type of character. He just pretty much spends the whole series narrowly escaping from things by the skin of his teeth.

Now in Clark Ashton Smith's sword-and-sorcery stories, on the other hand, practically EVERY story ends with most of the characters dying in horrible ways... which may in the long run have been a bad deal for Smith's fame since he doesn't have any "archetypal heroes" like Leiber, etc. What can I say, I always loved Call of Cthulhu too!

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

So, increase the rate of reward. Problem solved. If your GURPS fantasy characters get 10-20 character points per session, they'll be superheroes before long.

Heh. I guess you've caught me. I do prefer the low-fantasy aspect, and what I'm really saying is that I prefer D&D to have the "weak character/low fantasy" option intact. In the existing rules, this is pretty much what it's like for the first 4 or 5 levels. Then it gradually transforms into increasingly high fantasy as the characters get stronger.

I like this combination since, if I'm plotting a campaign, I can say "Hmm... do I want this campaign to be primarily in low-fantasy fighting-the-tavern-brawlers mode, or do I want it to be primarily in high-fantasy teleporting-to-the-wizard's-fortress mode?"

When the designers of 4e were talking about the "sweet spot" of levels 4-14, I understand what they're talking about. The game *is* fun at those levels. But there's also cool roleplay options at levels 1-3 and levels 15+. I don't want them to buff up the low-level characters so much that you can't run a low-fantasy game in D&D, and I don't want them to nerf the high-level characters (in other threads I'm hearing people say stuff like "No teleport", "No polymorph", "No flying"!?!?) so much that you can't run a really high-fantasy game in D&D.

And thas' pretty much what I'm talkin' about... I don't want the diversity of the game to be watered down by excessive concern for "balance".

Jason

 

[pemerton]

No, but he IS a hero already. He has inordinate ability to pick things up, he's unaccountably lucky, and things just seem to work out in his favor whenever it isn't dramatically necessary for them to suck.

<snip>

I suspect those 1st level heroic classes will have maneuvers, a few more hit points, and probably better defenses than 1st level NPCs. This models "the ability to pick things up" and "unaccountably lucky" very well.

I actually don't think that D&D - even with more manoeuvres and hit points - models these things all that well. "Unaccountable luck" and an "inordinate ability to pick things up" are, in the context of a novel, authorial fiat - the author confers benefits on the character that the characters own skill would not normally garner in the ordinary course of events.

To model this, an RPG needs a mechanic which allows PCs to garner benefits beyond what their skills - as modelled by their attributes, skill bonuses etc - would allow them in the ordinary course of events. The most obvious such mechanic is that of metagame Fate Points, which allow the [/i]player[/i] to intervene on behalf of his or her character and change the results of a roll.

In the past, D&D designers have always seemed hesitant to introduce pure metagame mechanics. Even XP have always fudged between the more plausible metagame explanation, and an attempt to link it to such in-game processes as training (even the name, "experience points", demonstrates this fudge - "advancement points" would be more accurate).

There is some evidence that the 4e designers are more willing to treat mechanics in a purely metagame way, such as the different build rules for monsters/NPCs and PCs (which therefore have to be interpreted in a purely metagame fashion, because they clearly no longer are intended to model the in-game process of character learning and development). I don't know whether they will introduce a core Fate Point mechanic that is purely metagame. If they did, this would fit within D&D's resource management paradigm, while also allowing PCs to be the "chosen ones" of the gameworld without vitiating in-game reality.

 

[pemerton]

In GURPS Fantasy, or Rolemaster, the rate of advancement is so slow and granular that you're essentially a normal human throughout the entire game, albeit possibly a normal human who's an expert swordsman. It's only in D&D that you start out kinda "slightly above average" and then by 13th level you're teleporting around and laying waste to entire cities.

In my experience playing RM, a 1st level RM character is about as effective as a 3rd level D&D character, and by 20th level is probably about as effective as a 12th to 15th level D&D character.

I haven't played HARP, but having looked closely at its rules I suspect the same is broadly true for non-spell users, but spell users are probably quite a bit weaker than in both D&D and RM.

Maybe I've just been used to the D&D wizard for so long this sort of thing never bothers me. I always accepted them as a class which starts sort of weak (the operative word being "sort of" -- a well-used spell, plus familiar powers, can be a lot more effective than any number of fighting abilities, particularly in an out of combat, "surprise! I am a spellcaster!" fashion) and then gets progressively more awesome until at high levels they completely rule.

<snip>

Spellcasters are characters who require resource management and planning. In my last 8 years of playing D&D3.0, 9 out of 10 of my characters were spellcasters (4 arcane, 5 divine), so I don't see why some people find them so hard to play...

A while ago Monte Cook posted an account of how 3E had tried to move away from this model of the wizard. He also made comments about how he would further develop this trend, and it seems that 4e is probably taking things in this direction.

 

[Mouseferatu]

In the past, D&D designers have always seemed hesitant to introduce pure metagame mechanics.

Not so much. Action points exist as an option in Unearthed Arcana, and as an assumed and core conceit of characters in the Eberron setting.

 

[hong]

Not so much. Action points exist as an option in Unearthed Arcana, and as an assumed and core conceit of characters in the Eberron setting.

However, those APs are very, very weak compared to other hero/fate point systems that people have created. Adding +2 or +4 to a roll doesn't compare to +20 to the roll, or automatically succeeding on a save, or negating a character death, etc.

If they came up with a strong fate point system, I would love all the designers with all of my body including my pee-pee. It would be even better if they explicitly said that the quantity of fate points available was a variable setting, because such a system is an extremely powerful way to set the tone of the campaign. Gr*m 'n gr*tty, with PCs who can die to a lone orc with a greataxe? Use no fate points at all. Moderately badass PCs, who still have to tread carefully when instakills are being flung around? 1-2 fate points. Super-badass PCs, or those with destinies they must meet? 5-6 fate points. Etc.

 

[pemerton]

In addition to Hong's points, I would note that (at least as I understand it) there is an ambiguity in Eberron as to whether Action Points are in-game or metagame. For example, there is an Adventurer PrC which gets bonus APs, and from memory a feat which gives bonus APs (though I could be confusing this with Arcana Uneartherd, which suffers from the same ambiguity in its Hero Point system).

If APs are the sort of thing that can be purchased with a PrC selection or a feat slot, then one of three interpretations follows:

*Class selection and feat development are themselves purely metagame.

*APs are not purely metagame, but are the sort of thing (a knack, an instinct or perhaps a blessing) that can a person can acquire through training.

*D&D is confused as to the relationship between its metagame mechanics and its in-game simulation mechanics.

I suspect that either the second or the third of these is right. I rule out the first possibility because, at least in the past, I don't think it is what D&D has intended - class and feat acquisition are meant to model in-game process of learning and development.

This is why I suggested that, in the past, D&D designers have always seemed hesitant to introduce pure metagame mechanics.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I actually don't think that D&D - even with more manoeuvres and hit points - models these things all that well. "Unaccountable luck" and an "inordinate ability to pick things up" are, in the context of a novel, authorial fiat - the author confers benefits on the character that the characters own skill would not normally garner in the ordinary course of events.

That's one way to do it. But I explicitly meant that having higher saves/defenses LITERALLY means you are luckier than the other 1st level bums. Mathematically, you will survive more attacks that should have killed/disabled you. That's lucky.

As for "picking things up"... I bet NPCs aren't going to have anywhere near the number of combat maneuvers or special abilities that PCs get (barring some special foes like Dragons). A 1st level PC might not have large amounts of formal training, even compared to the lowly town guard, but has "picked up" some special skills, and will continue to pick such up at an accelerated rate.

This latter bit has already been somewhat the case with PC classes vs NPC classes in 3.x, of course, but it usually amounts to little in any given combat unless you're a Fighter or Ranger, IME.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

That's why adventures for 1st-level PCs shouldn't involve locals specifically seeking them out for help.
Module B1, Into the Unknown: the PCs are just dungeon-delvers out to make a name for themselves, not beholden to anyone
Module B2, Keep on the Borderlands: very similar

The same problem applies, you know.

If every Tom, Dick, and Harry in town is as capable as the PCs at delving that dungeon, why the heck is it still there with all its loot intact?