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

[JoeGKushner]

Is there something wrong with the idea that characters can.....die.....in an adventure game? I mean, it's being brought up like there should be no risk. I don't think that's much fun, myself.

Banshee

No problem at all.

They just shouldn't die, in my opinion, from a lucky hit, from a house cat, or from falling ten feet.

We have Warhammer for that sorta game. Or if you like flipping charts, Rolemaster.

 

[Delta]

This change is a non-starter for me.

I wonder, will they keep the "massive damage" rule? Because that was instituted in 2E when some people felt that PCs were already unrealistically hard to kill. I know that one thing my own players demanded (criticizing that one sword thrust should always be able to kill a person) is to use the 3.0 DMG "Variant: Instant Kill" rule.

Maybe it's just that people want that stuff applied to NPCs and have PCs be immune to it, I guess. Seems wierd to me -- I don't know why they don't just recommend that experienced players start at 3rd level, and use 1st level as a very simple training ground for new players.

 

[FireLance]

I'd go the exact opposite route. If I just came into a new game and we're attacked by an equal number of short uglies with sticks and we have to run like hell or die, I'm not coming back to play the next time.

RPGs are about fun, that's not fun to me. Nor any gamer I know. As stated before, that adds playable levels to my games as well. Skipping over the embarrassing early levels has become essentially a house rule with our group.

No one wants to get their ass handed to them by goblins. That's the definition of not fun.

For what it's worth, it's not my definition of fun, either. But, from experience, it is possible to set up challenges for low-level characters that are beatable even with slightly sub-optimal tactics.

Like I said, I would like it to be an option for newer players because it allows them to get a feel for the system, and any mistakes that their characters make can be easily explained by actual inexperience.

 

[Stalker0]

Personally I hate 1st level. But...

To me, if you don't want the fragility of 1st level, then why not start at a higher level? Start at 2nd, start at 3rd, and go from there. Why take away that frail gritty 1st level for the groups that really like that kind of thing? Its easy for the rest of us to just raise that initial level on our character sheets, but its harder for those groups to re engineer rules to create their desired game.

 

[frankthedm]

In the saturday 4E seminar James pointed out that in the new edition, even first level D&D characters are Heroes. Right out the gate, they are head and shoulders above the local populace. This is no longer a game where your first level character can be dropped by a single hit from a peasant's club.

Sounds like starting HP=CON.

 

[delericho]

in the new edition, even first level D&D characters are Heroes. Right out the gate, they are head and shoulders above the local populace. This is no longer a game where your first level character can be dropped by a single hit from a peasant's club.

This is a great idea. It solves a couple "metagame" issues...

On the other hand, it makes it impossible to run the campaign where the PCs start off as wet-behind-the-ears proto-heroes. Whereas in previous editions it was trivially easy to avoid the 1st level 'problem' by simply starting at a higher level.

 

[Maggan]

On the other hand, it makes it impossible to run the campaign where the PCs start off as wet-behind-the-ears proto-heroes. Whereas in previous editions it was trivially easy to avoid the 1st level 'problem' by simply starting at a higher level.

Nah. Just pare down the starting abilities and create a "level 0". That'll take care of that problem easily enough.

/M

 

[Renfield]

I'd go the exact opposite route. If I just came into a new game and we're attacked by an equal number of short uglies with sticks and we have to run like hell or die, I'm not coming back to play the next time.

No one wants to get their ass handed to them by goblins. That's the definition of not fun.

Wow, what do your players use for stat building? 3d6 or the point buy system with 16 points? I just have a hard time imagining 4 1st level players up against 4 1st level goblins in 3rd edition and it coming out with the players on bottom... unless they get caught by surprise and out of armor or something...

Either way 1st level PC's are typically a cut above the others. Do you know what insane level an NPC fighter hast to be (when using standard DM Guide rules) to have a +1 longsword? 7th level. For a group that's used to getting that by about 4th or 5th that's laughable.

Honestly, 3E isn't so horrible that four gobbos can send 4 1st level PC's running. If it is maybe they should get a copy of this: http://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Drag...9833646?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187771258&sr=8-1
and see if things work out.

 

[Renfield]

Well, I don't care much for it but my group will likely stick with 3E until we're sure Wizards won't spring another .5 revisement on us and sap our wallets again. I, as a DM, much prefer a campaign starting with PC's a bit wet behind the ears however I've started games with them at 5th level as well, I like the earlier levels because I don't have to plan so much for the interesting builds they can sometimes spring on me so much as they haven't aquired them yet.

Ah well.

 

[Baumi]

The main Problem in 3.x is that you are quite heroic at first level, but still can die from one lucky hit (or normal hit if you are a wizard).

Saga Edition did overcome that with a very easy rule ... it just gave 3xmax HP (+1xCon bonus) at first level and the death rule changed (stops at 0HP but you are most of the time just unconcious).