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

[Grog]

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.

To me, this is more of a flavor thing. Why would a village send a group of four 1st level PCs to go deal with a nearby goblin tribe when a group of six or so guardsmen would do just as well (probably better)? If 1st level PCs are noticeably better than the village guard, it would make sense for people to turn to them with their problems.

Plus, anything that takes the crappiness out of playing a 1st level arcane spellcaster is good in my book. A 1st level fighter plays just fine. A 1st level wizard? Not so much.

 

[mmadsen]

Why would a village send a group of four 1st level PCs to go deal with a nearby goblin tribe when a group of six or so guardsmen would do just as well (probably better)? If 1st level PCs are noticeably better than the village guard, it would make sense for people to turn to them with their problems.

I think you missed his point, Grog. Why not just make starting PCs third level? There's no reason for the seven samurai to roll into town as first-level fighters.

 

[Grog]

1st-level PCs in 3.5 were ALREADY pretty tough compared to the warriors and commoners around them.

Not really. The difference between a 1st level fighter and a 1st level warrior is 2-4 HP and one extra feat. The fighter is better, but only by a smidge.

And a 1st level wizard is actually substantially worse. After you cast your two 1st level spells, you're basically playing a commoner for the rest of the adventure. Fun, fun, fun....

 

[Grog]

I think you missed his point, Grog. Why not just make starting PCs third level? There's no reason for the seven samurai to roll into town as first-level fighters.

Because then they have to start out fighting tougher monsters? If you want your PCs to be fighting goblins when they start out, making them 3rd level is going to make the adventure pretty boring.

Plus, it makes things more complicated for new players.

 

[thulsadoomson]

I think it makes sense that a first level character is already a hero. Thats what sets them apart from a npc with levels in warrior or expert for example. In the campaign I play in, we start our characters at level 0 (actually having 1 level in an npc class) using the rules in Goodman Games Dungeon Crawl Classic campaign world boxset (DCC #35 if my memory serves me). It is actually quite fun to see how the characters start on their road of adventure as mere farmers or townsfolk.

 

[mmadsen]

Because then they have to start out fighting tougher monsters? If you want your PCs to be fighting goblins when they start out, making them 3rd level is going to make the adventure pretty boring.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? How is having third-level characters face goblins any different from having first-level characters, who have been boosted to third-level in power, face goblins?

 

[Shadeydm]

Starting out stronger than an npc does not make anything less dangerious or scary at 1st level if the danger scales. I like the idea. Makes the threat all the more serious for a bunch of wet behind the ears newbies.

If you have to scale the danger in response to scaling the PCs what was the point?

 

[(contact)]

I am told (based on the Q&A seminar) that levels run from 1-30, but they occupy the 3e power curve of lvls 4-14. They just have greater granularity.

My understanding was that in terms of relationship to the game world they'll be analagous to the current power curves (i.e. 1st level for 1st level, 21st for 21st) with 30th level characters doing appropriate epic things, but the game-play experience accross the whole range is looking for that 4-14th level feel.

The idea is that 1st level characters will be a bit hardier, and 21st level monsters won't be as eye-crossingly dense.

 

[Grog]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No, and I don't appreciate the insult, either. Cool it.

How is having third-level characters face goblins any different from having first-level characters, who have been boosted to third-level in power, face goblins?

Because we don't know the mechanics of 4E yet, this comparison is premature. We don't know that "1st level 4E character" = "3rd level 3E character" in terms of power. Maybe the 1st level 4E character will be stronger in some ways, but not in others. Or maybe the goblins will get a power boost, too. Or maybe something else will change. We don't know.

Without knowing the mechanics, the only question we can really debate is the question of "Should 1st level characters already be heroic?" My answer to that question is yes.

 

[Traycor]

This is fantastic news!

In 3E I hated how a first lvl char had the abilities of a hero, but couldn't back it up.

1st Example: lvl 1 fighter is proficient in all martial and simple weapons. That's 30-40 weapons plus training in all types of armor and shields. Does anyone here know someone proficient in 40 different weapons?! I would expect someone like that to rock! Yet... even one bandit (read: commoner with crossbow) can send a lvl 1 fighter wailing in fear.

2nd Example: lvl 1 wizard has spent years (or decades, depending on race) mastering their arts of the arcane. After years of apprenticship and study, this wizard can... um... fire off a magic missle for 2 points of damage that won't even take out the local grandma, much less a raging orc warrior. And after firing off this wonder of arcane power, the wizard wants to go take a nap. Lets not forget that he can only read magic twice a day. Maybe that's why it took years to learn to cast spells? Hmm.... sounds like the lvl 1 elf wizard didn't study hard for all those decades he was mastering his craft.

Bring on the lvl 1 heroes that actually match what they can do!