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

[Grog]

In 3E, starting PCs are head and shoulders above the local populace. 85% of them are 1st-level commoners.

Once a 1st level wizard casts his two spells, what makes him better than a 1st level commoner? The fact that he has a library card?

 

[mmadsen]

Again - because then I would have to send them up against tougher monsters.

You sincerely believe that it would be wrong to send goblins against a party of third-level "starting" characters, but it wouldn't be wrong to send goblins against a party of "1st-level" characters who have had their power boosted to the same level as third-level characters?

I want the heroic flavor, even at 1st level.

"These go to 11."

 

[Doug McCrae]

Once a 1st level wizard casts his two spells, what makes him better than a 1st level commoner? The fact that he has a library card?

Cantrips.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I think there is room inbetween "dies to a housecat and CERTAINLY dies to any single lucky roll of a cannon-fodder orc" and "ZOMG starts at 4th level!"

Riddle me this.... perhaps the 1st level fighter has more hitpoints and 2-3 viable maneuvers. This is quite a bit more powerful than a current 1st level fighter, IF all you're doing is comparing them to each other on paper. But they are facing foes that work under entirely different design principles. Maybe goblins are now swarming enemies meant to be encountered in very large groups so that larger hitpoint pool gets eaten away bit by bit even as you use your neat maneuvers to plow down a few a round (result: more heroic looking and feeling without that fighter being ZOMG overpowered). What if the kobolds and goblins and such are ALSO "more powerful' such that the commoner NPCs actually ARE in danger from them relative to the heroic class PCs? (In the current system, that level 2 warrior head of the town guard is probably better suited to taking them on than most 1st level PCs)

They're apparently changing the entire system, and everyone is making comparisons as if each change is an isolated incident in the EXISTING game. That makes NO sense.

 

[Grog]

You sincerely believe that it would be wrong to send goblins against a party of third-level "starting" characters, but it wouldn't be wrong to send goblins against a party of "1st-level" characters who have had their power boosted to the same level as third-level characters?

I'm just going to C&P what I wrote in a previous response to you, since you apparently didn't read it:

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.

 

[Zaruthustran]

In 3E, starting PCs are head and shoulders above the local populace. 85% of them are 1st-level commoners.

1st level expert has 6 hp and +0 BAB. 1st level Rogue (a PC) has 6hp and a +0 BAB.

That's not head and shoulders, man.

I like the idea that, as a PC (even a 1st level PC), my character is a Hero. He's not afraid of the local toughs, he can face down a couple goblins with confidence, he's the kind of guy who the commoners can turn to in times of trouble.

 

[mmadsen]

If 4E PCs are starting at the equivalent of 3rd-level (and this may well not be the case) how can they be challenged by the classic 'starter' monsters - kobolds, goblins and orcs?

Well, if those "starter" monsters are also first-level, then they're just as tough, since first-level is now as powerful as third-level used to be -- which leaves us in a bit of a bind if we want something as strong as first-level used to be.

But it doesn't look like monsters will be using the same rules as PCs, which is a bit of a shame.

Anyway, nothing says a party of four PCs must meet goblins in groups of four.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

My bad, I was giving the warrior max HP for 1st level too. Still, except for hit points, there's not much difference between the fighter and the warrior. The fighter will have +1 or +2 better to hit than the warrior because of Strength and maybe Weapon Focus (with the bonus feat), but that's it. And as for gear, the difference between studded leather and a chain shirt is only one point of AC. Hardly a huge difference.

The Fighter has AC that's 2 points better (one from armor, one from Dex), attack rolls that are 2 points better (one from Str, one from WF), damage that is about 1 point better, saves that are about 1 better across the board, an additional maxed-out skill, and 2.4 times as many hp. What's two points of AC (a 17 vs. a 15)? You'll get hit by the MM hobgoblin only 75% as often (30% of the time vs. 40%). What's two points of attack bonus (+4 vs. +2)? You'll hit that hobgoblin about 25% more often (50% of the time vs. 40%). Those hit points? You can take 3 hits on average before going down, not 1.

These benefits -- +2 AC, +2 to hit, +1 damage, +1 saves, +7 hp -- really add up in an actual low-level game.

Except if you were playing an Expert, you'd have more hit points.

No, you wouldn't. Expert starts with "low-average" on 1d6, which is 3. Wizard starts with 4.

 

[Grog]

Cantrips.

I don't think most bandits exactly quake in terror at the mention of Rays of Frost.

 

[Grog]

I think there is room inbetween "dies to a housecat and CERTAINLY dies to any single lucky roll of a cannon-fodder orc" and "ZOMG starts at 4th level!"

Riddle me this.... perhaps the 1st level fighter has more hitpoints and 2-3 viable maneuvers. This is quite a bit more powerful than a current 1st level fighter, IF all you're doing is comparing them to each other on paper. But they are facing foes that work under entirely different design principles. Maybe goblins are now swarming enemies meant to be encountered in very large groups so that larger hitpoint pool gets eaten away bit by bit even as you use your neat maneuvers to plow down a few a round (result: more heroic looking and feeling without that fighter being ZOMG overpowered). What if the kobolds and goblins and such are ALSO "more powerful' such that the commoner NPCs actually ARE in danger from them relative to the heroic class PCs? (In the current system, that level 2 warrior head of the town guard is probably better suited to taking them on than most 1st level PCs)

They're apparently changing the entire system, and everyone is making comparisons as if each change is an isolated incident in the EXISTING game. That makes NO sense.

Q-F-Everloving-T.

For another example of the futility of comparing characters between editions, try comparing a 15th level 1st edition fighter to a 15th level 3rd edition fighter. The 3rd edition fighter will look vastly more powerful - but in terms of actual play, when you compare each to the foes they're likely to face, the difference isn't nearly so huge.