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

[Zaruthustran]

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?

You would have to move straight on to bugbears without going up the humanoid hierarchy.

Easy, and already mentioned: they're upping the number of creatures per encounter. The default encounter is 4 PCs vs. 4 monsters. In the case of little monsters, it's probably more like 4 PCs vs 6 or 8 monsters.

Heroic fantasy. Heroes hewing hordes. Not a group of six guys beating up on a single (size large) foe.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

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 if a new player picks up the PHB, he is not going to think "Oh, 1st level - that sucks, I'll start at 3rd, obviously, since that's where you start to approach the sweet spot."

He's going to start at 1st, and if 1st is not entertaining, there's a good chance he won't play till 2nd (possibly multiple sessions to get that far) or 3rd (definitely multiple sessions to get that far).

 

[Slife]

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.

There's a trick to playing a first level wizard. Sell your spellbook and buy a horde of guard dogs. Hide behind a tower shield and sic them on your enemies.

It's not a very nice trick, but it is effective

 

[Doug McCrae]

Easy, and already mentioned: they're upping the number of creatures per encounter. The default encounter is 4 PCs vs. 4 monsters. In the case of little monsters, it's probably more like 4 PCs vs 6 or 8 monsters.

Heroic fantasy. Heroes hewing hordes. Not a group of six guys beating up on a single (size large) foe.

What's to stop the PCs going to a choke point? Assuming a 10 foot wide corridor, only two goblins at a time will be able to attack.

 

[Grog]

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

I agree that a 1st level fighter is better than a 1st level warrior. But not "head-and-shoulders" better. With a little luck, the 1st level warrior could beat the 1st level fighter in a fight. He couldn't do the same to, say, a 4th level fighter. That's where the "head-and-shoulders" comparison begins to become valid, IMO.

So this raises the question of why would a small town send a standard party of four adventurers (fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard) to deal with a goblin threat when a patrol of six or eight town guardsmen (1st level warriors) could handle it just as well, if not better?

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

I was giving the Expert max HP, since he's a PC. But regardless, "Cast two spells and then play an Expert for the rest of the adventure" isn't really my idea of fun.

 

[Grog]

What's to stop the PCs going to a choke point? Assuming a 10 foot wide corridor, only two goblins at a time will be able to attack.

The fact that choke points won't always be available? But if there is one available, and the PCs use it, they should receive a benefit for using sound tactics.

Also, for small creatures which fight in mobs, they may not be bound by the one-creature-per-5'-square rule. Anything is possible.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I was giving the Expert max HP, since he's a PC. But regardless, "Cast two spells and then play an Expert for the rest of the adventure" isn't really my idea of fun.

See, I started out in Basic/Expert. And then, at low levels, it was not "First cast your spells and then be useless," but rather "Conserve your magic and be ready to cast your auto-win spell [Sleep] when it's really needed, but otherwise just hang back and act smart. Maybe throw some daggers -- your hit rolls are just as good as the fighter's." Magic-user as a class involved a certain cautious, judicious approach.

 

[Eric Tolle]

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. A 1st-level fighter with 12 hp can withstand two ordinary hits from a longsword, or three shortbow arrows, and keep fighting. He can take any non-critical hit from a raging orc barbarian's greataxe (1d12+9 or so) and still live.

These sorts of statements have always bugged me a bit, because they're always made using fighters as the example. The wonderful toughness of 1st. level characters isn't so apparent if one is playing a 1st. level Bard, Rogue, Mage or Sorcerer. Unless one maxes out Constitution, those are characters who DO stand a pretty good chance of being a one-shot kill at first level: "Ooops, that arrow did 6 points, you're down"; "That pit did 4 points- you're dying"; "The Orc hits the mage and does- ah hell, never mind. Just tear up your sheet".

Frankly, I'd rather play rogues and mages who don't have to be dwarves and gnomes, have Con as their second highest stat, or take Toughness, just to stay alive at 1st. level.

 

[Grog]

See, I started out in Basic/Expert. And then, at low levels, it was not "First cast your spells and then be useless," but rather "Conserve your magic and be ready to cast your auto-win spell [Sleep] when it's really needed, but otherwise just hang back and act smart. Maybe throw some daggers -- your hit rolls are just as good as the fighter's." Magic-user as a class involved a certain cautious, judicious approach.

See, I don't think first level wizards (or magic-users) have ever been fun to play, in any edition of D&D. Sure, in 1st edition AD&D, or Basic/Expert, Sleep was basically an auto-win spell (against many types of creatures), but outside of the one fight where you used it, you were basically useless (throwing daggers for 1d4 damage a shot just didn't cut it).

But in 3rd edition, you don't even have the auto-win spell anymore. Sleep sucks in 3.5 - it allows a saving throw to avoid the effect, AND it only affects 4 HD of creatures, AND it has a full-round casting time. So instead of playing a crappy character except for one fight where you rule the battlefield, you're playing a crappy character except for one or two fights where you might have a chance to rule the battlefield - but then again, you might end up accomplishing absolutely nothing except to make yourself a target.

I don't think that's very much fun. If 4E is going to move away from that, I'm all for it.

 

[Christian]

I'm not 100% sure, but I think I recall James saying that NPC classes are gone.

Ooh! I think I found my first 4th Edition house rule!