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

[The Souljourner]

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.

This just gave me a really obtuse thought - what if we took that statement literally?

In 4e, you start with 4 hitdice, fighter types start with 4 BAB, cleric types with 3, and wizard types with 2. You gain a new hitdie at every level divisible by 3, for a total of 14 hit dice at level 30. Special abilities are re-envisioned and distributed around the new 30 levels as deemed appropriate.

I know it won't be like that, but it's an interesting idea nonetheless.

-Nate

 

[Zaruthustran]

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

I think the point is that it's more fun. It's more fun to throw four orcs against four 1st level characters, and at the end of the fight the adventurers are still able to continue. In 3e, such a fight would tap 50% of the party's resources. It's a certainty that at least one would be KOd, and a good chance (if a wizard is hit) that one or more would be dead.

4E is a new game, with new assumptions for encounters. The default encounter is supposed to be an even match in terms of numbers of opponents (4 pcs vs. 4 monsters), but those encounters are supposed to be quicker & easier to run--and there are supposed to be many more such encounters per day.

Fundamentally, games are wish fulfillment. Seems like this change makes it more likely that players will be able to fulfill their wish to be heroes. And less likely for the first game of a new player to be "Okay bob, the orcs won initiative. They go first. This orc charges you. Crit. Oops--you're dead. Make a new character."

 

[delericho]

For me, this issue comes down to two questions. First, who wants to play the wet-behind-the-ears proto-hero, the novice gamers (getting their first taste of D&D) or the veteran gamers who enjoy the challenge of bringing their character up from lowly beginnings? Second, should level 1 cater to the novice gamer or the veteran gamer?

That is a very good point. I agree entirely. Now, if Wizards would just publish the 'real' levels 1 and 2 in the PHB2, that would be ideal...

 

[mmadsen]

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.

We can also debate the inverse question: Should heroic characters be first level? My answer to that question is no. (Actually, it's a qualified no...)

If you feel that characters should start off more competent, why not simply start them off at a higher level? Perhaps typical brigands are first-level fighters and rogues, but our heroic PCs are third or fourth level?

I think the real issue, which Traycor just hinted at, is that characters' various capabilities progress in odd ways that don't match our expectations. A first-level fighter is declared to be a knight, trained from birth to fight, or an elf archer with decades of practice, and he knows how to use dozens of weapons, but his base attack bonus is +1.

Part of this competence issue is solved by starting such characters at a higher level, but then the characters are too good at some things and not good enough at others. I don't want my elf to be bulletproof (high hit points) so much as I want him to hit his target (high BAB). Similarly, I don't necessarily want my hobbit burglar to be a ninja assassin, but I do want him to be sneaky and unobtrusive.

 

[Mouseferatu]

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.

Not quite accurate, as I interpreted it. Andy said that they're trying to increase the "sweet spot," so in that respect, they're trying to spread out some of the attributes of the mid levels.

But he never said the power level was the same as 3E 4-14. I can all but guarantee that a 30th-level 4E character is a lot more potent than a 14th-level 3E one.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

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....

Really? 1st-level human warrior uses the "non-elite array" for stats, so that's a 13 Con AT MOST. He has "average" HP per HD, so 4 (see the Orc warrior in the MM), maybe +1 for Con, so 5. The fighter has a better stat array and maximum HP for his first HD. Typically 12 HP or so -- 2.4 times as many. The fighter has better attack rolls, saving throws, AC, and gear. Stat them out and compare them. You'll see the fighter is WAY better. He'll typically drop a warrior with every hit, whereas the warrior would take 3 hits on average to bring the fighter down, AND the fighter will hit more often.

And the wizard, as I've said many times, is not just about his spells but about his knowledge. If your DM isn't letting those Spellcraft and Knowledge checks help overcome problems, then he's shortchanging you on a POWERFUL class ability and a major element of the wizard's role in folklore.

 

[Grog]

Really? 1st-level human warrior uses the "non-elite array" for stats, so that's a 13 Con AT MOST. He has "average" HP per HD, so 4 (see the Orc warrior in the MM), maybe +1 for Con, so 5. The fighter has a better stat array and maximum HP for his first HD. Typically 12 HP or so -- 2.4 times as many. The fighter has better attack rolls, saving throws, AC, and gear. Stat them out and compare them. You'll see the fighter is WAY better. He'll typically drop a warrior with every hit, whereas the warrior would take 3 hits on average to bring the fighter down, AND the fighter will hit more often.

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.

And the wizard, as I've said many times, is not just about his spells but about his knowledge. If your DM isn't letting those Spellcraft and Knowledge checks help overcome problems, then he's shortchanging you on a POWERFUL class ability and a major element of the wizard's role in folklore.

Okay, so after you cast your two 1st level spells, instead of being a Commoner, you're an Expert. Woo hoo!

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

 

[Grog]

If you feel that characters should start off more competent, why not simply start them off at a higher level? Perhaps typical brigands are first-level fighters and rogues, but our heroic PCs are third or fourth level?

Again - because then I would have to send them up against tougher monsters. Suppose I want the PCs first adventure to be versus goblins rather than ogres. That's going to be awfully boring if I have them make 3rd level characters. But if the system is designed from the ground up to give 1st level characters a more heroic "feel," while still allowing me to use goblins (or whatever else I might want to use) as enemies, I won't have that problem.

I think the real issue, which Traycor just hinted at, is that characters' various capabilities progress in odd ways that don't match our expectations. A first-level fighter is declared to be a knight, trained from birth to fight, or an elf archer with decades of practice, and he knows how to use dozens of weapons, but his base attack bonus is +1.

Part of this competence issue is solved by starting such characters at a higher level, but then the characters are too good at some things and not good enough at others. I don't want my elf to be bulletproof (high hit points) so much as I want him to hit his target (high BAB). Similarly, I don't necessarily want my hobbit burglar to be a ninja assassin, but I do want him to be sneaky and unobtrusive.

For me, it's not so much about mechanics as it is about flavor. I don't want PCs who are fragile and barely competent. I want the heroic flavor, even at 1st level.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

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

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.