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

[Alaric_Prympax]

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.

That was my experience too. It's how you play with what you have is what always made it a fun challenge for me to play the 1st level magic-user in my party. I never had a problem with my 3e wizard using a crossbow either, but that might just be me.

Also it depends on how the DM handles/rewards the party, to compensate low level magic-uses and their lack of spells there is always that scroll with 2 to 3 first level spells or that Wand of... that no one else in the party can use after that 1st encounter. Or a very generous DM could start a 1st level magic-user with something. I had a dagger that had the ability to Detect Magic 3/day, for a low level party that was very usefull. Another example is that in a party I DMed the magic-user did not start out with Magic Missle, his offensive 1st level spell was Shocking Grasp, he went by the name of Blitzkrieg so before he reached 2nd level I gave him a Ring of Shocking Grasp 3 or 4/day, I don't remember, it was 22 years ago. Magic-users are more then just the spells they cast, just like fighters are more then just the weapons they wield (they're also good door openers, benders of bars or lifter of gates especially when the thief... uh... rogue couldn't pick the lock).

 

[Brother MacLaren]

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).

It was almost as good as using a bow (a flat 1d6 damage), and your hit rolls were as good as a fighter's through level 3. The gameplay style I recall had low-level wizards' players NOT being focused on dealing damage every round of every combat -- they knew they were the big guns held in reserve. Saying "I'm holding back and keeping an eye out for anybody sneaking up from behind" actually WAS doing something useful -- adventures would say things like "If nobody is watching the corridor, the goblins attack with +2 to hit for surprise". It may have helped that combat didn't seem to take as long.

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.

And to make up for it, you got more spells per day (including cantrips -- Daze is not a useless spell), a better crowd-killer spell with no HD cap (Color Spray), access to many more weapons including powerful crossbows, more hit points (if you take the toad familiar), and vastly expanded versatility and staying power with the Scribe Scroll feat, which was meant to be Standard Operating Procedure for wizards even at 1st level in 3E.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In no particular order:

1) Perhaps the 4ed 1st level has not just the 4 levels worth of skill points, but also the HP and feats? (Note to self...that may just become my next 3.X HR.)

2) Character background generation can be a stumbling point for a lot of players. It hasn't been a problem for me too much, but I still value my TFG Central Casting books, and I loved the Traveller system, even though my very first Traveller PC died during creation. If the game has something like that, it could be very handy for new players, players with writer's block, generating NPCs on the fly, and so forth.

 

[Aloïsius]

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.

"after casting your two 1st level spells". Like sleep or color spray ? And you still have a few 0 level spells, like disrupt undead, ray of frost, that are touch attack spells. And I see nothing wrong with using a crosbow or a staff (while fighting defensivy of course). The 2e 1st level wizard was a disaster, the 3e one, I'm fine with. And there is no doubt that he is more powerful than a commoner or an expert.

 

[Thurbane]

Flavorwise, I really like the feel of starting of as a (relatively) lowly apprentice or journeyman, slowly growing in power, ability and influence as you level up.

I'm just starting a new campaign as a 1st level evoker, and I'm genuinely excited at the prospect.

I just hope 4E still allows for this kind of "seat of your pants" gaming at lower levels, and doesn't turn into an "arms race" where characters start off more powerful, and so do the monsters...

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

I think something we all have to remember is that a major design decision for this edition is to make it very easy for new players to pick up and enjoy the game. What level are new players likely to assume that they start play at (even if it's recommended they start at 3rd)? At 1st level, of course. Easier to make 1st level idiotproof than to try to stream the newbies into playing higher-level characters, which would require them to advance their characters twice before they even begin play, and which may seem like a weird waste of time that emphasizes the bookkeeping aspects of the game.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Actually, the default party size is now 5. So it's 5 PCs vs. 5 monsters.

 

[DonTadow]

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

NO, make the threat a threat.

I ran an adventure a month ago, 2nd level, and the pcs had to stop this goblin bandit gang. I chuckled a bit because there were enough npcs at low level npc levels who could have taken out the main leader. Why not make a goblin band really dangerious.

 

[mmadsen]

What level are new players likely to assume that they start play at (even if it's recommended they start at 3rd)? At 1st level, of course.

I'm pretty sure that if the game says characters start at third level, and it provides sample starting characters who are third level, that players will start their characters at third level.

 

[Celebrim]

*sigh*

I remember my first 1st level character back in Basic D&D. He seemed pretty cool to me. Granted I was only eight, but still.

The power creep continues, and once you reset the power level of a 1st level character to a higher level, then once again all the very same arguments which are now being raised for doing so will still apply after the change. I said that after 3rd, and I said that after 3.5, and its - quite obviously - still true, and will continue to be still true.

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.

Actually, in terms of actual play, the relative power of a 15th level 1st edition fighter was roughly that of a 20th or 25th level fighter in 3rd edition. Likewise, a 1st edition 1st level fighter was relatively more powerful than his 3rd edition counterpart. So for all the creep in absolute power, the actual 'heroicness' of D&D characters is declining.

There might be some good reasons for doing that, but none of them will have anything to do with making 1st level characters more heroic.