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

[alaric]

They probably don't want to start default characters at 3rd level because they don't want to start characters with 2 talents, 3 feats, +3 BAB, and +7 to skills. They just want to increase the HP level of first level characters so they don't go down on a lucky shot, so they just increase the HP instead of increasing all the other stats. It's not like it would take a feat of Grandmaster DM'ing to house rule that first level characters don't get the bonus HP, and you're back to 3E feel.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

If not a lucky hit, what should kill them? Does it have to be a BBEG? or a big thug (an ogre for instance)? Or does the BBEG or the thug have to get a lucky hit? Or should it be when the PC is already injured and the BBEG/thug gets a lucky hit? Or should that be a normal hit?

Once you start listing the things that can't kill a PC, you end up in untenable situations really quickly. (Housecats and 10' falls, however, are straw men--house cats provoke AoOs every time they move in to attack in 3.x so even an unaided wizard with a dagger should be able to kill one without using spells (though a strength penalty will make him likely to take a bit of damage). Similarly, the 10 foot fall will rarely kill a character though it might disable one.

No problem at all.

They just shouldn't die, in my opinion, from a lucky hit, from a house cat, or from falling ten feet.

We have Warhammer for that sorta game. Or if you like flipping charts, Rolemaster.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Maybe. And maybe not. That's an adventure design issue that is as easily accomplished in 3.x as it is an any edition to date--and I don't anticipate 4th edition making it any easier (except maybe by making large tough monsters more complex and difficult to run (as per the dragon from the design example which seems to have quite a large number of free or immediate actions as well as a number of continuous damage abilities that have to be checked every round of combat).

3.x can quite easily handle combats of up to 20 combatants or so--more if they are simple (though high level combats with 30+ complex combatants, terrain, and multiple magical effects tend to bog down). I don't see 4th edition making a big difference in that regard.

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.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

Good riddance, say I. If you as a DM want a master blacksmith, just make a master blacksmith. Give him a decent skill mod and be done with it. No need to fiddle with each and every level.

I think there are better ways to do NPC's than 3e's NPC classes.

That said, I still think 3e's NPC classes are better than "Make junk up."

I want a *system* for showing a continuum between what an untrained farmer can do when forced to be a blacksmith, what a PC can do when he takes up smithery, and what the Greatest Blacksmith in the Land can do with a rusty nail and smoldering chunk of charcoal.

"Make junk up" sucks as a system.

 

[Oldtimer]

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.

I started out with OD&D and it was not "cast your spell and be useless". See, the rules said that the number given in the Magic-User spell list was the number of spells of that level that could be used... None of us had read Jack Vance, so the idea if restricting the casting to once per day didn't occur to us.

If your Magic-User had Sleep or Magic Missile, he was casting that spell at every chance he got. Conserving your magic? Huh? Throwing daggers? Nah. Hanging back? No way!

And it was great fun and still very challenging.

Ah, the memories...

 

[Minicol]

This is no longer a game where your first level character can be dropped by a single hit from a peasant's club.

From a practical standpoint, I'm guessing this means that 1st level 4E characters are comparable to 2nd or 3rd level 3E characters. 1st level 4E characters aren't wimps. They're heroes and adventurers.
QUOTE]

IMHO, if true, this is very bad. A first level character is weak, so if even that is way above a peasant, then it is a door open to yet more nonsensical games.

And I like the idea of 1st level beginner heroes, as it makes their progression much more enjoyable.

 

[pemerton]

3e's NPC classes are better than "Make junk up."

I want a *system* for showing a continuum between what an untrained farmer can do when forced to be a blacksmith, what a PC can do when he takes up smithery, and what the Greatest Blacksmith in the Land can do with a rusty nail and smoldering chunk of charcoal.

"Make junk up" sucks as a system.

The mechanic for comparing blacksmith ability will be skill bonus.

An untrained farmer has +0 bonus. The Greatest Blacksmith has, let's say, +25 bonus (in SWSE terms, this is a 20th level character with Training, Focus and +5 stat). The skill mechanics tell us what can be done with these bonuses.

A system for NPC levels and NPC classes is not needed to answer any question about smithing ability.

 

[Visceris]

I really hate this sort of concept. Heroes at 1st level? They are just beginning their careers as adventurers. They have the basics, but no real experience. Those who can't role play the fact their character does not know that a troll regenerates is just a bad role player. Keep character knowledge and player knowledge separate. That is one of the main keys of good role playing.

4e is just bringing nonsense.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

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.

Exactly. A 1st-level PC-class character already has considerable training and skills; a 1st-level fighter is not a kid straight from the farm who has picked up his granddad's old sword.

 

[cerberus2112]

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.

I think the idea is that they are reworking the underlying math. At levels 4-14, the 3.x math works so that the rolls you need to hit, party average damage output, and so forth make those levels work. They are trying to make the math work just as well above and below that; goblins AC and hit points will be adjusted so a party of 4 first level characters in 4E will have just as exciting an encounter as a 3.5 party of 4 fourth level characters has in a EL 4 encounter. They don't have to jiggle just the PCs level X numbers, but also the CR X numbers.

It's a matter of finding the right proportions of power. What does have PCs power have to be in relation to monsters of an appropriate CR?