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

[Visceris]

Nop. He got that training in the course of being a fighter.

 

[hong]

Nop. He got that training in the course of being a fighter.

Who is a hero.

 

[Grog]

Yet that 1st level fighter can use full Plate Mail effectively while the commoner cannot.

Yes. Along with 40 different weapons. So we've established that he's not some kid straight out of basic training.

Yet, for whatever reason, his combat statistics don't reflect that.

 

[Visceris]

Yes. Along with 40 different weapons. So we've established that he's not some kid straight out of basic training.

Yet, for whatever reason, his combat statistics don't reflect that.

Actually it does. He has spread out his training time over 40 different weapons. He has a +1 bonus to hit with all simple and martial weapons. ALL OF THEM.

A commoner is proficient with only 1 simple weapon with a BAB of 0.

 

[Grog]

Actually it does. He has spread out his training time over 40 different weapons. He has a +1 bonus to hit with all simple and martial weapons. ALL OF THEM.

A commoner is proficient with only 1 simple weapon with a BAB of 0.

Learning 39 different weapons after his first would make him quite a bit better at fighting in general, too. It's just the way combat training works.

 

[Visceris]

Learning 39 different weapons after his first would make him quite a bit better at fighting in general, too. It's just the way combat training works.

And with those other 39 weapons the commoner has a -4 penalty meaning that the fighter's BAB is 5 times better than a commoner's BAB, except for one simple weapon. So, you are right, a 1st level fighter is better than a 1st level commoner in combat. He is still a n00b compared to fighters who have had practical experience in fighting.

The combat stats of a 1st level fighter does reflect his training.

 

[Grog]

And with those other 39 weapons the commoner has a -4 penalty meaning that the fighter's BAB is 5 times better than a commoner's BAB, except for one simple weapon. So, you are right, a 1st level fighter is better than a 1st level commoner in combat. He is still a n00b compared to fighters who have had practical experience in fighting.

The point is that, with the one weapon they share proficiency in, the fighter is only 5% better than the commoner. And that's not realistic given the fighter's extensive combat training.

Also, your stance implies that the fighter could have focused his training time on just a few weapons and gotten much better with those, sacrificing his proficiency in the rest of the weapons as a result.... So why doesn't any 1st level fighter ever do this? Why does every single 1st level fighter in the world choose to spread his training time over 40 weapons?

 

[Visceris]

Um, I think that is represented in feats known as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization.

 

[telquessir]

"Hero"

Hero is a subjective term and to say that characters will be "more heroic" is somewhat silly IMO.

In my mind, I always determined that a D&D character became a "hero" (1st level PC) the moment they decided to step out of a mundane life and decided to become an adventurer.

With that notion in mind, I find 1st level 3e characters appropriately "heroic" though there are certain circumstances where I find the system lacking. Mostly in relation to skills and general ability rather than combat statistics.

As just a way of making the system better, I wouldn't mind seeing 1st level characters have a few more hit points, but not quite double current first level hp.

For the "fighter knowing how to use 40 different weapons" statement. I think this is being addressed in 4e by fighters having more specialized maneuvers with their chosen weapons. I don't think it was necessarily designed as a concept with intended ramifications in a discussion questioning the heroicness of a 1st level fighter, but rather to simplify the weapon proficiency system.

As for the "why send 4 1st level characters instead of NPC guards to solve a situation?"

There are a great many ways to address this question, but it can also be asked even if the PCs are higher level. "Why not send 40 NPC guards instead of 4 3rd level PCs to solve the problem?"

Militia might be on short supply. The PCs might *be* the militia sent. 1st level militia usually don't train in sneaking, opening locks, finding traps, casting spells etc. etc. So they may have some talents or abilities that the guards don't.

 

[telquessir]

Yes. Along with 40 different weapons. So we've established that he's not some kid straight out of basic training.

Yet, for whatever reason, his combat statistics don't reflect that.

I'd contend that to teach someone the very basics of 40 different weapons probably wouldn't take any longer than modern basic training does. We're talking basic attacking and defending here, not intricate highly skilled combat with each weapon in which the nuances of each weapon are particularly important. For basic combat, many of the weapons are essentially the same.

It wouldn't make much sense to teach someone that large variety of weapons when you could more easily train them how to be good with a few weapons.

To maintain that basic knowledge and advance it evenly with almost every weapon is an entirely different conundrum especially as you advance into more skilled combat.

For this reason, I am going to draw the conclusion that fighters knowing how to use 40+ weapons is a result in the simplification of weapon rules rather than a testament to how "heroic" or not "heroic" heroes are at first level.