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

[Baby Samurai]

So, it's triple hp at first level?

I guess people are just sick of their nifty 1st level fighter they've lovingly crafted to go down to rampant garden gnomes armed with fruit.

 

[Li Shenron]

So, it's triple hp at first level?

I think this could be probably the only change.

So not much too worry about. It gets rid of whining players that complain they're going to be killed at the first critical hit.

If someone wants to play truly upstarts, there will probably be a human entry in the MM or a commoner entry in the DMG, that can later be upgraded to a level 1 character. Anyway, even in 3e there were some gaming groups that wanted to start a campaign with 0th-level characters, because the PHB 1st level was "too much for a start".

 

[Baby Samurai]

Anyway, even in 3e there were some gaming groups that wanted to start a campaign with 0th-level characters, because the PHB 1st level was "too much for a start".

My group went with starting characters at ECL 3.

But if ECL is in 4th edition I will be maaaaaad.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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 guarantee you any kid out of basic can use with proficiency a nine millimeter, a .38, an AK47, A knife, a grenade, an rpg (pun intended), a stick, a .45, a shotgun, a .22, or any other caliber rifle or handgun. However, if he tries to rob Farmer Joe, he might STILL get his head blown off. That's first level as it should be. His training has gotten him in better shape than most people, taught him how to maintain weapons and armor and how to peel potatoes. Other than that he' no better a fighter than Farmer Joe. Now, mind you, when you throw a party of 5 pcs together, that extra 2-4 hit points and slightly better hit chance adds up. Sure, they're better fighters than commoners, but only marginally so. They're not heroes in any sense other than the guy who pulls a drowning kid out of a pond is. He's a hero by deed, not by stats.

 

[mmadsen]

I guarantee you any kid out of basic can use with proficiency a nine millimeter, a .38, an AK47, A knife, a grenade, an rpg (pun intended), a stick, a .45, a shotgun, a .22, or any other caliber rifle or handgun. However, if he tries to rob Farmer Joe, he might STILL get his head blown off.

Not to throw a wrench into things, but Farmer Joe is likely also proficient with almost all of those weapons. Guns are notoriously easy to use compared with longbows, lances, flails, etc.

 

[DonTadow]

No. He knows the basics of fighting with weapons, the basics of using and maintaining armor, and knows the basics how to roll with a hit. He is not specialized in a weapon. He does not have the high end armor. He does not trained in special manuevers.

HE IS A 1ST LEVEL N00B! Just the freakin' basics about fighting.

Says the person who knows nothing about fighting with weapons. Even if you are pretty good at handling yourself you are still not going to be able to pick up over 40 different types of weappons and wield half of them properly and certainly not properly enough to wound a fly.

There's talk of farmers, guns and basic training.

This is a bad example.

First guns are lethal weapons, one shot kills and pretty easy to use. That is why they have replaced other weaponry. A better example would be to say anyone who uses a gun should be able to fire a crossbow, a bow, wield a sword, lance, dagger, rapier, scimitar. etc).

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Says the person who knows nothing about fighting with weapons. Even if you are pretty good at handling yourself you are still not going to be able to pick up over 40 different types of weappons and wield half of them properly and certainly not properly enough to wound a fly.

There's talk of farmers, guns and basic training.

This is a bad example.

First guns are lethal weapons, one shot kills and pretty easy to use. That is why they have replaced other weaponry. A better example would be to say anyone who uses a gun should be able to fire a crossbow, a bow, wield a sword, lance, dagger, rapier, scimitar. etc).

A gun used properly is a lethal weapon, otherwise you'll just have broken windows, pottery, etc. I could say the same thing about a sword. A sword in the chest is just as lethal as a bullet.

 

[Grog]

A gun used properly is a lethal weapon, otherwise you'll just have broken windows, pottery, etc. I could say the same thing about a sword. A sword in the chest is just as lethal as a bullet.

But it's much harder to learn to use a sword competently than it is to learn to use a gun competently.

 

[Sun Knight]

Not in the d20 System.

Sword... Martial Weapons Proficiency.
Rifle... Personal Firearms Proficiency.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

And that is why the game has the effective starting ages, bonus feats, and the hiogher starting hit points compared to other classes that shows that training, however he still has no practical experience in using them in real battle.

He is 1st level. He is a n00b. He is no Hero.

Talk about taking the ball and running in entirely the wrong direction with it.

Tons of training does not a hero make. Do not assume that by saying "1st level characters are heroes" that it means they cannot be wet-behind-the-ears kids. They will simply be wet-behind-the-ears kids with a destiny rather than wet-behind-the-ears kids who keel over when a housecat looks at them funny.

A gun used properly is a lethal weapon, otherwise you'll just have broken windows, pottery, etc. I could say the same thing about a sword. A sword in the chest is just as lethal as a bullet.

The reason guns took over European battlefields was that you didn't need to train people in their use. You could pull people essentially off the streets, shove a gun in their hands, and have them be more effective on the battlefield than anything that had come before in warfare. And this despite the fact that for most of firearms history, a substantial portion of any army tended to more or less deliberately try to miss. You should see the appalling psychology studies the Army did to figure out how to break down human beings to the point that they would reliably shoot to kill.

And, as someone who has used firearms and had training in a handful of real weapons... any idiot can kill someone with a gun. Most idiots only manage to kill themselves with swords. And you would be amazed at the damage I've seen people manage to do to themselves with bows. But that almost takes talent, in its way.