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

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Huh?

If the book says that characters start at third level, and the sample starting characters are all third level, why would a new player think otherwise?

Right.

Starting off the book with a logical inconsistency (that probably also requires rules inconsistency) is going to work for a new guy.

"If it's the level I start at... why is it called third level?"

If you picked up a board game, and the rules told you to ignore the big spot labeled "START HERE" and start all pieces from an apparently arbitrary point 10% of the way across the board... would you consider that intelligent design?

 

[Sun Knight]

I know, I know. We're doing it wrong.

If you think you are doing it wrong then why do you keep doing it? If that is how you wish to play then by all means play that way but I do not see the need to force everyone to play that way which this new edition will do. I do not feel the need to start my players' characters at third nor does any other DM I have played under so these upt hit points and more power given to 1st level characters in 4e is just not needed for us.

It seems to be a lot easier for you guys to start your characters at 3rd than for the rest of us who do not have that need to strip away power from starting characters in 4e.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Again, how often does that happen? I have played numerous rogues and wizards in my time as a gamer and well, I have never had a 1st level character killed with one hit. Dropped and dying, but later stabilized yes, but not outright killed.

Well, that's just it. You sit down with your friends to play this new game, and bam--with a single hit in the first round of combat, you're out of the game.

That's a terrible play experience.

Doesn't matter if you're killed by that one hit or not. It's still lame for Johan, Knight of Valaria to get dropped by a single blow.

I imagine that 4E will do two specific things to combat this: more HP at first level, and mooks will not be able to crit. Those two changes will let the DM better manage his dramatic flow and tension without being derailed by an unexpected event.

For a specific example: I was playing a third level ranger, and we encountered some orcs guarding a mine. Parlay broke down and initiative was rolled. Before my turn came up, an orc shot my character with a natural 20 from a composite longbow (the kind with str bonus). Max damage was rolled, and just like that: character dead. DM didn't want it to happen--these guys were meant to just slow us down, not kill characters. Character death should be dramatic, should be Boromir or Ben Kenobi or Vasquez.

-z

 

[Sun Knight]

I don't see how that is a terrible play experience. Adventuring is a tough occupation and constantly facing danger like that has its drawbacks but if you take away the danger you simply take away the fun. If the game is not fun, why play in the first place? Obviously we have differing opinions on what is fun and what is not, but in 3e you guys can adapt by making the characters start off at 3rd level.

How do you propose that gamers like myself who enjoy this level of danger that 1st level 3e characters face in 4e?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I don't see how that is a terrible play experience. Adventuring is a tough occupation and constantly facing danger like that has its drawbacks but if you take away the danger you simply take away the fun. If the game is not fun, why play in the first place? Obviously we have differing opinions on what is fun and what is not, but in 3e you guys can adapt by making the characters start off at 3rd level.

How do you propose that gamers like myself who enjoy this level of danger that 1st level 3e characters face in 4e?

Reduce hit points to 1dx + Con bonus at first level?

 

[Sun Knight]

That is one possibility but it just seems to me that you do not wish for me to force my way of gaming on to you but are perfectly willing to force your style of gaming onto me.

 

[Grog]

I don't see how that is a terrible play experience. Adventuring is a tough occupation and constantly facing danger like that has its drawbacks but if you take away the danger you simply take away the fun. If the game is not fun, why play in the first place?

This is a straw man argument. No one is saying that danger should be removed from the game. What people are saying is that being knocked out or even killed on the first round of combat before you even have a chance to do anything isn't much fun.

 

[Sun Knight]

This is a straw man argument. No one is saying that danger should be removed from the game. What people are saying is that being knocked out or even killed on the first round of combat before you even have a chance to do anything isn't much fun.

Not that much fun for you you mean, right? Obviously I find it acceptable and fun. So why do you wish to force your style of fun on me?

 

[Grog]

Not that much fun for you you mean, right? Obviously I find it acceptable and fun.

If you seriously think it's fun to have to sit there and do nothing for an entire combat, or make up a new character before your first one got to do anything it all, well, I strongly suspect that your definition of "fun" is radically different from that of a large majority of gamers.

So why do you wish to force your style of fun on me?

Obviously, it's because I'm just a big meanie.

 

[Naszir]

Not that much fun for you you mean, right? Obviously I find it acceptable and fun. So why do you wish to force your style of fun on me?

Because WotC is trying to make it fun for a majority of those who are newly introduced to it. Once they get the hang of it and want to try something a bit more grim and gritty then a house rule or two can get the job done.