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

[Fenris_x]

This is exactly what I mean. Fenris, you are making a judgment that I like to have my characters "suck." I do not. Also to assume that I am incompetent that I cannot keep my character alive or that my character's party members would be selfish and not use their skill to stabilize my character in case he does fall is downright insulting.

I want my gaming to be challenging and rewarding, not mindlessly easy which 4e seems to be heading to if SWSE is any indication.

Every single person who's posted a report in this thread of a play experience with SWSE has said that the fights were "tough, we almost lost" or some variation on that. Noboby has said the fights were mindlessly easy.

I don't know how to characterize a 50% or greater chance of failing at almost everything you do, other than as "sucking". The cleric and rogue have 50%+ chance to miss on most swings in melee at 1st level. The wizard is even worse with her crossbow. Traps are likely to either go undetected or be un-disarmable by the rogue. The fighter isn't terrible in combat, but Vecna forbid he has to make a will or reflex save...

1st level characters are pretty incompetent. They do suck.

 

[Sun Knight]

1st level characters are pretty incompetent. They do suck.

I would say that they were inexperienced, hence they are 1st level characters.

 

[Jhaelen]

Also to assume that I am incompetent that I cannot keep my character alive or that my character's party members would be selfish and not use their skill to stabilize my character in case he does fall is downright insulting.

I want my gaming to be challenging and rewarding, not mindlessly easy which 4e seems to be heading to if SWSE is any indication.

The problem with the current 1st level characters is: It's often not under your control if your character lives or dies.
This doesn't have anything to do with (in)competence, it's often just a question of luck.

Since hit points are so low, any foe who gets lucky can kill you. Having to rely on luck to get me through a fight is not my idea of being challenged.

 

[drothgery]

Every single person who's posted a report in this thread of a play experience with SWSE has said that the fights were "tough, we almost lost" or some variation on that. Noboby has said the fights were mindlessly easy.

Yeah... I ran the first session of a SWSE game two days ago. Opening scene was three CL2 (nonheroic 6) "Mandalorians" (I used the 'Clone Trooper' stats for them because I'm lazy) vs. 3 2nd-level PCs. I wanted it to be possible for the guys to start as multiclass characters, so I started the game at level 2, but I ended up with a Jedi 2, a Soldier 2, and a Force-sensitive Scout 2. And this was a bit more even fight than I'd expected; if I'd pulled out all the stops (and so had the bad guys use cover more intellegintely, use autofire and such), the PCs would likely have lost (though in their defense I'm a bit more familiar with the rules than they are; one PC inadvertently negated another's special ability) and they did take serious injuries. Now, if I'd used less capable bad guys (say, using the 'stormtrooper' stats instead of the 'clone trooper' stats), the PCs would have had a much easier time... and did, against a larger group of low-level monsters.

 

[RigaMortus2]

In fact, I hope they just make a generic "NPC" entry in the DMG. Give it three competence levels: apprentice, journeyman, master.

You forgot Expert and Artisan. That's what WoW has, and since 4E = WoW

(j/k of course, but not really, well... sorta)

 

[mmadsen]

I don't know how to characterize a 50% or greater chance of failing at almost everything you do, other than as "sucking". The cleric and rogue have 50%+ chance to miss on most swings in melee at 1st level.

Then professional boxers must truly suck, since they tend to hit about 25 percent of the time.

 

[pemerton]

I do get tired of the people claiming that first level characters are fine only talking about fighters and barbarians. Yes, I agree, those classes play just fine at first level. But there are lots of other classes in the game, and several of them have major problems at first level. I'd much rather see the next edition of D&D try to address those problems, rather than continue with the "Suck it up and play a crappy character until you gain a couple of levels and can start having fun" mindset.

Agreed. D&D is about the only RPG I know of which is built on this perverse model, of not delivering the intended play experience (namely, overcoming challenges in a world of fantasy adventures) if played in accordance with the rules, until several sessions of play have concluded.

Maybe it's just me, but in my case, the fun comes from the trying...from actually sitting down at a game table, and trying to impersonate a character who goes and takes risks I'd not be easily willing to take in order to gain something. The character may have a few additional abilities (magic, fighting prowess, etc...), but is basically a living, breathing being, and I try to play him that way. That's the fun part. The "kill them all and take their stuff" part comes second to the "play a wizard in a fantasy setting" part, mostly. A close second, though...it's still D&D after all. Taking stuff from killed monsters is a gleeful moment. Trying to survive it all is the fun part.

I don't think that 4e is being written to cater to this play style - either "character immersion" roleplaying or exploration and survival as the main goal of play. The designers' comments seem to make it pretty clear that the game is being written to support a game of "overcoming challenges". Essential to realising this as a goal of play is that the outcome of such challenges not depend primarily on luck. A concomitant of this as a goal of play is that character-build rules are designed to facilitate not only trying, but succeeding.

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?

In 4e I think the fun will be in overcoming challenges by cleverly deploying one's character abilities. This means that the effect of luck has to be subordinated somewhat (although not so much that a "lucky 20" isn't still exciting and even memorable at the table). The notion of adventuring as a dangerous occupation will not be gone. But PCs will be able to successfully confront those dangers and overcome them.

Then professional boxers must truly suck, since they tend to hit about 25 percent of the time.

There are two issues here. One is whether a D&D to-hit roll models a single swing, or a flurry of activity. Given the ratio of hit rolls to game time elapsed, the latter must often be the case.

But the more important issue is one of game design: is it fun for a player in the game to be having no effect on the action (because of an incompetent or out-of-action PC) for extended periods of time? The designers (not unreasonably) answer "No" and therefore are looking at approaches to character building and action resolution which will avoid this situation.

Also to assume that I am incompetent that I cannot keep my character alive or that my character's party members would be selfish and not use their skill to stabilize my character in case he does fall is downright insulting.

I think the point is that a living but unconscious character is still not fun, in the (not unreasonable) view of the designers. And also that the aim of the 4e game is not "staying alive" but "overcoming challenges".

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?

Like someone else said, roll fewer hit dice. Or step down hit-dice size. Or double weapon damage.

But the notion that a level-based game should be designed with the expection that most PCs will start at a level above first is absurd.

 

[Alaric_Prympax]

1st level characters are pretty incompetent. They do suck.

I disagree, it's all in how you play them. Some of my best experiences in AD&D were with 1st level characters. Maybe you played in games where your 1st level characters were up against opponents that were too tough for your characters. The DM might have used less powerful opponents making it so you could survive but still be challenged and be fun.

Don't misunderstand me, my groups also had our house rules:
1. Starting with Max hit points at 1st level, seems to be a universal house rule.

2. A Cleric might have a Potion/Scroll of Cure Light Wounds from their church (especially since being an adventuring cleric they're a raising star in the church and might be on a church mission, or quest, or... well use your imagination, the church would probably want to help or protect its' 'star' in some way).

3. My favorite house rule: Bandaging. Once per day a character can bandage to regain 1d4 hps. My 1st DM used this and I thought it was great. Those extra hp saved characters quite a bit. It didn't break the rules, was not overpowering- well we didn't think so at least, and it fit in our game. We never had a problem with it.

My groups didn't mind resting up either. We quickly got through that by either going back to town or usually- camping out rolling through ramdom encounters, if there was one we got through it as best we could. It was just something you did, not a problem with my group. Furthermore with low level spells spellcasters didn't need eight hours rest, just a couple of hours and 15 mins/level of study or meditation to get those spells back (1e DMG- don't remember the page but that's how we played it and still do) so those ramdom encounters wouldn't and couldn't prevent our 1st level spellcasters recovering their spells for the adventuring day. I guess a lot of you had quite a different experience at 1st level then I did.

I would say that they were inexperienced, hence they are 1st level characters.

My feelings and experiences exactly. I know this isn't an edition wars thread and I don't want to turn it into one but just as a reminder in 1e AD&D when there were name levels for each class a 1st Level Fighter was called a Veteran. I can only guess because unlike unclassed NPC's they knew how to use weapons and how to move effectively in armor (and that only 1 in 10 or was it 1 in 100 people in a Campaign World actually had a class.)

Once again I say it's how you play your game.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Then professional boxers must truly suck, since they tend to hit about 25 percent of the time.

C'mon. Now you're just grasping at straws.

The more important consideration is that if it were D&D, no fight would last for more than 4-5 landed blows. Often less.

 

[D.Shaffer]

I want my gaming to be challenging and rewarding, not mindlessly easy which 4e seems to be heading to if SWSE is any indication.

I'd note that DnD is marketed as a heroic fantasy. Heroic fantasy involves characters doing heroic things, not dieing near the beginning because of a lucky DM roll. Gritty games where you can die at any time is certaintly a valid play type and can be fun, but it's not really what a lot of people who like heroic fantasy are looking for. You seem to be assuming that your taste is the norm.

I'd point out that WotC does a LOT of market research when they do this sort of thing. If they're making it so it's harder for low level characters to get killed, you might want to consider the idea that it's because a lot of people have told them they didnt like this. It might not be more fun for your particular tastes, but they cant cater to every individual person. They'll go with what the more numerous market wants.