At 1st level, how powerful would you say PCs are in any edition of D&D?

[Ahnehnois]

"Ordinary" is something I would say about the Commoner NPC class. A 1st level PC is definitely better than that in any D&D I've played. There is, however, a big paradigm shift in 4e, where the PCs seem to pretty explicitly be superheroic at the start.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Yep, and here's proof-

This table shows the percent chance of dying that a 1st level fighter faces in a fight with a goblin-full info here-
1d8: The Evolution of the Fighter in D&D - Take 2

I'd like to see his actual numbers as "Take 1" was hilariously biased and flawed.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yep, and here's proof-

This table shows the percent chance of dying that a 1st level fighter faces in a fight with a goblin-

20% chance of death in a fight with a goblin?

Sounds damn impressive to me, considering most normal people in a knife fight probably have about a 50/50 chance of dying vs. a similarly skilled individual.

80% chance of being able to kill the other guy sounds quite above the board, though a 99.4% chance sounds EVEN BETTER.

 

[FireLance]

I voted "extraordinary", even for editions where you would generate characters by rolling 3d6 in order. Yes, in theory you could generate a character with 10s and 11s in his ability scores across the board. In practice, such characters tended to be abandoned or to get themselves killed early. The latter is a matter of simple probability. The former is a matter of human nature. Regardless of what was practiced at your individual tables, I believe that many DMs allowed players to create multiple characters until they generated one that they were happy with (and for most players, this would mean a PC with above-average stats*).

IMO, the character generation methods that allow or bias a player to create above-average characters from the start are simply a means to short-cut this process.

* Above-average when compared to the theoretical average that could be obtained by die-rolling, that is. Because of the two factors mentioned above, the average PC (in any edition) probably has above-average stats.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I'd like to see his actual numbers as "Take 1" was hilariously biased and flawed.

If you poke around in the comments on his site, you can see that he admits that the fighter builds he's using have been optimized in order to bias the test for 3e and 4e fighters in a way that's completely unrepresentative of how they would perform under actual game conditions.

Which would seem to make the whole exercise kinda pointless.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

How long does it take to dig half a hole?

Without more information, like 'EDITION' there is no meaningful answer - each edition had different odds of survival.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* Does anyone remember the Monster Mark that White Dwarf* used to use for D&D? Where the first number was how long the critter would last while a 1st level fighter beat on it with a longsword and the second was how much damage it would deal out in that same amount of time?

*Way back in issue 1....

 

[fanboy2000]

From a poll design perspective, this puzzles me...

I could not choose an appropriate poll selection so:

For me there is a big divide between editions.

...and...

How long does it take to dig half a hole?

Without more information, like 'EDITION' there is no meaningful answer - each edition had different odds of survival.

I understand if you think the different editions vary, that's why I included "all of the above" and "none of the above". They would seem to cover both your positions. I'm genuinely confused.

It's a little early, but it's funny to me that "All of above" and "Extraordinary" are very close. Most of the comments are of the "you can't generalize across editions" category. Yet clearly people do, in about the same numbers.

I gotta say, this is a pretty fundamental difference in perspective when it comes to evaluating D&D. Can two people with that kind of difference really say anything meaningful to each other when they compare editions?

 

[S'mon]

Definitely "all three"

In OD&D and Moldvay->Mentzer, 1st level Fighter PCs are functionally identical to regular mundane men-at-arms NPCs, they are Ordinary.

In AD&D, 1st level Fighter PCs are notably superior to baseline men-at-arms, who are 0th level. PCs are Extraordinary.

In 3e D&D, likewise 1st level Fighter PCs are notably superior to baseline 1st level NPC Warriors. PCs are Extraordinary.

In 4e D&D, 1st level Fighter PCs have abilities above and beyond what baseline NPCs (if there is such a thing - minions?) can access. They have a broad suite of powers, but what really sets them apart is their Healing Surge based resilience. They are Superheroic, by the definition given here.

Edit: The 1st level 4e PC may not be greatly superior to the MM Human Guard (Soldier-3) or Orc Raider (Skirmisher-3), BUT the Human Guard is himself supereheroic compared to the Human Rabble (minion-2), and the Orc Raider is Superheroic compared to the Orc Drudge (minion-4), so I don't think it makes sense to treat Human Guard or Orc Raider as baseline ordinary NPCs.

 

[delericho]

It depends on the edition.

In BECMI, they start at just barely above the level of the common man, but gain power quite rapidly. Non-spellcasters plateau around 10th level; spellcasters continue to gain power (via new spell levels).

In 1st Edition, characters are a clear step more powerful than their BECMI counterparts at all levels. The pattern (and rate) of power gain is otherwise the same.

2nd Edition was a real rarity: an edition that actually lowered the power level. 2nd Edition PCs stand somewhere between BECMI and 1st Edition in terms of power. The pattern (and rate) of power gain is the same.

In 3e, the PCs are a step more powerful than in 1st Edition. 3e also removed the plateau for non-spellcasters - all characters gain power at all points in the level range. The rate of power gain is otherwise similar to previous editions.

(Note: the range of specialised options available in 3e means that 1st level characters can be as good as the very best of real-life humanity. So, characters are effectively superhuman pretty much as soon as they reach 2nd level.)

In 4e, PCs start a good bit more powerful than in 3e, but they gain further power at a reduced rate.

(Note 2: it is now very common for 4e PCs to start with a '20' in their primary stat. Because of the way the skill system is set up, this effectively means that every Fighter is the World's Strongest Man, every Wizard is an Einstein, every Bard is an Elvis, and every Warlord is a Julius Caesar. And all of this at 1st level, before they've actually done anything!)

In 5e, I would like to see this recalibrated a bit, so that PCs start "a cut above" the masses, but not superhumanly so. They should then gain power at a moderate rate, becoming "larger than life, but not absurdly so" around the end of the Heroic tier, and then becoming "legendary heroes, who do six impossible things before breakfast" around the end of the Paragon tier.

In BECMI, Aragorn is probably around 9th level. In 1st Edition, he's probably about the same (everything is just bigger). In 2nd Edition, he's probably gone up to 10th - 12th level. In 3e, Aragorn has dropped to 5th - 7th level. In 4e, Aragorn may be as low as 1st level, seriously. (In 5e, I would like to see Aragorn be a mid-Paragon character.)

 

[TheAuldGrump]

From a poll design perspective, this puzzles me...

...and...

I understand if you think the different editions vary, that's why I included "all of the above" and "none of the above". They would seem to cover both your positions. I'm genuinely confused.

It's a little early, but it's funny to me that "All of above" and "Extraordinary" are very close. Most of the comments are of the "you can't generalize across editions" category. Yet clearly people do, in about the same numbers.

I gotta say, this is a pretty fundamental difference in perspective when it comes to evaluating D&D. Can two people with that kind of difference really say anything meaningful to each other when they compare editions?

Maybe because the answer is neither all nor none but 'some, but not all' - the answer that is skipped?

1e AD&D and 2e AD&D had similar heroic scales, but 1e AD&D and 3e D&D did not so 'some of the above'.

The Auld Grump