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

[Herremann the Wise]

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.

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.

Hello Fanboy2000,

Your poll asked:

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

I felt that if I ticked "none of the above" which I suppose from your legend would be the most appropriate, I would not be adequately conveying my position. As you say, that "none of the above" option is particularly unclear and could just as easily have been ticked by an apathetic person; and thus I did not feel it was an appropriate poll selection.

However, there are two other issues at play:

1) Your legend and interpretation of the answers may not agree with another reader's interpretation of those answers. The poll options should be clear enough that they do not require a further explanation. I think you muddied the poll options with your legend - or perhaps that the poll options were too general in the first place.

2) For myself, the primary aspect of your idea is the noticeable change from previous editions to the current in terms of 1st level character perceived power. Your poll does not focus on this aspect and so there is a key difference between the direction of your poll, and my own direction. I'm guessing some other people might have a similar view to mine, thus amplifying the confusion of point 1).

Now, this is a shame because I think the topic is an interesting one; so apologies for giving an unsatisfactory response - but hopefully the above explanation is adequately expressed for you to understand my position.

Thank you for posting this thread anyway.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[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

 

[Beginning of the End]

Personally, my gut says "Above Average" (which would lie between "Ordinary" and "Extraordinary") for all editions pre-4E (at which point I'd go for full-on Extraordinary).

 

[fanboy2000]

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

What about the "Any two" option?

 

[fanboy2000]

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.

I think you've hit on an essential truth in 4e compared to at least 3e, 4e doesn't really have a baseline NPC. They have rules for building people you fight, but not rules for 3e style commoners or experts. This makes it difficult, I think, to really judge the PCs power level compared to the rest of the world.

I can't help but wonder if this has bitten Wizards on the but because now, when people compare 4e PCs to commoners, their only real idea of a commoner may be the one from 3e, which is a different beast.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What do you mean by powerful? And I'd have said strong-extraordinary in all editions from AD&D onwards (although there were some mean housecats out there).

 

[enpeze66]

depends on edition.

BECM - most puny especially if you are a MU with 1 HP and a light spell. in no other rpg not even in CoC you are that underpowered
4th edition - superhuman

 

[giant.robot]

I think you've hit on an essential truth in 4e compared to at least 3e, 4e doesn't really have a baseline NPC. They have rules for building people you fight, but not rules for 3e style commoners or experts. This makes it difficult, I think, to really judge the PCs power level compared to the rest of the world.

I can't help but wonder if this has bitten Wizards on the but because now, when people compare 4e PCs to commoners, their only real idea of a commoner may be the one from 3e, which is a different beast.

I think the idea of needing to actually build out NPCs is a bit silly. Ability scores are scaled such that a 10 is considered to be a "normal person". So the average commoner can be said to have straight 10s for ability scores. They have whatever skill training their position might suggest they need (if that). Most of them aren't in combat situations making their off-screen skill checks so they can essentially take 20 for everything (so they don't need high ability scores or skill training). Generating actual stats for NPCs does not usually give a good return for the time invested. I'd rather spend that time adding some fluff details to an NPC's background or motivations than figuring out what stats I need to match my narrative.

I liked the sage/hireling concept from 1E and 2E, a sage had plot related knowledge or skill that you had to pay (in some manner) to access. It wasn't suggested or required that you have stats for these characters as they were more of a service you paid for like a stay an an inn. I've always run important NPCs like I might a tavern. They have narrative details and off-camera motivations but I'm not overly concerned with their stats. When players need to interact with them they're given static DCs rather than me drawing out the situation with opposed checks.

 

[Glade Riven]

When I DM, at first level they are what I need them to be. In fact, I'd put the first five levels as within the ordinary (for the setting). Around 6th level they start to be special.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I voted "extraordinary" across all editions, but I think there is a difference in editions in the distribution. This difference heavily skews perceptions of the power level. 4E has far less variance in likely results, than any other edition.

I once played a one-shot 1st ed. (w/ Unearthed Arcana added), where our seven 1st level characters, in the midst of a fairly tough fight, were ambushed by an umber hulk, in an environment where we were at a disadvantage. We not only won, we didn't lose a single character, though almost everyone was hovering around 1 or 2 hit points. The DM did not fudge at all--all rolls were on the table. We could have replayed that same encounter 20 times, and not even gotten close to that outcome again. Doing it 20 times would have been 10+ TPKs, at least.

The game has changed so much since then that I'm not sure what the exact equivalent would be in a 4E encounter. But I do know that if you got something in the ballpark, the results would be more evenly distributed. If the average was, "win, barely," then most of the results would be that, and most of the rest would be "lost, barely, or ran to avoid same" or "win, a little easier than barely."