D&D 5E Character Age

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, my "I've never heard of that" stands pretty thoroughly shattered now.

If only I could get DMs who think like that! Perhaps that's the bigger issue: when I find a 4e DM, is are good we think similarly, but IME several of the things I want out of a game...don't mesh well with the things people get excited about in 5e. Like all "starting adventurers" feeling like they're made of cardboard and jello...

 

[TheCosmicKid]

If only I could get DMs who think like that! Perhaps that's the bigger issue: when I find a 4e DM, is are good we think similarly, but IME several of the things I want out of a game...don't mesh well with the things people get excited about in 5e. Like all "starting adventurers" feeling like they're made of cardboard and jello...

I'm sorry about that. The problem with a game as free-form as D&D is sometimes you have to shop around for a while to find a group that matches your style, and perhaps compromise a bit as well.

 

[77IM]

So my issue is character age and how it relates to the character, specifically at low levels. My problem is that at low levels your character is an inexperienced scrub. Regardless of your character class, background, elaborate backstory, age, etc., he or she is still just a die of hit points and basically a glorified peasant PC...

Yeah, whenever I describe my character backstory as "I am an all-powerful archmage who rules an empire," the DM tells me I have to play a measly 1st-level wizard anyway.

That example is absurd; I'm trying to use it to illustrate a logical inconsistency with your original complaint. If you are creating a 1st-level character and concoct a background that implies competence beyond 1st level, I don't think the problem is with the game system.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I'm a player. Starting level isn't something I even get a minor say in, unless the DM is being unusually relaxed about how the campaign starts.

As a DM, let me tell you something very important: If your DM doesn't work with you to make the campaigns going on the campaigns you'd like to be playing, such that you have more than a "minor say" in what they are about and how they start (in both level and "No 'one night in the tavern' lead-ins, please' meanings), then your DM is not as good at being a DM as they could be.

Don't fall prey to the old lie that you are a player and thus not able to have any say, that's what lazy DMs, DMs that would be better off writing novels rather than campaigns, and DMs that are on an extreme power trip and need a reality check want you to believe - but it isn't the truth. You have say, it's your game too - and you need to make sure your DM knows that you aren't going to just sit and take a game that isn't as cool in your opinion as it could be, you're going to arm them with the necessary tools and knowledge to really knock your socks off with an awesome campaign that you'll love more than any other before it.

Every DM I've ever had, for any system whatever, has simply declared a starting level and nobody even considered asking for anything different. Except me, at the start of my current 5e game, but the DM said no (partly because we have total TTRPG newbies in the group, but mostly because he doesn't think you SHOULD start above level 1).

If it is something you care about, you have to keep asking for it. Your DM had a logical reason in not wanting to risk putting the newbies in over their heads... but next campaign, they are so new any more, and maybe they are interested in starting at a level besides 1 too.

...and if a DM says "should" like there is some proper way to play D&D besides having as much fun as you can with it, you need to answer it with enough conviction to show that you are no longer doing as so many RPG players do and waiving your rights to have an opinion and be considered equal to your peers - which your DM is, a peer, not some superior being better equipped to determine what you will enjoy than you are.

In fact, for all the *talk* about starting at higher level in 5e as an option, I very rarely...as in never, to my knowledge...hear about groups that actually DO it.

That's a very strange thing to say in response to me telling you that my group does exactly that. As you can see, my group isn't alone either.

It's been my experience that people have actually started at whatever level their group felt was best for a great many years now - and there is even this one group I heard of that picks the level they like best and that's it, no building up to it during play, no raising past it somewhere during the campaign, just "we'll play as this level, let's go have some fun."

In case I got too verbose, the message in brief: Stand up for your right to have fun, your opinion counts, and if your DM thinks otherwise, they aren't as good as they could be at being a DM.

 

[Valador]

Yeah, whenever I describe my character backstory as "I am an all-powerful archmage who rules an empire," the DM tells me I have to play a measly 1st-level wizard anyway.

That example is absurd; I'm trying to use it to illustrate a logical inconsistency with your original complaint. If you are creating a 1st-level character and concoct a background that implies competence beyond 1st level, I don't think the problem is with the game system.

I'm not saying there's a problem with the system, so I'm not sure you're following the point I was trying to make. My point was that the issue was simply a personal annoyance to me, because it doesn't quite mesh well with the system, and I was asking how others dealt with it from the standpoint of non game changing methods to deal with or ignore the issue.

Here's an example. Let's just take a 30 year old character with the soldier background. They joined the military at a relatively young age of 16-17, etc. In those 14 or so years they've seen many battles (large, small, helms deep or whatever), many wars and have led many men and progressed through the ranks. For whatever plot reason they are no longer a soldier and are now a level 1 adventurer who is now all of a sudden dungeon fodder.

My example isn't as far out as yours, and can fit reasonably with the background in the PHB, the characters age and possibly some of the campaign plot. However as soon as you come to the table it's a little disappointing when the reality hits that you're level 1 and pretty weak. RP wise the system really seems more suited towards a character being some young up and coming noob than a character with some actual depth and experience.

The mechanics of the system are fine, it's just a personal annoyance that detracts me from the atmosphere of character and story in the early levels and makes everything feel very lackluster and boring until the character can start to do something that actually makes them feel like heroes.

I just disliked being pigeonholed into rolling a boring green eared child simply because it suits the nature of being low level...

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I'm not saying there's a problem with the system, so I'm not sure you're following the point I was trying to make. My point was that the issue was simply a personal annoyance to me, because it doesn't quite mesh well with the system, and I was asking how others dealt with it from the standpoint of non game changing methods to deal with or ignore the issue.

Here's an example. Let's just take a 30 year old character with the soldier background. They joined the military at a relatively young age of 16-17, etc. In those 14 or so years they've seen many battles (large, small, helms deep or whatever), many wars and have led many men and progressed through the ranks. For whatever plot reason they are no longer a soldier and are now a level 1 adventurer who is now all of a sudden dungeon fodder.

My example isn't as far out as yours, and can fit reasonably with the background in the PHB, the characters age and possibly some of the campaign plot. However as soon as you come to the table it's a little disappointing when the reality hits that you're level 1 and pretty weak. RP wise the system really seems more suited towards a character being some young up and coming noob than a character with some actual depth and experience.

The mechanics of the system are fine, it's just a personal annoyance that detracts me from the atmosphere of character and story in the early levels and makes everything feel very lackluster and boring until the character can start to do something that actually makes them feel like heroes.

I just disliked being pigeonholed into rolling a boring green eared child simply because it suits the nature of being low level...

The 30 year old soldier is, lets say, the equivalent of a "Guard" in the MM. That guard would likely be able to kill a half-dozen men before he went down himself (re: kill commoners). If that Guard is a PC and becomes a 1st level fighter after the "Commoner Uprising of 1215 TC" and finds himself in the presence of other 1st level PC's...well, he is now even better than a 30 year old soldier/guard. He has more HP's, he has HD to 'spend' on healing, he has special abilities as a fighter... the most important one being that he can advance in levels as an actual Fighter.

For your next game session, have everyone play Commoners from the back of the MM. Now take those commoners, with common equipment, and go adventure in the Mines of Phandelver (the first "goblin caves" will do). See how long you all last. Now do it with 1st level PC's. See how long they last. Now come back and tell us how "unheroic" the 1st level PC's were compared to the Commoners. Hell, you can even take the Guard in stead of Commoner and do it. I'd still bet coppers to platinum that the "noob 1st level characters" will fair significantly better than the group of Guards and Commoners. That should be your base line; not looking at orcs, ogres, minotaurs and 6th, 10th or 17th level characters, and then looking at a 1st level Fighter.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Wik]

So my issue is character age and how it relates to the character, specifically at low levels. My problem is that at low levels your character is an inexperienced scrub. Regardless of your character class, background, elaborate backstory, age, etc., he or she is still just a die of hit points and basically a glorified peasant PC...

I think this is where I disconnect from what you're saying. So, when I run a game, I have a simple rule - don't give me a big backstory! Big backstories tell the GM what type of game you want him to run for you. And I don't jive with that. The GM is going to run a game, and you're a participant. It's not about you, and only you.

When I run games, I want you to have a rough idea of who your character is, a very loose idea of who he was, and not much in the way of knowing who he'll wind up being. I'm going to introduce things in the game that will change all three of those aspects, and I don't want you to be so tied to some facets that haven't shown up in play that you'll ragequit after your character loses a finger, or gets a mild insanity after desecrating that foul altar.

So, if you tell me, in three paragraphs, about how your character fought in such a such war, won such a such medal, and all that, I'm going to say "okay. Let's just say he's a soldier in army X, and now he's out. We'll cover the rest through play". The rest just isn't necessary, and in my experience, it is a hindrance to play.

You're all going to start at first level. Whether you're 17 or 37, you'll be first level. It's up to you to explain why that is. And why are 1st level characters inexperienced scrubs? I mean, even at first level, they can handle being outnumbered by human bandits.

And that's pretty badass.

This has always bothered me. I could understand if every level 1-2 character started as a 17-18 year old farmer finding his calling in the world, but not when a level 1 character that has a nice fleshed out backstory, with say a soldier background, who's in his early to mid 30's in age. I guess heroes could be late bloomers, but that just seems very lame to me. At least the fluff revolving around skills in this edition take into account your character's prior experience in the form of backgrounds, so that's a small help to my mind.

If you want a game where older = better, try out Traveller, or some games in that vein. D&D is not that game, and that's fine. It prefers you start young, as a first level character, and age into something bigger.

My bigger problem with D&D is the fact that you start a 1st level character at 17 years of age... and end a 20th level character at 17.5 years of age. This has been a problem since at LEAST 3rd edition, though... and I've been finding that 5e's ample use of downtime is helping fix things. Although, this could be a case of the fact that I'm more attentive to the issue now as a GM.

but I also don't like the fact that my character could have potentially been a soldier (sorry, I'm a veteran, so I use this background a lot, lol) for possibly 10 years or more per their background, yet barely knows how to fight better than a common peasant...

Hm. I dunno about that. A peasant, in the core game, is lucky to have a +2 modifier on an attack roll, while a fighter is going to have at least double that. And, if you want to be a fighter who has years of experience but is only first level, it's up to you as a player to figure out why this is. Personally, I'd ignore it and just keep playing, but if you need a reason - he's out of shape. Caramon in the Dragonlance novels had to bulk back up in one book, and the roman general Marius was known to carry out an exercise regimen after he was seen getting flabby to get back into "fighting trim". A 1st level fighter character in his 30s who is 1st level could have once been an awesome sergeant... but then took to drinking after seeing some good men killed, and now he's sober and wants to see the world once more (but doesn't trust the army structure).

Anyways, that's my complaint. Is anyone else rubbed the wrong way by this sort of thing? What do you do to ignore it? Maybe I'm just over analyzing and having an OCD moment. Hopefully this provides some kind of brain food for discussion as it's not intended to be a rant post.

Fair enough. Personally, I just ignore it. I don't think it's really a problem. I've played older 1st level PCs, and it's never bugged me. I just ignore the mechanical similarities between me and 1st level companions who are half my age, and pretend that I'm somehow better.

 

[Valador]

"I just ignore the mechanical similarities between me and 1st level companions who are half my age, and pretend that I'm somehow better."

This is my favorite answer so far.

 

[redrick]

Here's an example. Let's just take a 30 year old character with the soldier background. They joined the military at a relatively young age of 16-17, etc. In those 14 or so years they've seen many battles (large, small, helms deep or whatever), many wars and have led many men and progressed through the ranks. For whatever plot reason they are no longer a soldier and are now a level 1 adventurer who is now all of a sudden dungeon fodder.

My example isn't as far out as yours, and can fit reasonably with the background in the PHB, the characters age and possibly some of the campaign plot. However as soon as you come to the table it's a little disappointing when the reality hits that you're level 1 and pretty weak. RP wise the system really seems more suited towards a character being some young up and coming noob than a character with some actual depth and experience.

That example doesn't seem to be a problem with age. It's a problem of the amount of experience you've crammed into that age. Why have your 30-year-old, level 1 character join the military at 16? And see several campaigns, advancing through the ranks and leading many men into battle? Why not have them join the military a little later, see a little less combat, etc? Or, as many folks have gone over here, focus on the aspects of their military experience which don't resemble adventuring experience. (Not a military man myself, but I imagine there's a great deal in the life of an officer that has very little to do with adventuring.) Just because you're over 30 with the Soldier background doesn't mean you're John Rambo at the start of First Blood.

Creating a character is a shared exercise between you and your DM. If the DM has set the parameters of your world, and you've chosen to buy into those parameters (eg, starting at level 1), it is your job to create a character that fits into that world. Certainly, the easiest way to do that is to just create a 22-year-old squirt fresh out of Harvard School of Adventuring, but there are lots of other ways that your character can lack high level adventuring experience, while still having more than a pair of decades under their belt. I regularly work with interns in their 20's who wouldn't cut it as first-level material.

 

[Wik]

"I just ignore the mechanical similarities between me and 1st level companions who are half my age, and pretend that I'm somehow better."

This is my favorite answer so far.

Hey, I do what I can.

But it's true. Honestly, when you consider that the range between 20th and 1st in 5e is something like a +4 difference (plus ability mods), you realize that there's probably a huge disparity of "talent" amongst peoples with the exact same stat modifier. An apprentice and a journeyman are probably only a +1 difference away anyways.

The game is now far less granular than it was in the 3e days, and the numbers are much smaller in the 3e/4e days. Because of those two factors, it's totally conceivable to have two characters with the exact same ultimate modifier, and have one character say "I'm better at this than you are" and have it be "true" in the game's fiction.

Imagine you're playing your soldier, and I'm playing a human bard with an investigator/sherlock holmes vibe. You have a perception score of +3 (+2 from prof, +1 from your wisdom of 12). I have a perception of the same, from the same combinations (for some reason, I cant' get a higher wisdom for my character type). However, you rarely stress your perception abilities, whereas I'm always stressing how I'm good at it, and using inspiration on perception rolls whenever possible.

So, mechanically we're similar, but if someone ever novelises our game, you BET I'm going to be referred to as the perceptive one.

You can do the same thing with age. You're the experienced soldier with a +5 to attacks at first level (+2 prof, +3 from STR), whereas I'm the green rookie with the exact same modifier. There's absolutely no reason your character can't give my character tips ("wrap your sword with fabric soaked in pitch, boy. It'll provide grip when things get wet and muddy... which is always, in war"). Unless I'm a terrible RPer, I'm not going to shoot back, "You're not the boss of me! We have the same stat modifiers, and hit monsters with the same frequency! Snort!"

Anyways. My two cents.