D&D 5E Character Age

[Valador]

Okay, so the purpose of this thread is two-fold. First, it's to explain my issue and second, to receive any advice, insight, stories of your own, etc.

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...

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.

While not bothering me in the sense that it hinders my game play, it just really rubs me the wrong way and is nothing more than a personal nuisance which creates a personal hatred for the first 3 levels or so of the game. I don't want to create a level 1 character that has seen every thing, done everything, etc., 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...

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.

 

[Minigiant]

It bugged me a bit.

When I DM, I give 1 bonus proficiency for being middle aged or older for your race but -1 HP per level.

I also give older races, an extra proficiency but double training and research costs.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I think your problem isn't with starting age, but with the nature of hit points.

I have the exact opposite issue, though: too many first-level characters are 17-year-olds (or the racial equivalent). Admittedly, 5e has done more to discourage this than previous editions (with Backgrounds) but it's still too common for my tastes. I want diversity of backstories, with middle-aged heroes alongside whippersnappers, actually reflecting the diversity of the society that produces them.

 

[DEFCON 1]

What do you do to ignore it?

I just never try and justify game mechanics to the world's narrative.

Game mechanics are there to make the game a game. To use merely to play the game. Trying to bend my head around the "realism" of any game mechanics to the "real world" of the game world is a fool's errand in my opinion because three-fourths of the game mechanics make no narrative sense.

For me... the characters in the story are who they are-- not what they can do. Because what they can do via game mechanics makes no narrative sense for precisely the sort of reason you bring up. I accepted that disconnect a long time ago. It's really all you can do. Otherwise you tear your hair out wondering how a healthy 15th level fighter can survive every single fall from a 100 foot tower then get up and walk away... each and every time it happens.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Personally I don't think starting out at L1 works with players who want to create a long in-depth background for their PC. That would work a lot better for a campaign that starts at higher levels, or a game system where you are not creating a neophyte like GURPS. As a DM I'd tell them not to waste time making that kind of background for a PC starting at L1, and as a player I don't make long detailed histories so its not an issue.

 

[cmad1977]

Probably an OCD moment... But...

I'd say that while your soldier may have been 'soldiering' for years, that may not equate to combat experience. Sure he's had training(hence weapon profiviencies) but maybe his assignments were more 'guard this useless wagon/road' and less 'through the breach lads!!!' I've made an older cleric. He just spent the bulk of his life in temple and caring for the peasantry before fate cast him out into the world.

 

[ad_hoc]

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.

Ouch. As someone who is in their 30s and is back in school to get an entry level position I will say that it does happen and doesn't have to be lame. My life history informs what I do now but I still have a similar skill level to others in my class.

Life is not over once you hit your 30s.

I think that backgrounds do an excellent job of providing and explaining what your character did before adventuring.

I also wouldn't say that a level 1 fighter barely knows how to fight better than a peasant.

As a level 1 fighter you get proficiency in all armour, shields, and weapons. Sounds pretty skilled to me.

Then you get a full 10 hp + con. Pretty hardy.

Then you get second wind, so you can regain your HP and keep going.

You also get a fighting style, so even more skill.

Compare to a commoner with 4hp, +2 to hit, 1d4 damage and AC 10.

Guards are closer which is essentially where your backstory gets you with 11HP, +3 to hit, 1d6+1 dmg, AC 16

I also think of character level as more than just showing the skills that your character has learned. It is tied to the narrative. It partially represents your character's drive. This is why most people don't have class levels and why protagonists survive what would kill ordinary people - because they are important and know it. It's an action/fantasy trope, but it is one for a reason.


Maybe it is my age speaking but I don't think all heroes need to be the teenager who is striking out on their own to seek adventure for the first time. It can easily be the person who is a bit older who has finally found real purpose in their life. They have seen what the rampaging monsters have done to their village time and again, and finally, even though it is dangerous, they say no more. I actually find it odd to have a 16-18 year old character with proficiency in all weapons and armour.

 

[DM_Jeff]

Doesn't bother me, I like the return to this idea. It's just old-school, per the primer to old-school gaming: "Old-style games have a human-sized scale, not a super-powered scale. At first level, adventurers are barely more capable than a regular person."

But as Defcon1 alluded to you can't always map these things to real-world equivalents. It can all be in how you role-play, too. A good example of this is the Pathfinder iconic wizard Ezren. He didn't start adventuring until late in life, and while not a youngin' with no skills he had accounting and mercantile talents, but they don't translate easily to "adventuring skills" listed on the character sheet.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Character starting age is rather a non-issue in a system with such rapid advancement. Going from level 1 to 20 can happen in less than a year of game time so starting age isn't really a factor. You can make your new adventurer as young or old as you please.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

In the AD&D DMG there was this table for ageing that may be useful, stat wise.
You'd have to work out dragonborn/tiefling age ranges for yourself though.