Valador
First Post
I'll be in that boat soon. Just finished my contract with the Army and will be furthering my education with my benefits. I have a feeling it's going to be like Billy Madison.
D&D 5E Character Age
I'll be in that boat soon. Just finished my contract with the Army and will be furthering my education with my benefits. I have a feeling it's going to be like Billy Madison.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Basic Rules, page 6:
A 1st-level character is inexperienced in the adventuring world, although he or she might have been a soldier or a pirate and done dangerous things before.
...
Starting off at 1st level marks your character’s entry into the adventuring life.
One could take this to mean that all statistics for a character, while sometimes reflective of background or the like, ultimately represent the character's effectiveness as an adventurer. Thus, while you may have traveled the world as a soldier and gotten into many conflicts, at the apprentice tier, you're still just a scrub when it comes to things adventurers do. The plucky 17-year-old, 3rd-level adventurer is simply better at adventuring than the 35-year-old grizzled veteran of many wars who is only a 1st-level adventurer (by the numbers if nothing else). Perhaps this perspective will help settle the conflict the OP is having.
As an aside, I request that players don't use numbers to describe age (or height or weight), preferring them instead to use descriptive keywords like "venerable," "youthful," or the like and leave it somewhat vague and a bit more evocative.
A 1st-level character is inexperienced in the adventuring world, although he or she might have been a soldier or a pirate and done dangerous things before.
...
Starting off at 1st level marks your character’s entry into the adventuring life.
One could take this to mean that all statistics for a character, while sometimes reflective of background or the like, ultimately represent the character's effectiveness as an adventurer. Thus, while you may have traveled the world as a soldier and gotten into many conflicts, at the apprentice tier, you're still just a scrub when it comes to things adventurers do. The plucky 17-year-old, 3rd-level adventurer is simply better at adventuring than the 35-year-old grizzled veteran of many wars who is only a 1st-level adventurer (by the numbers if nothing else). Perhaps this perspective will help settle the conflict the OP is having.
As an aside, I request that players don't use numbers to describe age (or height or weight), preferring them instead to use descriptive keywords like "venerable," "youthful," or the like and leave it somewhat vague and a bit more evocative.
Bawylie
A very OK person
This.
Whatever they accomplished in the background, they're new to adventuring. Some experience may carry over (in the form of proficiencies or whatever), but in the main, there's nothing quite like adventuring.
Also regarding age - description is preferable to a number. As with most things, numbers are accurate, but not necessarily evocative. Good, loaded adjectives are preferable because they engage your imagination in a way that numbers tend not to.
Whatever they accomplished in the background, they're new to adventuring. Some experience may carry over (in the form of proficiencies or whatever), but in the main, there's nothing quite like adventuring.
Also regarding age - description is preferable to a number. As with most things, numbers are accurate, but not necessarily evocative. Good, loaded adjectives are preferable because they engage your imagination in a way that numbers tend not to.
AaronOfBarbaria
Adventurer
Absolutely. "Fresh faced, brazen warrior" gives a lot more sense of what I should be imagining than "17 year old, 16 charisma fighter."
And when some other player asks me "what does your character look like?" or "how old is your character?" saying something along the lines of "Two-parts grandpa in too big of a night gown, one-part hobo, and a splash of the devil around the eyes" or "there might be Gods younger than he is" gives that player a much more accurate image of what I mean to look like than saying "He's 75, wearing robes, a great big long beard and hair, but an intense look in his eyes"
Or my buddy's description of his dwarf as "a suit of the finest armor, stuffed to bursting with muscles and beard, and laden with no less than a dozen things that could kill someone."
Anything to get people actually seeing something in their head - specificity and numerical accessory are for the character sheet, not the imagination.
redrick
First Post
I believe Frodo Baggins was in the human equivalent of his 30's when he started his great adventure, most certainly as a level 1 character.
Your standard guard NPC will have fewer hp than your first-level fighter. That's an active duty, trained guard.
No matter what age your first-level character is, the one thing you know is, "they haven't gone on any adventures yet." But, most people haven't! Maybe that's because they took up their specific adventur-y training later in life, or maybe that's because they've spent most of their life sitting at home, sneaking up on their children or picking locks in their workshop, dreaming about how, one day, maybe they'll actually sneak into a fortress and sneak attack something.
Your standard guard NPC will have fewer hp than your first-level fighter. That's an active duty, trained guard.
No matter what age your first-level character is, the one thing you know is, "they haven't gone on any adventures yet." But, most people haven't! Maybe that's because they took up their specific adventur-y training later in life, or maybe that's because they've spent most of their life sitting at home, sneaking up on their children or picking locks in their workshop, dreaming about how, one day, maybe they'll actually sneak into a fortress and sneak attack something.
Valador
First Post
Replacing a number with a description still doesn't get around the problem. If anything, it makes it even worse.
Intro level 1 dwarf Sir Awesome McAwesomesauce
"a suit of the finest armor, stuffed to bursting with muscles and beard, and laden with no less than a dozen things that could kill someone"
All of that still doesn't mean anything as it's not going to be represented fairly as a level 1 no matter how much fluff and dazzle you put into it. You can make your level 1 character sound like God himself but in the end they're barely above a normal guy, simply because "they're new at adventuring..."
Intro level 1 dwarf Sir Awesome McAwesomesauce
"a suit of the finest armor, stuffed to bursting with muscles and beard, and laden with no less than a dozen things that could kill someone"
All of that still doesn't mean anything as it's not going to be represented fairly as a level 1 no matter how much fluff and dazzle you put into it. You can make your level 1 character sound like God himself but in the end they're barely above a normal guy, simply because "they're new at adventuring..."
Last edited:
redrick
First Post
I like to think in terms of backGROUND not backSTORY. 5e actually handles this really well — the various rollable tables focus most on what motivates, frightens and compels the player character. They don't get into a long epic saga of "all the stuff that happened to your character before level 1."
As a DM, I want characters to have a background, because it tends to give them consistency in play. The player can go off that background and use it to inform choices for that PC, and I can play off those choices. I don't want characters to have involved backstories, because the players start expecting the elements of their personal backstory to show up regularly in play. Honestly, it's more work for me, and when I'm stroking one PC's backstory, I'm ignoring the other 3 or 4. I'd rather have PCs build those elements out through actual play. Then it becomes something we all share.
Bawylie
A very OK person
What?
Mouseferatu
Hero
So I normally don't worry about the backstory and numbers corresponding if I'm playing a campaign that begins at 1st level, but for those times I do, I've come up with several reasons why an older, more experienced character might not be any better, mechanically, than a younger newbie:
1) As someone else said, their experience might simply not match up. A scholar who's only just become a wizard won't be any better than a new wizard, and the "scholarly" aspects can be taken care of via skills and background. Similar to a priest who wasn't an adventuring cleric.
2) Old age or injury has slowed the character down. He was once a great warrior, but has lost a step or three. Part of his advancement in level isn't learning new stuff so much as regaining the physicality necessary to re-master stuff he once knew.
3) Magic. As above, but the new weakness/ignorance is the result of a curse or other magic as opposed to age or injury. I once created, but didn't get to play, a fighter who had been a powerful wizard but had somehow had all his magical ability stripped from him. He was totally starting over.
4) The character simply wasn't very good. He was a mediocre soldier or thief or whatever. It wasn't until getting into adventuring (or something else changing in his life/background) that something "clicked" in his head and he started to really excel.
1) As someone else said, their experience might simply not match up. A scholar who's only just become a wizard won't be any better than a new wizard, and the "scholarly" aspects can be taken care of via skills and background. Similar to a priest who wasn't an adventuring cleric.
2) Old age or injury has slowed the character down. He was once a great warrior, but has lost a step or three. Part of his advancement in level isn't learning new stuff so much as regaining the physicality necessary to re-master stuff he once knew.
3) Magic. As above, but the new weakness/ignorance is the result of a curse or other magic as opposed to age or injury. I once created, but didn't get to play, a fighter who had been a powerful wizard but had somehow had all his magical ability stripped from him. He was totally starting over.
4) The character simply wasn't very good. He was a mediocre soldier or thief or whatever. It wasn't until getting into adventuring (or something else changing in his life/background) that something "clicked" in his head and he started to really excel.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Age is only relevant to me for one reason: consent.
Beyond that, you're a noob because you lack experience (the very thing that makes you level up!). A person can remain a level 1 fighter soldier for years for a lot of reasons. Perhaps the lands have been in relative peace during your tenure. Perhaps you've got a Captain who doesn't like you and keeps putting you on janitor duty. (heh, duty). Maybe the life of a soldier has become ill-fitting, thus you left the service without advancing your training, perhaps you were discharged. Perhaps advanced training is limited to a select few and you haven't made the cut.
Against Flexor's advice I would not caution against deep backstories for low-level characters. This will often lead to disinterest in a character, with them being little more than a mechanical incarnation designed to "play a game" and not result in good role-play. If you don't know who your character is, how can you play them properly?
I would instead caution against backstories that build your character up to be something they can't actually start out as. A level 1 fighter is essentially a grunt in a regular set of armed forces, or might be a little higher but instead come from a bumpkin town where level 1 represents extreme skill. If you write your character (or if anyone at your table does this) to be the Captain of the City Watch, having served in 4 wars and personally protected the king....unless "max level" of your world is level 5, it's highly unlikely that your character could reasonably have done those things without gaining any levels at all.
I've played a paladin in numerous editions and a "level 1 paladin" is sort of an odd beast since it's mentioned they go through years of training. But that's years of training. That's why you have an 18 str. That's why you have a 16 int. That's why you have a 15 cha. You weren't born with those qualities, you refined them over the years of training you did. When you hit "level 1" as a paladin, that's the first moment you've been accepted in your holy order.
Honestly I would say that groups which require training (Paladins, Fighter/Soldiers, Wizards, Clerics, monks) make more sense to start at level 1, given that these classes often belong to structured institutions which pace your advancement. Rogues, Rangers, Druids, Bards, Barbarians, Sorcerers, Warlocks make less sense to start at level 1 without that change representing essentially a massive mid-life crisis.
Beyond that, you're a noob because you lack experience (the very thing that makes you level up!). A person can remain a level 1 fighter soldier for years for a lot of reasons. Perhaps the lands have been in relative peace during your tenure. Perhaps you've got a Captain who doesn't like you and keeps putting you on janitor duty. (heh, duty). Maybe the life of a soldier has become ill-fitting, thus you left the service without advancing your training, perhaps you were discharged. Perhaps advanced training is limited to a select few and you haven't made the cut.
Against Flexor's advice I would not caution against deep backstories for low-level characters. This will often lead to disinterest in a character, with them being little more than a mechanical incarnation designed to "play a game" and not result in good role-play. If you don't know who your character is, how can you play them properly?
I would instead caution against backstories that build your character up to be something they can't actually start out as. A level 1 fighter is essentially a grunt in a regular set of armed forces, or might be a little higher but instead come from a bumpkin town where level 1 represents extreme skill. If you write your character (or if anyone at your table does this) to be the Captain of the City Watch, having served in 4 wars and personally protected the king....unless "max level" of your world is level 5, it's highly unlikely that your character could reasonably have done those things without gaining any levels at all.
I've played a paladin in numerous editions and a "level 1 paladin" is sort of an odd beast since it's mentioned they go through years of training. But that's years of training. That's why you have an 18 str. That's why you have a 16 int. That's why you have a 15 cha. You weren't born with those qualities, you refined them over the years of training you did. When you hit "level 1" as a paladin, that's the first moment you've been accepted in your holy order.
Honestly I would say that groups which require training (Paladins, Fighter/Soldiers, Wizards, Clerics, monks) make more sense to start at level 1, given that these classes often belong to structured institutions which pace your advancement. Rogues, Rangers, Druids, Bards, Barbarians, Sorcerers, Warlocks make less sense to start at level 1 without that change representing essentially a massive mid-life crisis.
Similar Threads
