Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 9454097" data-attributes="member: 7635">I think it's less a matter of strong/weak and a matter of competency. Old D&amp;D assumed level 1 PCs are incompetent. Literally, they are terrible at their jobs. A fighter was marginally better than a commoner, a magic-user had 1 spell, a cleric didn't even have spells (just turn undead, which only worked on a scant few types) and thieves had less than one in five chance of successfully using any skill (climb walls excluded). Despite what the level titles implied; you weren't even worth the rock needed to make a gravestone until you were at least 3rd level. The reason 5th level was the sweet spot was it was finally the level where you had a better chance of succeeding on a given action than failing. Contrast to 5e, where a level 1 fighter is already a better warrior than most NPCs, a level 1 wizard has a few spell options, a level 1 cleric likewise has good magic, and a level 1 rogue can succeed most of his core skill checks more often than not. 5e PCs start out already with some ability to succeed and it grows from there. Come 3rd level, they are reasonably good at their chosen class and by 5th, they are experts. That said, most media still portray their characters as competent even when they are starting out. Harry Potter might not be the best wizard, but he is certainly naturally gifted enough to keep up the much more powerful antagonists he encounters. Luke Skywalker is a crack shot with a blaster and the best brush pilot this side of Mois Eisley and that's before he learns the Force. The bait was always implying &quot;you could play your favorite fantasy heroes&quot; and the switch was &quot;one day, if you're lucky.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 9454097, member: 7635"] I think it's less a matter of strong/weak and a matter of competency. Old D&D assumed level 1 PCs are incompetent. Literally, they are terrible at their jobs. A fighter was marginally better than a commoner, a magic-user had 1 spell, a cleric didn't even have spells (just turn undead, which only worked on a scant few types) and thieves had less than one in five chance of successfully using any skill (climb walls excluded). Despite what the level titles implied; you weren't even worth the rock needed to make a gravestone until you were at least 3rd level. The reason 5th level was the sweet spot was it was finally the level where you had a better chance of succeeding on a given action than failing. Contrast to 5e, where a level 1 fighter is already a better warrior than most NPCs, a level 1 wizard has a few spell options, a level 1 cleric likewise has good magic, and a level 1 rogue can succeed most of his core skill checks more often than not. 5e PCs start out already with some ability to succeed and it grows from there. Come 3rd level, they are reasonably good at their chosen class and by 5th, they are experts. That said, most media still portray their characters as competent even when they are starting out. Harry Potter might not be the best wizard, but he is certainly naturally gifted enough to keep up the much more powerful antagonists he encounters. Luke Skywalker is a crack shot with a blaster and the best brush pilot this side of Mois Eisley and that's before he learns the Force. The bait was always implying "you could play your favorite fantasy heroes" and the switch was "one day, if you're lucky." [/QUOTE]

Verification