D&D: Adventurers, Not Heroes

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So the "3HD at first level" is an rumor for 4E? I didn't read the thread, but I made the assumption this thread was related to that thread and being a hero because your powerful.

Yes, it is a rumor, because that's what the new Star Wars Saga Edition did.


I think there are good reasons to have player characters start as something better.
They could just start with the statistics of the D&D 4 equivalent of a Commoner, and fight their way to the top. That might even be fun (once or twice at least, or after you played to high level and want to start anew) - But it's incredibly hard for a new player, or even a new group.
They have to struggle with a possible entirely new game system (maybe their first RPG ever), and then they run into a fight, and suddenly are surprised how quick their characters are down to 0 hps or even dead. In D&D, even if you use the best tactics, two attacking goblins can drop down one of the character. One critical, and you're gone.
For experienced players, this doesn't really matter. Because they _know_ that they will get to kick ass after a few such incidents. But a beginner might very well shy back and prefer to try something else. And you know, it's not just the 1st level that is that hard - the first 3 levels are pretty deadly...

So, let's start 1st level characters out as heroes. Experienced groups can always house-rule there "non-heroic 0th level adventurer if they want to feel "becoming a hero".

 

[hong]

I have no expectations for swordsages so my expectations can't be subverted.

Exactly.

 

[ptolemy18]

Exactly.

Huh? :/

I have to admit I'm having a little difficulty figuring out your swordsage's character since the thread consists 95% of number-crunching about her insanely min-maxed combat abilities.(Although I will say, props on beating the Temple of Elemental Evil!)

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Why do we need a new edition to make PCs into "Heroes" at the start of a game? Just start the PCs off at a higher level with the existing rules.

 

[shilsen]

Maybe it's just because labels don't bother me in the least, but whether the design team calls the characters "heroes" or "adventurers" or "collections of numbers on a sheet" doesn't matter at all to me. I'm going to be the one deciding what the character is, anyway, whatever someone else may call it.

That being said, whenever I read about the characters as heroes in 4e, I'm interpreting it in as closer to "important/powerful character" than "all-round good guy." I'm mostly applying the ancient Greek sense of the "hero" here, as one who possesses "arete" (excellence). Achilles and Hercules are heroes, but few modern-day people would call them paragons of virtue. It also bleeds over into the concept of the protagonist in many forms, such as tragedy. Macbeth is certainly not a good guy, but he's definitely the protagonist of the eponymous play, and arguably possesses a quality that nobody else in the play's world does.

So, in short, that's why I see D&D PCs as heroes. They don't have to be good guys, but they are special in the context of the game (after all, the game's about them, not all the myriad NPCs around them), and that's a good enough definition for me. But then, as mentioned above, I'm easy.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

So the "3HD at first level" is an rumor for 4E? I didn't read the thread, but I made the assumption this thread was related to that thread and being a hero because your powerful.

Does SWSE use 3HD at max HP, or simply 3HD? Because for a Fighter (assuming d10 hp and Con bonuses are the same) that could mean either 21 HP or 36 hp (assuming +2 Con bonus) compared to 12 HP in 3E. 21 HP is not excessive, in my view, 36 might be. This also raises the question of what else does a starting character get besides 3x HP?

 

[McBard]

Does SWSE use 3HD at max HP, or simply 3HD?

SWSE uses (3 x max HP) + Con bonus. Thus, the d10 Soldier starts with 30 hp + Con bonus (a Con 14 Soldier starts with 32 hp at 1st level).

I suppose 4e 1st level characters might start with more hit points in a similar fashion--but the reasons for it being so in SWSE seem different:

1) The most typical weapons (blasters)--even in the hands of mooks--in SW do 3d6 (pistol) or 3d8 (carbine/rifle). So, 1st level characters need more hp.

2) The triple max HP formula in SWSE for 1st level characters also roughly equates to the earlier edition of the SW rpg that was based on Vitality/Wounds.

 

[howandwhy99]

In this context, "badasses" would be a better word than "heroes", methinks. The Iron Badassization of D&D has a certain ring to it as well.

I agree with Hong (that's twice today). Call the game "Iron Badasses: tough as nails".

Edit: The game can be played any way you like. But it was designed for the players to learn, amongst other things, cooperation, teamwork, and how to behave like heroes - not whatever behaving like a badass teaches.

 

[DarkKestral]

Hmm, that's a good option.

BTW, what do you mean, "32 point buy"? Is buying rather than rolling the standard for Saga and, presumably, for D&D4e? I've always used the standard statistics-rolling rules for 3.0 and 3.5. Just curious.

I know 32 pt. buy is the standard for at least one WotC d20 game. (d20 modern. Even NPCs get 25 pt. in that game, so yeah.. ) I don't know if it is for Saga, but point buy in general appears to be used a lot. (I believe all of the WotC-ran Living Campaigns use Point Buy, and it IS a standard DMG option in 3.0 and 3.5 and used fairly heavily in PBeM/PbPs where player rolling is a concern for DMs.) Officially, the standard point buy is 25 points, but very few people actually play that. Most prefer 28 or 32, with a larger number tending to 32.

I also think the style I mentioned earlier is a useful technique for dealing with heroic NPCs. heroic NPCs may still have NPC class levels. So if you need to adjust the 'feel' you simply exchange NPC classes for PC classes. The 'better' the opponent, the larger the percentage of PC class levels they have and the higher their stats will be. Your town guardsmen may be mostly 3rd levels, with a few select veterans as 4th levels, and only one or two are full PC-class types. Likewise, if you have SWSE type bonus hp at first level, 'heroic' NPCs get heroic HP bonuses. Middling heroic get an extra die, as opposed to a full 2 dice. Non-heroic get just the single standard HD. This way, easy to come up with combos can mean your fights get a lot of variety, without much work on your part. Captain of the guard? 4th level Fighter with 2 extra HD, custom gear, and PC-quality stat buy. Sargeant? Second level Fighter and 2nd level Warrior with one extra HD, half custom gear and half standard, and elite array. Random Guardsman #21? Stock standard out of the book Warrior 3. With SWSE-type skills, then it'd be really easy to go and stat out the fight.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

You know, there's a reason why "adventurer" is a slur in most Western languages. Adventurers, as a whole, are a very small step away from brigands. Especially the D&D ones... so if I can leverage the story to make them do the right thing, then I certainly will. They can certainly look after their characters' best interests much better than I.

As for pigeon-holing in D&D, and restricting the kind of stories you can tell with it and all that jazz, I don't mind it one bit. D&D isn't a Generic or Universal Role Playing System. It's a system made to emulate old Sword and Sorcery tropes and newer, Asian-inspired fantasy. It's arguably the best at what it does, but it doesn't mean that anything one can imagine can be done with D&D. For what it doesn't do, I use other systems.

In fact, one of the greatest benefits of the whole Role-playing theory stuff is the recognition that a game can't embrace the world, or be 100% generic -- the rules have to support a specific style of play, even if it means they won't support other styles very well. That's a fact of life, and in a sense, it's the resource allocation we all know and love for D&D applied to system rules.