D&D is not a supers game.

[Herschel]

By no means am I trying to suggest that TPKs are impossible in 4E, or that character death is necessarily rare. But the balance is certainly different in 4E than in any earlier edition.

Yeah, character deaths still happen easily enough, they're just not as random.

 

[Mattachine]

A common nickname for that first 4e adventure was "Keep on the TPK-Fell."

The first time I ran it, my group had a TPK.

The difference I saw compared to early editions was a TPK in 4e came about after 4-5 rounds of combat (which took an hour!). In AD&D, a TPK could come about from a single round of good attacks and failed saves--remember fighting ghouls at low level?

 

[Gryph]

As I said before, the modularity lies in having the option to start at higher levels of experience. The notion that Level 1=Level 0 simply because you want characters to start at equitable HP levels to everybody else in the fantasy world is a straw man in itself. Believe it or not, this is how D&D was played for decades before 4th Edition came along. And I, for one, enjoyed it.

I, on the other hand, have been enjoying D&D for decades (started with Holmes Basic in '77) but not with crappy starting HP values.

One of our long standing houserules was starting with Con score + HD roll at first level. The speed of character generation in did not alleviate the loss of enjoyment we felt from losing a first level character we were already becoming attached to.

My friends and I liked creating fairly detailed backstories with hooks for the DM to use during the campaign. Fragile starting PCs are harmful to the enjoyment of this playstyle.

My gut tells me that truly new players will enjoy the game more if their first character isn't fragile (single digit starting hp), but that could well be personal bias talking.

Still, there is no real need to argue over wich is better. This is a pretty simple dial and a sidebar in the main rules explaining other starting HP options makes it easy enough for either of us to play with the style we like regardless of the default dial setting.

 

[grimslade]

A PC should able to withstand at least one hit, even a crit, at 1st level. No one likes being wiped out from a bad initiative roll. Getting ambushed by multiple goons? Sure, it sucks but it's plausible.
Too many hit points leads to bloat and kobolds not being any threat. So d4 hit die plus anemic 1E con bonus is too few hit points. Con score plus Con mod plus d6 is too high. D6 plus Con mod for wiz is about right. Wizards shouldn't be in melee, Shocking Grasp or no. Maybe max hp at 1st. 6+ hp should survive a great axe crit. 1+ hp is way too low.

 

[Gryph]

2¢.

For me, powerful options for D&D PCs are like properly seasoning a dish. If the dish tastes wrong, it is very easy to add seasoning, it is very difficult to take it out.

...Which is why I prefer a D&D where the default is 1st level characters that are only slightly more powerful than the commoners they protect; a game where Wizards are wary of cars and keep their crossbows in rop working order. A game like that can easily support characters who start a campaign at higher levels, like the original DarkSun.

Honestly, I think the PC options are more like a recipe than a finished dish. It is equally easy to bump the amount of spice down to taste as up to taste; so long as the spices are well labeled.

With a lot of the power options being packed into Themes and Backgrounds it's going to be pretty easy to dial down overall power by excluding them or change the pace of power gain by delaying (or accelerating) their features.

Starting HP options are more about the density of the dough rather than the flavor. I can whip my batter longer adding air and making the pastry more fragile or I can simply mix in my eggs and reduce the flour and make my pastry rich and dense. Either way the 70% cocoa baking chocolate I use is going to make it yummy.

It's lunch time and I'm getting hungry.

I myself like 1st level to be a little lighter on the spice and dense and chewy in play (Fewer power options but enough HP to not be fragile).

 

[Doug McCrae]

And Mr. Gygax also moved away from the high lethality of his games by starting his players at 3rd level. I don't know from experience, but my understanding that what Mr. Gygax played at his table was considerably different-- and much higher-powered-- than what he wrote in his rulebooks.

The 1e DMG actually does recommend starting at higher than 1st level if it's not the player's first character, and, in some situations, even if it is. Gary thinks that a new player's first experience of D&D ideally should be at level one, alongside other beginners.

As a general rule the greatest thrill for any neophyte player will be the first adventure, when he or she doesn’t have any real idea of what is happening, how powerful any encountered monster is, or what rewards will be gained from the adventure. This assumes survival, and you should gear your dungeon to accommodate 1st level players. If your campaign has a mixture of experienced and inexperienced players, you should arrange for the two groups to adventure separately, possibly in separate dungeons, at first. Allow the novice players to learn for themselves, and give experienced players tougher situations to face, for they already understand most of what is happening - quite unlike true 1st level adventurers of the would-be sort, were such persons actually to exist.

If you have an existing campaign, with the majority of the players being already above 1st level, it might be better to allow the few newcomers to begin at 2nd level or even 3rd or 4th in order to give them a survival chance when the group sets off for some lower dungeon level. I do not personally favor granting unearned experience level(s) except in extreme circumstances such as just mentioned, for it tends to rob the new player of the real enjoyment he or she would normally feel upon actually gaining levels of experience by dint of cleverness, risk, and hard fighting.​

- page 12

Experienced players without existing characters should generally be brought into the campaign at a level roughly equal to the average of that of the other player characters. If the average is 4th level, far example, an "average" die or d4 + 1 can be rolled to find a level between 2 and 5. This actually works well even if the average experience level of the campaign is 5th, 6th, 7th, or even 8th, especially when the "averaging" die is used. If the experience level is above 8th, you will wish to start such newcomers out at 4th or higher level. After all, they are not missing out on anything, as they have already played beginning character roles elsewhere​

- page 111

 

[airwalkrr]

While I disagree with the premise of the title of this thread (IMHO D&D is a supers game), I agree with the content of the OP. What I like best about old-school D&D is the feeling of developing from a "street-level" hero to a "super" hero. All D&D player characters are a cut above the crop. They are those individuals who begin at 1st-level as being just a little bit better at their trade. The fighter is not just a soldier, he is a born and bred fighter, with fighting in his heart. The wizard is not just a dabbler in magic, he is a true master of magic with the potential to become a mighty magus.

I disliked the notion of 1st-level characters in 4e being mega heroes and I dislike the approach of the playtest in this regard as well. There is something special about playing a character from being a lowly and weak 1st-level something and turning him into an epic warrior of legend over the course of a campaign. The developers are trying to avoid the 1st-level lethality problem, as it has often been described, by giving 1st-level heroes a huge hit point buffer. But I think this is the wrong way to do this. Make the hit point buffer an optional rule for DMs who want their PCs to be extra special instead of just regular special. Personally, I like campaigns where adventuring is a dangerous enterprise where death is commonplace. Those that survive have many great stories to tell.

 

[Fifth Element]

I disliked the notion of 1st-level characters in 4e being mega heroes

I also dislike this notion, largely because it's untrue in any meaningful sense since you have to compare characters to their environments to know how powerful they are.

 

[Imaro]

I also dislike this notion, largely because it's untrue in any meaningful sense since you have to compare characters to their environments to know how powerful they are.

I'm honestly unsure of this... but is 4e the only edition where a 1st level character cannot possibly be killed by a single hit from an equal level/HD opponent?

EDIT: OAN: Is it the only edition where full hp recovery is granted after an 8 hour rest?

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm honestly unsure of this... but is 4e the only edition where a 1st level character cannot possibly be killed by a single hit from an equal level/HD opponent?

4e is also the only edition where it is almost impossible for a 1st level character (or any other level character) to kill an equal level/hd opponent in one hit. Swings and roundabouts.

EDIT: OAN: Is it the only edition where full hp recovery is granted after an 8 hour rest?

In theory or in practice? Because 3.X had the mistake of making the cheap and easily craftable Wand of Cure Light Wounds making healing much more abundant even than in 4e.