D&D is not a supers game.

[Dannager]

Well that's a provocative statement, because the fact is that there are plenty of RPGs that cater to this taste - how many 'cool things' does a beginning character get in WFRP or TOR or RuneQuest? Not nearly as much as they do in D&D as it stands. Moreover, as a fan of fantasy literature in general, the basic problem with D&D is that it doesn't recreate the feel of a whole bulk of the genre it purports to be about. Yet, to me at least, previous iterations of the game - the one I grew up with - did.

If D&D Next is supposed to be about unification, then people need to start thinking more inclusive than this.

So advocate for the game to include a "level 0" optional module that allows you to start out sucking. Just don't return D&D to the days of, "Welcome to D&D! Roll initiative! Oh, a 1? I'm sorry! The orc attacks you! Ooh, a natural 20! What's that? It deals more damage than your hit point total? I'm so sorry, looks like you don't get to play D&D today!"

 

[Keldryn]

The awesome thing is that we have people willing to point out how out of date we really are.

That's the most awesome thing I've read all day.

 

[TrippyHippy]

So advocate for the game to include a "level 0" optional module that allows you to start out sucking. Just don't return D&D to the days of, "Welcome to D&D! Roll initiative! Oh, a 1? I'm sorry! The orc attacks you! Ooh, a natural 20! What's that? It deals more damage than your hit point total? I'm so sorry, looks like you don't get to play D&D today!"

No, I don't want a 'Level 0' option. I want Level 1 to actually be Level 1. And as for the scenario you are presenting, well, it never really happened to me that much whenever I played previous versions of the game. Moreover, those times that characters died merely meant that you rolled up a new character and just got on with it. The danger of character death was just part of the experience of D&D adventuring. It seems that some attitudes preclude the notion that PCs should be able to die at all. Like I say, Supers gaming.

 

[The Human Target]

And we want Level 1 not to mean Level 0.

There really is no way to appease both sides without having some sort of power modularity.

 

[Samurai]

Personally, I like the extra HP at 1st level. It's something we've been doing in Pathfinder for years. Characters get their Con score + max HD at 1st level, regular after that. It gives some breathing room and lets them take a hit or 2 without dropping like flies. Before we did that, we started all characters at 3rd level, but that inflated spells, feats, skills, etc, and we found we liked the beginning characters access to those things, just with a bit more survivability.

Also, HD don't mean the same thing in 5e. Characters get a set number of HPs, and Hit Dice are the Healing Surge/Second Wind mechanic from 4e with a new/old name attached. You roll your HD to see how many HP you regain during a short rest.

 

[TrippyHippy]

And we want Level 1 not to mean Level 0.

There really is no way to appease both sides without having some sort of power modularity.

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.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Yeah, I can't agree with the OP. The endgame in Classic was divine ascension. That means that from 1st to 36th level, your character transitioned from a special hero-- head and shoulders above the common man whether or not he could survive a deadly duel with the neighbor's cat-- to the borderline of divinity itself.

How many gods, in any version of D&D that statted them out, were built using the Elite Array?

Hell, how many mid- or high-level NPCs in any official version of any official D&D campaign setting were built on 25 points, or 28 points, or 36 points?

Drizzt's low stat is a 14 in something he took a racial penalty to.

I don't like this artificial cap of 20 for PCs and 30 for god-like things, because according to the game fluff and most of the novels, high-level PCs are god-like things.

D&D is not gritty sword and sorcery fantasy. It's built all wrong for it, and it always has been. (Though later editions more so.) People talk about the 'zero to hero' structure of the level system, but they've got it all wrong-- 'zero to hero' is an integral part of the D&D experience, but it's the opening act.

 

[TrippyHippy]

D&D is not gritty sword and sorcery fantasy.

In which case it holds little interest for me anymore.

I accept that at different tiers, different types of fantasy are represented, but to simply deny an aspect of the game that was present in previous iterations (and that is basically all I am asking for!) is hardly an inclusive attitude.

 

[jbear]

That's one of the most goofy things I've read on this forum.

The author of that comment has quite the talent for saying goofy things.

 

[jbear]

So ...what would the expectation be ... ? Play the game being play tested and come away thinking ... wow! My character was really crap! This game rocks!!



Being hopeless at level 1 is not a core expectation of D&D. They can build in that option for play style, but it's not something you want to have be the core of a game.
And despite some people being in denial about it, D&D is a game. People play it to have fun. Not everyone's definition of fun is being crap and having to work your way up to defeating an angry cat in a fight.