Does anybody else miss 1st L Characters

[Aramax]

No. I don't miss it at all.

At GenCon last summer, I played in a Pathfinder game in which I was playing a bard. As the dungeon crawl developed, and I quickly found myself out of daily powers and with only a handful of hit points, my character chose the better part of valor and fled. It would have taken (at most) two hits to kill me, so melee combat was really not an option (not that I was very good at it, anyway), and I am not one who enjoys the tension of choosing the "right" moments to use my daily abilities. Obviously, they shouldn't be squandered on the first goblin that sticks its nose out, but not using the powers for several encounters for fear of not having them later is actually less fun than using them up too early (at least I get to use them).

Ultimately, it is not fun to run out of useful things to do and be forced to hide in the back or run away (or soak up valuable healing) to stand a chance of surviving.

It is perfectly easy to make a 1st-level 4e (or other edition) character feel threatened without restricting him to a handful of hit points and only a pair of cool things he can do before he has to run home for the rest of the day. If, as you (and others) say, you appreciate a more scaled back opening to your heroes' quests, such that they are fragile enough that they can be killed by a single swing of a sword, by all means, do so. I assume your campaigns are tailored to this sort of opening and have ways of handling these issues (or you go through a ton of characters, in a sort of Darwinian approach to role-playing). But please, don't encourage game developers to force us all to play that way. I argue that the default adventure in D&D is more along the lines of the dungeon crawl I mentioned above, that is not conducive to weak 1st level characters, than the kind of campaign that you are describing.

O

Wow ,you would REALY hate the way I run,diffent strokes for differnt folks!

 

[Deadboy]

A while back I proposed that you could decide that the first " tier " of the game was a short one called the " Novice Tier " , with the default assumption would be starting at the next tier up, the " Veteran Tier " ( I thought Heroic should be the one after that ) .

I wonder if including 0-level play as an optional add-on would make both crowds happy. Those who want the novice zero-to-hero thing could start at 0 level (and there might be a couple of sub-levels or whatever so there could be growth period during that play) and those who just want to start as heroes can start at level 1. Anyway it sounds easy enough to accomodate both styles of play without telling one group that they have to start at 5th level or whatever.

 

[Ormazd]

Wow ,you would REALY hate the way I run,diffent strokes for differnt folks!

Exactly. I am not suggesting that you are wrong for wanting to play the way you do, but I don't think it should be the default. I think (THINK) that more people feel the way I do, based on what seems to be the default adventure type and style, than the other option. People enjoy surviving and doing things!

As for the starting at a higher level idea, I could respond in kind that you can solve your problem by simply halving hit points at 1st level, or removing powers/abilities.

Either way, let's not encourage the default rules to turn back to the day of one-shot kills and bored magic-users/clerics who have used up their daily allocations of magic missile and CLW.

 

[Ormazd]

Pathfinder and 4th edition both have per encounter abilities at 1st level for most classes ( bards are not a good option at that level. But then again, ure playing a bard which is a gish class that isnt going to be powerful at any one thing at any level. The problem may come in the adventure you're playing.The problem is not in characters in either system, it's in challenge design and figuring out how to get it right. So the real problem is, figure out a way to design balanced encounters for a party.

This touches on what I was trying to bring up when I mentioned 'tailored campaigns.' I was playing a bard on a dungeon crawl. I believe that I should be able to play a 1st-level bard (its status as a multitalented gish notwithstanding) without it being boring. Now, this dungeon crawl was not at all tailored to my character or its strengths/weaknesses (this being a convention game), and so I was quickly worthless and, therefore, bored.

Those of you who don't see much death in low-powered 1st level campaigns are already tailoring things to your characters, perhaps without realizing it. The default game, though, which occasionally uses published adventures and sourcebook material, cannot pull the punches necessary to provide the player of my 1st level bard with a good time. Thus, the default should be survivable and with enough options to keep the player involved (with appropriate resource management, of course). To say that you have to play a low-level character "more carefully" is just code for saying you have to hold on to those single spells to keep from becoming useless too early, which is just another way of being useless, IMO.

 

[Nebulous]

I wouldn't mind lower hit points at first, but I would hate Wizards without some sort of at will spell option so they don't have to resort to a crossbow (or sling, or whatever).

This, yes. I totally would not mind an optional 0-level class for campaigns that want to start their characters as 100% newbies. That would be sorta cool.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The problem there is that logically speaking the novice tier should be _easier_ and less fraught with danger and resource management than a later tier, so that newbies can learn the ropes and not get turned off the game.

There's a real dissonance in goals there.

I see this a lot. I won't deny that there's some validity to this perspective, but I will offer several counterarguments.

There's two issues here; the lethality or the chance of failure, and the complexity of the rules. I think the case for simplicity is a lot stronger than the case for ease of success.

First, easiness is not always assumed for beginners in every game. In many cRPGs, especially relatively open-world games, one can spend much of the lower levels running away and reloading save games due to frequent death. If you go outside the rpg world, it's quite common for beginner athletes to be 'hazed' by having an experienced player school them on the court/field/etc. Neither would I expect to show up at a poker table and have my competitors let me win. Going back to the world of rpgs, low resources and high lethality have often been assumed for low-level characters.

Second, low-level D&D can be a great learning experience. Running out of spells and pulling out a crossbow teaches you the importance of resource management. Dying suddenly teaches you that your actions have consequences, that the world you're playing in is not built around you and can be arbitrary and capricious, and that character death is a natural and expected part of the game as it is of any adventure story. These are really important lessons for the players to learn, and it's best to learn them early before the players develop a sense of entitlement and start feeling like they're playing a game and not roleplaying.

Third, since D&D has no clear endpoint and there is no way of winning, it's important to reward players. While there is a need to move on to new challenges, players of high-level characters should feel rewarded for having got there. The investment of time and energy they put into a high-level character should also be protected. Thus the game should be easier and less lethal to them than it was at 1st level. The converse can be very discouraging. If players gain a level only to have every challenge they might face grow correspondingly more difficult, what did they gain?

***

So while I agree that it's important not to scare off the beginners with excess challenge, I think the classic conception of low-level D&D was a real positive and should be maintained. As I explained above, it's easily avoided if you dislike it.

***

I wonder if including 0-level play as an optional add-on would make both crowds happy. Those who want the novice zero-to-hero thing could start at 0 level (and there might be a couple of sub-levels or whatever so there could be growth period during that play) and those who just want to start as heroes can start at level 1. Anyway it sounds easy enough to accomodate both styles of play without telling one group that they have to start at 5th level or whatever.

I'm all for 0 level, but why is it wrong for people who want competent, resilient characters to have to start at a high level? I do it all the time. It's fun. I don't think playing at level 1 is at all mandatory.

 

[JohnSnow]

I have to chime in here. As a player of just about every edition of D&D, I prefer slightly more survivability as a default. However, there are times when playing an "Apprentice level" starting character would make for an intriguing change of pace.

So, by default, I'd like the 1st-level wizard who doesn't have to resort to crossbows and the fighter who can take a few hits before he goes down. Does it have to be 4e's 20+ hit points? No, but something more than 4 (or even 1!) is certainly good.

On the other hand, sometimes it's cool to play a character when he's just leaving his hometown, only has a couple weapon proficiencies, and the budding wizard knows maybe one spell. If you set 1st level right, there's an option for a 3-level "apprentice tier" - at the end of which you become first-level. Frankly, it's kind of a cool idea - as an option.

But when the average player starts out, he should be the kind of character who's been in the militia for a few years, and wouldn't need 3 of his friends to fight a single wolf. But that's just the way I see it...

 

[Deset Gled]

I know Im in the minority, but would love to see a cross between 1st and 3.x that returned a little humility to 1st leval char.I dont want to go back to MUs w 1 spell but I really need something toned down.

Low levels are difficult to design because of the discrete mathematics. When a character only has 4HP, and the smallest kitten scratches for 1d3-4 damage (which always becomes 1 because that's the smallest number you can use), it makes balance go all wonky. I think that starting characters need to be at least a bit powerful to avoid these problems.

I do like the idea of 0-level characters or novice-tier games that others have suggested, but I think those levels will require some slightly different rules to make them playable. And I'd like to throw another idea into the mix for designing those levels: use different dice. For example, for damage use a d6 that has values of 0,0,1,1,2,2 (a la Betrayal at House on the Hill). If customer dice isn't an option, maybe have 0 level characters roll a d12s instead of d20s. This is really only a brainstorm at the moment, but I'm sure that changing the min and max of the bell curve would help make the lower levels a lot more playable.

 

[Jawsh]

I like the idea of weaker 1st-level characters. It makes sense. Human beings are fragile in a lot of ways. A dagger to the gut is a lethal wound. A dagger to the leg is incapacitating. Hit points actually make sense when they're comparable to the weapons used to winge them down. If a hit from a dagger is a hit against your "resolve and luck and a little bit of toughness" then why do weapons have specified damage dice? Why does a glancing blow from a dagger deal less damage than a glancing blow from a longsword? Is the longsword simply more intimidating against your resolve?

There is a problem with weak 1st-level characters: the game will not last very long if the first challenges you face are 1st-level raging barbarians with greataxes. The game needs extremely watered down encounters at those early levels. Animals with d3s for claws. Common thieves, brigands, and orcs with rusty weapons made of alternate materials (the 3E DMG had rules for bone weapons). Orcs fighting in daylight penalties.

 

[DonTadow]

This touches on what I was trying to bring up when I mentioned 'tailored campaigns.' I was playing a bard on a dungeon crawl. I believe that I should be able to play a 1st-level bard (its status as a multitalented gish notwithstanding) without it being boring. Now, this dungeon crawl was not at all tailored to my character or its strengths/weaknesses (this being a convention game), and so I was quickly worthless and, therefore, bored.

Those of you who don't see much death in low-powered 1st level campaigns are already tailoring things to your characters, perhaps without realizing it. The default game, though, which occasionally uses published adventures and sourcebook material, cannot pull the punches necessary to provide the player of my 1st level bard with a good time. Thus, the default should be survivable and with enough options to keep the player involved (with appropriate resource management, of course). To say that you have to play a low-level character "more carefully" is just code for saying you have to hold on to those single spells to keep from becoming useless too early, which is just another way of being useless, IMO.

I guess the word tailored is where i'm caught up on. I make a 1st level adventure that's balanced in combat, and role playing. The higest encounter level would be 3. It's about designing an adventure well. (BTW i hate most convention games). Every adventure should have something for every class. where are the knowledge rolls?