Does anybody else miss 1st L Characters

[JRRNeiklot]

Wait - you don't want to skip level one, but you want to make it so level one is actually level 3, thereby skipping it in all but name?

 

[Deadboy]

Wait - you don't want to skip level one, but you want to make it so level one is actually level 3, thereby skipping it in all but name?

Four, technically. And in a way, yeah... We're looking for a comprimise here, aren't we? Something that gives one segment what they want while leaving the other segment feeling like they get what they want to. Level 1 is important, even if its just the idea of it.

If I could have my personal preference, we'd flush the entire idea of mook low-level characters down the toilet. But I think novice levels and then a formal level one CAN work for everyone... Though I feel like from all the resistance the idea is getting that the idea is not to comprimise with the 4e playstyle at all.

 

[Tallifer]

I agree with Deadboy. The game needs gritty levels, but make them the add-on (although right from the beginning). Make them levels -4 through 0, just like the AD&D Cavalier who went through levels -2 through 0. No players of Cavaliers complained (well, partly because they became broken combat gods until the highest levels).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

No, I don´t think so.

The novice tier should be easier, because you challenge threats appropriate to this tier.
If the average goblin you encounter only does 1d6-2 damage (minimum 0 or 1) and your hp are around 10 (it does not have to be 2 or 3) this tier will work.

4th edition is actually not bad in that regard. I tried 0 level with HP=constitution, with 14 in a stat max, and no powers initially, and used only minions or normal orcs or goblins as champions.
This was deadly enough. Easy enough to play and a lot of fun. Now there actually is a novice tier in a dragon magazine. If this is some kind of playtest, we can expect a novice tier for sure. And believe me, it works fine!

 

[Ahnehnois]

Which brings me back to my point - you're trying to foist your preference off on those that don't share it by making them skip something that should be integral to the D&D experience - level one. Under my suggestion, you don't give up anything and also get what you want. Under yours, I have to give up something if I don't want to be subjected to your playstyle.

And that bring me to my point (and the thread's point), which is that if you want your character to start off with a strong repotoire of abilities and 30 or 40 hit points, you don't want to start at level 1. You can call it level 1, but it isn't, at least not within the D&D model up until 4e. Thus the OP's idea of "missing level 1". Level 1 isn't a character with the number "1" at the top of his sheet. It's a character who is a beginner with very limited prowess and strength.

Thus, if you change the D&D paradigm to make level 1 characters powerful heroes, you are "forcing" people to skip the intergral D&D experience of classic low-level play. Some people hate that experience, which is their prerogative, but there's no need to exclude the rest of us.

If we're trying to create a comprehensive, unifying D&D, the 20-level structure needs to accomodate everything from rat hunters to quasi-deities, because those are all part of D&D. Heroes are only a subset of that range, and they are not the starting point for what the game covers-not all characters are heroes. It's for each group to decide where in that range they want to play.

 

[Hassassin]

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).

Exactly the opposite for me. I don't need 1st to be instantly lethal even for the Wizard types, but I really like to see them grow into their spell ability later. Optimally, they shouldn't be able to rely purely on magic even at higher levels, although this isn't as important to me.

(Warlock is for those who want non-versatile but always available battle magic.)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As I said: 4e DnD is quite lethal at level 1... don´t be fooled by the hp.

For me 1st (apprentice) level needs to be enough hp to have fun. So few abilities and choices to make that you could say:

Assign ability points. Chose a race. Chose a class and go. Maybe chose a single weapon or spell.

Then I´d like to have level 0:
Assign ability points, maybe with a lower point buy/bad rollong system and chose a race and go.

On level one, you get some ability points to distribute and chose a class.
This would be the most beginner friendly system I could imagine.
If you are new, how can you know, what will be fun for you.
This way you can find out DURING play.
Something that 3.5 and upwards lost...

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Personally I like more powerful 1st level characters.

Back in 1st I we always tended to start at 3rd.
If we started at first, I really didn't like the game until we hit 3rd.

 

[OnlineDM]

I'm on the side of "by default, 1st level characters are heroes, but there should be optional rules for grittier low-level play where the characters begin closer to commoners."

Yes, it's a change from pre-4e D&D. I think it's a good change. Still make the "old school low level" experience part of the game, but an optional part that is NOT the assumed default. I think that new players have a better experience starting as heroes rather than as normal folks. If you're starting a new campaign, the assumption would be that you're starting as heroes unless the DM says, "AND, we're using the optional sub-level-1 rules, so roll up a level A character" or whatever.

I'd like it if the book had an appendix with options for "level A through E" or something, and once you graduate out of "level E" you're a level 1 hero. The default assumption is that you start at level 1, but if you'd rather start at level A or level C or whatever, go for it.

 

[Deadboy]

And that bring me to my point (and the thread's point), which is that if you want your character to start off with a strong repotoire of abilities and 30 or 40 hit points, you don't want to start at level 1. You can call it level 1, but it isn't, at least not within the D&D model up until 4e. Thus the OP's idea of "missing level 1". Level 1 isn't a character with the number "1" at the top of his sheet. It's a character who is a beginner with very limited prowess and strength.

Thus, if you change the D&D paradigm to make level 1 characters powerful heroes, you are "forcing" people to skip the intergral D&D experience of classic low-level play. Some people hate that experience, which is their prerogative, but there's no need to exclude the rest of us.

If we're trying to create a comprehensive, unifying D&D, the 20-level structure needs to accomodate everything from rat hunters to quasi-deities, because those are all part of D&D. Heroes are only a subset of that range, and they are not the starting point for what the game covers-not all characters are heroes. It's for each group to decide where in that range they want to play.

The ship has already left on the changing the D&D paradigm thing. 4th did it. If 4th hadn't done things slightly differently, no one would be questioning the mook 1st level paradigm. And I still feel like 4th level characters are beginners while not being boring to play and dying so quickly that I spent longer writing my four pages of character background then I did playing the character.

I don't see how the way I suggested things working forces anyone to do anything. You get your mook levels. The rest of us don't have to play those without having to skip level 1. If the level 0 stuff is roughly equivalent to a starting 1e/2e/3e character and level 1 is roughly equivalent to a 4e character, then everyone has a starting point they can like.

D&DN is likely going to deal with a lot of things using modular subsystems. As a 4e fan, I'm most likely looking at much of what I like about my edition becoming optional rules - tactical minis combat, encounters and dailies for martial characters, who knows what else... Matter of fact, it's sounding like most of everything except the very most basics will be relegated to optional subsystems, regardless of the edition they came from. So why wouldn't it also be fair to relegate something that only appeals to one playstyle to an optional subsystem? It's not like your playstyle precludes slightly more heroic characters, its part of the levelling process to you.

*shrug* I guess in the end we're both getting hung up on wanting to see level 1 being the baseline for our own style of play. I just feel that catering to your playstyle and forcing me to start at level 3 or 5 or whatever is more exclusionary than creating an optional subsystem to cater to yours, so that you're getting extra content AND not skipping level 1, especially when this is going to be the game OF optional subsystems.