Does anybody else miss 1st L Characters

[kitsune9]

Yeah, I kind of like to see 1st level scaled down a bit. In my Carrion Crown campaign, I made the campaign a bit more gritty by giving everyone only 12 point builds.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Because a reminder might be helpful, I offer the following link that might be a bit nostalgic for those of us who have been around the game for a while:

Always the First to Die - YouTube

For those not familiar and unwilling to click on the lkink, here are the lyrics:



I submit that though this may bring a nostalgic tear to your eye, most of us who have been this guy really don't want to go back.

I love that skit, but I have to say, he's a pretty stupid mage, there's no wonder he keeps dying.

"I learn the two standard spells:
Magic Missile and Light."

If he gets to choose, sleep and charm person or closer to being standard.

He's also presumably in the front rank, so as to be targeted by the kobolds. He then screams and presumably runs away (turns his back) giving every kobold in melee range a free attack on him. He's also more than likely encumbered due to carrying the party's gear for them. And then he's messing around with traps, a vocation better suited to the thief, which we know is in the party.

Seems to me he'd be better off rolling a fighter or thief than a mage.

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

I think someone already said this, but I'll repeat it. If I'm playing an adventure path then I would prefer somewhat more customizable character and improved durability. If I'm playing a beer and pretzels megadungeon, I want simple fast character creation and don't mind fragile 1st level characters.

 

[john112364]

If I were to create rules for first levels characters, I think what I would do would be to make all characters first level as per 1e. Then include options for beefing up those first level characters for those of us who don't like squishy heroes.

For example, as an option, instead of rolling for hit point, add your con score and either a die roll or the average of that die roll to get your hit points. (I.e. a fighter with a 16 con would have 16 + 1d10 hit points. Or 16 + 6 hit points similar to 4e.)

Want your wizard to have more than one spell? Have an option for wizards to have an at-wll spell available in addition to that one spell. Again similar to 4e.

And so forth and so on. If I were designing this game, I would make 1e or Od&d as the base. And every other edition as options. Because it seems easy enough to add on to the originals then to subtract from the later editions.

Now how this would all balance out is a whole different story. But it's a start.

My 2cp.

 

[Hassassin]

Now how this would all balance out is a whole different story. But it's a start.

My 2cp.

Just play the first three levels with level 3 hit points.

 

[Deadboy]

It seems that the market has spoken on that and WotC is looking to walk things back from that paradigm shift. Besides, as long as the rules support 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level play for those who want the time-honored style of gaming, those who are in your camp can always begin their games at 4th level. If the game rules don't include something similar to what you suggest not wanting included, the audience for the game will be drawn from only those who are willing to switch from 4E and WotC will have even fewer customers than now, which seems to be what they plan to correct.

The thing is they need to find a way to appeal to both audiences, or they'll lose just as many 4e players as they gain in players of older editions. Finding a way to make both happy probably has to be a priority. I'm pretty sure they'll find a way to accomodate 4e players without forcing us to skip levels, no matter how integral you seem to think this "time-honored" gaming is.

 

[Mark CMG]

The thing is they need to find a way to appeal to both audiences, or they'll lose just as many 4e players as they gain in players of older editions. Finding a way to make both happy probably has to be a priority. I'm pretty sure they'll find a way to accomodate 4e players without forcing us to skip levels, no matter how integral you seem to think this "time-honored" gaming is.

Your suggestion that they exclude one style of play as a way to be inclusive doesn't seem to be the direction they are heading. Including both with the knowledge that some players can just move directly to higher levels avoids excluding anyone. I'm not sure how that seems to you like it would exclude anyone but your phrase "forcing us to skip levels" makes little sense in a discussion of how to be inclusive particularly if they acknowledge that some players might wish to do so.

 

[FireLance]

First, the corny joke: If you miss 1st level PCs, you need to use tougher monsters.

Now for the serious bit: I think the tiers approach really is the best way to go. And really, why do we need continuous numbers? Just reset the level number to 1 at the start of each new tier. So, you can have Novice 1 to 5 (or whatever), Veteran/Heroic 1 to 10 (or whatever), Paragon, Epic, etc.

 

[Deadboy]

Your suggestion that they exclude one style of play as a way to be inclusive doesn't seem to be the direction they are heading. Including both with the knowledge that some players can just move directly to higher levels avoids excluding anyone. I'm not sure how that seems to you like it would exclude anyone but your phrase "forcing us to skip levels" makes little sense in a discussion of how to be inclusive particularly if they acknowledge that some players might wish to do so.

Except I never discussed excluding any style of play. Zero level play as the "gritty" level(s) is inclusive of everyone and no one ever has to skip level one.

*shrug* Whatever. It remains to be seen what Wizards actually does. Maybe we'll both be wrong.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

One thing that heads off the "missing something by skipping levels" side - don't have a formal level cap to the game; assume dimishing returns at very high levels...

But it stops the "I miss three levels of play by starting third" because there isn't a limit to how many levels you have; and the people wanting minion style first level characters get it.

Other than that, I prefer the idea that characters start of as heroes that a single sword stoke can't kill, and have the "scrabbling the dirt for life as a ratcatcher" stuff is negative levels.

Either way allows both sides to have what they want.

An assumption that starting heroes are well, heroic - but avenues for those that want to play normals becoming heroes with one shot kill-able characters can still do that if they wish.