How heroic should a PC be?

PCs should be:

  • More powerful than 4E PCs

    Votes: 4 4.9%
  • Just as powerful they are in 4E

    Votes: 46 56.8%
  • Less powerful than 4E PCs

    Votes: 31 38.3%

There's no way to answer this without considering level.

Low-level 4e characters are way, *way* too powerful compared to the commoners around them (and that they recently were, it is assumed). They get hero status handed to them at 1st level, rather than having to earn it...doesn't quite fit, somehow.

I don't know about mid-high level 4e characters but given the way the powers etc. seem to scale I'd say they probably get more in line with where they should be (relative to the greater world) as the levels get higher. I don't see them ever being underpowered, though.

Lanefan

I too prefer to have the PCs earn their "hero" status over a few of the lower levels, which is partly why I'm not rushing out to buy 4e product. I do think that the 4e convention of starting characters at a slightly higher level of power appeals to many people who would otherwise not stay interested after playing a game at lower levels due to higher mortality rate. Personally, I like knowing that even the fighter in a level 1 party can die from a single well placed hit. As far as I know, nothing in 4e of appropriate level will kill a PC in one shot.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I didn't vote because I'm not entirely sure how to work out my position:

I don't need so much power. I don't need the character to be recognizable as a hero at 1st level. But what I do need is an edge: earned skill, a special power, or even blind luck, just something that gives a PC a survival advantage. I don't see people who choose to go out and do things like fight monsters or make dangerous treks as not having some evidence that they might make it.
 

More "realistic" campaigns get my vote, so less powerful than 4E.

The militia guard idea from 4E bothers me.
 

I think PCs should not be heroic, but able to become heroic through actions.

A hero becomes a hero through his actions. He is the one that dares to rise above the common people and take the initiative to fight evil and protect the weak.

Question is - does he need the stats of a Commoner to "rise" over him? Or do better stats show his potential to rise above the common people in the first place? I mean, what's making him so different from them that he does what he does? Should this just be reflected in actions, or should it also be reflected in his stats?

I am not sure I have a strong performance, but I can say that I feel very comfortable with the 4E power level.

One thing I like particularly about it that I could write a more elaborate backstory for a 1st level character without the stats being at odds with it because the 1st level character could never have gone through what he has gone... And I like having this option, since it (at least theoretically) offers more opportunity for me to present hooks a DM could use in his campaign.

Of course, the sad truth is that with the use of adventure path in my group, this is not that important...
 
Last edited:

As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy with the 4e power level. Who is really to say what commoner's stats are- the stats don't exist in the game world, so whether Tim the adventurer can beat Bob the blacksmith in an arm wrestle is up to DM fiat. As pointed out already, the PC's seem to be relatively less powerful in comparison to common monsters at 1st level than in previous editions, and that is where the comparisons matter.

Similarly, Just because a PC has certain mechanics, doesn't mean that he's spent his entire life training to use them, to the exclusion of all else. For example:

Fred may have remained a simple farmer all his life if the goblin raiders had never destroyed his village and killed his loved ones, but when they came, he picked up his axe and started fighting for his life. With nothing left to stay home for, he takes to the road, seeking vengeance on those who slew his family and to prevent others suffering as he has.

Now, I've no problem with Fred being a 1st level fighter from the get-go. Maybe it's luck that's kept him alive, maybe he's just more naturally talented at cleaving things in twain, maybe fate has a more important destiny for him. Maybe he doesn't particularly stand out from the crowd for any of those reasons, but because he alone, out of all the other common farmers in the land, has the drive, conviction, or sheer insanity to take the fight to the enemy, as opposed to hiding under the bed or cowering behind a pallisade.
 

As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy with the 4e power level. Who is really to say what commoner's stats are- the stats don't exist in the game world, so whether Tim the adventurer can beat Bob the blacksmith in an arm wrestle is up to DM fiat. As pointed out already, the PC's seem to be relatively less powerful in comparison to common monsters at 1st level than in previous editions, and that is where the comparisons matter.

Similarly, Just because a PC has certain mechanics, doesn't mean that he's spent his entire life training to use them, to the exclusion of all else. For example:

Fred may have remained a simple farmer all his life if the goblin raiders had never destroyed his village and killed his loved ones, but when they came, he picked up his axe and started fighting for his life. With nothing left to stay home for, he takes to the road, seeking vengeance on those who slew his family and to prevent others suffering as he has.

Now, I've no problem with Fred being a 1st level fighter from the get-go. Maybe it's luck that's kept him alive, maybe he's just more naturally talented at cleaving things in twain, maybe fate has a more important destiny for him. Maybe he doesn't particularly stand out from the crowd for any of those reasons, but because he alone, out of all the other common farmers in the land, has the drive, conviction, or sheer insanity to take the fight to the enemy, as opposed to hiding under the bed or cowering behind a pallisade.

QFT. I was just considering posting something similar. Heroes are no different to the the common man, until they need to rise above the normal man. This is generally 1st level as a pc class. As for leveled npcs- guards, watchmen etc, they are also more than the common man in the street, but are lacking the thing that makes a hero a hero, call it the x-facor.

Phaezen
 

The power level for level 1 seems a bit higher, but I think that it's mostly due to having more hit points at 1st level.

The initial power level is a bit strong for my taste, but I can deal with it. It's nice to have some options in the form of multiple powers, so I can deal with it.

One of the things that I don't like about the general power level of 4E is how the game encourages you to ignore demographics -- I.E., don't stat out any NPC unless you plan on having it fight or assist the characters. I actually like to have something about every NPC in the world, even if it's the bare bones guidelines like in the 2E DMG (hit points by profession, proficiency, et cetera).
 

A hero becomes a hero through his actions. He is the one that dares to rise above the common people and take the initiative to fight evil and protect the weak.

Question is - does he need the stats of a Commoner to "rise" over him? Or do better stats show his potential to rise above the common people in the first place? I mean, what's making him so different from them that he does what he does? Should this just be reflected in actions, or should it also be reflected in his stats?

I am not sure I have a strong performance, but I can say that I feel very comfortable with the 4E power level.

One thing I like particularly about it that I could write a more elaborate backstory for a 1st level character without the stats being at odds with it because the 1st level character could never have gone through what he has gone... And I like having this option, since it (at least theoretically) offers more opportunity for me to present hooks a DM could use in his campaign.

Of course, the sad truth is that with the use of adventure path in my group, this is not that important...

One who adventures vs one that stays home gets greater advantages to be a hero through the trials he goes through. Those strengths gained are what allows him by that one choice to be better than average by not just sitting at home. He gains greater strengths in knowledge, in courage, and in other things that are keyworded but I don't want to confuse stats with ideas...and those things gained by NOT being the one that stays home to tend the fields is what gives his the ability to be a hero. There may be people with greater strength that do not go out and do the things he does, maybe greater wisdom, or smarter. There could easily be people of common nature that are stronger of body, and better social graces, or even more nimble.

These things alone do not make one a hero, but his actions and the things he learns from them, and how he uses that knowledge gained from him that makes him rise above the common man to the stature of a hero.

The stats could be poor in several aspects and this adventure to become a hero can easily dwarf common men of better stats through his action for and towards others.

AKA...you don't need an optimized character to have a heroic one. A hero is a story element and not one that any statistic could/should create within the game.
 

I like the starting power level for 4e PC's, and comparing them to commoners seems seems silly. They should be compared against their opponents.

So until I run a campaign that features the heroes mowing down peasants, the disparity between the two won't matter to me.
 

Remove ads

Top