How heroic should a PC be?

[Stormborn]

I`m not sure if heroic=powerful as you seem to suggest, Hairfoot,

What he said.

 

[Lacyon]

I don't in general think 1st-level PCs ought to be a step above commoners. I think they ought to be a step above apprentices, (unless you specifically want to play out the apprentice years, which seems like a fine idea to me).

This means that a 1st-level Fighter should be a step above a normal town guardsmen (but not the Captain of the Guard) - hell, he may have been a town guard five minutes ago!

4E's power level seems about right in that regard. Not perfect, but I don't require perfection.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I think 4E got the starting power level just right.

In every edition of D&D we played (after trying normal for a little while) we tended to start all the PCs at 3rd level. We tend toward games where the PCs end up being among the most powerful/important characters in the world (at higher levels natch).

We generally didn't like the chance of one errant sword strike killing a PC early on, either. Another reason for 3rd level start.

 

[markkat]

My Good Sirs,

In 1E, a swan has 1+2 HD. That's an average of 6.5 hp.

Most player characters averaged less beginning hps.

Anyone daring to set out and adventure in a world with such waterfowl is a hero in my book.

Healing surges and full heals overnight? You call these Heroes?! Ha!!

 

[ProfessorCirno]

My Good Sirs,

In 1E, a swan has 1+2 HD. That's an average of 6.5 hp.

Most player characters averaged less beginning hps.

Anyone daring to set out and adventure in a world with such waterfowl is a hero in my book.

Healing surges and full heals overnight? You call these Heroes?! Ha!!

To be fair, in real life, swans are freaking hardcore.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

This is very spot on.

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 would say that the PC's have usually been above the common person in stats all along. Considering that the average commoner has stats that are well.......average, and most PC's have at least a couple stats that are well above average, that this would put the PC into hero candidate status already.

There may be commoners out there who are exceptional in some way and they have the potential to be heroes too. Heroes do tend to engage in dangerous activities and sometimes pay the ultimate price of heroism. If a 1st level PC is so far above any commoner, how are new heroes made?

I prefer more down to earth PC's at 1st level. The kind of people that you can imagine that may have lived quiet normal lives until those goblins came across the border and killed thier family in the night. At 1st level these are normal folk, for the most part who have decided to take thier own path and do what needs doing. Potential heroes who have yet to distinguish themselves is how I see them.

4E PC's appearing on the scene with not only exceptional stats, but suites of superpowers ready for action completly disconnects them from the rest of the world and makes them feel fabricated. Its hard to look at a 4E PC and imagine that this person may have been an apprentice stablehand a short time ago.

The four color comic hero approach may work for some campaign styles but it doesn't fit my version of classic fantasy. Full fledged heroes are easy to introduce to a campaign by beginning at a higher level.

 

[CleverNickName]

Much less.

The PCs should be world-beating badasses, but only after lots of hard work, determination, perseverance, and uphill battles. They shouldn't start the game that way.

And the world shouldn't automatically scale itself to fit the power level of the party. Certain mountains should be too dangerous to explore, certain seas should not be sailed until the party is strong enough, and certain lands should be avoided until the magical Sword of Xahaivaqvoeosgsga (or whatever) is found.

Maybe my DM Goggles are clouding my view here, but that's my two coppers.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Much less.

The PCs should be world-beating badasses, but only after lots of hard work, determination, perseverance, and uphill battles. They shouldn't start the game that way.

And the world shouldn't automatically scale itself to fit the power level of the party. Certain mountains should be too dangerous to explore, certain seas should not be sailed until the party is strong enough, and certain lands should be avoided until the magical Sword of Xahaivaqvoeosgsga (or whatever) is found.

Maybe my DM Goggles are clouding my view here, but that's my two coppers.

Why do people always feel forced to use this "auto-scaling" - you're not forced to do this. The DMG just provides you a way to define what kind of challenges are manageable (and interesting) for a party of a certain level. If you wanted, you could put a "level 20" mountain in a 1st level adventure if that's what you like. Or put a level 15 monster close to the starting area of your first level characters. But you shouldn't expect the PCs to be able to deal with these challenges - and thus the PCs should only ever go there if they really want to, not because you want to set them up against a level 15 challenge.

 

[markkat]

And the world shouldn't automatically scale itself to fit the power level of the party. Certain mountains should be too dangerous to explore, certain seas should not be sailed until the party is strong enough, and certain lands should be avoided until the magical Sword of Xahaivaqvoeosgsga (or whatever) is found.

Agreed! A world is not an adventure. The PCs adventure in a world. I'm not sure why this is lost on some folk. Maybe because RPG video games won't let you get to the next level until you discover the magical Sword of Xahaivaqvoeosgsga?

BTW, I think it's "Xahaivaqvoeosgsgae" you forgot the 'e'.

 

[Cadfan]

While 4e PCs have explicit special abilities, relative PC power compared to monsters seems to have taken a huge hit. Reasonable starting characters compared to orcs or even kobolds seem a lot weaker than in previous editions.

This is definitely true.

If a level 1 PC is a 1,
then a kobold is about a 1 to a 3
an orc is like a 4 to an 8
and so on.

But a noncombatant human is like a -5.

So I don't really know whether 4e pcs are more or less "heroic" than in previous editions. The whole curve got shifted.