D&D 4E Keith Baker on 4E! (The Hellcow responds!)

[Dragonblade]

Re: First level characters.

The game should be designed so that new players and new DMs can pick up the rulebook, start at level 1, and have a good time. That means level 1 has to be a legitimate level. It can't be some wacky shadow zone for expert players who want a hyperlethal game. If there is demand for apprentice or commoner level characters, it needs to be optional in the DMG so that new players won't be suckered into believing that they should start at level 1, and then ruthlessly punished for doing so.

100% agreement.

 

[Hussar]

One of the side effects of having game systems where chargen can take a significant amount of time, is that we want more durability in our characters from the outset. Way back when, when it took you all of 5 minutes to whip up a new PC, who cared if you died or not? It's not like you were out all that much.

Now, even a 1st level PC can take a significant amount of time to do. You can whip one up quicker, sure, but, why are you buying supplementary books if you don't use them? So, yeah, Cadfan's got the right of it.

 

[hong]

Re: First level characters.

The game should be designed so that new players and new DMs can pick up the rulebook, start at level 1, and have a good time. That means level 1 has to be a legitimate level. It can't be some wacky shadow zone for expert players who want a hyperlethal game. If there is demand for apprentice or commoner level characters, it needs to be optional in the DMG so that new players won't be suckered into believing that they should start at level 1, and then ruthlessly punished for doing so.

110% agreement, because I'm BETTER than Dragonblade.

 

[Dragonblade]

110% agreement, because I'm BETTER than Dragonblade.

Indeed you are, hong. Indeed you are.

 

[Lizard]

That's just it though. He doesn't follow the basic rules. How is a 1 HD humanoid getting a +12 modifier on his heal skill?

4 skill ranks +3 wisdom modifier +3 skill focus +2 Self Sufficient==+12.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If they don't include some optional rules to do it you'll need to come up with your own rules to do it. Either way you're having to make modifications to scale the upscaled base power level back down when they could have just built it on a lower base and recommended people start at level two. That's what I mean by the change removing an option that was always there and making you come at it backwards if you want to do it.

Ok, i better explain myself better:

1) Starting at Level 0 doesn´t mean, you are one level lower, it means you don´t have any class level and are about as competent as the average commoner (except that you have higher stats), and you can start learning some class skills if you show interest.

2) The optional start at Level 0 was not in 2nd edition core rules. It was an adventure where you happen to be a commoner. I converted it to 3.x several times and it worked quite good, but: it was deadly as hell. Orcs doing 1d8+2 damage vs a character with 4 to 8 hps...
don´t get me wrong. It was deadly in ADnD too, but not to this extend. It would have gotten worse if i didn´t spend the monster feats on alertness or skill focus sailor . Now in 4th edition, you have the option to downgrade a character in a way that he is still more or less competent (above average stats will make them quite ok)

 

[hong]

Indeed you are, hong. Indeed you are.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Re: First level characters.

The game should be designed so that new players and new DMs can pick up the rulebook, start at level 1, and have a good time. That means level 1 has to be a legitimate level. It can't be some wacky shadow zone for expert players who want a hyperlethal game. If there is demand for apprentice or commoner level characters, it needs to be optional in the DMG so that new players won't be suckered into believing that they should start at level 1, and then ruthlessly punished for doing so.

I'm not arguing that the game should not be fun. What I don't see is why level 1 as it has been in D&D to date was not fun. Sure you'd lose the odd character to bad luck but that does not mean you didn't have fun in the process.

 

[hong]

I'm not arguing that the game should not be fun. What I don't see is why level 1 as it has been in D&D to date was not fun. Sure you'd lose the odd character to bad luck but that does not mean you didn't have fun in the process.

Changed zeitgeist, old bean. The days when 1st level meant expendable candidates for promotion are pretty much over.

 

[Stogoe]

I'm not arguing that the game should not be fun. What I don't see is why level 1 as it has been in D&D to date was not fun. Sure you'd lose the odd character to bad luck but that does not mean you didn't have fun in the process.

Because you can get killed by a housecat. Because whipping up a new character takes an hour instead of 5 minutes. Because immediately dying frankly isn't something that is a fun outcome for newcomers. Or me.