Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kraztur" data-source="post: 6340454" data-attributes="member: 6777645">I always assumed that it emulated the genre trope that the most powerful heroes are the most robust. (Aside from the intent of the positive incentive reward system for the player investing the time and energy in their PC).If Hollywood had instead pumped out sci-fi/fantasy films where epic heroes usually suffered tragic endings (like some of the great Greek tragedies) and the overall D&D experience made it feel like it was getting easier, only then it would feel backwards to me.I assumed low-level PCs were not intended to be Star Trek redshirts (that was chalked up to misfortune or ToH-style game) but to emulate the farmer boy hero who hasn't yet come into his own and still scared of goblins. That playstyle definitely has its rewards (I'm sure there was an L&L article addressing how you could start a campaign at level 3).I assumed that if low-level heroes have it easy like in the movies (ie., the Nazgul would never directly attack a young hero), that was a function of the adventure/DM's setup, not a function of the PC rules reflecting inherent robustness at low levels. This is in a "traditional" RPG of course. I think it was stated by the designers that 5E was leaning towards a traditional experience.</blockquote>