On Backgrounds for Beginning 4E PCs

[Reynard]

Eh... I would say you can still tell the tale of a kid who leaves the farm with his father's rapier, only to find through a little luck he manages to become a great hero...

Except the "farm boy" has a suite of powers and abilities at his disposal that are based on a high degree of martial training. It is important to remember, I think, that it is an intentional design decision to make 1st level character tougher and more heroic than their earlier edition counterparts ("1st is the new 4th" is pretty close to a direct quote).

In prior years I felt like the story was really about Joe Gamer who through a little luck manages to take his PC from level 1 - greatness...

This is not an edition-war thread, and I'd rather you didn't try and make it one by taking pot shots at either older editions or their players.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Except the "farm boy" has a suite of powers and abilities at his disposal that are based on a high degree of martial training. It is important to remember, I think, that it is an intentional design decision to make 1st level character tougher and more heroic than their earlier edition counterparts ("1st is the new 4th" is pretty close to a direct quote).

I think this still can be conveyed well, even with powers it just depends on how you narrate it. Simply adding new ways of doing something doesn't mean your more powerful, simply have more options. For an example, gonna re-narrate first-level at-will fighter powers (don't feel like doing all the first-level powers):

Cleave: Your swing causes you to stumble as you slash through the kobold coming to have the blade smash into a second.

Reaping Strike: You wildly swing your sword, jabbing and slashing as you hold your eyes shut in panic.

Sure Strike: You try to calm your frayed nerves and try to attack with some accuracy.

Tide of Iron: As the beast snarls at your blow, you hide behind your shield to keep yourself from it as you try to push it away from your frightened self.

This actually can help showcase your character becoming better in that the way you narrate the power will alter.

 

[med stud]

The thing is that 1st level character isn't that butch, really. If you put five PCs vs five hobgoblins of the lowest level, the PCs are in for a hard time. It's much like previous editions.

The backstory; whatever fits your imagination, I suppose. I can see a level 1 fighter having reaping strike and cleave just because he is badass, with no formal training. It's Joe Dirt farmer growing tired of the kobolds harassing him, taking a greatclub and going to town. I can see the same fighter having the same powers because he is a squire with training, on his own after his master got killed.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think I might actually be willing to go into more elaborate backstories now. I started role-playing with Shadowrun, and I really prefer to have a little more in the background, and being able to justify it mechanically.

 

[delericho]

In other words, since beginning 4E PCs are already pretty tough in comparison to the rest of the world, they don't really fit the mould of the "farm boy with a sword"

It worked for Luke Skywalker.

As DM, I would let the players go either way. They can be the callow youth destined for greatness, or the grizzled veteran of many years (fairly quiet) service.

Of course, I mostly did the same with 3e, except that they were stretching things if they claimed their PCs were too experienced.

 

[Reynard]

It worked for Luke Skywalker.

See, that's exactly what I am talking about. luke was a perfect earlier-Ed 1st level character. he had a few skills and talents that made him a little better than average, but he was pretty fragile and ineffective util he'd gained a level or two. By the time we see him at the beginning of ESB, he's where 4E starting PCs feel to me.

 

[delericho]

See, that's exactly what I am talking about. luke was a perfect earlier-Ed 1st level character. he had a few skills and talents that made him a little better than average, but he was pretty fragile and ineffective util he'd gained a level or two. By the time we see him at the beginning of ESB, he's where 4E starting PCs feel to me.

Surely you jest!? Luke Skywalker doesn't hit first level until after he's blown up the Death Star?

In all seriousness, I disagree. First level 4e characters are clearly a 'cut above' the normal folk, but they're really not that great. And, although Luke was decidedly frail at the start of Star Wars, he was still distinctly a cut above: "I used to bullseye wamp rats in my T16 back home..."

Now, if you'd said that Sam, Merry and Pippin weren't up to 4e 1st level standards, I would have agreed. But Luke? No, I don't.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I see Luke Skywalker as almost the perfect example of a 4e 1st level PC. Which makes a lot of sense when you consider that SW SAGA edition was one of the inspirations. Look at the number of stormtroopers and TIE fighters he blows away. Those are minions right there. And even Vader can't get a bead on him. Grr, curse those dailies and action points!

1st level 4e PCs can easily be a kid straight off the farm (the 1e fighter title notwithstanding). Kobolds, goblins and particularly orcs are a serious threat. Put a 1st level party up against several orc encounters of equal numbers in the one day and they'll get their asses handed to them. Which probably makes 4e PCs weaker than in 1e.

It's hard to say how good a 1st level PC is against a 'typical human' as the rules don't say what a typical human is. If human rabble (2nd level minion), as I suspect, then yes they are good. But if the typical tough guy in a bar is a human bandit (2nd level non-minion monster) or human berserker (4th) then 1st level PCs are small potatoes.

 

[Doug McCrae]

For a caster to really feel like a neophyte, there should be a significant chance for his spells to misfire, like the guy in Krull. "Short in stature, wide in vision" - classic. But core D&D has never had rules for that, 1st level wizards have always been pretty competent. They may only have had one spell but it always worked.

 

[Scribble]

Except the "farm boy" has a suite of powers and abilities at his disposal that are based on a high degree of martial training. It is important to remember, I think, that it is an intentional design decision to make 1st level character tougher and more heroic than their earlier edition counterparts ("1st is the new 4th" is pretty close to a direct quote).

I dissagree with the "high degree" part.

Yes, 1st level characters are tougher then 1st level characters of previous editions, sure. But so are the monsters.

The end result is that the players have the ability to keep their characters alive, without relying too much on player luck.

There is still some luck involved, but it isn't mainly luck since now, you can take a couple really unlucky hits and still have time to back off and recoup.

If you play stupidly (act foolishly and don't think about what you're doing) you're still going to die quickly.

This is not an edition-war thread, and I'd rather you didn't try and make it one by taking pot shots at either older editions or their players.

Nothing I said was meant to be an edition war, or elude to one. Just because I dissagree with you, doesn't make it an edition war thanks!

What my comment meant was this:

The change to the mechanics, I feel, supports the story more. Now the player can immerse himself in the story of his character.

When I read stories of heroes, they always manage to overcome obstacles through luck, guile, or newfound skills. Unfortunately, in D&D it seems to boil down to whether or not, I, as a player, am lucky enough to survive the first couple of levels.

That always took ME out of the game. It wasn't a story about my character anynmore. It was a story about ME the gamer, trying to keep my character alive.

Now, even if I'm the most unlucky player in the world, I still have a chance to tel a story about my character who happens to survive to be a hero through a combination of luck and skill. (As long as I don't play stupidly.)

I guess what I'm saying is that I see two different tyopes of luck:

Player luck, and Character luck.

Character luck shouldn't be modeled after player luck. I'm not always a storybook hero. I don't always have the lucky breaks they get in the stories.

Character luck can be modeled more effectively through the powers and such. Aka A lucky break allows you to slip your sword into your opponents weak spot... + 4d6...

To me this more accurately resembles the stories where a character blindly stabbs out and manages to kill his opponent.

As opposed to hoping I as The Player manage to score a crit, or do really good damage.