PC survivability and starting at 1st level
- Thread starter Akrasia
- Start date
Quasqueton
First Post
Yes. But orcs in D&D3 do 1d12+3 or 2d4+4 damage vs. the AD&D1 1d6 or 1d8 damage. So, relative to their respective environment, 1st-level characters are still “fragile”.
Quasqueton
Henry
Autoexreginated
Like it was said in that "how did D&D survive" thread, I think part of the appeal for those early gamers was the trail and error to have a PC that survived. Some of the most memorable stories were funny death stories (One of Gary's most famous stories of recent memories is that of the "Old Guard Kobolds", which was born out of the FAILURE of player characters. 
(Long story short: A bunch of 4 hit point kobolds played smarter than the adventurers against them, so they kept accumulating treasure and experience, They were finally beaten, but they were tough when they died. 
)
I sometimes think that the "trial and error" of D&D was subsumed by the video game industry. How many people had numerous deaths in Everquest or Diablo before they learned the game strategies? Then, Table RPGs WAS the virtual entertainment; but not so, anymore.
I can sympathize with the reasons for starting at second, not the least of which is advancing the story to the point where the PCs can perform a few heroics, rather than being more timid than bold. Me, I love first level, the cringe of "oh, my God, we're gonna DIE!" moments, that get superceded by the climb in levels and the thrill of that new spell, or new feat, or new magic item.
(Long story short: A bunch of 4 hit point kobolds played smarter than the adventurers against them, so they kept accumulating treasure and experience, They were finally beaten, but they were tough when they died. )I sometimes think that the "trial and error" of D&D was subsumed by the video game industry. How many people had numerous deaths in Everquest or Diablo before they learned the game strategies? Then, Table RPGs WAS the virtual entertainment; but not so, anymore.
I can sympathize with the reasons for starting at second, not the least of which is advancing the story to the point where the PCs can perform a few heroics, rather than being more timid than bold. Me, I love first level, the cringe of "oh, my God, we're gonna DIE!" moments, that get superceded by the climb in levels and the thrill of that new spell, or new feat, or new magic item.
Gold Roger
First Post
I have absolutely no problem with survivability at 1st level. So far I've seen one 1st level PC killed. Compared to the amount of higher level PC's I've killed that's a rediculous low amount of dead PC.
Also, well done first level gaming can be a blast (and that comes from a tactican and powergamer). Lots of hooks and plots that don't work at later levels are perfect fit for 1st, so that's a good point to get such stuff out of your system.
It's like every level in D&D. It's its own animal that has to be approached correctly.
I wish 3.5 would have kept aprentice levels for 1st level multiclassing, but I can come up with the necessary stuff for that by myself.
Also, well done first level gaming can be a blast (and that comes from a tactican and powergamer). Lots of hooks and plots that don't work at later levels are perfect fit for 1st, so that's a good point to get such stuff out of your system.
It's like every level in D&D. It's its own animal that has to be approached correctly.
I wish 3.5 would have kept aprentice levels for 1st level multiclassing, but I can come up with the necessary stuff for that by myself.
Henry said:
A very similar thought has been bouncing around in my head for a while. I think computer games do a certain kind of "hack n slash" adventuring better than DnD. I think the kind of gaming that existed when Gygax created his "random dungeon generator" system has probably been completely taken over by computers. I think people play DnD now for a level of versimilitude, immersion, and ability to affect the environment that you can't get with a computer.
Character death is a challenge to those elements that I think people play DnD for. However, I count myself a grognard in terms of body-count, because the alternative IMHO is really not a game anymore and players IME don't enjoy finding out that they can't die (and they all catch on eventually). The challenge would be to minimize the impact that PC death has on the story (I mean negative impact of course - PC death can make for a great story). One problem is that a players first idea for a character is usually their best.
Ed_Laprade
Adventurer
I have no problem starting at 1st level as a player or GM. (But starting at 2nd or 3rd as a player is something I'm not at all adverse to!)
I think, for those of us older players, that it was the 'sillyness' of what happened in the early games. About half of my original 1st level characters died in humiliating ways. (One hit by a Goblin with a dagger, Save or Die tiny spider bites, etc.) After a while it gets old, especially if you're trying to do any roleplaying. As someone else said, naming characters at 1st level was considered the kiss of death for many. How do you roleplay if you don't even know your character's name? Then there was the problem of a character showing up in the middle of the adventure, with the other character's haveing no reason to trust him... and perhaps every reason not to, being accepted into the adventuring party because doing anything else would just stop the game for too long. ("Hi, I'm Bob the Thief." "Welcome, Bob, wanna join us? We're trying to destroy the Thieve's Guild!")
Fragility can be a problem. When too many characters die in quick succession you get Bob IV, brother of Bob II, Bob II and Bob I. At this point suspension of disbelief pretty much goes out the window. Not so much a problem in the typical old dungeon crawl, but it can be a real problem if you're trying for anything more than that.
I think, for those of us older players, that it was the 'sillyness' of what happened in the early games. About half of my original 1st level characters died in humiliating ways. (One hit by a Goblin with a dagger, Save or Die tiny spider bites, etc.) After a while it gets old, especially if you're trying to do any roleplaying. As someone else said, naming characters at 1st level was considered the kiss of death for many. How do you roleplay if you don't even know your character's name? Then there was the problem of a character showing up in the middle of the adventure, with the other character's haveing no reason to trust him... and perhaps every reason not to, being accepted into the adventuring party because doing anything else would just stop the game for too long. ("Hi, I'm Bob the Thief." "Welcome, Bob, wanna join us? We're trying to destroy the Thieve's Guild!")
Fragility can be a problem. When too many characters die in quick succession you get Bob IV, brother of Bob II, Bob II and Bob I. At this point suspension of disbelief pretty much goes out the window. Not so much a problem in the typical old dungeon crawl, but it can be a real problem if you're trying for anything more than that.
sniffles
First Post
I generally agree with you, Akrasia, about growing a character organically from 1st level being preferable. However, I do understand the concern about the fragility of 1st-level PCs. To me, my PCs are not 'a dime a dozen' grunts. They are the people of my imagination, and I have a certain affection for them. I don't want to have to make a new character every time my PC fails a Dex check or gets into melee with a kobold. I have goals for that character beyond surviving to 2nd level.
I never played one of those old-school campaigns with a revolving array of characters, and I never want to. If that requires starting at a higher level to give a little more insurance against PC death, I'm good with that. But I prefer that the GM take the characters' frailty into account and plan his adventures accordingly so I can start at 1st level.
I never played one of those old-school campaigns with a revolving array of characters, and I never want to. If that requires starting at a higher level to give a little more insurance against PC death, I'm good with that. But I prefer that the GM take the characters' frailty into account and plan his adventures accordingly so I can start at 1st level.
Tinker Gnome
Adventurer
reanjr said:And then there's players who genuinely identify with their character and don't want to lose that character.
In any of these cases, I feel liberal use of player death fixes them quickly.
I often make characters like that, as a lot of my characters are merely a part of my personality in some form, that is a rather jerkish thing to do. I am going to go cry now.
On a side note, I would actually love to play in a game with no character death. But my characters would not do stupid stuff. Even if I know that my PC cant die, I would still act with caution, and have fun too! I find that when I play I just make a set of numbers as there is little point to roleplaying something that can die at the drop of a hat.
Last edited:
