D&D 5E Poll: What is a Level 1 PC?

[Obryn]

There's greater than average folk and then there's experience heroes with 20+ hit points while commoners are 1hp minions.

Minon/Non-Minion is a state change and not a matter of simple advancement.

4e PCs have more tricks up their sleeves than previous edition characters, but their HPs and stats compared to even-level monsters are largely the same in 4e as before. (That is, your Fighter might have 28 HPs, but so does that 1st-level Goblin over there.) The HP increases reduce the swinginess of encounters, but don't actually translate to more powerful characters compared to their opposition.

Anyway, PCs in D&D have been a cut above the normal population ever since 1e. And they should be, IMO.

They haven't been full-fledged Heroes at 1st level in any edition, and I wouldn't want that. I also don't want them to be worthless scrubs. I don't find that fun for D&D. If I want to play that way, WFRP 2e is a superior system.

-O

 

[GX.Sigma]

There's greater than average folk and then there's experience heroes with 20+ hit points while commoners are 1hp minions.

Sure, but that's a difference of degrees. According to 4e's encounter building guidelines, 1st-level characters can easily massacre Human Rabble even when outnumbered 3 to 1.

I just spent over 40 minutes trying to figure out how 3.x's CR system works, and as far as I can tell, a 1st-level commoner is CR 0, so a 1st-level PC can massacre the entire civilian population of an infinite number of universes in a massive encounter that, while level-appropriate, will surely take several sessions to resolve.

Based on these findings, 3.5's PCs are clearly overpowered.

 

[Jester David]

4e PCs have more tricks up their sleeves than previous edition characters, but their HPs and stats compared to even-level monsters are largely the same in 4e as before.

The presence minions does change the tone of encounters. PCs in 4e are presented as being more heroic action stars from the very beginning. That was a design goal. There was a tonal shift in how potent heroes were presented, how fragile they were, and what they could do. At first level, it was expected they were saving entire villages, and very quickly the entire kingdom.

Anyway, PCs in D&D have been a cut above the normal population ever since 1e. And they should be, IMO.

Very true.
But that's less what I'm asking about. I'm curious how powerful and heroic people want first level characters. How "experienced" 0xp PCs should be.

Sure, but that's a difference of degrees. According to 4e's encounter building guidelines, 1st-level characters can easily massacre Human Rabble even when outnumbered 3 to 1.

I just spent over 40 minutes trying to figure out how 3.x's CR system works, and as far as I can tell, a 1st-level commoner is CR 0, so a 1st-level PC can massacre the entire civilian population of an infinite number of universes in a massive encounter that, while level-appropriate, will surely take several sessions to resolve.

Based on these findings, 3.5's PCs are clearly overpowered.

IIRC, a commoner would be CR 1/3 . Or 1/4. But let's not make this about particular editions.

 

[Cadence]

I just spent over 40 minutes trying to figure out how 3.x's CR system works, and as far as I can tell, a 1st-level commoner is CR 0, so a 1st-level PC can massacre the entire civilian population of an infinite number of universes in a massive encounter that, while level-appropriate, will surely take several sessions to resolve.

Well before 40 minutes I noticed that they also have fractional CRs for some things, and figured a commoner was probably at least as good as a toad (1/10 CR). This doesn't, of course, mean I think anyone should spend 40 minutes trying to figure out how many toads it takes to challenge a 1st level character. (In PF anyway, I'd be afraid it would lead to a discussion of dropping them on a character in a pit, only to find that the rules forbid one living thing from occupying the same space as an opposing living thing and ending up with some sort of toad geyser).

In 4e, I always thought it was interesting what levels different kinds of humans were put at in the MM's. Beware the gladiator (elite 14 which seems to be roughly a 14th level PC in a fight) and knife fighter (elite 7). The dread assassin is apparently afraid to come out on his own though and is a standard-22 (=elite 11 by equating CRs), just above the Diablist (standard-20). A dire beast hunter or pirate is only standard-9 (=elite 4.5). The typical mage is standard-4 (=elite 2) and typical guard is standard-3 (=elite 1.5) so the 1st level PCs are hardly world beaters. The poor human rabble is a minion-2 which I think comes out to an elite-1/4. The lackey is minion-7 which should map to a 7/8ths-level PC if I've done the math right.

 

[Ryujin]

"Hero" isn't a measure of ability; it's a mindset. Where most people just keep on keepin' on, a player character meddles and tries to improve things. By this measure, they're already heroes.

In my campaigns I tend to think of the player heroes as rock stars. People generally look upon them with favour. They have people who follow their exploits, groupies, and of course their detractors. They might climb from garage band to filling amphitheatres but the change is in scale, not substance.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Anyway, PCs in D&D have been a cut above the normal population ever since 1e. And they should be, IMO.


-O

A very small cut. An first level npc has the same attack bonus (none) as a 1st level fighter. While they only roll 3d6 as opposed to 4d6 -1, they also treat any 1 as a 3, and any 6 as a 4. So no 18s, but no 3s either. A minimum of 9 for every stat. They have 1d6 for hp, which can be as high or higher than a fighter who rolls low. Statistically, they'll end up a very tiny bit weaker than pcs. but some will be stronger.

 

[Obryn]

The presence minions does change the tone of encounters. PCs in 4e are presented as being more heroic action stars from the very beginning. That was a design goal. There was a tonal shift in how potent heroes were presented, how fragile they were, and what they could do. At first level, it was expected they were saving entire villages, and very quickly the entire kingdom.

The tonal shift you speak of ... I haven't experienced it. "Saving villages" was more or less standard procedure in my games, D&D or otherwise. (Except in Dark Sun 4e it was, "Try not to be enslaved by these elves." )

Minions are new to the game, and a great addition. However, any comparisons to previous editions involving 4e minions are skewed out of the gate. Why not use standard monsters as 90% of encounters would be, anyway?

An orc can still kill your 1st-level character very, very easily - it just might take 3 rounds instead of 1. That's the difference - it's not in lethality, it's in swingingess.

-O

 

[Obryn]

A very small cut. An first level npc has the same attack bonus (none) as a 1st level fighter.

0-level is one step less than a 1st level Fighter. They hit AC 10 on an 11 instead of a 10, and need a 20 to hit AC 1.

While they only roll 3d6 as opposed to 4d6 -1, they also treat any 1 as a 3, and any 6 as a 4. So no 18s, but no 3s either. A minimum of 9 for every stat. They have 1d6 for hp, which can be as high or higher than a fighter who rolls low. Statistically, they'll end up a very tiny bit weaker than pcs. but some will be stronger.

Their minimum is 6 for every stat. Maximum is 15. Still averaging 10.5, though.

The bell curve on 4d6s3 is substantially better than for 3d6. Arrange to taste makes a difference too. Gary was pretty clear on why this was important, too - because these are the PCs, it's important for people to be able to play the races & classes that they want, and you don't want to discourage newbies. So yes, there's an expectation that the PCs are a cut above. Heck; 1st-level Fighters are Veterans. I don't think that's an accident.

-O

 

[GX.Sigma]

0-level is one step less than a 1st level Fighter. They hit AC 10 on an 11 instead of a 10, and need a 20 to hit AC 1.

In AD&D, 0-level and 1st-level each had THAC0 20. In (at least some versions of) Basic, 0-level had 20 and 1st-level had 19.

 

[Quickleaf]

Anyway, I think the better question is "what is a 5th-level character?"

Yeah, that's a good point. "Average" and "heroic" in the way we're using them are relative terms...relative to the other levels a PC can progress to.

I recall the original Planescape boxed set had a nice breakdown of four different "tiers" of play which drew a parallel between the crystallization of character concept and the scope of adventure (that is, both increase by level).

Levels 1-3 were about staying in or close to a age home base, and at this phase the players are learning the setting and possibly the rules.

At levels 4-7 the PCs have enough power to venture into the unknown, and the players are comfortable enough with the DM's world to become more active and engaged.

Levels 8-10 have the PCs deciding their own fates and venturing far afield, the players direct the adventures more often than before and the DM's adventures adopt a looser framework to account for greater player freedom.

At 11th level and beyond the PCs are well developed and players are running the campaign and the DM is mostly responding to their goals and past events in the campaign.