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

[Ahnehnois]

The Cleric is a front line plate-wearing fighter in D&D. And even an adventuring wizard probably seems more weapons combat than the average professional soldier (even if the wizard's main goal is to just fend them off long enough for the fighter to get there). I'm happy saying that across the ten or so fights to the death against multiple opponents even a wizard learns a little about weapons.

Some clerics and wizards fit that description, but I don't think one has to think very hard to find very D&D-ish examples that don't. The cleric in particular has been written as a combatant but played as a healer and diviner in a variety of ways on and off the book, often ignoring the armored warrior aspect. The tension between the cleric in the books and the cleric in people's heads is an ongoing issue.

Well, yes. In D&D, advancing in level leads to advancing in combat ability, regardless of whether the character devotes any attention to it. That's a function of how the game works. Extending that, which is not particularly plausible, to everyone in the world regardless of what they do, is hardly a way to increase verisimilitude. Just give people the skills they need to do their jobs, perhaps add some for colour, and don't bother about their ability scores, hit points, level, or NPC class. Of course this means most NPCs aren't built the same way as PCs. It's not as if the characters can look at the NPCs character sheet and complain that they're breaking the rules somehow; unless you're playing for comedy, I suppose.

Basically, your perspective is outcomes oriented rather than process oriented.

For a variety of reasons, my gaming group would not accept that approach. In general, I do periodically explain to them exactly how an enemy combatant was able to do a particular action. There's not a clear stylistic distinction between combat and noncombat NPCs; almost anyone uses combat stats occasionally. My players certainly expect that all characters (monsters included) are created using the same basic process and follow the same rules. The satisfaction of the game aspect is fulfilled largely though quasi-competitive character building. If I "broke the rules" and simply gave the NPCs the numbers I thought they should have outside of that process, it would violate the DM/player social contract and defeat the point of having character creation rules in the first place.

That's my perspective.

I can certainly see how someone else's philosophy could have evolved differently, so I'll say that your point is a fair one, that we're clearly looking at this from a different place, and that's a fine conclusion.

 

[Grogg of the North]

I've always viewed first level as you've just finished your training. You know how to wield a sword without cutting your own head off. You've read through all the Introduction to <Insert Magic School*> texts. You know just enough that whomever taught you isn't worried that you're going off on your own.

You're more skilled, stronger, braver and heartier than the small folk of the land but a single well aimed arrow can still put you down for good.

*Introduction to Necromancy: Chapter 1 - The Shovel

 

[Obryn]

Aye, well, I doubt many people actually used 3d6-in-order!

Heavens no, though the example with Rath convinced many they should!

With more sensible attribute setups like B/X you can. Not AD&D, though. To Gary's credit, he realized this and also realized that players like having competent characters with the classes and races they wanted to play.

(Yes, in Dark Sun stats could easily go up to 20.)

Yep, I ran it for years. Psionicists were absolutely insane with those sorts of stats. I understand the revised setting scaled back, for example, strength bonuses and used Skills & Powers psionics. Which should be an improvement, but by then I was running Earthdawn happily!

-O

 

[hamstertamer]

"System" in this case is the NPC Class/Level system, not "3.x as a whole". Narrow use of the term, not broad. So there's no intended edition war broadside you need to return.



As for "the way 4e did things," there's not much difference between that and how 1e did things. NPCs have whatever stats are reasonable and necessary, and can do their jobs as well as they need to. Adding an inappropriate class/level system where you need to actually assign complete stats, skill points, and feats in order to figure out the local blacksmith's weekly wage is just altogether more detail than is needed for a consistent game.

I looked up up the 4th edition "system" in the DM's guide. They don't actually have a different system. You make the NPCs the same way as a PC, which is not surprising. They still use Levels, class, race, feats ,etc. The only difference perhaps, is that they give advice in "design steps" like "Choose Skills. Pick a skill or two for the NPC to be trained in, using the information below." So basically they are saying ignore some details for NPCs to speed up the process. Which is a DM preference when prepping his game not a different game system.

A different system would be "level class race" vs. "Hero point buy system." I think not having to write every detail for every NPC is common sense. They did of course attempt to hard-code that preference in by spelling it out for you in the "design steps" but still not a different system.

 

[Obryn]

I looked up up the 4th edition "system" in the DM's guide. They don't actually have a different system. You make the NPCs the same way as a PC, which is not surprising. They still use Levels, class, race, feats ,etc. The only difference perhaps, is that they give advice in "design steps" like "Choose Skills. Pick a skill or two for the NPC to be trained in, using the information below." So basically they are saying ignore some details for NPCs to speed up the process. Which is a DM preference when prepping his game not a different game system.

A different system would be "level class race" vs. "Hero point buy system." I think not having to write every detail for every NPC is common sense. They did of course attempt to hard-code that preference in by spelling it out for you in the "design steps" but still not a different system.

I think you're misunderstanding the system here. The NPCs you're talking about from the DMG are PC-classed allies and adversaries, built using simplified rules. This is not how you design butchers and bakers.

The rest of the world - the farmers and architects - are generally un-statted. Keep on the Shadowfell, for example, has an NPC, unstatted, non-adventuring priestess who can cast some pretty good rituals in a pinch.

-O

 

[Ryujin]

That was 2nd Ed. I don't know if the method existed in 1st. It worked the same as option #5 above, except that stats started at 8, you rolled 7d6, and the max stat was 18. That was our preferred method for 2nd Ed, except for a single short-lived campaign that ended because 3e was released. (And that campaign used 4d6-drop-lowest... oddly, the dire warnings came to nothing.)

1st edition used the 3d6 and 4d6(drop one) rolling methods, though IIRC Unearthed Arcana added a "roll into your class" method that had different numbers of dice for each stat, by class, with the highest 3 dice retained.

 

[hamstertamer]

I think you're misunderstanding the system here. The NPCs you're talking about from the DMG are PC-classed allies and adversaries, built using simplified rules. This is not how you design butchers and bakers.

The rest of the world - the farmers and architects - are generally un-statted. Keep on the Shadowfell, for example, has an NPC, unstatted, non-adventuring priestess who can cast some pretty good rituals in a pinch.

-O

No I think I nailed it.

That they decided to provide no system whatsoever to create "butchers and bakers" is telling of their gaming philosophy but it is also purposely negligent and a tip of the hat towards lazy DMing style (which I don't agree with). No system is not a different system it's just no system.

So I guess that what certain people want is a "system" that agrees with their gaming style and declares "there will be no system and you shall have none to worry about."That's a slap in the face, and goes against what I believe a gaming system should provide for me. Anyone can just declare "do what I please when I want to." I honestly believe it's bad game design.

 

[S'mon]

I think you're misunderstanding the system here. The NPCs you're talking about from the DMG are PC-classed allies and adversaries, built using simplified rules. This is not how you design butchers and bakers.

Also:

a) DMG PC-class PCs do not have Feats, and their stats & level are based purely on Threat Level. You start with Threat Level then base stats off that, except skills which are arbitrary.

b) After the DMG that system was abandoned and never used again. Every subsequent NPC was statted as a monster.

 

[Cadence]

1st edition used the 3d6 and 4d6(drop one) rolling methods, though IIRC Unearthed Arcana added a "roll into your class" method that had different numbers of dice for each stat, by class, with the highest 3 dice retained.

1e DMG
Method I: 6 - 4d6 drop one in any order
Method II: 12 - 3d6 keep best 6 in any order
Method III: Roll 3d6 6 times for each ability in order and keep the best for each
Method IV: Roll 12 characters using just 3d6 in order and take the best one
General character NPCs: Roll 3d6 for each ability, 1s are set to 3, 6s set to 4

 

[Ryujin]

Thanks. Not sure that my original 1e DMG would have held together, if I'd opened it up