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

[Li Shenron]

Traditional campaign: 1st level means average Joe, his/her future heroic career depends on what he/she does

Modern campaign: 1st level means special, his/her future heroic career depends on what he/she is

I am more sympathetic with the first, but I'm used to play the latter more often. I would prefer the default to be the first because then playing the second just requires to start a couple of levels later, while the opposite is normally not possible.

 

[Obryn]

I would prefer the default to be the first because then playing the second just requires to start a couple of levels later, while the opposite is normally not possible.

Sure it is. Modularity. Tweak those dials.

1st level is the level that brand new players and groups are playing at, and they won't be using modules. Whereas veteran players - who are more likely to enjoy trap-filled death-holes and grinding rats for XP and copper so they can afford a rusty shortsword - know enough to use a module to tweak the game to their desired experience.

Would you direct a new player or new group of players - modern gamers - to start a game at 3rd or 5th level when they are just learning the game?

-O

 

[Li Shenron]

Would you direct a new player or new group of players - modern gamers - to start a game at 3rd or 5th level when they are just learning the game?

I would direct a new player to play an "average Joe" as their first character.

Note that "average Joe" doesn't necessarily mean "dead on arrival". Lethality is definitely higher in a traditional game, but this doesn't mean you have to impose it to new players or anyone else. 1st level PCs can have a lot of HP and still be average Joes.

Possibly the main factors to determine an average Joe's "feel" vs heroic "feel" at 1st level is ability scores, since they are defined against a presumed human average. If the game was designed in such a way that 3d6 rolls yield perfectly viable characters with enough survivability, there is no reason why new players couldn't start there.

 

[delericho]

My preference is that first level be Luke Skywalker just as he leaves the farm. Samwise as he takes his "one more step". D'Argtanian when he chooses to get involved in the fight against the Cardinal's men.

Basically, a character hits first level when he first chooses adventure.

Mechanically speaking, I think my preference is for first level characters to be a cut above the average, but only just - they're the kid with a huge amount of potential, but no experience. That may be to do with my entry to the game - it's a lot closer to the position in BECMI D&D and AD&D 2nd Edition.

That said, I didn't find 3.5e's 1st level characters (at least in the Core Rules) to be outrageous... but I did think 4e went quite a bit too far.

 

[Bluenose]

Traditional campaign: 1st level means average Joe, his/her future heroic career depends on what he/she does

Modern campaign: 1st level means special, his/her future heroic career depends on what he/she is

I am more sympathetic with the first, but I'm used to play the latter more often. I would prefer the default to be the first because then playing the second just requires to start a couple of levels later, while the opposite is normally not possible.

I'm pretty sure Average Joe doesn't cast spells, and there are 1st level PCs who can do that in every edition. I'm fairly sure Joe Average doesn't know how to pick locks, track, call on the power of his god and get results, or plenty of other things 1st level PCs did in AD&D and/or BD&D. I'm even fairly confident that the training and experience in using weapons possessed by a 1st level warrior-type exceeds that possessed by Joe Average.

About the only thing that makes it the least bit plausible is the way the game scales to high levels. Mid-level D&D PCs routinely kill dragons, this being the pinnacle of their career for Beowulf, Siegfried, and others. When a 10th level PC exceeds the capabilities of almost all characters from myth and fiction that would be considered members of their class, you're well into Superhero territory.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm pretty sure Average Joe doesn't cast spells, and there are 1st level PCs who can do that in every edition. I'm fairly sure Joe Average doesn't know how to pick locks, track, call on the power of his god and get results, or plenty of other things 1st level PCs did in AD&D and/or BD&D. I'm even fairly confident that the training and experience in using weapons possessed by a 1st level warrior-type exceeds that possessed by Joe Average.

Fair point, in the type or style of D&D I prefer myself, Wizards and Clerics (unlike non-spellcasting priests) are always rare and special. Even if you consider more standard D%D where easily 10% of the population has class levels, it still means that PCs are well above average Joes, always... to the point that in fact the poll makes no sense at all.

I don't think that was really the intent of the poll, and the difference in meaning of the poll options. The difference I was thinking about is in my first post: fairly normal person who gets powerful by learning and doing (i.e. getting levels) VS abnormally gifted person who is "preset" to become a hero.

(EDIT: also, the poll says "what is a 1st-level PC" but clearly means "what should a 1st-level PC be", otherwise the answer for me would be that they are all already heroes)

 

[Blackbrrd]

I want something right between 3e and 4e. I often started 3e on level 2 and it's where I would like 5e to start power wise. I don't like the jump from for instance 10 to 20 hp in one level, the difference is just to big.

 

[Bluenose]

Fair point, in the type or style of D&D I prefer myself, Wizards and Clerics (unlike non-spellcasting priests) are always rare and special. Even if you consider more standard D%D where easily 10% of the population has class levels, it still means that PCs are well above average Joes, always... to the point that in fact the poll makes no sense at all.

I don't think that was really the intent of the poll, and the difference in meaning of the poll options. The difference I was thinking about is in my first post: fairly normal person who gets powerful by learning and doing (i.e. getting levels) VS abnormally gifted person who is "preset" to become a hero.

(EDIT: also, the poll says "what is a 1st-level PC" but clearly means "what should a 1st-level PC be", otherwise the answer for me would be that they are all already heroes)

Hmm, now you've got me wondering what the question meant. I interpreted it as comparing the PC to an ordinary person, and in that sense the answer is blindingly obvious, that PCs are a cut above. But if it's comparing one trained starting journeyman wizard who happens to be a PC to another trained starting journeyman wizard who isn't, then while I think they'd have differences I'd prefer those differences to be more about what things they've emphasised in their training rather than an "I'm a PC! And you're not!" sort of thing.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

My preference is that first level be Luke Skywalker just as he leaves the farm.

Luke shouldn't be 1st-level leaving the farm. He was already a trained rebel who was rewriting the setting in his first movie.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm curious where the majority falls on this. Are first level characters average folk, Everymen, or something special?

With the change in 4e, there must have either been a majority who wanted the assumption PCs were above average or a vocal minority. I'm curious if this is still the case.

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

OK. Let's look at this in detail.

1e AD&D, the average joe was explicitely 0th level. And fighters got one attack per level per round against them. First level PCs were a big cut above them.

2e AD&D, the average joe was again explicitely 0th level. And their nearest comparison class got Weapon Specialisation. First level PCs were an even bigger cut above them.

Let's compare the threat level of the 3e and the 4e minions.

In 3e the average joe was a first level commoner. There were no longer rules that made the PCs better able to deal with them, but commoners were proficient with one simple weapon (max damage 1d8 unless you took the heavy crossbow) and no armour (AC 10). d4HP (rolled - NPC class), AC 10, d8 damage at best, AB +0. Yeah, compared to first level PCs they are chumps, hitting on about a 16 with their only choice of weapon. Even the party wizard is likely to be able to punk him without magic. Against a first level fighter with AC 17 and 10 hp, it's going to take three hits to bring the fighter down with a d8 weapon on average. Which is around 15 attacks - the commoners only hit 20% of the time. Meanwhile the fighter is easily one-shotting them - he doesn't even need to roll. And hits on a 5 or 6 aiming at AC 10 (Str 16-18).

In 4e the average person is basically a non-combatant. Not even a member of the militia. The difference between someone who just about knows which end to hold a sword and someone with basic live combat training and who's lived through a fight or two is assumed to be vast - and this matches what I've seen. 4e PCs are assumed to not be rookies (remember the AD&D 1st level fighter was explicitely a veteran). Against a 1st level fighter with AC 19, it's going to take about five hits for the minions to bring the fighter down (25 hp). But the minions this time hit on a 13 - they have a 40% chance of hitting rather than a 20% chance. So they need an average of 12.5 attacks rather than 15 to bring our fighter down. Meanwhile we expect an AC of 15 from our first level minions with the fighter therefore needing about a 7 to hit (Str 18, Sword, +1 fighter bonus). Again he one-shots the average guys, but slightly less frequently.

Yes, this isn't a complete analysis. But as I think I've shown the overall combat gap between the average guys and the first level fighter in 4e isn't that different from the gap in 3e. (It is different if the fighter has a five minute rest between each punk but that's a whole different story.)

The first level PC has never been an everyman in any edition of D&D there has ever been. For one thing the first level wizard has always been able to command arcane forces and no everyman can do that.

So I reject your assertion that there was an actual change. The minion rules are just a recognition of the reality that there has been in every edition that the adventurers are skilled adventurers and are a huge cut above the average joe at what they do even at first level.