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

[El Mahdi]

I deliberately avoided "E" or having 5 options so people would have to chose closer to Everyman or closer to Hero. I wanted to see which way people leaned.

I understand your methodology. Unfortunately though, not everyone see's RPG's in such a rigid, black & white manner. There are a lot of RPG's, and even a lot of different flavors of D&D, and many gamers enjoy different games and flavors at different times. When I have a buffet to choose from, I lean different directions at different times, as most people probably do to one extent or another...

The results of this poll are essentially useless for any real impression of gamers as a whole. Ignoring the fact that it's self-identifying and self-limiting just because it's here at ENWorld (it's an entertaining toy at best), the choices you made available limited the responses to only a subset of gamers: gamers that have one clear-cut preference. I'd posit that this subset of gamers hardly represents a majority of gamers, or even a diverse cross-section of gamers.

You haven't "seen" anything as concerns gamers in general. All you're seeing is the preferences of those that have one preferred flavor only.

If you had asked "How do you as a gamer prefer to view a 1st level character?", rather than "What is a 1st level character?", you might have had a chance of gathering some worthwhile information.

But even then, you're not getting a sense of a majority of gamers. You're only getting a sense of the predominant group of gamers that frequent and post at ENWorld, which is a self-selecting group of gamers that are far less casual than the average gamer, and skew heavily towards DM's.

 

[the Jester]

This is one of those questions that HAS to be left up to the dm to determine.

In some campaigns, a 1st-level pc is a grizzled veteran (well, first level fighters anyhow ), while in others, she is a wet-behind-the-ears kid fresh off the farm, holding a spear for the first time.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Note, also, the fighter quite possibly has percentile strength and potentially +4 hp/level. Something the normal man can NEVER have, no matter what. Nothing a normal man can ever do will allow him to be as strong or as tough as that 1st level fighter.

How does that add up to the idea that a 1st level fighter is a "joe average"? When someone can do something that no one ever, no matter what, can do, I'd say that places him well above "Joe average". Wouldn't you?

Possibly? Sure. Likely? No. Keep in mind, the 3d6, treat 1s as 3s and 6s as 4s method is for general characters. Special characters, including henchmen, have no such limitation. I read "special" here as anyone other than an ordinary shopkeeper. Otherwise, the 10 year old page will be stronger than than the villiage blacksmith simply because some pc hired him to run errands. Also, I never said the 1st level fighter was "Joe average." He is better, but only slightly so. He's the one player on the high school team who goes on to play at college. That does not mean he's Babe Ruth. It means he's Daniel Descalso.

 

[Obryn]

Levels are the dial for this system.

I don't think they can be.

I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but Level 1 is what new players and groups start at. Experienced players, who prefer a tailored game experience, know enough to use optional rules, start at higher level, etc. Newbies don't - or more precisely, they don't do it well.

Every inexperienced group, new to the game, will start at Level 1. Therefore, Level 1 needs to have mass appeal to capture modern gamers. "Grind XP and have a few characters die before you do anything really cool" is a valid playstyle, but I don't think it should be the default. Nor should we ever advise a new player to start out at anything other than Level 1.

I think this is one area where players who prefer a more oldschool style will have to give ground and allow modularity to take its course. If you'd rather have D&D-run-as-WFRP and make your players put in a few dozen hours before they're allowed to save villages, that's fine. And it should absolutely be a module you can snap on. But it shouldn't be the first experience for a new group of players.

-O

 

[Ashtagon]

For me, a 1st level character has the equivalent of a couple of months solid training in their chosen class. In this context, the average village blacksmith is probably level 3 (up for 5 or 6 for a master smithy in the city), but has "expert" as his character class.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

The only big change I'd make from the current balance is to cut down on the number of enemies that are cannon fodder at first level. It's much more satisfying to carve your way through a dozen gnolls if you remember being afraid to face off against two or three of them, and since so many of the most memorable enemy races are relatively low-level, it's important to spread them out a bit more. But this is more a matter of buffing monsters than making changes to level 1 character abilities.

 

[timASW]

A first level character should be a little better then their NPC class counterpart. But not overwhelmingly so.

2 characters, one a 1st level warrior and one a 1st level fighter with equal equipment. The fighter should be able to beat him about 80% of the time. He should even be able to take 2 of them around half of the time. Any better odds then that its too much. IMO.

Same thing with a 1st level wizard versus a 1st level adept, or any of the other classes that actually have an NPC equivalent.

Much ado in this thread has been made about a 1st level fighter versus a 1st level commoner with no gear. To me thats a nonsense comparison.

The proper comparison is fighter-warrior with equal gear.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

For me, a 1st level character has the equivalent of a couple of months solid training in their chosen class. In this context, the average village blacksmith is probably level 3 (up for 5 or 6 for a master smithy in the city), but has "expert" as his character class.

I do something like this for my 4e campaign, although it's largely "invisible" to the PCs (they don't generally slaughter townfolk).

A starting craftsman is probably a 1st-level minion (bystander, meaning no combat capability), with an ability approximating that Martial Practice that lets them craft stuff, at no healing surge cost.

A journeyman would be level 2 or 3. I didn't bother statting them out though.

A typical master craftsman is about level 4, perhaps level 5 if they're the best guy in a small town. Said character might even have an attack (if they're a blacksmith, or make weapons, or something along those lines) and so would be a minion and not just a bystander. They also have a skill-boosting ability, perhaps 1/day. Because said character is still a minion, they're not a threat against the PCs, except in very large numbers, and even then it's risky. (Unless they make a mob, which is pretty fair.)

The local sage or lord's adviser might be high enough level to challenge the PC mage in terms of skills competence. However, they can't wield magic, or maybe can only do ritual magic.

 

[FireLance]

But at level 1 you don't get your hero badge handed to you on a silver platter. At least not as far as I'm concerned.

It's a subtle distinction, but while I like my 1st-level PCs to be heroic, whether or not they actually become heroes is up to them.

 

[Obryn]

The proper comparison is fighter-warrior with equal gear.

This is if you consider "NPC classes" to be something worth preserving. I don't. I think 90%+ of the world doesn't need statted out at all. Nor should a Blacksmith need to have several levels (with the corresponding increases in HPs, saves, attack bonuses, and feats) in order to get the +X to Blacksmithing you want him to have. NPC classes only serve as a patch on a system which pays altogether too much obsessive attention to classes and levels already.

-O