Manbearcat
Legend
Pathfinder 1st level NPC array is:
13 (+1)
12 (+1)
11 (0)
10 (0)
9 (-1)
8 (-1)
13 (+1)
12 (+1)
11 (0)
10 (0)
9 (-1)
8 (-1)
D&D 5E Poll: What is a Level 1 PC?
- Thread starter Jester David
- Start date
JRRNeiklot
First Post
I stand corrected. I only looked at the Thac0 column, which is the same. Even so, that's a 5% difference. Not really much in the scheme of things. Still, they are only marginally worse than a level 1 fighter, and equal to thieves and clerics.
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
You know, regardless of the arguments of "how things have always been", there's how people use the game. The large minority (40% right now) have answered "Average Joe" or "Average Joe with Potential". If we add "Special but not quite a Hero", we're up to 86% of people that don't think that 1st level PCs are heroes.
Obviously, though, 60% of people think PCs are special, and if we inlcude "with Potential", that number goes up to 94% (though some people who answered that, like me, would probably include many 1st level NPCs as "with Potential" as well).
At any rate, the "old editions thought this" is important to note; but, in an edition where people's play styles are supposed to be supported, if 40% of people think 1st level PCs are a variety of Average Joe, then odds are there should be an option for that. And, on the flip side, an option for making them special in some way, since 60% of people seem to be going with that.
Just gotta make the dial and let people turn it. The arguments, again, have all been made before. How people play the game, in my mind, is more important than that. And neither side is too small to dismiss as "fringe", it seems. As always, play what you like
Obviously, though, 60% of people think PCs are special, and if we inlcude "with Potential", that number goes up to 94% (though some people who answered that, like me, would probably include many 1st level NPCs as "with Potential" as well).
At any rate, the "old editions thought this" is important to note; but, in an edition where people's play styles are supposed to be supported, if 40% of people think 1st level PCs are a variety of Average Joe, then odds are there should be an option for that. And, on the flip side, an option for making them special in some way, since 60% of people seem to be going with that.
Just gotta make the dial and let people turn it. The arguments, again, have all been made before. How people play the game, in my mind, is more important than that. And neither side is too small to dismiss as "fringe", it seems. As always, play what you like
Hussar
Legend
But, this is simply a misreading of what the game says. An average fighter in 1e, for example, can probably survive three or four hits from an average opponent. The same is true for a 4e character. Whereas a normal man in any edition dies after an average hit.
Please stop trying to make 1:1 comparisons between editions. It doesn't make any sense when you do.
Hussar
Legend
JC - I look at it this way. 2/3rds of people DON'T think that a PC is an average person.
What JRRNeiklot ignores in his bit about the difference between PC and NPC is the wealth. An average man has an AC of 10 and 3 hp. An average 1st level fighter has an AC of 4 (chain and shield is easily affordable and banded and shield drops him further) and 6 HP. IOW, the fighter is going to survive a HELL of a lot more than the normal man. Sure, we could put the normal man in chain mail, but, then he's no longer a normal man anymore. After all, we could put the fighter in plate since we're going to ignore things like starting money and whatnot.
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?
What JRRNeiklot ignores in his bit about the difference between PC and NPC is the wealth. An average man has an AC of 10 and 3 hp. An average 1st level fighter has an AC of 4 (chain and shield is easily affordable and banded and shield drops him further) and 6 HP. IOW, the fighter is going to survive a HELL of a lot more than the normal man. Sure, we could put the normal man in chain mail, but, then he's no longer a normal man anymore. After all, we could put the fighter in plate since we're going to ignore things like starting money and whatnot.
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?
Obryn
Hero
Yeah, I have to say - my own frustration here is with the assumption that the only way to run 4e out of the gate is with Big Damn Heroes because some numbers (taken out of their proper context) are higher than they were in previous editions.
Can you start as Heroes? Sure. I know it's a radical idea, but you can run the game so you don't have to grind XP with rats and count copper coins before you earn the right to save your home village from goblins.
Do you have to run 4e that way? Nope.
I run 4e. I want the PCs to earn their heroism, through great deeds and the like. 1st level can be an absolute meatgrinder, and in my own Dark Sun game, it was. Heck; all of Heroic tier was. Things don't significantly improve, survivability-wise, until maybe Paragon-tier (11th level).
I'd say my group crossed the Heroism line only recently, at 16th level, when they Kalak'd a severely overextended Abalach-Re. And it was suitably epic to mark the occasion.
-O
Can you start as Heroes? Sure. I know it's a radical idea, but you can run the game so you don't have to grind XP with rats and count copper coins before you earn the right to save your home village from goblins.
Do you have to run 4e that way? Nope.
I run 4e. I want the PCs to earn their heroism, through great deeds and the like. 1st level can be an absolute meatgrinder, and in my own Dark Sun game, it was. Heck; all of Heroic tier was. Things don't significantly improve, survivability-wise, until maybe Paragon-tier (11th level).
I'd say my group crossed the Heroism line only recently, at 16th level, when they Kalak'd a severely overextended Abalach-Re. And it was suitably epic to mark the occasion.
-O
Libramarian
Adventurer
I've seen this argument a few times here; it's incorrect. If you reduce the swinginess of the game, that favors the side more likely to win (i.e. the PCs), all else being equal. Swinginess favors the underdog (the monsters).
To demonstrate:
Consider a static combat system.
Goblin has 5 HP and does 2 damage per round.
PC has 6 HP and does 3 damage per round.
The Goblin always wins initiative.
Round 1:
PC: 4 HP
Goblin: 2 HP
Round 2:
PC: 2 HP
Goblin: *dead*
As you can see, it's impossible for the Goblin to win. The stats are similar, but because there's no swinginess, the PC is guaranteed to win.
Now let's add swinginess. The Goblin now has to make a 50% attack roll to hit, but if they do they do 4 damage. This results in the same average damage per round (0.5*4 = 2). However, now the Goblin will kill the PC if they hit twice in a row.
The chance of two separate events occurring is equal to the product, so:
0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25
Instead of having zero chance to die, the PC now has 25% chance to die, even though the stats (HP and damage) have stayed the same. More swinginess = more lethality.
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
2/3? When I posted it was 40/60, and it looks to be about 39/61 now. Pretty much the same.
Regardless, even if it was 1/3 of people... if one-third of your player base want the core starting point of the game to fit a certain concept, and you can cater to that, it's probably best to do so. The same goes for the 60% of people that think PCs are special, obviously. Thus, dials.
I'm special because I'm wealthy? No NPC can ever become wealthy, or is wealthy? Your arguments aren't resonating with me, but I think that has more to do with me missing your point, somehow. This is an argument I haven't heard before.
This is the "usual arguments" I mentioned. They've been done before; I don't care about them as much as I care about what the playerbase wants out of the game. Obviously 40% of people who voted think PCs are some level of Joe Average. I think it makes sense to offer an option that appeases such a large group (which, obviously, WotC should probably double check through feedback).
So, yeah, I could go through the arguments with you, and we can argue edition differences, exceptions, and the like. But, what's more important to me is how people play the game. And that means you can disagree if you want to, but if I had my way, we'd both get catered to. And thus it'll be hard to move me from my position. Because, as always, play what you like
Obryn
Hero
I'd like to turn this argument around a bit, because the philosophical "what is a 1st level PC" distracts from what is, IMO, the main issue - "what is the purpose of a 1st level PC?" That is, what's a 1st-level PC for?
My answer is, "It's an introductory character which will be fun and easy for a new player." Ideally, I think this should be a character that will grab a brand new player's attention, help them have an entertaining session of D&D, and that they'll care about enough to advance. Having a character who dies in their first skirmish with rats is a big, giant wall thrown into a newbie's face.
This fits into the "swinginess" argument above. Fewer random, brutal deaths at 1st level is, IMO, a feature and a draw for new players. I've been playing D&D and other systems for close to 30 years. I get the appeal of ordinary, fragile, and weak characters, and I think there should absolutely be a module for this*. But when a new player - a new entire group, learning D&D together - is just starting out at 1st level, I think the game system should be encouraging rather than discouraging. And today that means a character capable of doing neat, interesting stuff influenced by fiction, movies, and better television. And which won't die immediately for one mistake or bad die roll.
Saying, "Just start at higher level!" misses the point that when players new to the game dig in for their first adventure, it's going to be Level 1 PCs they're making.
-O
* my own "module" is called WFRP2e
My answer is, "It's an introductory character which will be fun and easy for a new player." Ideally, I think this should be a character that will grab a brand new player's attention, help them have an entertaining session of D&D, and that they'll care about enough to advance. Having a character who dies in their first skirmish with rats is a big, giant wall thrown into a newbie's face.
This fits into the "swinginess" argument above. Fewer random, brutal deaths at 1st level is, IMO, a feature and a draw for new players. I've been playing D&D and other systems for close to 30 years. I get the appeal of ordinary, fragile, and weak characters, and I think there should absolutely be a module for this*. But when a new player - a new entire group, learning D&D together - is just starting out at 1st level, I think the game system should be encouraging rather than discouraging. And today that means a character capable of doing neat, interesting stuff influenced by fiction, movies, and better television. And which won't die immediately for one mistake or bad die roll.
Saying, "Just start at higher level!" misses the point that when players new to the game dig in for their first adventure, it's going to be Level 1 PCs they're making.
-O
* my own "module" is called WFRP2e
