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

[FireLance]

Well, the probability that you'll roll a 10 or 11 on 3d6 is 54/216 (1/4). The probability that you'll do that 6 times in a row is (1/4)^6. That's pretty low.

Yes, and the probability that you will roll 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 in that order is (15/216)*(25/216)*(27/216)*(27/216)*(25/216)*(15/216), which is even lower. What offsets that is the 720 ways to roll up those exact same 6 numbers, which would result in a stat array of (7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14).

 

[S'mon]

I guess my preference for the game would be that default starter PC power level resembles that of starting heroes in heroic fiction; Luke just off the farm in Star Wars fits fine; so does Bilbo Baggins, but so do many more experienced characters. I think this maximises accessibility for new players.

The 4e approach is ok, a typical 1st level 4e PC is about as tough* as a Human Town Guard (level 3 soldier), a bit tougher than a Common Human Bandit (level 2 skirmisher), and can be skinned as either a veteran or as a very talented novice. If anything I'd prefer that 1st level 4e PCs were a bit less squishy, though making monsters squishier by halving their hp helps a lot.
I then prefer relatively slow advancement; 4e's x2 power per 4 levels fits better than 3e's x2 power per 2 levels; IME 9th level 4e PCs do feel like 5th level 3e PCs.

*Solo. Synergy effects from a 5-PC 1st level group mean they can usually beat 5 3rd level standard monsters, though it's close.

 

[green slime]

That presumes that the DM is on the ball and realizes what's going on. Not always true with new and newer DM's. (And a rather discouraging number of experienced DM's as well.)

----------

I'm curious though. What exactly does it mean for someone to be a third level commoner farmer? How did he gain those levels, for one thing, and for the other, what does it mean? Hours of backbreaking labour under the hot sun with a complete lack of medical facilities and I get tougher and stronger? Hoeing potatoes means I can swing a sword better? A better climber?

Very, very few of the elements of level actually apply to regular people in any meaningful fashion. As a "world building" mechanic, levels leave a lot to be desired.

Well, obviously those long hours of potatoe hoeing means he has the special hoe whirlwind attack, and furthermore can cleave. While wielding a hoe, he has reach, of course. Obviously, while plunging through the thick potatoe jungle-vines, he has had to do a spot of climbing, to escape the dreaded potatoe weevil. And next level, he becomes more intelligent, allowing him to improve his Knowledge (potatoes) skill. Perhaps by the time he reaches 5th level, he may have a skill point over to put in Appraisal, to improve his ability to haggle the price.

 

[El Mahdi]

...

This poll and thread has been good for one specific thing, a good conversation starter. So in that aspect it's been very effective. This has been a very good discourse (minus the few that can't seem to keep their emotions in check), and I'm sure WotC could glean some useful insight from it. So I commend you for starting a very useful thread (though I can't XP you for it until I spread some more around...).

However, to adapt a famous quote to the situation: I do not think the data means what you think it means...

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm curious though. What exactly does it mean for someone to be a third level commoner farmer? How did he gain those levels, for one thing, and for the other, what does it mean? Hours of backbreaking labour under the hot sun with a complete lack of medical facilities and I get tougher and stronger? Hoeing potatoes means I can swing a sword better? A better climber?

What does it mean to be a third level wizard adventurer? How did he gain those levels, and what does it mean? A few minutes (on aggregate) of chucking magic missiles at goblins and suddenly he can make things invisible? Killing an ogre gains you ranks in Knowledge (Arcana)? Clearing out a dungeon teaches you how to craft wondrous items?

You appear to be deconstructing the whole notion of levels and experience, which isn't wrong, but is just as applicable to player characters as it is to the world at large.

 

[Libramarian]

It's much more difficult to make the game less lethal.

(picking out one line from a post many pages ago)

No, this is not true at all. It's always more difficult and less tolerated socially for the DM to take an easy game and try to twist the screws than to take a hard game and make it easier. When a game is difficult/high stakes it should have the most rules support and the least necessity for DM judgement/house ruling. Do you agree with that? If so, then hard mode should have the most robust rules support and easy mode should be accomplished by tinkering, not the other way around.

 

[Manbearcat]

What does it mean to be a third level wizard adventurer? How did he gain those levels, and what does it mean? A few minutes (on aggregate) of chucking magic missiles at goblins and suddenly he can make things invisible? Killing an ogre gains you ranks in Knowledge (Arcana)? Clearing out a dungeon teaches you how to craft wondrous items?

You appear to be deconstructing the whole notion of levels and experience, which isn't wrong, but is just as applicable to player characters as it is to the world at large.

Actually, that isn't true. If combat advancement guaranteed that you (somehow?) automatically gained some specialized skill-set (such as potato farming) that is not something that is fundamentally correlated to your everyday experience/behavioral/formal training regimen, then your point would translate. As it stands though, every adventurer does not possess the exact same understanding/formal training (and corresponding advancement with their trade where they possess formal training and everyday experience) of a narrow trade, such as a potato farmer (or any other specific expertise in a non-combat trade/art).

Currently, the opposite stands. Every non-combatant (whether you are a desk clerk, a merchant, a farmer, a cobbler, a cart-wright, or a painter) symmetrically assimilates a martial combat acumen. Therefore, it logically follows that the process of NPC construction pressupposes some training regime/experience is fundamentall correlated (somehow) to those NPC's' everyday lives. You cannot become a desk clerk. You're a butt-kicking desk clerk with plot protection HPs, BAB advancement and a weapon proficiency. That's fine if every setting everywhere is Israel (where pretty much all citizens are conscripted into a rotational national guard) but does every town/city in every implied setting have this? Wouldn't allow for much creativity/variance (and would be more than a little odd to possess that level of symmetry).

 

[hamstertamer]

WAID (of the Woods) TAGGART

Waid stands nearly 6 and half tall and has a long slow drawl to his voice. After he had an unfair fee imposed on him by his local lord, he refused to pay and he was chased into the woods were he is to this day. There he hunts and fishes by spear for his survival waiting on the day he can return to his family.

4th level Commoner, Human Age 29
Str 15, Dex 10, Con 13, Int 9, Wis 10, Cha 11

Hp: 14
AC: 10
Skills: Climb +2, PS: Laborer +2, Listen +5, Swim +2, Jump +2, Handle Animal +2
Attack: +5 w/ Spear 1d8 +2
Fort: +2 Reflex: +1 Will: +1
Feats: Skill Focus: Listen, Weapon Focus: Spear, Endurance

Now the character above could have been created in many different ways. I could have gave him 1 level expert with tracking feat perhaps or maybe a level of warrior. I didn't think it necessary, he's just a tough but simple guy surviving in the woods the best he can. I don't see him as an expert hunter or warrior. Though due to his strength and time in the woods he can be formidable with his spear.

Now normally commoners shouldn't be above 1st- 2nd level, but in Waid's case I thought he should. It all depends on the NPC. Waid is no ordinary commoner and could pose a threat or be a helpful companion for a low level party.

 

[I'm A Banana]

KM - my problem isn't that the peasant gained levels by killing goblins, my problem is that he gained levels at all. Why? Why is he gaining levels. If he's killed enough goblins to gain 3 levels, he's been in literally dozens of life threatening fights. Why isn't he dead? It's ridiculous. If your farmers are fighting off the goblins time and again, why do they need the PC's?

Mostly, he's not dead because he's lucky. Partially, he's not dead because goblins really aren't that menacing.

Don't get me wrong, a goblin with a short sword can kill your 2 hp commoner in one hit fairly often -- if they hit. And the goblin probably has the edge in the fight, so the farmer has reason to be afraid. But when your family is at risk from some four-foot tall psychopath with a short sword, you heft your rusty choppin' axe and go to work.

And thus your level 4 commoner got lucky. He rolled initiative high enough. He rolled attack rolls high enough. He knew the terrain. He used the environment. He exploited the goblin's weak will. He got a posse.

In a world of adventure, anyone might have to fight off a goblin (or, occasionally, worse). There's dangerous creatures around every corner. You sleep with your rusty choppin' axe under your pillow, and your family close. You know that the wolf lurking in the woods just beyond your fence wouldn't hesitate to devour your family.

That's part of why adventurers would be common in such a world. While the town guard might be able to repel goblins and kobolds and wolves, they don't do so easily, and they don't do so perfectly, and there are PLENTY of things more dangerous than that in the world.

In a goblin vs. dirt-farmer fight, a lucky dirt-farmer might come up victorious. If she does that often enough, she gains levels, because having potentially deadly experiences is what improves her skills. She doesn't want them, necessarily, but if she's 4th level, she's certainly seen them.

Again, that's just a way 3e remains internally consistent. It's not for everyone, and even if you wanted it, you wouldn't need it to be NPC classes necessarily. But I am fond of the world it creates.

 

[Mattachine]

Of course, Waid could be statted up many, many ways. For instance, in AD&D, simply assign hit dice, hit points, and stats as you see fit, and the skills are simply described. In 4e, he could be statted as a full NPC, or as a "monster". Only in 3e do the rules give a detailed treatment to statting out the NPC like that.

When I ran 3e, I foolishly began using the RAW for every little situation. I spent loads of time making sure the stats on NPCs and monsters were "correct". Of course, it usually didn't matter. What really counted were the numbers and stats that showed up in the respective encounter.

It didn't usually matter that the hobgoblin chief had Profession: Blacksmith if he was simply part of a combat encounter. Likewise, it didn't matter that the town blacksmith had 23 hit points and an attack bonus of +3.

Over the years, I gave up worrying about such levels of detail. Once I began writing up monsters and NPCs only for the situations they would appear in, everything became much easier. Realizing that the CR/Monster Advancement rules were simply ballpark numbers, I created new monsters as "build-to-suit", and pegged CR to existing monsters. I spent time detailing what NPCs would know, or might say, rather than worrying about class, level, or skill ranks. Of course, this is what I used to do back in AD&D, and what I would do in games that use the Storyteller system.

To me, it isn't verisimilitude for NPCs, monstes, and PCs to all use the same system as PCs. All such systems are just game rules, after all.


So, what about first-level characters? I want a system to be a little flexible--provide a simple way for characters, AT LEVEL ONE, to have a range of power levels. Give a default, and then, in a rules sidebar, provide some options. For instance:

SIDEBAR: More or Less Heroic PCs
1. For PCs that are more like common folk, strictly enforce 3d6 for ability scores (or use a lower-point array), only give 1/4 the starting wealth, and give no bonus for Con to starting hit points.

2. For PCs that are already heroes, allow rolling 5d6 (best three) for ability scores (or use a higher-point array), give each character a bonus feat, and give bonus hit points equal to Con score, rather than only Con bonus.