Why are we trying to make 1st level PCs tougher?

[JDJblatherings]

It's funny, but in Men & Magic a Fighting-Man had 1d8 HP, and swords did 1-6 damage. There were no bonuses either way for Str or Con. You simply couldn't die from as single blow. Now we have greatswords that do 2d6+3-7, with a ~5% chance of double that, but HP have not nearly advanced as quickly.

actually he had d6+1 hp in Men & Magic. more then 33% of all blows would be likely to kill the average 1st level fighter in the good old days.

 

[Keldryn]

1st level characters in D&D have always seemed extremely fragile and somewhat incompetent. I certainly wouldn't mind if a future edition adopted more of a GURPS-like approach that flattens the low- and high-level ends of advancement a bit. GURPS characters start off as much more competent and well-rounded than D&D characters (assuming the standard 100 point "hero" buy), but also don't hit the ridiculous heights of power of a 20th level game (unless you start getting into 500+ point characters, which is generally far outside the normal range of play).

 

[Virel]

Playing smarter, usually does wonders for making charcters more survivable at all levels but most of all at 1st.

Run away today to fight another day.

Use bait, to get the monster to come to you, then ambush it.

Don't fight fair.

Hire some mooks and red shirts to carry the torch etc. Dwarfs and 1/2lings are good choices because they usually run slower than the rest of the party. This matters when the group has to bug out and run for it.

You know avoid the encounter until the party is ready for it af 2nd level or whatever.

Teamwork and some basic tactics go a long way a lot of the time.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Actually, 1st level PCs are harder to kill in one hit... since they are rarely fighting foes who can easily do 11+ damage, so they are more likely to run out of hit points and lay dying than higher level PCs who are facing foes that can't help but blow through the -1 to -10hp dying buffer in one strike!

Unless they're fighting orcs with those 1d12+3 20/x3 great axes! I have a friend who ran a 1st level game once, and he critted the fighter and did 32 points of damage... felt pretty sheepish about it and we've been giving him crap about it for years.

My solution is to scale the challenges a bit. Until the PC's hit 2nd level, they're not often dealing with lethal danger. For example, in the first game of my current campaign (which started off in a Howart's-ish wizard's academy), the PC's got involved in a "wizard's duel" that wasn't deadly; the two factions just wanted to get the other side into trouble/embarrass them. Another thing I've done is to make the start of a campaign involve a fair, with jousts, races, and footlists. Again, challenges that aren't necessarily deadly.

Give them challenges were losing doesn't equal death, but instead might involve humiliation.

 

[Quartz]

Not to mention the critical effect. It was mentioned by the designers almost as soon as 3E hit that using a battleaxe against players was risking them a lot a low levels. A x3 multiplier can drop a 1st level fighter from full strength to outright dead in one blow.

As can a x2 multiplier. Next time I GM, I simply won't allow non-masterwork weapons to threaten criticals. And masterwork weapons will only critical on a 20 and do x2 damage. Sure it weakens the PCs, but it weakens their opposition far more and makes masterwork weapons the low-level treasure they're supposed to be.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The Orc with the greataxe can always get lucky. But aside from that, there are some strategems that help.

I have seen a lot of PC and NPCs that are enthusiastic about charging in, and making this combat (and every combat) do or die, winner takes all.

On the part of the PCs, that usually works because the PCs are stronger than what they are up against. And it is fun. "ChaaAARRGE!"

On the part of the NPCs/monsters, the Dm is probably thinking "No matter what I do, this monster is doomed. Might as well not overthink it. Besides, this will be more fun. ChaaAARRGE!"

The net effect is that everything on the battlemat is playing as if they were expendable, or a reasonable approximation of the same.

That just does not leave much room for error and bad luck when it comes to very low level PCs.

Now, everyone could play their characters more carefully. For the DM that is a more tedious way to watch his NPCs and monsters defeated by the PCs. For the players, that is a slow way to reach the next level.

My advice: Do not overthink things.

ChaaAARRGE!

 

[Nonlethal Force]

It could just as easily be a bad GM. Some GM's take the approach of "You must kill the guardian to move forward. Or a GM who simply rolls well. An orc with a greatclub is bad news, but even a lone goblin Warrior who rolls a 20, confirms, and maxes with his battleaxe is looking at (1d8+1)*3 = 27 HP, which would take a full health Barbarian with 20 Con from 17 to -10 in one blow.

Yes, yes. Let's always blame the DM again. Or at least reduce everything to the worst case bad luck scenario. Nevermind there are players out there that are solely interested in combat because it means they get to roll dice and that's "the fun part of the game." Players who won't back down from a challenge because it means one less opportunity to rol the dice.

I know your point is legit, and there are bad DMs out there. But I have seen far more bad (read:unrealistic about their character) players than bad (read: unrealistic about a CR of an encounter) DMs. Actually, to make that as truthful as possible I should say I've seen more DMs with a better grasp on what the party can handle than players with a good grasp on what they can really handle. Bad luck aside, I'd typically rather trust my DM with the life of my character than the schmo playing beside me. And, maybe that's just my experience. If it is, I'll gladly take it, because it means I've had awesome DMs.

In other words, the best way to avoid dying is to avoid danger. Not every adventurous. Allowing PC's to use an action point to be "left for dead" rather than "dead" allows them to actually have adventures, and get over their head a bit, without handing out the 3d6 and fresh character sheets too often.

And that is not what I said at all. What I said was to teach players how to understand how much danger they really have business taking on. I mean, seriously. There is "danger" and then there is "every time anything interesting happens I have to run the risk of dying." I want the first when I game. If all I get is the second, it just doesn't feel right. I shouldn't have to worry about a TPK and surviving through action points every single time that I might get an XP award.

I don't care what anyone says. If a 2nd level party goes up against a CR 7 creature [And the DM has given them appropriate clues as to just how dangerous it really is] it is not the DMs fault. Any party that doesn't know the meaning of "run away" isn't playing in "reality." They are playing in happy-computer-game-world where they should be able to defeat anything with the right combination of moves. RPGs shouldn't always be that way. There should be moments when people know what the word run means.

And as for action points, I personally don't care for them. I'd rather let the dice fall where they may. But, different strokes and all that. Use 'em if you like 'em, and have fun if you do!

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I've responded to this thread and feel that the question is best posed seperately rather than hijack that thread.

Briefly, the other thread is about having characters strong enough to not suffer a TPK in a particular adventure. The adventure is for first level characters and there's an EL 7 combat in there - though the adventure explicitly suggests that the PC be second level by this point. Still that's +5 CR.

Many suggestions have been made to improve the survivability of characters - Action Points and HP=Con to name two - but I see these as upping the arms race. Why not go the other way and keep matching low level characters with low level opponents?

What do you think? Is less more? Should first level PCs be tougher or should we make their opponents weaker?

Assuming you follow the rules and CR guidelines and avoid CR +5 encounters, you still end up with wimpy 1st-level mages with three spells and orcs killing any 1st-level character on a crit ... dead. As in -10 hit points, do not pass go, just die. It's a bit hard to have fun if your character keeps getting killed.

Playing smarter, usually does wonders for making charcters more survivable at all levels but most of all at 1st.

Run away today to fight another day.

Use bait, to get the monster to come to you, then ambush it.

Don't fight fair.

Hire some mooks and red shirts to carry the torch etc. Dwarfs and 1/2lings are good choices because they usually run slower than the rest of the party. This matters when the group has to bug out and run for it.

You know avoid the encounter until the party is ready for it af 2nd level or whatever.

Teamwork and some basic tactics go a long way a lot of the time.

So it's all bad players and has nothing to do with the rules? Wow, that is a massive amount of bad players. Like most of them. Are we supposed to throw them out of the game? Why do you assume that so many are bad tacticians, when that might not be the case?

 

[Nifft]

As others have said, because death ends fun.

- - -

In older editions, the player's meta-game knowledge served as a bit of a shield. After losing a few PCs, they knew that orcs were this dangerous, while kobolds were merely that dangerous, and gnolls were about this many points more dangerous than mere orcs.

But now, orcs can have class levels. The danger level of an encounter is unknowable just by looking at the opponents in (or before) round 1. So the PCs need to be able to suck up a hit or two, to know how much danger they're in.

If one hit can drop you, you have no margin for error. You must guess how much trouble you're in. Makes people play very conservatively if they're attached to their character at all.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Scribble]

As others have said, because death ends fun.

- - -

In older editions, the player's meta-game knowledge served as a bit of a shield. After losing a few PCs, they knew that orcs were this dangerous, while kobolds were merely that dangerous, and gnolls were about this many points more dangerous than mere orcs.

But now, orcs can have class levels. The danger level of an encounter is unknowable just by looking at the opponents in (or before) round 1. So the PCs need to be able to suck up a hit or two, to know how much danger they're in.

If one hit can drop you, you have no margin for error. You must guess how much trouble you're in. Makes people play very conservatively if they're attached to their character at all.

Cheers, -- N

That's always my favorite part... Even as a player... The moment you take the first hit from a monster and suddenly everyone in the group looks at each other and thinks... "hrmm... perhaps we should rethink this whole screw diplomacy idea..."