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

[Li Shenron]

...huh?

Isn't the entire point of getting tougher to take on tougher monsters?

And if I recall correctly, monsters got buffed in the edition change, now having con bonuses and such.

Brad

I just meant that basically all gaming groups which use HR (so excluding those that don't), they have HR which "buff" the PCs in one way or another. But many of the same groups don't actually buff monsters at the same time.

The result of powering PCs significantly is that fighting the same monster as before becomes easier. To re-establish the same level of challenge, the DM often just let the party encounter higher-CR monsters, and gives the same XP for them that the PC would have gained without being buffed.

What I'm saying here is just that it is not uncommon to have a situation where the result of "buffing HR" is that the characters can afford to have adventures with "tougher" encounter that yield more XP, hence a faster level advancement, except that these encounters are not "tougher" at all in practice but (from both player's and PC's point of view) the game is as challenging as it used to be.

I might be wrong, but we've very often played with nearly zero house rules (not always, of course), and we don't really find the level advancement to be too fast if the DM plays the monsters to the top of her skills. So I suspect that the reason why in some games advancement may be too fast could be either that (a) the DM is downplaying the monsters or (b) the PCs are too buffed with HRs.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Mandatory Toughness makes for a better game, imho.

My group has done away with Toughness; we only use Improved Toughness (called Toughness, same prerequisites as Toughness)

 

[Visceris]

You got to be kidding me. First level characters are suppose to be weak. THEY ARE FIRST FREAKING LEVEL! Just starting out in their carreers and the carreer of an adventurer is freaking dangerous. This has to be the stupidest idea ever from WotC. I have played and ran many campaigns which characters start off at 1st level and yes, some die in combat. Some are knocked unconscious. That is the danger of going into combat. If there is no consequence then why bother in the first place.

Man, it sounds like 4e is going to be pure idiocy.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I don't really comprehend the problem. First of all, people die when you hit them with axes and swords. Otherwise, axes and swords would make crappy weapons. Second of all, only "risky" encounters (EL > party level +1) should have a marked increased risk in character death with any kind of rational tactics. Lastly, people with 6hp should act like people with 6hp and take appropriate jobs.

Virtually all of the default kits for 1st level characters have ranged weapons. They should use them. Even without precise shot, there are many times you can take a shot without risk to your allies. Pest control may suck but you know what? Somebody's got to do it and when the "pests" have knives or flesh-rending claws, it is a position of respect in the community.

IMCs, characters who use bad tactics die, regardless of level. The rest of the party has learned that cornering a wild animal is bad, sometimes running away is good, ranged weapons may not be as much fun but they are effective, sometimes diplomacy (or intimidate) followed by a bribe is the best plan, taking prisoners/giving parole can result in much more loot, and lastly it is alright to just avoid a fight entirely.

The correlary to this is that as a DM wild animals should run away, you don't always pursue the party to the ends of the earth, not all opponents should be in easy reach of cover, NPCs will realize that diplomacy (or intimidate) followed by getting a bribe isn't a bad deal, surrendering and giving away loot is better than dying, and not all opponents have Heimdall's spot check.

Bad DMs breed bad players. Good DMs with either wind up with good players or will dumb down their game because it's better than having no players, but only after inflicting horrific character casualties.

 

[Asmor]

You got to be kidding me. First level characters are suppose to be weak. THEY ARE FIRST FREAKING LEVEL! Just starting out in their carreers and the carreer of an adventurer is freaking dangerous. This has to be the stupidest idea ever from WotC. I have played and ran many campaigns which characters start off at 1st level and yes, some die in combat. Some are knocked unconscious. That is the danger of going into combat. If there is no consequence then why bother in the first place.

Man, it sounds like 4e is going to be pure idiocy.

Uh... dude? This thread has nothing to do with 4e or WotC.

 

[Virel]

Remathillis,

First thanks for reading my comments.

I think you make a very good point about would the DM be happy if every encounter was set up like a SWAT team assault. The answer of course is no, however I’ve never seen any DM mind that sort of thing being done some or a good bit of the time. Most DM’s are like smart capable players, it lets the DM be more flexible and provide honest challenges worthy of the group, without having to treat them with kid gloves. First level PC’s are weak, we can all agree on that. They should be extra careful because this entire adventure thing is new for them. It’s very reasonable to expect them to do some planning. After the have some experience, they’ll be more capable of doing stuff on the fly with less planning. In a way it’s sort of like teaching, some new teachers can do well without any sort of a lesson play but most new ones are better off with a lesson play to help them along. Experienced, teachers know what they are doing and really, don’t need the lesson plan or only need a bare outline with less detail. Same goes for the PC’s if you follow me.

As for the video game player or style of play, I have seen a good bit of poor play by players of all types. One of the best players in my current 1st ed AD&D game is into WoW. One of the worst has never touched WoW. The key point, is one of the will look before they leap and think things out, the other doesn’t. It’s not the style or what they play; it’s the “I’m going to think about what I’m doing” vs the “I do whatever I want and worry about it later” camps. I’ve never been one to shy away from letting bad players get what’s coming to them. Thirty-six PC deaths in three years, last time I counted. Ninety percent of those due to leap before you look gaming.

About the xp for fleeing, it’s true sometimes xp might be missed because of the retreat. However, I think a reasonable DM that understands the game might stop think and say: Hmmm, the players know they are outmatched and don’t want to fight the Hill Giant with their 1st level PCs’. That is actually a good decision, reasonable in game, so a small xp award might be reasonable at DM discretion. This sort of thing can be used to encourage play. It also teaches the newer player, that there is more to the game than blind combat.

Of course, you’ll want to vary your tactics using bait is only one of several approaches to consider. Being predictable is stupid.

As for fighting fair, in 1st ed PHB, none of the “garbage” is heaped onto the Paladin, that is later pilled on the character. Paladins do not have to fight fair, they have to uphold their deity which is normally 1st ed, lawful good. I have no issue with players, having a Paladin strike with surprise or from ambush. The Pal, might go for taking prisoners. The Pal wouldn’t have a problem with “bait” or other tactics. If the Pal’s deity is about honorable combat, that might be a different matter. I see Paladins as a Dirty Harry type character with Charisma. All of this Cavalier stuff of no retreat and fight to the death is best left to that class.

As for not a lot of good PC’s, well we do favor neutral ones for the most part. There are some good ones. This doesn’t mean the hiring is thrown away. The PC’s have to look out and try and take care of them. It’s possible they will get a bad rep if they get their guys killed off and won’t be able to hire more. It can add some extra depth. I’ve seen parties lose a few hirelings but use their healing herbs on the other wounded hirelings. If the surviving hirelings can honestly see the group did everything it to could to protect and save the help, they can survive with their rep intact. Also, it adds some depth. Some PC’s will want to help the hireling’s family etc. Lays loose ends for other adventures, like when the hirelings older brother comes back and decides he has a score to settle with the PCs.

City under attack and 1st level PC’s, well sometimes it may come down to having to stand and fight. Of course, these 1st level PC’s might not need to be the front line, sniping with arrows is worthwhile. Leading, orcs into traps is worthwhile. Jerking up trip lines, to throw orcs off of their giant wolves is worth while. Setting up an ambush to catch the raiders on the way in might be worth considering and then another ambush on the way out. The mayor might expect the PC’s to walk out into the street like the old west for a showdown but that’s not the way the PC’s have to choose to do their task.

The tactics I mentioned may not be the best. They do have a proper place. They don’t have to be used all the time. There is plenty of time for heroic play, doing it at lst level with a weak PC, might not be the best time to be uber brave. One can do that if they wish but they shouldn’t be surprised if that doesn’t carry some extra risk.

 

[Stalker0]

To me, you can always skip 1st level if you want to, my group does it all the time.

1st level does provide some very gritty games and for some groups is a lot of fun. Combat is also more "realistic" at that level (if that word can ever be applied to dnd). Armor is a huge factor, you will often kill things in one blow, numbers almost always wins, etc.

That's the beauty of dnd. If you want to be a superhero, go play 20th level and have fun. If you want your super gritty game, go for 1st.

That shouldn't change. What should be is people being told they have to start at 1st level. They should be encouraged to pick a starting point for the game they want to play, but leave the other levels alone for the people who want to play those kinds of games.

 

[Remathilis]

Remathillis,

First thanks for reading my comments..

Your welcome. I didn't notice this thread pop up again in the middle of the 4e Typhoon.

I wasn't criticizing your tactics or think PC tactics should be "CHARGE!" I've killed many a dumb player due to lack of planning. I just think the argument than "superior tactics is the answer to D&Ds 1st level problem" is a bit naive.

First level is a two-way street. The PCs should play cautious because they die fairly easy. The DM should do the same. I don't care what the ecology of your world is, I don't want to see a giant at first level. I want orcs, goblins, and kobolds. I want to know the DCs are obtainable, the adventure is scaled for my abilities, and combat that is survivable. I don't want a handout nor do I want assurance of success, merely a reasonable chance to survive whatever idea you had for tonights adventure.

I (unfairly) picked on your post, but I've seen plenty of examples. The original thread that spawned this one (with the EL +7 over the PCs) is IMHO bad DMing and smacks of the attitude of "if your not smart enough to run away, you shouldn't be playing." I don't play D&D to run away, I play to face horrible monsters in smell dungeons. Sometimes I do run-away, the cleric just got dropped by a lucky crit and I'm not doing so hot hp-wise myself. However, I want that to the exception: "Remember that time we ran like girls from the devourer! Man, we were almost really screwed that time!" vs. "Sigh, thats the 32nd time we had to retreat from the Caves of Chaos. Lets sack the Keep instead" In short, I want to be hero, standing tall in the face of fearsome foes, not cowardly cynical merc who strikes only when there is clear superior tactical advantage and hides behind his hirelings when things go astray.