Your preference for how "fragile" 1st-level character should be

[Falling Icicle]

Though it is heresy for me to say it, I've always thought that it was absurd to tie hit points to level. IMHO, they should be tied to Con and nothing else. A first level character can practically die from stubbing his toe, while a 20th level character can be hit several times with a greataxe and live. That's just asinine, IMO. But then, I'm more of a purist that thinks hit points should be actual health rather than some absurd abstraction of health mixed with luck, morale, or other such things.

Back on topic, I'm obviously more in favor of tougher 1st level characters. At least, tougher than they are in 1st-3rd edition, where, as I said, they can practically die from stubbing their toe. But I think the same should be true of commoners as well.

 

[The Human Target]

Tougher at 1st, weaker at 20th (or 30th or what have you.)

With optional rules to weaken or toughen as the play style requires.

 

[Lanefan]

Voted as DM, but both as player and DM I prefer 1st-level types to be fragile. And as DM there's still loads of interesting things I can throw at 'em...

10 go in to the party's first dungeon as hero wannabes; 3 come out as heroes, probably with several new recruits (read: replacement PCs) picked up along the way. This is how the wheat gets sorted from the chaff.

Lanefan

 

[ptolemy18]

I prefer 'em weak when they start out. And I am mostly a DM, I admit, but even as a player I am a bit of a masochist.

The most fun thing in D&D is being one of the last people standing when the whole party is almost defeated, and then (maybe, sometimes) saving the day. In order to experience these awesome moments, I will gladly tolerate being the unconscious PC who needs rescuing and healing the other 3 out of 4 times. I like a tough campaign.

Heroism isn't about how many hit points you have; it's about the drama and toughness (and fairness, of course) of the situations the DM puts you in.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Primarily a DM. I don't even start games below 3rd level now in 3.x. I hate having to stop and make new PCs everytime I crit.

 

[ptolemy18]

I DM more than I play, and I'd like characters to be a little tougher at low levels. Not enough that they feel invincible, but enough that they don't die by chance.

Well, but when SHOULD they die by chance? Isn't Dying By Chance one of the major plot elements of D&D? ~_~ And death at -10 hit points is a pretty nice big death buffer for 1st-level characters.

I understand that there are some DMs and players who prefer to play the same character pretty much from 1st to 20th level and not ever really have to worry about dying... or games where death is only a risk during climactic mega-encounters or for plot purposes... or games that involve other penalties for in-character defeats rather than death... but I prefer games where the specter of Random Death (well, not *literally* a specter, of course... could be a wraith, could be a nightshade) always hovers somewhere over the gaming table. Of course, I realize this is possible with stronger 1st level characters too, you just have to make the threats stronger. It's all about balance and campaign style.

(Having said that, I have to hypocritically admit... I am currently DMing a campaign where the PCs started at 4th level, and we're using the Skull & Bones "Lives" rules, in which PCs can survive 1d4+1 "deaths" before they actually die, with a risk of losing limbs, eyes, hands, etc. each time they do so... It's still random and painful, but for this particular campaign, I want the characters to be a little more durable. :/ )

 

[howandwhy99]

It's a helluva lot easier to start games at 3rd level than at -2.

 

[Rechan]

Well, but when SHOULD they die by chance? Isn't Dying By Chance one of the major plot elements of D&D? ~_~

Not really.

I know a lot of DMs who have the attitude of a PC shouldn't die unless they do one of the following:
1) Do something stupid,
2) Do something dramatic/heroic (i.e. sacrifice).

Why do you think people hate Save or Dies so much? The biggest complaint against them is that "It leaves the PC's death up to a pure random chance".

 

[mmadsen]

Why do you think people hate Save or Dies so much? The biggest complaint against them is that "It leaves the PC's death up to a pure random chance".

I think people hate save-or-die because it sidesteps the hit-point mechanic, which is how D&D provides heroes with their plot-protection.

 

[Rechan]

I think people hate save-or-die because it sidesteps the hit-point mechanic, which is how D&D provides heroes with their plot-protection.

That's one reason.

Another is that it just means 'I flip a coin, you live or you die'. It's Not Fun.

Another is that it's anti-climactic. "The BBEG goes down in the second round from your Slay Living. Campaign over."

Another is that you have to sit out of the fight because the save or die took you down in the first or second round and it's boring.

But I mainly hear about 'Flip a coin, live or die, not fun'.