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

[Fifth Element]

As a follow-up to this thread:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=214648

Do you prefer 1st-level characters to be fragile (low hit points, basically as they have always been), or do you prefer them to be tougher, as will apparently be the case in 4E?

Please also base your answer on whether you are primarily a DM, or primarily a player.

 

[Wormwood]

Primarily a DM, and at this point I do max hps all levels, and I never start a game below third.

 

[Fifth Element]

Added a poll while you were posting...

Edit: Ah, you noticed...

 

[RigaMortus2]

All it takes is 1 critical hit from an NPC, and even a 1st level Barbarian can do down in one shot. Not very "heroic" IMO. That's not taking into consideration any previous hits/damage he might have taken.

 

[Najo]

The new higher starting hit points is a good thing.

 

[Mr Jack]

Tougher; but still fragile, I think. About equivalent to a second or third level 3rd ed character in hit points, I'd say.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I prefer tougher 1st level players.

I added a baseline of 3 racial levels to all playable races. I count this as level zero. Mostly it just made more sense, 1st level characters aren't survivable enough in the sort of environments my campaigns tend toward.

 

[A'koss]

Tougher, definitely. Fully healthy 1st level characters should be tough enough so that they're not just a single hit away from la-la land or one errant crit from death...

 

[Fifth Element]

As a DM, I currently give double hit points at 1st level. But I've also house-ruled in something like SWSE's second wind mechanic. I know my players enjoy being able to concentrate on having fun, and not having to worry so much that a single wrong step will lead them to their dooms.

 

[Fifth Element]

Hmm...after 23 votes, twice as many DMs have answered as players. I wonder if this simply reflects ENWorld's demographics?