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

[Aust Diamondew]

When I DM now I never start the PCs below 2nd level, too weak. So I wouldn't mind higher starting HP.

On the other hand I wouldn't mind if 1st level character were more fragile in 4th edition as I would simply continue to start games at levels 2 or 3.

 

[Cadfan]

I prefer tough ones.

If I want the characters to be in danger, I can put them up against higher powered enemies. Its a lack of reasonably defeatable enemies that's the problem. It sucks when a goblin with a handaxe is a potential character-killer. 1d6-1 against HP of 4+con is not good.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I like them tough enough that I can control the level of danger and still let the players have fun. 1st level characters currently, and even more so in earlier editions, were so fragile that anything and everything was a serious danger and it was darn near impossible to make it any different and still make things interesting.

In most campaigns I played, we skipped over 1st level and started at at least 2nd. Might as well make the equivalent of 2nd level be the new 1st level.

 

[Darkwolf71]

Well, I'm definatly a minority.

Primarily a player. Prefer fragile 1st level characters.

Yes, it can suck to lose a character in it's first or second encounter ever, in my experiance this rarley actually happens. The possibility, however gives a sense of mortality. This is especially important IMO because death becomes trivial rather fast. After level 5 or so dieing means nothing but the loss of a few XP. Eventually PCs can afford True Res and even the XP loss is nullified.

I'm sorry but there needs to be some point in the game when death actually means something. It makes sense to have that point during the first few levels when characters are at their weakest.

 

[delericho]

Primarily a DM... and I'm torn.

Normally, my response to "we want tougher PCs" is "well, play at a higher level, then."

However, for newbie groups, I think a higher number of hit points at 1st level is a distinct advantage. The last thing we want is some new player having a character killed on the first round of combat, before he even gets to act. So, a higher number of hit points at first level is a good thing. More skilled groups can always house rule it back to 'normal' if they want.

In my as-yet-theoretical house system (that I might develop to replace D&D if I don't go to 4e), I'll be implementing fixed hit points per level, with a "hit point advance" rule, where you get triple hit points at 1st level, but don't gain any more hit points until 4th level (actually, until you new 'real' total is higher than your current total - but that distinction only matters for multiclass characters).

 

[Fifth Element]

I like them tough enough that I can control the level of danger and still let the players have fun. 1st level characters currently, and even more so in earlier editions, were so fragile that anything and everything was a serious danger and it was darn near impossible to make it any different and still make things interesting.

Well put.

What do you do if you want to give a 1st-level party an easy fight? A few goblins? Not very interesting, and a lucky shot by one goblin can still put a PC down, particularly a wizard or sorcerer.

 

[nerfherder]

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...

Same here. I've found it works well in SWSE, and I'm used to other games where the fragility of a character does not increase as dramatically as in D&D.

 

[vazanar]

I tend to give max starting HP for first level. However, that’s still rather fragile. Usually after the first intro session they are leveled up to 2. Sort of a beginning what did I get myself into event. For most characters we assume if they are 1st level it’s their first real combat experience which is rough. Then again my stories rarely start with 1st level characters going to a dungeon to look for treasure, or any set known event.

Saga's 3x starting HP seems overdone to me for D&D. 2x might be more reasonable. Of course that all depends how much damage and criticals have changed. Who knows maybe a great axe is now 3d8 like some blasters. Or certain races start with bonuses to damage on some weapons. Come to think of it if all stat bonuses are now positive, having a +9 bonus to strength might be possible.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

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

That sums up how we handle it. I'm about half half on player GM split, and prefer 3rd level start, and max HP on those levels.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I'm primarily a player and I want tougher 1st-level characters.

I don't want them to be a brick wall and steamroll over anything in their path; but I want to be able to survive that first critical hit.