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

[Pinotage]

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.

Yes, that's true. But it should be pointed out that a 50 hp critical hit is going to take down the 1st level barbarian, the 2nd level barbarian, the 3rd level barbarian, and possibly the 4th level barbarian. I wouldn't consider it a problem with 1st level characters. Besides, a critical hit is a pretty devastating blow - should a character survive it? Perhaps critical hits need to be toned down rather than increasing the overall power level of the game by raising general hp of characters.

Pinotage

 

[RigaMortus2]

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.

You can still control the level of lethality with "tougher" characters by increasing the number of creatures in the encounter, or use higher CR ones, or add class levels to them.

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.

Since I agree with this, we usually do not allow players to have access to res. If they want to res a character, they usually have to go through a quest to do so.

 

[mhensley]

I don't think the extra hit points are going to change the feel of D&D too much as the R&C book says that there will be some pretty drastic changes to the power levels of many monsters as well. It said that orcs will be aimed more at mid-heroic levels (say 4-6) while gnolls and troglodytes will be opponents for high-heroic levels (7-10th). My guess is that low level parties will still be fighting kobolds and goblins, just like they always did.

 

[Pinotage]

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.

Yes, I'm generally with you on this one. I see the utility in getting newer players into the game, but as a long-term player, I like the idea of a 'wet-behind-the-ears' dead scared fighter entering into his first real battle and knowing that death is easy. With extra hp, every 1st level fighter just walks into battle without a fear in the world, and can easily take several hits. And, yes, I know what hps are and how they're represented. 1st level fighters should be scared about battle and combat, and they should make mistakes that can drop them.

Pinotage

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I'm equally a player and DM (voted player here) and I like fragile 1st-level characters. Accounting for the level of damage faced in each system, BECMI is a bit too fragile for me and 3E is about right (3E has much tougher PCs and somewhat higher damage faced). But, character creation in BECMI is very quick, and death is an expected part of the game.

Being fragile means you DON'T do this "kick in the door" style of adventuring. Instead, you scout, lay ambushes, use trickery, choose the battlefield, establish chokepoints, rotate your wounded fighters to the back lines, and so on. As a DM, this means giving the PCs chances to be clever or cautious. Have it pay off when they post a couple of sentries while other PCs search the room. Let them try to bribe or trick the goblin tribe into attacking the orcs.

 

[WayneLigon]

Primarily DM: I prefer tougher 1st level characters since it's what I'm used to from most other systems. I'm with Monte Cook on this: Higher hit points - and nothing else - provides a more interesting dynamic where the PCs can have encounters with a wider range of cool monsters, yet still be vulnerable to other things (such as spells that require saving throws). Starting at, say, 3rd level doesn't really change the way things are done like simply getting more hit points does.

 

[Midknightsun]

Mostly a DM, and I voted for tougher PCs. I often get bored with how much of a "kids gloves" approach I need to take with most 1st or second level characters, and my players seem to agree. I still felt there was plenty of fear of death at even mid levels to go around, but maybe I just have an easier time creating exciting and interesting challenges at these levels. After about 12th or 13th, I'll admit it gets pretty hard to challenge characters, but before that its not so bad.

Generally, I've started my characters at 3rd with max HPs, or just given 3 HD at 1st level (again max HPs) to make them a bit more durable.

 

[Mr Jack]

Having said I prefer tougher 1st levels...

One of the most enjoyable games I've DMed recently was one in which all the PCs played 1st level commoners, complete with 3d6 in order for stats and d4 hit dice (I let them start with max hps though, I'm so generous). Watching a party tremble in fear in front of a single zombie is most amusing

The problem with D&D 1st levels is that they're both heroes and utterly fragile. I create my warrior character, watch him stride fearlessly into... oh... *rattle of 4d6*

 

[JDJblatherings]

I like fragile HP it makes players careful and brings in a bit o cautious realism.

 

[Bluenose]

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.