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

[Calico_Jack73]

I like the Star Wars SE method of having capable characters at 1st level. It allows me to throw a larger variety of villains at them.

 

[Scarbonac]

Equally a player and DM. While I might prefer 1st-level characters to be tougher, having superheroic levels of HP at 1st level strikes me as too much of a good thing. Too many HP are likely to make the characters too fearless.

If the PCs are not in a persistent state of mortal terror you're doing something wrong.

 

[DM_Blake]

Apparently I'm in the minority.

Irrespective of the player/dm viewpoint, it's currently 96 for tough vs. 28 for fragile.

I like fragile, both as a player and as a DM.

In real life, getting hit with a sword or an axe is a very traumatic event. I personally like it when my game system stays rougly aligned with real life in this regard.

I hate the fact that an orc with a sword would have to hit a typical 5th level fighter nearly 10 times to kill him.

And I don't buy into the whole "HP represent your skill to get out of the way and avoid damage" excuse because if that were true, then all Cure/Heal spells seem to heal someone's ability to dodge.

It's all messed up.

The favorite system I've played in gave everyone a starting HP based on their race, and they never gained any more HP unless they learned skills/feats/abilities to improve their physical resilience. And even an epic level tough guy in that game only had about 3x the HP he started with - but all his defensive skills made him extremely hard to hit and reduced the damage he took from hits that got through.

Now that system made sense.

 

[jester47]

I prefer tough 1st level characters if that means that an NPC expert with all 10s for stats and average hit points has to get lucky to kill a 1st level barbarian with max hp and 18 con.
I don't give extra levels or hit points, but I don't like them to be pushovers. But I also dig camapigns built around meatgrinder dungeons where PCs die in really cool ways.

When I am a player, I love it when my PC dies. Especially if the death is cool.
So I'm weird...

 

[jester47]

Apparently I'm in the minority.

Irrespective of the player/dm viewpoint, it's currently 96 for tough vs. 28 for fragile.

I like fragile, both as a player and as a DM.

In real life, getting hit with a sword or an axe is a very traumatic event. I personally like it when my game system stays rougly aligned with real life in this regard.

I hate the fact that an orc with a sword would have to hit a typical 5th level fighter nearly 10 times to kill him.

And I don't buy into the whole "HP represent your skill to get out of the way and avoid damage" excuse because if that were true, then all Cure/Heal spells seem to heal someone's ability to dodge.

It's all messed up.

The favorite system I've played in gave everyone a starting HP based on their race, and they never gained any more HP unless they learned skills/feats/abilities to improve their physical resilience. And even an epic level tough guy in that game only had about 3x the HP he started with - but all his defensive skills made him extremely hard to hit and reduced the damage he took from hits that got through.

Now that system made sense.

You my friend were made for Warhammer.

 

[med stud]

I primarily DM and I like tougher lvl 1 PCs. It makes it much easier to create interesting adventures from square 1 (well interesting IMO).

 

[Irda Ranger]

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

I start my players at 1st level (for Skills, Feats, Spell access, etc.), but with 2xMax+CON Score (e.g., 12) in HP. A "1st level" Barbarian could have 40+ HP, easy.

This is awesome, because you can have knock-down, drag-out fights right out of the gate.

In real life, getting hit with a sword or an axe is a very traumatic event. I personally like it when my game system stays rougly aligned with real life in this regard.

I hate the fact that an orc with a sword would have to hit a typical 5th level fighter nearly 10 times to kill him.

And I don't buy into the whole "HP represent your skill to get out of the way and avoid damage" excuse because if that were true, then all Cure/Heal spells seem to heal someone's ability to dodge.

It's all messed up.

When on topics of ethics and game-physics the phrase "In real life" can sometimes be applied usefully. When talking about purely abstract "game concepts" like Hit Points or Action Points, it cannot. Hit Points should really be called "Awesome Points." The 5th level Fighter ignores your blows not because his flesh is made of steel, but out of sheer awesomeness.

Also, how do you play above 10th level? Or do you not?

The favorite system I've played in gave everyone a starting HP based on their race, and they never gained any more HP unless they learned skills/feats/abilities to improve their physical resilience. And even an epic level tough guy in that game only had about 3x the HP he started with - but all his defensive skills made him extremely hard to hit and reduced the damage he took from hits that got through.

Now that system made sense.

It also doesn't sound a whit like the D&D everyone else plays. But to each his own, as long as your players are having fun.

As a good compromise position between the two (if your fellow gamers want one), you might want to consider MC's World of Darkness rule. HP work like in normal D&D, but on a crit weapons dice damage (the d8 from 1d8+3) is CON damage.

 

[Wormwood]

I predict *another* in a long series of 75/25 polls.

 

[Mercule]

I guess I'm an odd duck.

I primarily DM and prefer my PCs to have the ability to survive at least one stupid or unlucky move at 1st level. So, I voted accordingly.

As a player, though, I prefer the excitement that comes from having to really reach and avoid combat. This is more true of 1E than 3E, though. 3E is too structured to allow the sort of creativity that's really needed for that sort of fun.

 

[cougent]

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

Perhaps another poll?
J/K, but I often wonder whether the demo here is mostly DM's to players.

I bucked the trend though and went with mostly DM, and fragile players.
I am rather OCD about balance and if my players got double HP or started at 3rd lvl or some other type of toughening mechanic mentioned above, then I would feel compelled to do the same for the critters, and we would be right back at the 1st lvl starting point [on steroids] so I just avoid the extra work and start at 1st with RAW.