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

[1 hp]

... some folks like playing frodo, sam, merry and pippin.

Sure, those hobbits were 1st level and fragile when they started. However, if they didn't have Strider, Gimli and Gandalf around, they would've died early on.

High-level NPC escorts is fine for a book, but if a DM feels obliged to place one or more high-level NPCs into a party to ensure the survival of the fragile PCs, there's something wrong with the game.

 

[Rechan]

High-level NPC escorts is fine for a book, but if a DM feels obliged to place one or more high-level NPCs into a party to ensure the survival of the fragile PCs, there's something wrong with the game.

I'd think a guy with one hit point would want an NPC escort.

 

[1 hp]

I'd think a guy with one hit point would want an NPC escort.

Pff. Like I'd dare step foot outside the house.

 

[Celebrim]

I prefer that NPC's and PC's work according to the same rules (or nearly so). For example, if the PC's have triple hit points, then all the 1 HD NPC's would have triple hit points too. This would be wierd IMO. So I prefer 1st level characters to be 'fragile' whether they are PC's or NPC's. If I want starting PC's to not be fragile, I'll start them as 3rd or 4th level characters.

Of course, fragile is a relative term. I've always found d4 classes to be too fragile at low levels. In fact, I can't ever remember a pure wizard that survived past midlevel in any game I've ever played or ran. And adventures for 1st level characters are tricky to run, so I empathize with people that find 1st level characters too fragile. I've generally either put kid gloves on or else made everyone start with two characters, and neither is a perfectly acceptable solution.

It's not really the fragility at low levels that bothers me though, maybe because I'm used to it. It's the fragility of characters at high level that bothers me.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

In fact, I can't ever remember a pure wizard that survived past midlevel in any game I've ever played or ran.

I always viewed this as the reason why not all game worlds would be run by wizards. In BD&D, 1E, and 2E, wizards were supposed to have a much higher mortality rate than fighters.

Yes, wizards can achieve phenomenal cosmic power, but it's an exceedingly perilous path and most who attempt it will die along the way (generally not very far along the path either).

 

[Henry]

I prefer more mundane first level characters, but with advice in the DMG that you don't have to start at 1st for every game. As it looks like, I'll probably use something like Grim Tales for when I want to do a little less super-heroic characters, and D&D 4 when I want to do over the top from the get-go.

 

[Delta]

Primarily DM. I like 1st-level characters to be fragile, because that level should fill in for all the NPC's of the world who should be semi-realistically vulnerable to one sword thrust. To me, max-hit-points or even minimum-half-hit-points are corruptions of the game; where does it all end?

(Complete aside: As a player in 2E, my favorite character of all time had 1 hp to start with. How did I play that? Absolutely, utterly fearlessly, because he was never aware of being hurt at all. He was either 100% a-ok or completely unconscious if he ever got hurt. Then he'd heal up and awaken with no memory of being hurt in the first place. Hence, the most aggressive guy on the team. )

Now, if you want your PCs to be tougher, I think it's great to start the campaign at a higher level like 3rd (that's what I do now), a lot like Mutants & Masterminds doesn't force you to play anything under 10th if you don't want. But corrupting the system mechanics and not having a realistically-vulnerable 1st level even available as an option is more than I can put up with.

 

[pawsplay]

I prefer PCs that are neither too fragile nor too tough. I like 'em crunchy.

 

[Li Shenron]

I prefer them slightly less fragile than commoners.

 

[JohnSnow]

Well, don't send them inot baby dungeon rooms. My players 5- with 1st and seconf level characters with 6 hired men-arms took on 60 skeletons. They won, by EL they should have been stomped flat. But they fought semi-wisely and were really lucky so they get to survive the low levels to become heroes.

Deeds make folks Heroes birth seldom pulls that off.

*ahem*

A force nearly 3 times the size of a normal party (11 characters), should be able to stomp a bunch of wimpy undead flat.

You certainly aren't playing with a standard party if they have a half-dozen hired soldiers with them.

That's the thing that always bugged me about Gary's old player accounts - too many cohorts, hirelings and followers. Which is, of course, how you survive with an all-wizard party.