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

[CanadienneBacon]

I like my 3.5 1st-level characters to be tougher than a 2e 1st-level wizard but more fragile than a 3.x 1st-level anything.

ie: I don't want to DM PCs who fall over at the slightest gust of wind but I don't want "heroic" or "invincible" 1st-level PCs, either.

 

[Stalker0]

I like fragile 1st level characters, but I also don't like playing 1st level.

To me, 1st level is there for those who want that gritty kind of game. If I don't, I just start the game a few levels higher. Each of us get what we want. When you make it tough at the start, then that section of the population who want fragile, gritty characters don't get their piece of cake.

 

[Dausuul]

Interesting. The DMs overwhelmingly prefer tough 1st-level characters. The players also favor it, but by a much smaller margin. One would expect it to be the other way around.

 

[Glyfair]

Interesting. The DMs overwhelmingly prefer tough 1st-level characters. The players also favor it, but by a much smaller margin. One would expect it to be the other way around.

Well, it's much easier to design when you don't have to worry about fragile PCs. One mistake in power level and you can easily have a TPK and that's never fun, especially at first level.

As it stands now a couple of critical hits from an orc with a great axe and you have lost half the party (and have a good chance of losing the other half).

People talk about attrition, but first level isn't really about attrition, now. There isn't that much to whittle away. Spellcasters have a few more spells to whittle away, but most are less effective than mundane gear. Light crossbows are usually more effective than a couple of rays of frost.

 

[bgaesop]

To me, 1st level is there for those who want that gritty kind of game. If I don't, I just start the game a few levels higher. Each of us get what we want. When you make it tough at the start, then that section of the population who want fragile, gritty characters don't get their piece of cake.

That's the thing though, I love gritty games, and I still want this. Make it grim and gritty by forcing the PCs to horde their precious hit points and healing, make them worry that if they get in one more fight today it could be the end of them. Don't make them think "oh , if I get in even a single fight where the NPCs aren't retarded there's a damned good chance I'm dead." Really, DMs have to dumb down their low level fights so much to avoid killing PCs.

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

primarly DM

and I was giving bonus hp (+20) at first level by special "pact/alliange/symbiont"

 

[Hairfoot]

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

Hitpoints are an abstract that represents skill and luck as much as toughness, and it's appropriate that an apprentice stands a good chance of getting kyboshed when they first face a genuine foe who wants to kill them, which is why "my first combat" is a regular feature of soldier's memoirs. It's a trial by fire and I like to roleplay it that way.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I like starting PCs at 1st level - I've come to realise D&D works much better that way - but in 3e (and Classic) they're too fragile. 3e PCs in general tend to "eggshells armed with hammers". My new approach is to give x2 max hp at 1st level, just like this. This gives something close to 3rd level hp but without the offensive power.

 

[ptolemy18]

Here's how I do it. I allow players to throw in swashbuckling cards to survive an effect which would kill the PC (whether through hit point loss, save or die spells, or any other kind). The PC drops to -9 hp and is stable, but can't be healed up till the fight ends, and can be killed if intentionally targeted.

Fair enough. I suppose from a playing standpoint my preference for death-high games is that I don't necessarily *want* to play the same PC throughout the whole campaign... I mean, sometimes I am in love with my PC, and I always roleplay the heck out of them, but sometimes I get bored with them, and once I actually asked my old 3.5 DM if I could retire my PC and replace him with another one (he said no). There's just SO many ideas for characters that are possible, I get restless. It's great to keep the plot going, and it's great to gain levels, but certainly, whenever I've suffered a level loss due to being raised from the dead, on all but one occasion, I chose to just make a new PC rather than have to "redo" the old level.

To play devil's advocate for a minute -- I think that also, on one level, I look at D&D as a competition between me and the other players to see who can do the most heroic deeds and go the longest without their character dying. ^_^ Scoff if you will -- I'm not some evil PKer or boasting and I do play for teamwork and to help the rest of the party (to a varying degree depending on whether I'm playing the Lawful Good cleric or the Chaotic Neutral rogue), but deep down, I think, good-natured competition among players and their characters is an aspect of the D&D experience. Heck, there's even a gods-and-heroes indy RPG named Agon (http://www.agon-rpg.com/) in which this is an explicit purpose of game design.

 

[shilsen]

Fair enough. I suppose from a playing standpoint my preference for death-high games is that I don't necessarily *want* to play the same PC throughout the whole campaign... I mean, sometimes I am in love with my PC, and I always roleplay the heck out of them, but sometimes I get bored with them, and once I actually asked my old 3.5 DM if I could retire my PC and replace him with another one (he said no). There's just SO many ideas for characters that are possible, I get restless. It's great to keep the plot going, and it's great to gain levels, but certainly, whenever I've suffered a level loss due to being raised from the dead, on all but one occasion, I chose to just make a new PC rather than have to "redo" the old level.

It all comes down to playing style, which isn't surprising, since that's what about 95% of gaming disputes (and 100% of gaming disputes about death in the game) come down to. If one of my players was bored with a PC and wanted to bring in another, I'd definitely allow it, since I figure players should get to play the PC they want. That's happened only once in my Eberron campaign in nearly 70 sessions.

To play devil's advocate for a minute -- I think that also, on one level, I look at D&D as a competition between me and the other players to see who can do the most heroic deeds and go the longest without their character dying. ^_^ Scoff if you will -- I'm not some evil PKer or boasting and I do play for teamwork and to help the rest of the party (to a varying degree depending on whether I'm playing the Lawful Good cleric or the Chaotic Neutral rogue), but deep down, I think, good-natured competition among players and their characters is an aspect of the D&D experience. Heck, there's even a gods-and-heroes indy RPG named Agon (http://www.agon-rpg.com/) in which this is an explicit purpose of game design.

I'm not scoffing. That is just an issue of gaming style again, of course. I think this exists to a very minor level in my game, with at least a couple of players absolutely hating to have a PC be dropped, leave alone taken to -10, even if they know the PC will survive. Which is one among many reasons why combat can be very tense even if the PCs know they will almost certainly come out alive. Players want their PCs to survive due to their own choices, not because of tossing in a few cards, and since I almost always use enemies who are substantially weaker than the PCs, there's an embarrassment factor in being beat down too.