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

[WhatGravitas]

As a DM, I prefer tougher PCs. It easy enough to kill them or put them into grave danger - just use more dangerous opponents. More opponents, boost the stats and so on.

But if the weakest opponents (orcs) pose a serious threat, it's harder to scale into the other direction, without getting laughable (orcs with daggers.... yeah).

Cheers, LT.

 

[Betote]

I prefer, as DM and as a player, weak 1st-level characters. In fact, as weak as possible. Why? If 1st level us too weak for my tastes, I can always begin at 3rd-4rd level. If 1st level is too tough, I can't get it any weaker.

So, it's a matter of having the option available.

 

[shilsen]

I prefer, as DM and as a player, weak 1st-level characters. In fact, as weak as possible. Why? If 1st level us too weak for my tastes, I can always begin at 3rd-4rd level. If 1st level is too tough, I can't get it any weaker.

So, it's a matter of having the option available.

Why can't you get 1st lvl any weaker than whatever the PHB assigns for that level? The obvious method is to not give triple hit pts at first level if that is the approach 4e takes, and I'm sure it would be easy to come up with a dozen other methods. It's certainly possible to make 1st lvl characters in 3e weaker, and if 1st lvl characters in 4e are stronger, that means there are even more options for weakening them.

 

[Betote]

Why can't you get 1st lvl any weaker than whatever the PHB assigns for that level? The obvious method is to not give triple hit pts at first level if that is the approach 4e takes, and I'm sure it would be easy to come up with a dozen other methods. It's certainly possible to make 1st lvl characters in 3e weaker, and if 1st lvl characters in 4e are stronger, that means there are even more options for weakening them.

Because if I house-rule weaker 1st-level PCs, then I have to house-rule weaker threats (because a CR1-equivalent threat would be designed for "1st-level+" characters, not for my house-ruled ones); then I'd have to house-rule PC advancement, and go on an on... And, if I have to house-rule so much, there's no point in buyng a ruleset I'm not going to be able to use RAW.

 

[shilsen]

Because if I house-rule weaker 1st-level PCs, then I have to house-rule weaker threats (because a CR1-equivalent threat would be designed for "1st-level+" characters, not for my house-ruled ones); then I'd have to house-rule PC advancement, and go on an on... And, if I have to house-rule so much, there's no point in buyng a ruleset I'm not going to be able to use RAW.

Doesn't really seem like that much house-ruling to me. Plus, if you're house-ruling weaker PCs and then also weakening their opposition, then the PCs aren't really weaker. After all, whether someone is weak or not is always a matter of comparison. If you want the PCs to encounter threats which are equivalent to them, then you might as well just use the 1st lvl PCs as written.

In short, I fail to see the problem. Which, of course, may explain why it's not mine

 

[jdrakeh]

Primarily the DM. I prefer fragile first level characters because it allows more room for meaningful growth.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Hmm... Actually all I want in terms of PC-health is that they are high enough that we won't have to be facing dire-rats 9 times out of 10.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Why can't you get 1st lvl any weaker than whatever the PHB assigns for that level? The obvious method is to not give triple hit pts at first level if that is the approach 4e takes, and I'm sure it would be easy to come up with a dozen other methods. It's certainly possible to make 1st lvl characters in 3e weaker, and if 1st lvl characters in 4e are stronger, that means there are even more options for weakening them.

Because if the dm takes 3rd of your hit points away, he comes off as an . If, on the other hand, the dm were to triple your hit points, he comes off as a saint. The weaker option should always be the default, with an optional rule to soup up characters.

 

[jdrakeh]

Hmm... Actually all I want in terms of PC-health is that they are high enough that we won't have to be facing dire-rats 9 times out of 10.

Perhaps more interesting low-level monsters is a solution? I've long thought that D&D is lacking in this regard.

 

[adembroski]

I like seeing characters grow, and it's always best to start out with that element of fear. Low level characters should be fragile enough to feel fear, but not so fragile that you've gotta roll up 3 new ones everytime you start a game.