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

[shilsen]

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.

Considering that characters go from level 1 to 30, even if they quintupled hit points at 1st level I'd say there's a whole lot of character growth that you will see in the game, especially since D&D has always been one of the systems with extremely dramatic change between low and high levels. And since characters can easily be made to feel fear at any level, I don't think that'll change with a few added hit points either.

 

[Ahnehnois]

As a DM, I want level 1 PCs to be afraid. I like the turnaround as they grow; to be able to look at something that could have crushed you not so long ago before you kill it (and then find out that this time, it was only fodder for something far worse). This appears to be a sentiment shared by at least some others, I'm happy to see.

I also want to be able to rationalize 1st level NPCs dying really quickly. If everyone's tough, it changes the whole dynamic of the world. Why are orcs threatening if they *can't* slaughter ordinary humans? With that in mind, I would prefer there be less distance between a level 1 commoner an a starting adventurer, not more.

If you want PCs to start tough, start at higher levels. Easy enough.

 

[BadMojo]

I mostly play but I am running a low level campaign right now.

As a player: Tougher characters. It's just not fun to have a character killed by a lucky shot from one miserable kobold with one little spear. It's not heroic, it's not fun and it's usually not even that memorable.

As a DM: It's nice to have more monster choices to use with first level characters. I think a lot of players are tired of fighting slightly larger than average rats in every 1st level game. Killing a PC off in the first encounter of an adventure isn't my idea of fun (although I've done it).

 

[JoeGKushner]

As a GM, there is nothing stupider than having to worry about rats and cats eating the mage. Minimum damage is 1 so a cat gets three attacks a round. +4 on the claws and -1 on the bit. Most mages are cat food, nothing more.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Better to TPK 'em at 1st level when it's relatively easy to start over, than at 4th or 6th or 8th level by which time starting over is a serious headache.

People talk about attrition, but first level isn't really about attrition, now. There isn't that much to whittle away.

This is a good point. Losing one character out of a party of 4 (3e standard) is a lot more significant than losing one out of 6 or 8 (1e standard)...for this reason alone, I'd prefer larger parties.

Oh, and to ptolemy18: did we go to the same school of gaming or something? You keep saying exactly what I'm thinking.

Lanefan

 

[cr0m]

I'm about equal parts DM/player, and I'm all for tougher first-level PCs. The main thing I hate about low-level play is how often you end up fighting varmints, for lack of better monsters. But I love low-level play, where saving up 1,000 gold pieces or finding a cache of masterwork weapons just ROCKS!

What's heroic about killing big centipedes?

edit: I forgot to add, one benefit to tougher 1st level characters is that the squire and the lord can go to battle, and sometimes die together.

 

[Evilhalfling]

I would like tougher characters but I think 3xhp is a bad way to do it. The variation is just too high.
20hp + die roll+ con mod would work a lot better for me. I can see a lot of problems when the party ranges from 15 - 45 hp at first level.
I'm assuming clerics will have some sort of at will healing power so there is the option of starting full hp, in most adventures.

 

[JDJblatherings]

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.

Most real life adventurers have cohorts, hirelings and followers:
No one gets to the south pole or to the top of Mt Everest by themself.

"The 300" had about a thousanad extra guys with them (even if the movie and popular accounts seem to miss this point now and again).

Cortez and his fellow conquistadors didn't do what they did all by themsleves with the might of their european technology but prevailed thanks to politics and thousands of local allies.

 

[Zelster]

Most real life adventurers have cohorts, hirelings and followers:
No one gets to the south pole or to the top of Mt Everest by themself.

"The 300" had about a thousanad extra guys with them (even if the movie and popular accounts seem to miss this point now and again).

Cortez and his fellow conquistadors didn't do what they did all by themsleves with the might of their european technology but prevailed thanks to politics and thousands of local allies.

Yes that is all well and true, but Cortez didn't have to stop his invasion and meticulously roll dice for every cohort. They all had RL players running them... it's completely different at the RPG table. I believe that D&D should strive to give each human player at the table a roughly equal time to make decisions and roll dice. Where that fails, it's up to the DM to keep things moving.

That said, as a DM I love the idea of giving 1st level characters more HP. It will greatly expand the possibilities for challenges/encounters and save many a PC from 1st level critical-hit death.

 

[Jhulae]

Most real life adventurers have cohorts, hirelings and followers:
No one gets to the south pole or to the top of Mt Everest by themself.

"The 300" had about a thousanad extra guys with them (even if the movie and popular accounts seem to miss this point now and again).

Cortez and his fellow conquistadors didn't do what they did all by themsleves with the might of their european technology but prevailed thanks to politics and thousands of local allies.

Great. When I'm playing "Mt. Everest: The Climbing", I'll make sure my character hires enough shirpas for the party. Likewise, when I'm playing "Cortez: Exploration for El Dorado", I'll make sure my PC hires sailors.

However, when I'm playing D&D, I'd like to stay somewhat close to the D&D fiction. Elminster doesn't have a gang of henchmen. Drizzt isn't being followed by hirelings. Raistlin Majere didn't have an entourage of low level NPCs with him all the time..

I'll leave Real Life to, well, real life. Characters in almost all of the D&D novels are self capable and I should be able to have a PC that is too.