Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 3952545" data-attributes="member: 32164">Well, I tend to DM more than I play, so I answered in the DM's part.That said, whether I'm playing or DMing, I'd like if 1st-level characters were a bit tougher. I hate doing the "start at 2nd-level" or "start at 3rd-level" thing because I feel like I've taken those all important first adventures and relegated them to backstory. At 1st-level in 3e, four characters teaming up to kill a wolf is a significant event. While that may be true in reality, it implies 1st-level heroes who are more like kids wandering in a forest. That doesn't really work for me. And, as I said above, shoving those events into the background doesn't work for me either.I think the whole point of giving the PCs more hit points is this: the way they're building encounters now (monsters equal to PCs) you will get attacked 4x as often as you did under 3e. So, all else being equal, in order to survive going one on one with a goblin, you need to have more hit points than he does. It is my feel that the tougher 1st-level characters will actually be able to face a party of goblins as a challenge.Perhaps it's merely perception, but I find heroes taking on equal (or even greater) numbers far more heroic, unless the solo opponent is like a dragon or something. Four guys teaming up to kill two wolves seems a bit...pathetic. I want 1st-level heroes to be more like Tarrant Hawkins in Michael Stackpole's The Dark Glory War. He and his companions killed a Frostclaw (a predator basically like the velociraptors in Jurassic Park - but with feathers).However, I support there being rules in the DMG for playing "normals."</blockquote>

Verification