Quote from: markfitz;725743Is 5-7 possibly the sweet spot for jumping straight into a more or less epic campaign?

I think it is, basically, yes.
(Well of course depending on stuff.)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;723248However, I believe OHT's point is that even if that is the case, it's better to have that lower level spectrum in the gradient included for those that want it, because anyone can just start higher to fit their tastes, as opposed to starting the gradient at a higher level of competance and telling all those players who like lower levels (like OG above) "tough shit".

I'll just re-post this and once again say, yes, this.

Quote from: The Ent;725738The thing about GURPS though, is that unless one starts out with a really big pile of points, even heroic GURPS dudes will tend to be McClane rather than Rambo. Not saying that's bad, hell I prefer Die Hard to Rambo by a big margin, but it's a thing. I've run fairly action movie-esque GURPS campaigns and the thing about it is, even a totally badass 200+ point action hero can be put down like a dog by a single lucky mook even if the fight's low-tech (with guns involved it gets even more dangerous).

Yeah, but what does that have to do with my statement?  I don't equate "competent character" with "invulnerable to being one-shotted."  I equate "competent character" with being able to do his or her skills with a reasonable chance of success, having more than one or two spells, and being able to battle a reasonable spread of foes.  

Not, of course, that D&D 1st level characters are notorious for their survival rates.

Quote from: Axiomatic;725725Don't, instead, you usually watch spy flicks where the heroes are, you know, good at their jobs?

Well, quite aside from that if there as few as ten thousand movies where the protagonists are Rookies Over Their Heads -- come to that, in the espionage genre as well -- that's not really even the point.  Movies are movies.  Roleplaying games are roleplaying games.  I've always maintained that there's not one RPG group in a thousand who'd possibly think that it was anything other than disaster, if they had any choice in the matter, to put four mook hobbits on the Party On Which The Fate Of The World Depends.  But Tolkien wasn't the party leader in a tabletop game.  He was writing a story, where the narrative went the way he wanted to go, and plainly he didn't think that penning a TPK would do much for sales.

Would I prefer to play competent starting characters?  Yep.  That's a reason I appreciate GURPS.

But plainly others don't, and they've expressed themselves eloquently in this thread.

Quote from: Ravenswing;726021Yeah, but what does that have to do with my statement?  I don't equate "competent character" with "invulnerable to being one-shotted."  I equate "competent character" with being able to do his or her skills with a reasonable chance of success, having more than one or two spells, and being able to battle a reasonable spread of foes.  

Not, of course, that D&D 1st level characters are notorious for their survival rates.

Well sure, I agree.

I also like GURPS.

Quote from: Ravenswing;723118(shrug)  I play GURPS.  Beginning characters in GURPS are competent.  Hoorah.

50 pts + 20 pts disads + 5 pts quirks

Quote from: estar;72608450 pts + 20 pts disads + 5 pts quirks

Sounds about right for a horror campaign.

Or a comedy campaign (like Discworld).

Or a horror-comedy campaign.

Quote from: estar;72608450 pts + 20 pts disads + 5 pts quirks

Even pre-4th edition, that's half of the points of the recommended starting character.

But yeah, even that character is more competent than a 1st level D&D character.  For one thing, you can still have a few skills that are better than 50:50 ...

Quote from: Ravenswing;726310Even pre-4th edition, that's half of the points of the recommended starting character.

But yeah, even that character is more competent than a 1st level D&D character.  For one thing, you can still have a few skills that are better than 50:50 ...

A first level D&D character can handle  four trained humanoid soldiers in a sword fight by cutting them up or putting them to sleep. A first level rogue will usually have a +8 to +12 to Stealth, which is put against +0 spot check in most cases.

If you relate what a first level character does in story form and compare it to what a 1st level NPC class character - a fully clothed and competent adult character as presented by the beastiary - is capable of, they are almost super heroic.

Just because the GM can say, "well the black smith can kill 8 men in a fight," or, "the local wizard has a spell that can lightning bolt more people than cyclops could push with his eyes wide open," doesn't mean that the 1st level characters are incompetent. It just means that the GM thinks that the game world is filled full of X-Men and Avengers and your characters aren't in that group.

There is no reason for an NPC to be one level vs. another, other than the GM trying to convey that your 1st level character is competent or incompetent. GMs normally decide to make NPCs high level because they find it fun and interesting.

If you run a game and fill it full of 1st level NPC experts and soldiers, suddenly 1st level Fighters and Wizards seem like the bee's knees.

Quote from: ForumScavenger;726873A first level D&D character can handle  four trained humanoid soldiers in a sword fight by cutting them up or putting them to sleep. A first level rogue will usually have a +8 to +12 to Stealth, which is put against +0 spot check in most cases.

If you relate what a first level character does in story form and compare it to what a 1st level NPC class character - a fully clothed and competent adult character as presented by the beastiary - is capable of, they are almost super heroic.

Just because the GM can say, "well the black smith can kill 8 men in a fight," or, "the local wizard has a spell that can lightning bolt more people than cyclops could push with his eyes wide open," doesn't mean that the 1st level characters are incompetent. It just means that the GM thinks that the game world is filled full of X-Men and Avengers and your characters aren't in that group.

There is no reason for an NPC to be one level vs. another, other than the GM trying to convey that your 1st level character is competent or incompetent. GMs normally decide to make NPCs high level because they find it fun and interesting.

If you run a game and fill it full of 1st level NPC experts and soldiers, suddenly 1st level Fighters and Wizards seem like the bee's knees.

Normally here D&D refers to TSR era not 3e or 4e

So the quote refers to a 1st level AD&D character.

The first level AD&D figther will typically have

6 hp
AC 4 (chain and shiled)
Attacks 1/round 1d8 +1 (allowing for strength) or if 2e is in use or UA with weapon spec they will have Attacks 3/2 1d8 +1/+3 (allowing for specialisation and strength)


0 level human soldiers will have
4hp
AC4
Attacks 1/round 1d8

the fighter gets a +1 to hit over the soldier so who will typically hit AC4 on a 16 or 25% of the time

So basically a 1st level D&D figther than takes on 4 armed soldiers is probably dead in 2 rounds.

A wizard with sleep will be fine but very few wizards will have sleep if you use AD&D random 1st level spell selection and % to learn listed spell.
A AD&D 1st level wizard armed with comprehend languages, affect normal fires and magic missle is less effective agaisnt 4 armed guards and needs to think of some alternate tactics

I think its fair to say that a system with advancement should run zero to hero but I also think that it shouldn't make not starting at zero a big deal and shoudl provide support for that choice.
I am working on a TSR D&D lifepath tool that lets you put some miles on a D&D character prior to play so they emerge as "x" level with appropriate equipment, spells, backstory and missing limbs/scars/lost reserection slots.
the base game needs one of these so you can balance stuff out. The challenge is making it flexible enough so they don't all look alike but supportive enough such that its not just "think of a thing you did this year"

Quote from: jibbajibba;726879Normally here D&D refers to TSR era not 3e or 4e

So the quote refers to a 1st level AD&D character.

The first level AD&D figther will typically have

6 hp
AC 4 (chain and shiled)
Attacks 1/round 1d8 +1 (allowing for strength) or if 2e is in use or UA with weapon spec they will have Attacks 3/2 1d8 +1/+3 (allowing for specialisation and strength)


0 level human soldiers will have
4hp
AC4
Attacks 1/round 1d8

the fighter gets a +1 to hit over the soldier so who will typically hit AC4 on a 16 or 25% of the time

So basically a 1st level D&D figther than takes on 4 armed soldiers is probably dead in 2 rounds.

A wizard with sleep will be fine but very few wizards will have sleep if you use AD&D random 1st level spell selection and % to learn listed spell.
A AD&D 1st level wizard armed with comprehend languages, affect normal fires and magic missle is less effective agaisnt 4 armed guards and needs to think of some alternate tactics

I think its fair to say that a system with advancement should run zero to hero but I also think that it shouldn't make not starting at zero a big deal and shoudl provide support for that choice.
I am working on a TSR D&D lifepath tool that lets you put some miles on a D&D character prior to play so they emerge as "x" level with appropriate equipment, spells, backstory and missing limbs/scars/lost reserection slots.
the base game needs one of these so you can balance stuff out. The challenge is making it flexible enough so they don't all look alike but supportive enough such that its not just "think of a thing you did this year"

Sounds really cool. Characters at any version of D&D you start high level are always better than characters you level up.

For example, I've never had an organic 5th level characters with +1 Armor, a +2 Sword, and a +4 Belt. He would actually have +1 Sword, +1 Sword I don't use, Cloak of Turn into a Wolf 3 times a day and a canter of endless water or something else random.

Spells are like that as well. A 6th level organic sorcerer has all sorts of spells. A sorcerer made for 6th level has a bunch of 1st level utility spells and nothing else. How did he get from 1st to 4th level with just protection from evil, identify and unseen servant, we will never know.

Quote from: jibbajibba;726879Normally here D&D refers to TSR era not 3e or 4e

So the quote refers to a 1st level AD&D character.

The first level AD&D figther will typically have

6 hp
AC 4 (chain and shiled)
Attacks 1/round 1d8 +1 (allowing for strength) or if 2e is in use or UA with weapon spec they will have Attacks 3/2 1d8 +1/+3 (allowing for specialisation and strength)


0 level human soldiers will have
4hp
AC4
Attacks 1/round 1d8

the fighter gets a +1 to hit over the soldier so who will typically hit AC4 on a 16 or 25% of the time

So basically a 1st level D&D figther than takes on 4 armed soldiers is probably dead in 2 rounds.

You're talking AD&D, but in BX or BECMI D&D the mook soldiers actually are 1st level Fighters - PC and NPC alike, both get 1d8 hit dice, same THAC0 etc, and could well both have platemail (AC 3, 2 with shield) which only costs 60gp. With stats rolled 3d6 in order, there's no expectation that a PC is any better than random town guard or mercenary #9. In fact the entry for mercenaries as an encounter in Moldvay Basic (under Veteran, the 1st level rank title for Fighter) has them as Fighters between 1st & 3rd level, potentially seriously outclassing newbie PCs.

BX/BECM RAW really is a 'zero to hero' game. GMing Red Box (BECM) with my son, I got around this by starting his Magic-User at 10,000 XP, which gives mostly 4th level starting PCs.

Quote from: S'mon;726894You're talking AD&D, but in BX or BECMI D&D the mook soldiers actually are 1st level Fighters - PC and NPC alike, both get 1d8 hit dice, same THAC0 etc, and could well both have platemail (AC 3, 2 with shield) which only costs 60gp. With stats rolled 3d6 in order, there's no expectation that a PC is any better than random town guard or mercenary #9. In fact the entry for mercenaries as an encounter in Moldvay Basic (under Veteran, the 1st level rank title for Fighter) has them as Fighters between 1st & 3rd level, potentially seriously outclassing newbie PCs.

BX/BECM RAW really is a 'zero to hero' game. GMing Red Box (BECM) with my son, I got around this by starting his Magic-User at 10,000 XP, which gives mostly 4th level starting PCs.

I don't think I've ever seen a 0 level soldier in AD&D myself.  They were all 1st level.  Not saying they don't exist anywhere, just that every example I can think of, they were 1st level.

Quote from: Old Geezer;723110I'm an odd duck; I actually LIKE playing low level characters.  It is a certain type of fun to have a character that may not survive even a single sword hit.  I enjoy that a lot, and one of the biggest rushes in D&D is that moment when you finally hit second level!  WOOT!

And I also love it when I'm 7th or 8th level and mowing down Orcs like wheat instead of running for my life.

But if I don't get to start at first level I feel cheated because I like to play that way.

Same here. I know eventually one of my Magic users will live to level 3. and eventually one did. Then died. But the next one survived! mostly...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;726938I don't think I've ever seen a 0 level soldier in AD&D myself.  They were all 1st level.  Not saying they don't exist anywhere, just that every example I can think of, they were 1st level.

I use them all the time. Even if the pcs are 10th the guy guarding the town gate is still 0. However, i don't use the fighter vs lowever than 1hd rule for extra attacks cos its crap.
Shit the town mayor is probably 0 level as well.