Community

Nov 23, 2012 -- 2:48PM, Salla wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 1:48PM, Phoenix182 wrote:

A blacksmith is tough because he does a physical job, and knows how to swing a hammer because he does it all the time, and understands weapons and armor because he makes them regularly. He probably also hunts a bit, and may be a member of a local militia (or at least done some training with friends and family to ready himself to be). There's a 1st lvl fighter to us.

To most people I know, that's statless NPC.

And to most people I know (in fact, EVERYONE I personally know, but even most that I merely associate with online), that's a 1st lvl pc. Now where are we?

I think we should start at our max potential.  My wizard should be able to cast wail of the banshee right after character creation...ok just kidding.  Have to agree with Maxperson.  There is little to no fun playing a character that can't improve.  Here's the thing:  A first level character isn't exactly incompetent. Each class adventurer is stronger than most npcs with comparable experience.  If you are concerned with underwhelming power, competence, or durability, simply don't if you don't want to.  Have your players create 5th level characters or whatever you feel is appropriate.  If you feel that you want to start at "level 0" and "earn" your class and have a complete journey(if that's what it requires in your eyes), houserules are easily enough created if the game itself doesn't provide it

Phoenix I completely disagree with you. Not only did Gary G state from the beginning that level 1 fighters were combat veterans, but D&D had 0 level warriors that would eventually follow high level fighters. These facts mean that level 1 PCs were clearly a cut above a common townsfolk.

Combine this with the fact that a common peasant would have no training in weapons or armor, the fighter must clearly have had years of training. If that wasn't the case the wizard, rogue, and cleric should all receive full weapon and armor proficiencies. You are basically stating that a blacksmith who has no weapon and armor training has full proficiencies and must be a skilled combatant. How does that make any sense?

Nov 23, 2012 -- 3:39PM, Lawolf wrote:

Phoenix I completely disagree with you. Not only did Gary G state from the beginning that level 1 fighters were combat veterans, but D&D had 0 level warriors that would eventually follow high level fighters. These facts mean that level 1 PCs were clearly a cut above a common townsfolk. Combine this with the fact that a common peasant would have no training in weapons or armor, the fighter must clearly have had years of training. If that wasn't the case the wizard, rogue, and cleric should all receive full weapon and armor proficiencies. You are basically stating that a blacksmith who has no weapon and armor training has full proficiencies and must be a skilled combatant. How does that make any sense?

1. There is no 'right way' to play, only the way that is right for you and your group. Do I really need to break out all the Rule 0 quotes to back this point up? While you will be able to do what I am about to do to support your position, you must ALSO accept that I can do what I'm about to do, thereby supporting mine. The end result is a game that MUST embrace both paradigms (which, coincidentally, is the ENTIRE stated purpose and goal of 5th edition).

2. From the books themselves:

D&D Rules Cyclopedia

Pg 6 - "Think of each character class as a sort of stereotype." They do not say each is a trained veteran, merely that they're a stereotype. I can list 100 pieces of literature and fiction wherein the 'stereotype hero' begins as nothing but a common farmer or equivalent.

Pg 7 - "A Magic-User...and in the early part of his career he has little in the way of magical ability either." Not saying he's a powerful mage, but someone with just rudimentary skill.

Pg 13 - "A brand-new cleric character is at the very bottom of his clerical organization;" not he is a well reknowned champion of his cause. Also note that in D&D Clerics don't even start with spellcasting ability.

Pg 17 - Not gonna recreate the table, but 'normal men' have saves 2 worse (10%) than 1st level fighters. This makes a 1st level character only 10% better than a normal man, which I believe I said clearly.

Pg 19 - "However, it is often difficult for magic-users to survive." Not magic-users are greatly feared bastions of power on equal footing with others.

Pg 106-107 - Not gonna recreate the chart, but 'normal men' have a THAC0 1 worse than 1st level PCs (meaning 5% less effective). That means a 1st level PC is expected to be only about 5% better than a normal man, which I believe I said clearly.

Pg 129 - "After reaching level 26 or greater...A hero (or epic hero) is a character who represents the ultimate ideals of heroism..." not at level 1, starting at level 26. While this doesn't preclude trying to be a hero previously it illustrates at what power level someone is expected to become a figure of awe and legend.


1st Edition Player's Handbook

Pg 7 - "Inexperienced and of but small power at first..." not well worn veterans, not heroes of renown, etc.


1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide

Pg 39 - "Inform those players who have opted for the magic-user profession that they have just completed a course of apprenticeship with a master who was of unthinkably high level (at least 6th!)." not that they have been successful magic using adventurers, or attained master craftsman status. They were at most a Journeyman.

Pg 74 - Again, not gonna do the chart, but humans and halflings of 0 level are again only 5% worse off than a starting Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Bard. Other races are stated to NEVER be below 1st level.

Pg 79 - Again, just 2 (and in one category 3) points worse saves for common men than for 1st level fighters, meaning PCs are only 10% better off.

Pg 88 - In describing the abilities of average people it notes that they have hit points roughly equivalent to a 1st level magic-user or thief. Meaning they're just as tough/durable as half of all adventurers in the game.


3. Actually it's entirely likely that common peasants would have training at combat for the following reasons:

A. Conscription. MOST fighting men in antiquity were NOT professional soldiers, but conscripts from the common men. While many would not have seen actual battle, many others would.

B. Weapons mostly came from farm implements. Flails were threshing tools, axes were axes, hammers were hammers, bows and spears were hunting weapons, a pitchfork is just a polearm, etc. Likewise armor first developed from clothing. While most peasants wouldn't know the intricacies of fighting in a full suit, neither would 99% of PCs, at least at first. Nobody but the richest nobels could afford actual armor, which is why it mostly didn't exist except among professional armies (which were HELLA rare). For peasants, they'd know it was better to take a blow where the leather jerkin covered than on a bare arm. That doesn't take expertise, just a functional brain.

C. It's a ROUGH life. There were no police in these societies for the most part. People were on their own against bandits, ruffians, aggressive neighbors, wolves, bears, etc. You either knew how to survive, or you died. Period.

D. There be dragons there. Arrrr. In other words, this is a game with not only the normal factors from C above, but actual honest-to-deity monsters out there raiding villages, and assaulting poor souls out in the woods gathering berries and firewood. It's MUCH more likely that the average citizen would have SOME ability to defend from such things.

4. I didn't say a blacksmith had "full proficiencies and must be a skilled combatant". I said they were effectively a level 1 fighter. Our campaigns would rate a 'skilled combatant' as starting somewhere around levels 4-6. Before that they're neophytes, just with SOME skill and abilities. That's why there was a 'name level' in early D&D. THAT's when they BECAME heroes and started really making a name for themselves. Otherwise 'name level' would be level 1. As for how a blacksmith would know any skills, I covered that fully in my initial explanation.


Again, and this is VERY IMPORTANT (so I'm gonna bold and cap the whole thing):

I WANT EVERYONE TO BE ABLE TO PLAY THE GAME THE WAY THEY WANT. FOR PEOPLE THAT WANT TO START HEROIC, OR EVEN SUPERHEROIC, I WANT YOUR PLAYSTYLE SUPPORTED SOMEHOW. YOU ARE NOT WRONG, ANY MORE THAN I AM...WE JUST HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF PREFERENCES OF PLAYSTYLES.

All I'm saying is that some of us (actually MANY of us) feel the way I do, and we think you should support us as well. If you don't, the edition WILL fail, and NO ONE will get to play any more.