Not starting people at level 1.

[Josh_Kablack]

because a baby can't do anything

That's totally not true. Babies just have a very limited power selection. Kinda like a 4e character.

At Wills: Cry, Squirm
Encounter: Suckle, Fill Diaper
Daily: Awaken Parents

[K]

A lot of problems could be solved by making starting races have two HD and then using the RAW.

[Stubbazubba]

Whatever power level is called 'Level 1' should be higher than what D&D 3.5 starts you as, I agree. Your average adventurer needs to be slightly more durable/capable. There should be an option for playing as an underpowered character, because those are great character concepts, too (a green recruit in the lord's army, a wizard's apprentice still mastering, well, everything, or an expert treasure-seeker who is actually an unwilling bachelor Hobbit), but that should not be the default assumption because for every one of those in the fiction there is a Conan and an Aragorn, or at the very least some kind of mentor to help them out, and DMPC's are not the answer. Someone needs to start at a higher power level.

[Krusk]

You have PCs and NPCs/Monsters on seperate tracks. Not in the 4e "Different systems" way. In the a segregated don't take this class sort of way.

PC track is 1-10 (or whatever you like). NPCs is like 1-15ish. a level 1 PC is ~ level 3 NPC, and in your average challenge fights 3-4 level 1 NPCs. A level 10 PC is about a level 15 NPC, and fights 3-4 level 10 PCs for a fair fight. (System assumes 3.5 multiclassing and that PCs have no actual max level)

Don't do stupid stuff like "This is a brute template so it gets the exact same stats as every other level 4 brute, but also has the hit really hard power". Make up NPC classes that are just as involved and interesting as PC classes. Some NPC classes for monsters like "Dragons" are racial classes, that they can take levels in to give them faster flight, some spells, and better fire breath. Older dragons have more levels in it. Other NPC classes are stuff like "Pet" "work animal" "Craftsman" "King". They handle your boring everyday stuff, and general shopkeep/whatevers. You can also do "Soldier" and "Brute" as classes if you want generic combat enemies with rough tactical ideas.

If a PC really really wants to, they can take levels in these. As in mechanically it works. Most are not as strong as an actual class but it is an option. It is also spelled out. Some of the racial classes might actually be as good as a PC class, and be an interesting way for people to take races that typically have a level adjustment.

You even have a bit at the start about how "Adventurers are awesome, and get awesome PC classes. If you aren't an adventurer take one of those classes for a level or two. You won't be good in a fight, but you can make pots. This option works for those who don't want to start awesome".

---

(After I wrote it all out) Actually, 3.5 basically did this. Expert/warrior/adept/monsterous hit die. Just not robust enough. Rework that basic idea.

[Swordslinger]

Don't do stupid stuff like "This is a brute template so it gets the exact same stats as every other level 4 brute, but also has the hit really hard power". Make up NPC classes that are just as involved and interesting as PC classes.

Terrible, terrible idea.

No DM wants to spend as much time working on every monster as a PC does working on a character, nor do they want monster tactics to be that involved because DMs run multiple monsters at once.

The only time an idea like that could possibly work is if PC classes are super simple, like the 2E fighter.

[Vnonymous]

Except they won't have to. Thanks to the internet, you can have a bunch of people work on some interesting, unique and fun monsters. If 50 dms write two monsters each, that's an entire monster manual. Monsters aren't like player characters, and I'm sure everyone here has written more than like 10 character sheets a piece. It isn't exactly tough work.

[Ice9]

"As involved as PC classes" is a level of decisions in combat that's not desirable though. As a player, I like to have over a dozen options at a time. As a DM running a whole crowd of monsters, 2-3 options per monster is plenty.

[Dean]

A lot of problems could be solved by making starting races have two HD and then using the RAW.

Crazy true.

And as most of the problem with creating sub Lvl-1 is based around opponents and challenges filling those ranks then perhaps two (or even three) sub ranks could be created and used on monsters and whatnot that applied to them. For instance the chart might go something like

Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
Level A
Level B
Level C

Level A indicate a person or being on par with a normal civilian who is only using their racial bonuses feats and skills, so this includes most people. It would also include things like goblins and other things that, like a normal human, CAN kill a PC but probably won't.
Level B's indicate something that is weak, exceptionally so even. On par with a human child. So most animals you can think of would probably go here if they aren't particularly big and toothy. Things like Hawks, Badgers, and possibly even kobolds go here.
And Level C's represents things that are simply not feasible threats to PC's under almost any circumstance. On par with a human infant or toddler. Cats go here, for instance, as do the young of most species.

The key would be to say that sub level creatures individually don't generate experience. In mobs, sure but not otherwise. Now personally I don't like using killing AT ALL as the methodology of experience handout but if you say that sub level creatures in general are just broad stroke categories for the things in your game less deadly than an unarmed teenager then you might solve your problems as well as occasionally stop people from murdering townsfolk. But probably not.

[talozin]

Daily: Awaken Parents

Optimist.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Mutants and Masterminds sidesteps this issue entirely via a nod to genre emulation. IME players of superhero games don't have an issue with accepting whatever the given power level of a game is, and while less emphasis on advancement might lend itself to that, having a neophyte hero with PL 7 on the character sheet just doesn't strain incredulity.

The same thing really applies to fantasy games. There isn't much source material where housecats kill peasants. Sure, people used to die all the time from a single arrow wound in the real world, but the only thing a swingy level like 1st in d20 really emulates is other games. Tabletop gaming is already niche enough that I'm not sure it really needs to be enjoyed ironically.

[Saxony]

A lot of problems could be solved by making starting races have two HD and then using the RAW.

Give me a general idea of what problems would be solved.

[RelentlessImp]

A lot of problems could be solved by making starting races have two HD and then using the RAW.

Give me a general idea of what problems would be solved.

Getting one-shot by a kobold with a sling who rolls a natural 20.
Getting mauled to death by a 1/8CR housecat.

[Dean]

You are underselling the issue sir. That kobold with a sling doesn't even need a 20 to kill first level characters depending on constitution modifiers. In fact even a basic sword hit, rolling well, can kill off most classes starting characters in the game.

[angelfromanotherpin]

You are underselling the issue sir. That kobold with a sling doesn't even need a 20 to kill first level characters depending on constitution modifiers. In fact even a basic sword hit, rolling well, can kill off most classes starting characters in the game.

A sling hit from a kobold deals 1d3-1 damage. A crit deals 2d3-2. A maxed crit from a kobold slinger does not drop a wizard with a +0 con mod. I have no idea what starting character is brought to -10 (or even -1) hp by 4 damage.

[RobbyPants]

A better example might be a crit from a standard MM orc with a falchion, which will threaten 15% of all attacks. It will deal an average of 18 damage. And since orcs are pretty iconic monsters, you can bet that a lot of 1st level PCs go up against them.

[tussock]

Whatever power level is called 'Level 1' should be higher than what D&D 3.5 starts you as, I agree.

'S what people have said since forever. Every new edition makes 1st level characters (even the 4th level ones in 4e) a lot stronger than the last. But then they make the basic monsters stronger to compensate, because Orcs and Goblins can't be in the game unless they're a threat to someone.

So you're all stronger, only not actually. I suppose in 100 years the Orcs will have 10 million hp and 500 AC, and take four rounds to kill with "1st level" characters. 23rd edition? I wonder how well it'll translate into the language of our Chinese-Brazilian overlords.

[angelfromanotherpin]

'S what people have said since forever. Every new edition makes 1st level characters (even the 4th level ones in 4e) a lot stronger than the last. But then they make the basic monsters stronger to compensate, because Orcs and Goblins can't be in the game unless they're a threat to someone.

So you're all stronger, only not actually.

Except that you are actually stronger compared to bullshit like cats and rats. The point is that the current level system doesn't have enough room at the bottom for kids and critters and such, so house cats wind up being disproportionately dangerous to peasants.

[Josh_Kablack]

Daily: Awaken Parents

Optimist.

You know parents of babies who get to sleep more than once a day?

[Stubbazubba]

'S what people have said since forever. Every new edition makes 1st level characters (even the 4th level ones in 4e) a lot stronger than the last. But then they make the basic monsters stronger to compensate, because Orcs and Goblins can't be in the game unless they're a threat to someone.

So you're all stronger, only not actually. I suppose in 100 years the Orcs will have 10 million hp and 500 AC, and take four rounds to kill with "1st level" characters. 23rd edition? I wonder how well it'll translate into the language of our Chinese-Brazilian overlords.

Sorry I wasn't specific enough for you; 1st-level characters should be more powerful than they currently are in 3.5 compared to everything else. One goblin shouldn't really be a serious threat to an adventurer, even a beginner, not without being at some disadvantage (surprised, trapped, etc.). Weak things like that should be attacking in groups and relying on traps and ambushes to win against a party of adventurers. Again, D&D PCs are not Hobbits of the Shire, they are professionals, even if they are beginners, they've developed a BAB and the skills of their trade somewhere, indicating that they have already left the part of their career where housecats can deal so much as a single HP.

I'm not saying that playing as a Hobbit of the Shire is bad or should not be an option, it should be an option, but not the default option.

[tzor]

First and foremost D&D has a general problem downsizing in general, it always has and it always will. Never mind the question of hit points, the whole combat system starts to collapse at anything considerably smaller than medium sized. (A normal rat fighting another normal rat cannot, for example get attacks of opportunity against each other!)

You can't have a discussion of low level hit points without bringing up the fact that for a PC, the number to die is not 0 but -10. The fact that there are certain classes with a hit dice below the standard recommended for humanoid races (default is d8) is annoying, but it's a long way for a first level character from full to death, because of those extra 10 hit points.

The simplest, most straight forward solution (read the easies cheat) is to simply state that every PC's first hit die is always maxed out. Now that kobold slinger cannot one shot knock out a wizard.

In fact, one could easily argue that the first level character has a great advantage because the buffer zone between a kock out and death is equal to or greater than his hit point total, which is similiar to the damage normally inflicted in a game. The difference between 4 and 14, for example is great. The difference between 100 and 110 is not so great given the bell curve nature of high level damage.

That still leaves the question of how to downscale the matter of children and tiny creatures, but the cat has no qualms about doing a one shot kill to a rat. The fact that he can also almost knock out a guy who spent most of his young life studying books instead of strenuous exercise is left as an exercise for the casual observer.

And remember, optional rule: A mosquito can kill anyone 1/400 times.

[Chamomile]

One goblin shouldn't really be a serious threat to an adventurer, even a beginner, not without being at some disadvantage (surprised, trapped, etc.).

...They're not. Goblins get a +3 to-hit at range and +2 in melee, which means they're getting something like 35-40% odds of hitting the average level one adventurer on any given round (much lower for heavily armored classes). The way HP works at low level, a single crit from either weapon could take an adventurer out of the fight, but otherwise almost any adventurer is going to be able to tank one and maybe two hits from even the higher damage melee morningstar, which is 1d6. With an AC of 15, most adventurers are getting something like a 40-50% odds of hitting them (either because they're Fighters or because they only need to hit their touch AC of 12), and with 5 HP there's good odds they won't survive the first attack. A Fighter can chop them to pieces and is unlikely to even get hit in return, a Rogue can sneak attack them and almost certainly kill them in one blow and can probably chop them to pieces directly if that doesn't work, a Wizard can just use Color Spray.

Unless by "serious threat" you seriously meant "has any chance to win at all," in which case the only option for using Goblins in your game should not be a big, long combat that gets bogged by 8+ Goblins on the other side.

[tussock]

Sorry I wasn't specific enough for you; 1st-level characters should be more powerful than they currently are in 3.5 compared to everything else.

Like Chamomile said, they are. Even on your first adventure.

Ftr 1: +5 to hit for 5-12 damage, AC 18, 12 hp. Extra attack on a kill.
Goblin: +3 to hit for 1-6 damage, AC 15, 4 hp.

Goblins take ~12 attacks to put a single Fighter down. He puts down one or two every couple rounds, so three of them with some luck and initiative get 3+3+2+2 attacks, which still isn't enough. He'll take about 3 hits for 10 damage, so the Cleric casts a vigor and that's gone. But there's 3 more PCs!

Wiz 1: Mass save or lose, DC 15 (removes half, up to 6 goblins on round one).
Rog 1: 2 attacks at +4 for 2-12 damage, one kill per round, makes the fighter kill faster too. Can survive another two, plus one for the fighter.
Clr 1: Giving everyone +1 to hit is worth another kill by round 4, otherwise +1 for 2-9 damage, one kill total. Can deal with some hits with AC 17 and 10 hp. If optimised for the early game he can have lower Wis and be nearly as good as the Fighter.

Hell, Mnk 1: 2 attacks at +0 for 3-8 damage, one kill per two rounds. With AC 14 and 10 hp he can take on two goblins on his own!

You can throw a dozen goblins at a newbie party of four, even with a monk, and they'll beat it without much risk. 15 goblins gets tight, except they probably can't all attack at once and the Wizard can use another spell to win anyway. With a doorway to hold and restricted lines of sight the party should kill two dozen if they're fresh.

Get one adventure under your belt and the party's AC and attack bonuses go up thanks to Masterwork weapons and better armour.


Meanwhile, rats have 1 hp and 1 attack for 1 damage, so no one cares. 3.5 turned all those things into swarms to get people to use them again. Orcs can totally put a young PC down, so you can only face about 6 orcs safely in case the Wiz falls on round 1 and can't get the Sleep or Colour Spray off.


tl;dr: A level 1 party can totally handle EL 3 if they're fresh, and quite bit higher if they have some terrain to stop a horde arriving all at once. That's a lot of goblins.

[fectin]

Using your stats, a goblin outright one-shots the fighter in one out of every 720 attacks.

Goblins win even more often if they are smart enough to go after pointy-hat first.

Your cleric is casting vigor and bless, and is low wisdom?

[RobbyPants]

Rog 1: 2 attacks at +4 for 2-12 damage, one kill per round, makes the fighter kill faster too. Can survive another two, plus one for the fighter.

How's he hitting that well at level 1? Without Weapon Finesse, he'd use Str to hit. If those are ranged attacks and he's taking two, he'd have -2 to hit from Rapid Shot or TWF, or something. The best I see him getting is +4 Dex, +0 BAB, +1 Point Blank Shot, -2 Rapid Shot, for +3. And if he's using ranged attacks, he won't be able to reliably Sneak Attack past the first round.

[tussock]

1/720? Oh no! Why, that's going to happen about once every four years if we do nothing but fight a dozen goblins over and over again and never get any gear or XP.

Kill the Wizard? Yes indeed, that's why I only gave him one action in the worst case scenario. Dude needs to do his job and find cover, quick. Improved Init always nice.

12 Wis gets you three 1st level spells as a 1st level Cleric, eh. And no, he'd have better melee if he was 12 Wis.

Edit: Low level TWFing Rogues always flank, IME, with the Fighter and Cleric moving to optimise everyone's attacks (they have only the single attack anyway, and suffer less from any AoO if risk is needed). Depends on somewhat open terrain a bit, but in tight situations you've generally got a choke point to draw them through anyway.