D&D 5E Poll: What is a Level 1 PC?

[Bluenose]

This will be my last post on this subject since it seems to have devolved into the same posters postiting why designing NPC's as PC's is a bad idea and it seems that everyone is fairly entrenched in their own beliefs on the matter. All I'll say is there has to be a reason that the industry standard for the most popular games such as WoD, WH40K, Dragon Age, Pathfinder, BRP, etc. all have a system where designing NPC's is the same as designing a PC. Whereas I find it hard to think of a game that isn't niche that uses seperate rules for NPC and PC construction (besides D&D 4e)... I wonder why?

While I haven't got the latest version of BRP, I can say with certainty that Runequest 6 and Call of Cthulhu both have guidelines for creating quick NPCs without using the full character generation system. I think I've seen "Goon" rules for BRP too, though maybe in an older supplement. You can design NPCs and PCs the same way, but it's not necessary.

Also, one game you may be forgetting is Dungeons and Dragons, pre-3e versions of course. Although I suppose you may consider that "niche".

 

[Lanefan]

But, it's sufficiently rare that you simply have a generic statblock for "Dude, normal" for the rare occasions when you actually need combat stats.

Which very nicely brings us right back around to the original point of this whole long thread:

How much difference should there be between "Dude, normal" the commoner and "Dude, cool" the raw-recruit first-level guy in terms of stats, abilities, etc.?

And a corollary question: should there be different gradations within the "Dude, normal" parameters?

To the first question, I say the difference should be relatively minimal; it comes later as you gain levels.

To the second, I say "Dude, normal" might be undefinable - the brawny blacksmith, the elderly barkeep, the waif-like chambermaid, the broken-down beggar, the third militiaman on the left - I just can't see lumping these all into a single "Dude, normal" statblock.

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

Which very nicely brings us right back around to the original point of this whole long thread:

How much difference should there be between "Dude, normal" the commoner and "Dude, cool" the raw-recruit first-level guy in terms of stats, abilities, etc.?

Probably none. But, then again, a 1st level PC is hardly a raw recruit. In any class, the assumption is that this character has undergone many years of training to get to the point where they are actually a 1st level PC. A raw-recruit fighter would be an 8 year old squire. A raw recruit cleric would be some ten year old altar boy.

My twenty year old 1st level priest is capable of miracles on a daily basis. He's capable of driving back the undead with the power of his faith. He's capable of wearing any armor comfortably and using a variety of weapons capably.

How in the world is he a "raw recruit"?

And a corollary question: should there be different gradations within the "Dude, normal" parameters?

To the first question, I say the difference should be relatively minimal; it comes later as you gain levels.

To the second, I say "Dude, normal" might be undefinable - the brawny blacksmith, the elderly barkeep, the waif-like chambermaid, the broken-down beggar, the third militiaman on the left - I just can't see lumping these all into a single "Dude, normal" statblock.

Lanefan

Why not? For the most part, they lack enough difference to matter. What's the difference between the waif like chambermaid and the third militia man on the left? Three hit points? We have no problems with every monster using the same stat block. Yes, you can advance monsters, I realize that, but, by and large, an orc is an orc is an orc.

Heck, we have no problems with the difference between a kobold and an orc being 3 hp and 2 or 3 points of AC in every version of D&D up to 3e. Why is it a stumbling block to say that the non-combat NPC's are going to use the same combat stat block.

Note, the militia man got mixed up in this example, so, there might be a decent argument for him needing a combat stat block. After all, he's there, most likely, to engage in combat with somebody. Fair enough. But your other three examples likely will never engage in combat "on camera". So, why bother?

 

[pemerton]

there has to be a reason that the industry standard for the most popular games such as WoD, WH40K, Dragon Age, Pathfinder, BRP, etc. all have a system where designing NPC's is the same as designing a PC.

Systems in which PC generation follows some form of lifepath (Traveller, Runequest, Burning Wheel) generate a degree of simulationist presssure to build NPCs the same way - because these lifepaths aren't just the idiosyncratic lifepaths of the PCs, but models of the general range of social possibilities in the gameworld.

But, as [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] implies upthread, there is a big difference between a lifepath system and a class/level system. Classic D&D, for example, doesn't use the same mechanic for generating NPCs as it does for generating PCs. In D&D that seems to be an artefact mostly of 3E (I'm not sure how 2nd ed AD&D handled NPC generation).

 

[Imaro]

Systems in which PC generation follows some form of lifepath (Traveller, Runequest, Burning Wheel) generate a degree of simulationist presssure to build NPCs the same way - because these lifepaths aren't just the idiosyncratic lifepaths of the PCs, but models of the general range of social possibilities in the gameworld.

But, as @Obryn implies upthread, there is a big difference between a lifepath system and a class/level system. Classic D&D, for example, doesn't use the same mechanic for generating NPCs as it does for generating PCs. In D&D that seems to be an artefact mostly of 3E (I'm not sure how 2nd ed AD&D handled NPC generation).

My point was moreso that NPC's and PC's follow the same rules of creation in the majority of roleplaying games...

 

[howandwhy99]

Which very nicely brings us right back around to the original point of this whole long thread:

How much difference should there be between "Dude, normal" the commoner and "Dude, cool" the raw-recruit first-level guy in terms of stats, abilities, etc.?

And a corollary question: should there be different gradations within the "Dude, normal" parameters?

Average Joe = anyone who woke up with 3d6 in a stat.

Could you roll all 18s? Yes, but that's not what made you special.

What made PCs special was their training prior to play. Characters not trained are simply worse off.

For example, it's not the +1 in THAC0 for the Fighter at 1st level that make him so much better than a 0-level Commoner. It's that 4 point proficiency change due to actually being trained. And 0-level warriors who had proficiency didn't get the 1 point bonus.

However, Ability scores still mattered. It's just D&D To Hit roll improvements for combat far outstripped natural Ability Score variation. Strength 18/00 was +3 to hit +6 damage (which is AD&D and too high) and Strength 3 was -3/-1 (AD&D again, these should probably be reversed).

Regardless of his or her Strength a Fighter increased over 10 points from 1st to 10th level. Now compare 7 point variation in 3-18/00 (and only for Fighters, the core and subclasses allowed to roll for a percentile score).

I should say again, AD&D's modifier progressions aren't good, but they do give us some idea of what the designers were thinking in terms of Class ability due to Training & then XP.

 

[Hussar]

My point was moreso that NPC's and PC's follow the same rules of creation in the majority of roleplaying games...

I'm not even sure that's true though. I mean, you have Mook rules in a lot of RPG's going back to the old 007 RPG back in the 80's. Most non-level based systems do not worry about this at all.

And, let's not forget, D&D, particularly 3e, has one of the most complicated character build systems out there. Granted, point buy systems are complex at the outset, but, after that, there's virtually little to differentiate once character from the next. It takes, for example, a lot of points to really distinguish two characters that started the same initially in GURPS. By and large, the character you start with at the beginning of the campaign isn't going to be terribly different than what you end with.

That's simply not true in D&D. There are worlds of difference between even a few levels of classes in D&D.

To be fair, in rules light systems, it's not terribly onerous to have PC's and NPC's use the same generation rules, but, as was mentioned, even rules light games like Savage Worlds have separate rules.

I really don't think you can make that blanket statement. It's certainly not true of D&D. And, even in broader terms, many games do mechanically distinguish between PC and NPC.

 

[S'mon]

My point was moreso that NPC's and PC's follow the same rules of creation in the majority of roleplaying games...

Not true IME. Most games are level-less and the GM simply assigns whatever stats, skills and combat ability feel right. There is no quasi-PC character generation process.

 

[Mattachine]

I think that first level PCs should be different than average NPCs in two ways:

1. Class features.
PCs should, at level 1, have at least a couple class features that normal folks don't have. A warrior should have a fighting style specialty, and the herbalist isn't casting cure light wounds.

2. Ability score.
PCs should have better (if only slightly) stats than NPCs. For instance, NPCs might have average stats of 10-11 (rolling 3d6), whereas PCs have average stats of 12-14 (rolling 4d6, drop lowest).

 

[hamstertamer]

Not true IME. Most games are level-less and the GM simply assigns whatever stats, skills and combat ability feel right. There is no quasi-PC character generation process.

That doesn't make any sense. What does "level-less" got to do with anything?

Of course, NPCs are built like PCs, whether you choose to arbitrary assign at will what you want for NPCs or take a more detailed approach is up the GM. You always on the same system.

Hero System uses Hero points to build PCs and NPCs. If the GM just makes ups stats, that's his prerogative, but the NPCs still use the same game system and use the same rules. "GM simply assigns whatever stats, skills and combat ability feel right." is a GM preference not a system, not a game rule, and has nothing to do with the idea that PCs should be built like NPCs.