D&D General Hit Points. Did 3.0 Or 3.5 Get it Right?

[Shardstone]

Here lately in 5E as a player, I feel like I'm armed with a wiffle bat.

Most frustratingly, in our latest adventure it was a stealth mission and we botched group sneaking past a guard. With the way 5E hit points are set up there was no way to dispense with the (CR appropriate) guard before he could raise the alarm - our attempt to use an upped-level sleep spell (at 3rd level) failed miserably and even the rogue assassin's surprise sneak attack couldn't take him down in one shot.

At times, the games focus on "epic combat, all the time, every time" grinds my gears and plays against a good story moment.

The lack of core minion rules really impacts the game in a negative way. This is why I've taken them from MCDM and modified them a bit to suit my own needs. To be frank, most combats should really be a one-hit and it's over thing unless you're dealing with something that's actually threatening. I don't think any Barbarian at any level beyond maybe (maybe) the 1st should fail to kill a goblin in one hit, or even an orc. Yet, they do.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Here lately in 5E as a player, I feel like I'm armed with a wiffle bat.

Most frustratingly, in our latest adventure it was a stealth mission and we botched group sneaking past a guard. With the way 5E hit points are set up there was no way to dispense with the (CR appropriate) guard before he could raise the alarm - our attempt to use an upped-level sleep spell (at 3rd level) failed miserably and even the rogue assassin's surprise sneak attack couldn't take him down in one shot.

At times, the games focus on "epic combat, all the time, every time" grinds my gears and plays against a good story moment.

Oh, I wish 5e did epic combat rather than just pretty big combat. I've never really felt 5e combats got the sort of epic I routinely broke out in 4e.

Your point certainly stands, and checking back on what the DM told us (afterward), the guard was a mere Veteran (CR3, we were 5th level, the bard rolled 30 on his 9d8 hit points to put to sleep - the Veteran has 58 hp). Really seems that dropping a 3rd level spell (one player's most powerful once-per-adventure resource) on a single such minor target should have had a better than 50% chance of taking the individual out. Would've had to roll better than 6's on all the dice, and my tired brain can't math the chances of that working out for us.

And this is bad monster design - for which I mostly blame WotC. What I think the DM wanted was a Guard - someone with a bit of military experience who was ... guarding something. Ordinary person who's fought a bit and is about a match for an orc. CR 1/8, 11hp.

A "Veteran" is an elite warrior who can beat up an ogre and should be able 1v1 an Owlbear (CR3) with decent odds. They are some sort of champion who is a challenge for an entire party. It's a badly named and therefore misleading statblock.

 

[cbwjm]

Your point certainly stands, and checking back on what the DM told us (afterward), the guard was a mere Veteran (CR3, we were 5th level, the bard rolled 30 on his 9d8 hit points to put to sleep - the Veteran has 58 hp). Really seems that dropping a 3rd level spell (one player's most powerful once-per-adventure resource) on a single such minor target should have had a better than 50% chance of taking the individual out. Would've had to roll better than 6's on all the dice, and my tired brain can't math the chances of that working out for us.

I don't think I'd even use something as tough as the 5e veteran as a simple guard, typical guards probably aren't going to be that tough so I'd use something with 2HD that could easily be taken out with a sleep spell. Veterans would instead be guard captains or hold other positions of importance.

 

[Schmoe]

No. It is not. Fireball in 3.5 was a waste of yoir action mostly.

That's a bold claim that certainly doesn't hold true in my experience.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That's a bold claim that certainly doesn't hold true in my experience.

That's cool. In my experience 3.5 was all about save or die and buff spells.

We had situations where fireball was great. This is why I said: usually. Level times d6 damage in 3.5 was not what it used to be in 2e, as hitpoints were so much higher on both sides of the screen.

Fighters did not fear 5d6 damage, nor did level appropriate challenges.

Maybe with 5e encounter design we had made the same experience as you. But back then we usually did not fight lots of lower level foes.

 

[cbwjm]

I always use ogres as my comparison point for fireball, when you first get fireball, this is how the average damage of a 5th level fireball compares against an average ogre.

• 2e: 5d6 (17) vs the ogre's 19 hit points (35% chance to save).
• 3e: 5d6 (17) vs the ogre's 29 hit points (20% chance to save assuming a DC of 17).
• 5e: 8d6 (28) vs the ogre's 59 hit points (25% chance to save assuming a save DC of 15).

The highest chance to save is actually 2e, but failure means they are 1 hit away from death by a warrior, success means they might die after two hits.

3e they have the lowest chance to save, but even if they don't they are still a couple of hits away though a power attack might take them out. 5e, they take the most damage but if fail the save, they still have half their health left and will likely survive the first couple of hits at least (warriors of course being able to strike twice a round).

Fireball has basically become less scary as each new edition has come out; however, in each edition it is admittedly still good at clearing out the trash mobs, those 1 or 2 hit die mobs that are assaulting the party. It's just that in 2e (and earlier), a fireball was much better at taking out higher hit die mobs due to the lower hit point thresholds of that edition.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I always use ogres as my comparison point for fireball, when you first get fireball, this is how the average damage of a 5th level fireball compares against an average ogre.

• 2e: 5d6 (17) vs the ogre's 19 hit points (35% chance to save).
• 3e: 5d6 (17) vs the ogre's 29 hit points (20% chance to save assuming a DC of 17).
• 5e: 8d6 (28) vs the ogre's 59 hit points (25% chance to save assuming a save DC of 15).

The highest chance to save is actually 2e, but failure means they are 1 hit away from death by a warrior, success means they might die after two hits.

3e they have the lowest chance to save, but even if they don't they are still a couple of hits away though a power attack might take them out. 5e, they take the most damage but if fail the save, they still have half their health left and will likely survive the first couple of hits at least (warriors of course being able to strike twice a round).

Fireball has basically become less scary as each new edition has come out; however, in each edition it is admittedly still good at clearing out the trash mobs, those 1 or 2 hit die mobs that are assaulting the party. It's just that in 2e (and earlier), a fireball was much better at taking out higher hit die mobs due to the lower hit point thresholds of that edition.

I also started comparing the orgres of the editions and even noticed the ogre dropped down one CR. But probably 1 CR is worth a little bit more in 5e than 3e, especially at lower levels.

I then compared orcs (same CR). And 3. 5e Orcs are easier to clear with fireball (nearly 100% chance, even on a save) while 5e Orcs have about a 50% chance of survival against a fireball that they saved against (30+damage rolls kill a standard orc).

Then I looked at a troll (both CR 5), and there we see 5e fireballs being ahead:

28/84 = 0.33
17.5/63 = 0.27

Also a 5e trolls regeneration is completely stopped by that fireball, a 3.5 e troll still regenerates normal weapon damage.

Saving throw bonuses of 3.5 trolls are also slightly better (+4 vs DC 17) than in 5e (+1 vs DC 15).

But probably all that is a low factor for my perception about the strength of fireball compared to the fact that in 3.5 we usually used level appropriate foes, as low level ones soon did not contribute to the fight in a meaningful way.
So at level 5 we did not fight against orcs. We fought against orc barbarians and so on.

 

[Minigiant]

That's a bold claim that certainly doesn't hold true in my experience.

That's cool. In my experience 3.5 was all about save or die and buff spells.

Fireball in 3.Xe was designed for a type of game that was no longer the majority of popularity when 3e came out: random or on the fly dungeons with random/otf monsters

Fireball was for when a DM said "Surprise. You made a bunch of noise so 3d6 orcs!"
A squad of 11-20 1st level orcs plus 2 3rd-level sergants and 1 leader orc of 3rd-6th level.
A 5th-6th level wizard's fireball kill all the regular orcs, half the sergants, and takes the leader down to 12hp.

The question is now, how many times has a DM thrown 20 orcs at you at once since 2000?

 

[Celebrim]

I don't think any Barbarian at any level beyond maybe (maybe) the 1st should fail to kill a goblin in one hit, or even an orc. Yet, they do.

That's certainly an aesthetic but I don't agree with it. I really dislike "minion" rules and think the math should work well enough without kludge fixes.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Fireball in 3.Xe was designed for a type of game that was no longer the majority of popularity when 3e came out: random or one the fly dungeons with random/otf monsters

Fireball was for when a DM said "Surprise. You made a bunch of noise so 3d6 orcs!"
A squad of 11-20 1st level orcs plus 2 3rd-level sergants and 1 leader orc of 3rd-6th level.
A 5th-6th level wizard's fireball kill all the regular orcs, half the sergants, and takes the leader down to 12hp.

The question is now, how many times has a DM thrown 20 orcs at you at once since 2000?

After 2012 that happened more often. Between 2000 and 2012 very rarely.