Decapitation and lethality in your game

[Lanefan]

While that sounds intuitive, it practice fighter's in 3e tended to have lower CONs than wizards.

The reason is that a fighter typically wants a combination of Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity, while a Wizard can safely dump stat everything but Intelligence and Constitution.

Depends on the Wizard type; a charmy-type will also want Charisma as high as possible; and at least 13 in any case if you ever want Leadership. (then again, the main wizard-type I played in 3e had rather poor stats across the board other than 15 Int, I think her Con might have eventually made it up to 12* but I was putting her boosts into Int and Cha as I wanted Leadership)

* - very late in her career she got hold of a +4 Con-boost item which got it to 16...and then she died.

In my experience the players of fighters typically don't want to completely neglect intelligence or wisdom, because they end up with no useful skills and poor Will saves. The result is that they tend to rely on less CON and rely more on their large d10 HD.

That wasn't something I saw. Fighters in our crew sometimes went Con first, Strength second, and who needs brains anyway.

By contrast, the only attribute a Wizard player cares about aside from Intelligence and Constitution is Dexterity, even if it is of limited value depending on your build and play style. It's perfectly valid to play a wizard with 18 Int, 18 Con, and everything else 8's.

Depending what you're trying to do, yes. Then again, my wizard would have given her two front teeth to get two 18's!

In 3e, CON is every classes second most important ability score, and in practice wizards will tend to have higher CON than fighters. This is one of the reasons spellcasters are much more effective in 3e than they were in 1e.

Might be one of the reasons but it's certainly not the only one; 3e casters had a lot of other things going for them that 1e ones didn't, and this could be its own whole thread.

1e AD&D is the only system where I've seen the large disparity in squishiness you suggest, and that's because one of the class abilities of fighters was they got bonus hit points from 17 or higher CON, where as the maximum bonus hit points for other classes capped at +2/HD (at 16 CON). Because players tended to roll first and then decide what to play, it wasn't unusual to have a party with a fighter of 17-19 CON, and a wizard with say 10 CON. In this case, you very much would see a disparity of 100 hp versus the 25 hit point of the squishy wizard, which is precisely the sort of thing that helped keep high level spellcasters in check in 1e AD&D. When that squishiness went away, as it did in 3e, it was part of the reason that balance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters was lost.

Yep.

In the 1e-style game I play in we often cycle characters in and out, and in one adventure we had a 120+ h.p. fighter* running with a 25? h.p. illusionist. (I forget the illusionist's actual h.p. but it starts with a '2' - though you'd think I'd know it, as she's my character It was 21 before she bumped, I think it's 24 or 25 now).

* - who is now up to 137 h.p.; the all-time record in any of our games and it ain't even close.

 

[Lanefan]

You don't actually need to address that, as the DM. If the fighter is really that much tougher than the wizard (for whatever reason), then the party will agree to put the fighter on point, where they'll face the brunt of incoming attacks and end up taking the most damage as a result of their own decisions. Wizards have fewer HP, as a class feature, which is fine because they hang out in the back where they won't be attacked as frequently.

A bad round is equally capable of instilling fear in either a high-HP fighter or a low-HP wizard. It's just that, a bad round for the fighter involves getting hit twice and then crit, while a bad round for the wizard involves getting crit by the one arrow sent against them.

Martial combat is one thing, but a room-filling fireball or cloudkill or dragon breath or other big area effect gets everyone the same (or half-the-same, depending on the random saving throw results)

And the martial examples only hold up when the space is restricted enough to allow it to happen. An open-field fight is a different thing entirely.

 

[Celebrim]

* - who is now up to 137 h.p.; the all-time record in any of our games and it ain't even close.

Good grief, what level is that fighter? I didn't realize you could hit numbers like that except as a high level Barbarian or a 20th level Bard.

Let's say 18 CON, 9d10+36+3x = 137 => 26th level? Are you sure that they aren't being cheaty with the h.p. dice rolls, or are you allowed to take maximum hit points at every level?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Martial combat is one thing, but a room-filling fireball or cloudkill or dragon breath or other big area effect gets everyone the same (or half-the-same, depending on the random saving throw results)

In my opinion, it's fine if the fireball or dragonbreath that can threaten a mage is not also a threat to the fighter, because the fighter still needs to deal with melee combat on top of anything else that happens. Deal 30 damage to both of them, and the wizard might drop, but the fighter still has to hold the line. The question of whether the AoE drops the fighter is irrelevant, because the important question is whether the fighter can survive the AoE and melee combat.

Although, again, fighter HP has been very close to wizard HP in every edition from the last two decades. Any damage that can kill one character outright is still going to be a major inconvenience for any other character, unless you're playing a game with a wide level disparity, in which case you should handle it on a case-by-case basis. A general rule that can randomly kill off high-level characters is introducing a solution that's far worse than the problem.

And the martial examples only hold up when the space is restricted enough to allow it to happen. An open-field fight is a different thing entirely.

The game is supposed to be about dungeons, where a fighter can cover a passage up to 15' wide by standing in the middle of it. That's quite a bit of space. Even if you are in an open field, though, it's hard for an enemy to get from where they are to where the wizard is, because they have a limited amount of movement in a round. If they have to choose between running up to the fighter and making their attacks, or running around the fighter to reach the wizard but being unable to act when they get there, then the former option sounds vastly more appealing than the latter.

There are exceptions to that, of course, but front-line characters are still going to be the target of more attacks than back-line characters will be.

 

[Lanefan]

Good grief, what level is that fighter? I didn't realize you could hit numbers like that except as a high level Barbarian or a 20th level Bard.

Let's say 18 CON, 9d10+36+3x = 137 => 26th level? Are you sure that they aren't being cheaty with the h.p. dice rolls, or are you allowed to take maximum hit points at every level?

First off, 18 Con gives +4 per level; and for most of his career he's been Con 19 (a mostly-Orc Part-Orc) which in our system gives +5*. He's 12th level, and got I think 11 full rolls as that's what our system allows; only at 12th did he hit the slowdown.

He'd have got a d6 - no bonus for Con but high Con sets a floor) for body points at 1st level; I think he has 5. Those never change. After that he's just rolled fairly well for fatigue points almost every time, and always with someone watching as any important rolls like this are always done on the table. So, 5 bp + 11d10 fp + [somewhere around 45 for cumulative Con bonus] + whatever he got at 12th.**

* - which could be seen as a design mistake perhaps. What makes this guy really unusual is that he'd never died and thus hasn't lost any Con points due to revival.
** - it occurred to us a long time ago that the flat hit point increase at higher level is always the same as the average of a half-size h.p. die for that class; so we went to a half-die instead. It's also unclear whether Con bonus was supposed to apply to the flat amount or not, so we split the difference and halved that too.

 

[Bawylie]

Here’s what I’m doing re lethality.

1.) If you’re not wearing armor of some kind, you take double damage when damaged.
2.) Called Shot: you can attack at disadvantage to bypass armor (thereby dealing double damage). Enemies can do this too.
3.) Any attack that deals damage in excess of a creature’s constitution score forces that creature to make a death saving throw. If they fail, they are dying/dead. (Usually enemies without names are just dead while named NPCs and PCs are dying). Even if they succeed in that saving throw, there may be an additional effect such as dismemberment or a wound.

Because I have these rules in place, the fighter player is often attempting decapitations. She’s racked up about 6 or 7 over 5 levels. The Rogue has also done well just on sneak attack without attempting any called shots.

So far, the players have only been forced to make a handful of death saving throws. Maybe 6 each over those same 5 levels. And no PC has yet died.

 

[Lanefan]

In my opinion, it's fine if the fireball or dragonbreath that can threaten a mage is not also a threat to the fighter, because the fighter still needs to deal with melee combat on top of anything else that happens. Deal 30 damage to both of them, and the wizard might drop, but the fighter still has to hold the line. The question of whether the AoE drops the fighter is irrelevant, because the important question is whether the fighter can survive the AoE and melee combat.

True in combats that feature both. Not so true when the only "opponent" is an 80-point lightning bolt ripping through the party once per round (and huge props if you can pull where that particular little gem is found - hint, it's a classic module).

Although, again, fighter HP has been very close to wizard HP in every edition from the last two decades.

Last one decade maybe; in 3.x there were still huge disparities: I had an 11th-level Wizard with about 38 h.p. running in a party that had two (I think) characters nicely over 100 and a few others close; and I was tied-highest level in the party.

The game is supposed to be about dungeons, where a fighter can cover a passage up to 15' wide by standing in the middle of it. That's quite a bit of space.

You're being awfully generous to that fighter. If memory serves, in 1e it takes at least two people to even hope to hold a 10' wide passage or doorway (three is better); and in 3.x and later it's one person per five feet.

And, the game somewhat moved out of the strictly-dungeon setting about 38 years ago.

Even if you are in an open field, though, it's hard for an enemy to get from where they are to where the wizard is, because they have a limited amount of movement in a round. If they have to choose between running up to the fighter and making their attacks, or running around the fighter to reach the wizard but being unable to act when they get there, then the former option sounds vastly more appealing than the latter.

Every combat is different; and anything with even a shred of brains or experience is probably going to know to go for the casters first if they can; and the same goes for PCs - if they encounter a gang of ten Orcs with a Shaman behind them, who do you think they're gonna spiral on?

There are exceptions to that, of course, but front-line characters are still going to be the target of more attacks than back-line characters will be.

Over the long run, certainly. It's the exceptions, however, that matter here.

 

[Lanefan]

Here’s what I’m doing re lethality.

1.) If you’re not wearing armor of some kind, you take double damage when damaged.

How does this interact with Bracers of Defense, Rings of Protection, etc. - do they count as armour? If not, this seems nasty for the sneaks and casters.

2.) Called Shot: you can attack at disadvantage to bypass armor (thereby dealing double damage). Enemies can do this too.

Does this stack with #1 above, giving quadruple damage if both are true?

3.) Any attack that deals damage in excess of a creature’s constitution score forces that creature to make a death saving throw. If they fail, they are dying/dead. (Usually enemies without names are just dead while named NPCs and PCs are dying).

Now this one's very interesting, though were it me I might make it something like Con score + 8 to avoid having high-level low-Con characters die to a max-rolled ordinary hit from a strong Orc's longsword. It would also make me very leery of putting them up against things like Giants that can do 20 damage on a whim, which would be a shame, because Giants are fun!

Do you find this makes your players put too much emphasis on having a high Con score?

Even if they succeed in that saving throw, there may be an additional effect such as dismemberment or a wound.

Ok - a second save determines yes or no to this?

Because I have these rules in place, the fighter player is often attempting decapitations. She’s racked up about 6 or 7 over 5 levels. The Rogue has also done well just on sneak attack without attempting any called shots.

So far, the players have only been forced to make a handful of death saving throws. Maybe 6 each over those same 5 levels. And no PC has yet died.

This last really surprises me. Either your monsters can't crit for the life of 'em or your PCs all have the constitutions of dump trucks - or both, maybe.

 

[Celebrim]

First off, 18 Con gives +4 per level; and for most of his career he's been Con 19 (a mostly-Orc Part-Orc) which in our system gives +5*.

Yes, and it also lets you reroll 1's, which gives you an average of an extra .5 hit points per HD - or 11 hit points per HD.

He's 12th level, and got I think 11 full rolls as that's what our system allows; only at 12th did he hit the slowdown.

Ahh, yeah, you've extensively rewritten 1e AD&D IIRC. So, per the RAW that should stop at 9th.

He'd have got a d6 - no bonus for Con but high Con sets a floor) for body points at 1st level; I think he has 5. Those never change. After that he's just rolled fairly well for fatigue points almost every time, and always with someone watching as any important rolls like this are always done on the table. So, 5 bp + 11d10 fp + [somewhere around 45 for cumulative Con bonus] + whatever he got at 12th.**

So, by the RAW, he'd have ~108 hp as a 19 Con 12th level fighter, which is a lot but not so much that it makes my eyes bug out. Barbarians and Bards can get into the 130s, but both classes are difficult to advance in their own way.

* - it occurred to us a long time ago that the flat hit point increase at higher level is always the same as the average of a half-size h.p. die for that class; so we went to a half-die instead. It's also unclear whether Con bonus was supposed to apply to the flat amount or not, so we split the difference and halved that too.

It's actually a little less than 1/2 of a HD - fighters get 3 hp, thieves 2 hp, and M-U 1 hp per level after maxing out their HD. Thieves do get maximum 10HD to the fighters 9 though, and M-U get 11HD so that somewhat narrows. The CON bonus for hit point adjustment applies only to HD, so it doesn't apply to the flat amount.

What is ironic for me is that you are suggesting that you need a work around to bypass hit points because fighters have inflated hit points compared to M-U, but you've also adopted like 3 separate house rules that widen the gap between fighter and M-U hit points. Your rules increase the gap between fighters and M-U at 12th level by about ~19 h.p. You might still argue for the need to bypass hit points, but you've just made your need for that greater.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You're being awfully generous to that fighter. If memory serves, in 1e it takes at least two people to even hope to hold a 10' wide passage or doorway (three is better); and in 3.x and later it's one person per five feet.

I didn't play 1E, and my 2E experience included far more overland travel than it did dungeons. I'm fairly certain that they still had something like an opportunity attack, which would prevent you from running past someone within sword reach.

Every combat is different; and anything with even a shred of brains or experience is probably going to know to go for the casters first if they can; and the same goes for PCs - if they encounter a gang of ten Orcs with a Shaman behind them, who do you think they're gonna spiral on?

If they can, sure. In my experience, it's not a given that they will be able to. Your choice isn't whether to swing at the fighter or to swing at the wizard; your choice is to either swing at the fighter, or move to engage the wizard but not actually attack anyone this round.

And that choice can make all the difference between an easy fight and a hard fight. If the enemies head straight toward your back line, then the wizard will blast them, and the front line can double back on them, quite possibly ending the fight before the enemies take a single offensive action. If the enemies move to engage your front line, then not only do they get to attack immediately, but the wizard can't use their most effective spells to fight back, because the fighter will get caught in the middle of it. It's an extremely common situation.

Over the long run, certainly. It's the exceptions, however, that matter here.

When you're talking about a general-purpose rule that applies whenever anyone takes damage, the typical situations are more important than the exceptions. If you want a rule to address exceptional situations, then it shouldn't affect typical ones.