How many hits should a 1st level Fighter be able to take?

[TrippyHippy]

I like the idea that everyone starts with the Constitution Score in hit points, then gets a static class based bonus, even if that means that Con can be a more significant factor than class at first level.

I don't.

The reason being that I like the idea of lethal weapons being potentially lethal for ordinary (AKA 1st Level) characters.

If a sword hits for maximum damage on the roll, I think it should be potentially lethal for most beginning characters. That is, if a sword does 8 damage on a D8, adjusted for ability scores, then this should equate to a lethal blow. It's a perfect hit! You could argue that the default damage type of a sword should be D10, to tie in with a fighter (and thus stretching out the scores a little), but the principle should remain.

You could argue that PCs are heroic, and be allowed maximum HP per HD at 1st level, and that would be fine by me. But basining it on Con at starting level is just too high, if you are then only rolling damage against it. If a sword has a damage of D8, then on average, a starting character on [CON+Class Bonus] HP is going to need to take more than 3 blows before he/she goes down. Moreover, it's impossible to fell them in one blow, regardless how good the strike is (unless 'Powers' are added, which I don't like either).

The only way to make [CON+CB]-based HP equitable with damage, is to base the Damage score on the STR Ability score as default too, rather than just providing a damage bonus. Other games (GURPS, Pendragon) have core-damage-based-on-stat-scores (rather than weapon based, like in D&D), and they do work. The question really is, though, whether this feels like D&D ultimately.

 

[Quickleaf]

I answered 6 hits.

I assumed that a "hit" was from a similarly leveled foe armed with a longsword dealing average damage.

A cleric should be able to take 4-5 hits.

A rogue about 4.

And a magic-user 3.

A magic-user *might* be taken down in one shot by a powerful monster, whereas a 1st level fighter could withstand two such fearsome attacks.

 

[Klaus]

I don't.

The reason being that I like the idea of lethal weapons being potentially lethal for ordinary (AKA 1st Level) characters.

If a sword hits for maximum damage on the roll, I think it should be potentially lethal for most beginning characters. That is, if a sword does 8 damage on a D8, adjusted for ability scores, then this should equate to a lethal blow. It's a perfect hit! You could argue that the default damage type of a sword should be D10, to tie in with a fighter (and thus stretching out the scores a little), but the principle should remain.

You could argue that PCs are heroic, and be allowed maximum HP per HD at 1st level, and that would be fine by me. But basining it on Con at starting level is just too high, if you are then only rolling damage against it. If a sword has a damage of D8, then on average, a starting character on [CON+Class Bonus] HP is going to need to take more than 3 blows before he/she goes down. Moreover, it's impossible to fell them in one blow, regardless how good the strike is (unless 'Powers' are added, which I don't like either).

The only way to make [CON+CB]-based HP equitable with damage, is to base the Damage score on the STR Ability score as default too, rather than just providing a damage bonus. Other games (GURPS, Pendragon) have core-damage-based-on-stat-scores (rather than weapon based, like in D&D), and they do work. The question really is, though, whether this feels like D&D ultimately.

Y'see, rolling an 8 on a d8 doesn't mean your attack was perfect. After all, this would mean that more than 10% of all longsword attacks are perfect (and one third of all unarmed strikes are perfect!!!).

What determines if the attack is perfect is what percentage of the target's hit points your attack eliminated. If you dropped the target to 0 hit points, your attack was perfect, whether you rolled a 1 or an 8. On the other hand, if your target has 80 hit points, your 8-damage longsword attack is barely a graze.

 

[JohnSnow]

I don't.

The reason being that I like the idea of lethal weapons being potentially lethal for ordinary (AKA 1st Level) characters.

If a sword hits for maximum damage on the roll, I think it should be potentially lethal for most beginning characters. That is, if a sword does 8 damage on a D8, adjusted for ability scores, then this should equate to a lethal blow. It's a perfect hit! You could argue that the default damage type of a sword should be D10, to tie in with a fighter (and thus stretching out the scores a little), but the principle should remain.

Personally, I like the notion that a first level FIGHTER should be able to take 3 average hits before he goes down. He may be an ordinary man, but this isn't his first experience with combat. He's picked up a little something.

Taking the die code (d8), a longsword does 4.5 hp, on average. That means three average hits equates to around 13 hp. To give a little leeway, let's assume that our average PC gets his CON score in hit points plus a certain (small) kicker based on class.

Personally, I feel that 15 hp sounds about right for an average 1st-level fighter. The question is: can this character be dropped by a single "perfect hit" from a sword? And the answer is an unabashed "yes!"

Ignoring bonuses, a longsword does 1d8 damage. If we assume that a crit does either [double damage] or [max dmg +1d6], then we're talking about up to 14-16 hp. That's enough to drop our fighter in one blow, even if, on average, he can take 3 hits.

The only problem is that an ordinary man should have only a few hit points, since, for example, a dagger to the throat can kill him. And that doesn't reconcile easily with any hit point system where "starting hp = Con score + <blank>."

I like <blank> + Con Bonus, but I'd like to see hp go up by a lesser degree than happens with the traditional class hit dice. Or possibly see them cap out at a certain level again.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Y'see, rolling an 8 on a d8 doesn't mean your attack was perfect. After all, this would mean that more than 10% of all longsword attacks are perfect (and one third of all unarmed strikes are perfect!!!).

What determines if the attack is perfect is what percentage of the target's hit points your attack eliminated. If you dropped the target to 0 hit points, your attack was perfect, whether you rolled a 1 or an 8. On the other hand, if your target has 80 hit points, your 8-damage longsword attack is barely a graze.

No - I don't buy this.

I think there is a clear difference in the arguments used between 1st level (AKA "ordinary people") and PCs that have advanced beyond this level. This is where the 'HPs are an abstraction" comes in, where higher HPs at higher levels represents a level of experience that allows them to negate (or evade, or whatever) blows that would otherwise be lethal to ordinary people (AKA 1st level characters).

That is, an 8th Level Experienced Fighter would, on average, be able to survive 8 blows that would normally be enough to account for a 1st level character. The reason for this is abstract - they learn how to 'roll with punches', evade, or just because of a destined aspect of their heroic 'luck' - but the mathematical relationship between damage and HP would be sustained. And again, it would mean that a perfect, maximum roll would likewise equate to a perfect hit (at least from the perspective of the attacker).

 

[TrippyHippy]

Personally, I like the notion that a first level FIGHTER should be able to take 3 average hits before he goes down. He may be an ordinary man, but this isn't his first experience with combat. He's picked up a little something.

Taking the die code (d8), a longsword does 4.5 hp, on average. That means three average hits equates to around 13 hp. To give a little leeway, let's assume that our average PC gets his CON score in hit points plus a certain (small) kicker based on class.

Personally, I feel that 15 hp sounds about right for an average 1st-level fighter. The question is: can this character be dropped by a single "perfect hit" from a sword? And the answer is an unabashed "yes!"

Ignoring bonuses, a longsword does 1d8 damage. If we assume that a crit does either [double damage] or [max dmg +1d6], then we're talking about up to 14-16 hp. That's enough to drop our fighter in one blow, even if, on average, he can take 3 hits.

The only problem is that an ordinary man should have only a few hit points, since, for example, a dagger to the throat can kill him. And that doesn't reconcile easily with any hit point system where "starting hp = Con score + <blank>."

I like <blank> + Con Bonus, but I'd like to see hp go up by a lesser degree than happens with the traditional class hit dice. Or possibly see them cap out at a certain level again.

Well, based on your maths here, your actually saying that a starting Fighter (on 15HP) should be able to take three average blows before he drops on the fourth. If he had 10-13 HP he'd be dropping on 3 (which is actually what you'd probably get if they started on a max d10HD +con bonus). Moreover, these days it's hard to assume what an 'Average Ability' score is in D&D for PCs - it used to be 10, but these days it tends to be higher. As such, Con could go much higher, and consequently so could the HP scores.

Likewise, the Critical Hit argument could be taken, but you again have to check your maths - (Max d8 +d6) would not actually be enough to fell a 15 HP Fighter. And if this is meant to be an average starting Fighter, then what does the range max out at, in comparison to the maximum damage from a critical blow?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

The same number as it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop.

 

[JohnSnow]

Well, based on your maths here, your actually saying that a starting Fighter (on 15HP) should be able to take three average blows before he drops on the fourth. If he had 10-13 HP he'd be dropping on 3 (which is actually what you'd probably get if they started on a max d10HD +con bonus). Moreover, these days it's hard to assume what an 'Average Ability' score is in D&D for PCs - it used to be 10, but these days it tends to be higher. As such, Con could go much higher, and consequently so could the HP scores.

Likewise, the Critical Hit argument could be taken, but you again have to check your maths - (Max d8 +d6) would not actually be enough to fell a 15 HP Fighter. And if this is meant to be an average starting Fighter, then what does the range max out at, in comparison to the maximum damage from a critical blow?

My math is fine. Read more carefully. The critical hit argument (down in one hit) works fine if critical hits do double damage. A perfect crit drops a fighter with up to 16 hp.

I admit that 13 hp would be the appropriate number for a first level fighter if I was dead set on him going down on the third hit. However, I'm not, and 13 hp has the disadvantage of not allowing enough design space for the other classes. Having fighters gain 3 hp/level, rogues and clerics 2, and wizards who gain just 1 hp/level just doesn't seem like enough of a benefit from leveling up to me. Obviously, YMMV. So I choose to err on the side of a slightly more durable fighter. Although I suppose 2, 3, and 4 might be reasonable (meaning a 14 hp 1st-level fighter), and since you can't actually roll a 13.5, that would mean my character would drop on the third hit about half the time. And he could be killed by a good crit from a longsword, even if you assume the [MAX(weapon) + d6] model for crits.

Going to your example, the only way you get 13 hp from [maxd10 + Con bonus] is if the fighter has a 16 or 17 CON. Which is very, very high. For the 14 CON fighter they talk about, the number is 12 hp. Which might be enough, but seems a bit low to me. The 10 CON fighter we've been discussing is dead on an average hit from a greatsword wielded by a STR 18 fighter - no crit necessary. That's a bit TOO lethal in my book.

The bigger issue with using HD creeps in over levels. If you let the character add his CON bonus to all rolls, the numbers go nuts. Similarly, the hit point discrepancy between the classes can grow to ludicrous extremes. Even if you assume average die rolls, there's a HUGE discrepancy between gaining 5-6 hp per level (the avg. of a d10) and gaining 2-3 (the average on a d4). So while rolled HD gives the right number at 1st-level, it's a cluster by 10th, because the discrepancy is SOOO high.

Similarly, one could simply use the CON score (which gives the 14 CON fighter 14 hp at 1st-level), but then our fighter is getting no benefit (hit point wise) at 1st-level from BEING a fighter. All the benefit comes from his high CON, so as far as his ability to take hits, he might as well be a blacksmith, a healthy farmer, or a really tough wizard. And I'm not sure I like THAT either. So clearly, in my mind, this is far more complicated than the seemingly simple question of "how many hits at first level?"

I'll also point out that we can all safely ignore the proliferation of high con scores by admitting that a high strength more than cancels a high con. That's only not true if the character benefits from his high con score repeatedly over many levels. Which I've already explained is bad for other reasons.

 

[Lanefan]

Unless you're view of orcs is more bad-ass than usual, I disagree. I think fighter PCs should start out more powerful than the average humanoid warrior.

Why? A 1st-level Fighter *is* the average humanoid warrior.

Put another way, a basic Orc is a 1 HD creature. A 1st-level Fighter is - wait for it - a 1 HD creature! Flip a coin as to who wins that fight, though chances are the PC will have better equipment, armour, etc.

To add my preference on the subject of hits: I do not want anything like verisimilitude in my D&D game. Hit points are an abstract system, and do not lend themselves to 'realism'. Nor do I want my 1st level characters do be normal people. I want them to survive past 1st level unless they get really unlucky or make a huge mistake. If the odds were as heavily stacked against them as they were in 1E, only a lunatic would become an adventurer. And don't pretend you didn't fudge the dice rolls back in those days to save having to wait for another character to be generated!

I didn't fudge the rolls. I just killed 'em dead. Still do, for that matter.

When the odds are stacked against you, only a lunatic would become an adventurer who tries to fight everything! Are combat avoidance, stealth, and infiltration becoming lost arts or what?

On another point, someone suggested 1st-level characters should have their Con. score (plus a modifier?) as their h.p. value - problem with that is you're then back to the 4e problem of the huge separation between the lowliest of adventurers and the toughest common peasant in terms of how much damage they can take before keeling over.

Lan-"a lunatic who survived"-efan

 

[TrippyHippy]

My math is fine. Read more carefully. The critical hit argument (down in one hit) works fine if critical hits do double damage. A perfect crit drops a fighter with up to 16 hp.

I wasn't trying to belittle your maths skills, just trying to establish the real numbers involved here. Even if you are basing it on the Crit equalling double damage (which is mathematically possible to fell a 15HP character with a sword!), you're still talking about a pretty slim chance (about 0.08%) of ever doing that, and like I say, this is just for an assumed average fighter.

I admit that 13 hp would be the appropriate number for a first level fighter if I was dead set on him going down on the third hit. However, I'm not, and 13 hp has the disadvantage of not allowing enough design space for the other classes. Having fighters gain 3 hp/level, rogues and clerics 2, and wizards who gain just 1 hp/level just doesn't seem like enough of a benefit from leveling up to me. Obviously, YMMV. So I choose to err on the side of a slightly more durable fighter. Although I suppose 2, 3, and 4 might be reasonable (meaning a 14 hp 1st-level fighter), and since you can't actually roll a 13.5, that would mean my character would drop on the third hit about half the time. And he could be killed by a good crit from a longsword, even if you assume the [MAX(weapon) + d6] model for crits.

Well, the core problem here is in the method of characters gaining set HP per level, rather than rolling Hit dice types, which will also tend to levy out on averages over the course of several levels.

Going to your example, the only way you get 13 hp from [maxd10 + Con bonus] is if the fighter has a 16 or 17 CON. Which is very, very high. For the 14 CON fighter they talk about, the number is 12 hp. Which might be enough, but seems a bit low to me. The 10 CON fighter we've been discussing is dead on an average hit from a greatsword wielded by a STR 18 fighter - no crit necessary. That's a bit TOO lethal in my book.

I'm curious about the devastating psychological impact of having the HP total reduced from 13 to 12! ....but anyway, the min-maxing element of the game should be factored in.

The point is that by having starting Fighters start at, essentially, 10+con bonus HP, you actually do reach the most popular number of average sword blows to fell a Fighter - being 3 - according to the poll here. And it pretty much mathematically holds out through 10-13 too.

If a Great Sword (d12?) is utilized by a STR 18 (human max!), I'd imagine they could do a lot of damage! However, STR 18 ought to be pretty rare, and I'd probably impose a minimum strength to use a Great Sword too, incidentally. Even then, the average score in this instant would be 6.5 + 4 = 10.5 - only just about enough to fell an average starting level Fighter (10 HP), without any Con bonus. Should our proposed starting character face such an opponent, he'd be sensible to consider his options! However, such an opponent doesn't equate to the average Orc, does he?

The bigger issue with using HD creeps in over levels. If you let the character add his CON bonus to all rolls, the numbers go nuts. Similarly, the hit point discrepancy between the classes can grow to ludicrous extremes. Even if you assume average die rolls, there's a HUGE discrepancy between gaining 5-6 hp per level (the avg. of a d10) and gaining 2-3 (the average on a d4).

If a Wizard has a D4 Hit dice (av. 2.5 per level), this could be argued to be a bit low still - but then they aren't meant to be Fighters are they? I agree that some sort of cap to the number of HD possibly gained should be used, and can even see an argument for Wizards getting a slightly higher HD type to make the discrepancy with other classes less.

But if you have a HD+Con Bonus being applied over 10 levels, say, then the average L10 Fighter (D10) is going to have 55HP + Con bonus (0-40HP). This is not that devastating, especially considering that the more dice rolls you get, then more likely you are to approach the average score (exceptionally high or low scores get increasingly unlikely). An average L10 Wizard, by comparison, would get 25HP + Con bonus (again 0-40HP). If you let it escalate after this point then you'd certainly get huge problems, but this is where HP caps ought to take effect.

I'll also point out that we can all safely ignore the proliferation of high con scores by admitting that a high strength more than cancels a high con. That's only not true if the character benefits from his high con score repeatedly over many levels. Which I've already explained is bad for other reasons.

Mathematically, the proliferation of High Strength blows is difficult to calculate. It depends on how many fights the character has!