D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back

[Obryn]

You mean beyond the fact that a "healstick" is a (magic) device and a healing surge is your hitpoints (internal, not external intervention required) and while its been a few years since i've played 3.x i'm pretty confident that freshly rolled 1st level character just starting out doesn't have a "healstick". So um yeah ok whatever you say...

If we're limiting ourselves to 1st level characters for whatever reason, I think you have some strange ideas about how lethal very low-level combat can be in 4e!

Healing surges are your HP potential over the course of a day, not your actual HPs you can use at a moment's notice. Trying to equate them shows a pretty basic disconnect in your understanding of the system.

-O

 

[Obryn]

That being said, I have to agree that D&D rules have never handled amateurs and youths or their transition to heroes very well; the 4e classes are only incrementally worse in that regard, particularly because of increased hit points and (for spellcasters) magic at will from the start.

Every edition, I think, has 0-level rules for DMs who want to start at that level.

In 1e/2e, there was a fairly comprehensive system in the Greyhawk Adventures HC. I forget where it was in 3e - maybe DMG2 or Unearthed Arcana? Or you could force the PCs into a level of Commoner. In 4e, Dragon 403 had rules for it.

So if you're looking for that "farm-fresh" feeling for 4e, it's as easy to obtain as any edition.

-O

 

[Sitara]

I find it really funny when people say "I hated 4e but can't wait for Next" I don't know which version of Next they are talking about, but the one available for download from wotc (playtests) is much closer to 4e than any other D&D iteration.

 

[Shadeydm]

If we're limiting ourselves to 1st level characters for whatever reason,

Yep I believe thats what we were talking about 1st level in case you missed it:

Each edition has has a little inflation in terms of 1st-level hps and bonuses.

The inflation was very significant not little.

 

[Shadeydm]

I think you have some strange ideas about how lethal very low-level combat can be in 4e!

I was not discussing the lethality of 1st level combat in 4E I was discussing 1st level hit point inflation. Thanks for trying though

 

[Obryn]

I was not discussing the lethality of 1st level combat in 4E I was discussing 1st level hit point inflation. Thanks for trying though

So you're ... what, both inventing your own definition of hit points in 4e wherein healing surges = hit points and looking at hit points as an abstract, disconnected, meaningless number instead of a game mechanic which has both context and rules around it? That's ... that's a thing, is what that is.

Hit points are meaningless without context. And that context is "lethality."

There is no meaningful sense whatsoever in which a 1st level character has "115 hit points." Arguing otherwise is either in bad faith - which I'm not accusing you of - or fundamentally misunderstanding the mechanics of 4e - which I am.

-O

 

[slobo777]

I was not discussing the lethality of 1st level combat in 4E I was discussing 1st level hit point inflation. Thanks for trying though

I guess maybe we ought to consider "inflation in real terms" i.e. with respect to what those hit points get you. Though I guess that's "exchange rate". More hit points are necessary just to have the same relative power if monsters hit more often and do more damage. Which is true from 2E to 3E and from 3E to 4E.

Whether or not those increases in attacks and damage were useful is more debatable. For instance, I think the increase in hit rate for monsters in 4E is deliberate and part of the mechanism that allows monsters to be more predictable and combat less swingy in 4E. You can get the swing back by halving hit points and doubling damage (if you want it)

D&D Next seems to have dialed monster attack numbers right back to 2E. So it makes sense that PC hit points are similarly reduced in playtest packet 2. I think this makes D&D Next quite swingy at low levels - which they've addressed a little by making it rather easy with the guideline encounter build rules.

 

[Iosue]

The inflation was very significant not little.

But the inflation was inflation: numbers going up without a commiserate rise in value. A first level fighter with a longsword and 18 STR is going to hit a goblin 35% of the time, and do an average of 6.5 points of damage against its average 4 hp. We can even knock the fighter's STR to 16, and the numbers change to 30% and 5.5, respectively. If he has splint male and a shield, the goblin's going to hit 15% of the time, and do an average of 3.5 points of damage vs. the fighter's average of 5.5 hp.

In 4e, the fighter starts with STR bonus (4), Weapon Talent (1), and Longsword proficiency (+3), so +8 vs. the Goblin Warrior's AC 17, he hits 55% of the time. His longsword does average 8.5 points of damage vs. the Goblin's 29 hp. The fighter can never one-shot the goblin, not even if uses his Daily Brute Strike, and rolls three 8's for the damage (such a situation could one-shot the Goblin Blackblade, who has 25 HP). And who wants to use their daily on a goblin? Meanwhile, fighter is probably going to have an AC of 19 (scale plus heavy shield) vs the Goblin's +6, so the Goblin has a 35% chance to hit, and does average 6.5 points of damage vs the fighter's 25.

So, for both fighter and goblin, it's easier to hit their opponent, but they need to hit more often to put their opponent down. This is just a quick and simple example of the fighter, but it's true of the other classes as well. Casters get a bit more spells, but on the whole they're weaker than their predecessors. To-hit percentage goes up, but so does hp, and to a greater degree than damage. That's not really a change in power level (the 1e 1st level fighter's going to one-shot many low-level enemies he successfully hits; the 4e fighter isn't, unless they're minions), it's just using math better suited for the more granular nature of 4e combat. In pre-3e versions, at least, combat was more abstract -- there were a lot more feints, attacks, and near-misses in the combat round than was represented by the attack roll. 4e goes pretty much blow-by-blow, and the numbers are just made more granular to reflect that.

 

[Bluenose]

How in the hell is it unrealistic? The farm boy's father could have been a fighter in his day so he taught his son every chance he got, or the local old wizard could be teaching the boy after his work is done and allowing him to take home books to read in his spare time. All it takes is a little imagination.

Your line of thinking is unrealistic and needs to be disregarded.

So, the teenager is learning (magic/fighting/thieving/etc) part time while still doing a normal days work. And the people teaching him are doing so out of the goodness of their heart, not requiring anything in return for the expensive gear they're going through in trianing him. And he gets to learn as well as someone doing this as a full-time apprentice. How many hours are there in the day, again?

 

[Shadeydm]

So you're ... what, both inventing your own definition of hit points in 4e wherein healing surges = hit points and looking at hit points as an abstract, disconnected, meaningless number instead of a game mechanic which has both context and rules around it? That's ... that's a thing, is what that is.

Hit points are meaningless without context. And that context is "lethality."

There is no meaningful sense whatsoever in which a 1st level character has "115 hit points." Arguing otherwise is either in bad faith - which I'm not accusing you of - or fundamentally misunderstanding the mechanics of 4e - which I am.

-O

You are of course entitled to your opinion which by the way was not the topic of discussion.