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

[Obryn]

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

Look, there's a lot of posts explaining how your reasoning is flawed. If you don't want to even attempt to reply intelligibly to mine, at least try another one. Iosue's spells it out well.

-O

 

[Shadeydm]

Look, there's a lot of posts explaining how your reasoning is flawed. If you don't want to even attempt to reply intelligibly to mine, at least try another one. Iosue's spells it out well.

-O

Let me make it reeaal simple for you.

4E 1st level fighter 31 starting HP + 84 HP in surges = 115 HP daily value
1E 1st level fighter 9 starting HP + 1 CLW spell from his cleric buddy = 13 HP daily HP value
115-13=102 significant inflation of hit points for a 1st level fighter. The cure shouldn't even count as an external resource but whatever makes ya feel better

 

[Obryn]

Let me make it reeaal simple for you.

4E 1st level fighter 31 starting HP + 84 HP in surges = 115 HP daily value
1E 1st level fighter 9 starting HP + 1 CLW spell from his cleric buddy = 13 HP daily HP value
115-13=102 significant inflation of hit points for a 1st level fighter. The cure shouldn't even count as an external resource but whatever makes ya feel better

Okay. (1) As has been explained a lot, you can't just multiply surges x HPs as if that's a meaningful measure in and of itself. Doing so shows that you are unfamiliar with the subject matter at hand. (2) HPs are meaningless without context. If I multiplied all HPs and damage in 1e by 100, 1st level Fighters could have 100+ hit points. But it wouldn't mean anything, because the game would be just as lethal.

In other words, between the incorrect assumption and the removal of context, your argument is essentially without content. Unless you want to say that (in real terms) 30 > 14. Which is fine, but ... so?

-O

 

[B.T.]

I think this is what is known as an impasse.

 

[Emerikol]

While ShadyDM overstates his case, I think the basic point is made. In D&D the game as become easier from 1e to 4e. It didn't start with 4e though. It started with 3e and just went another step up in 4e.

It really is a preference. It would be nice if we could modularize this because the two camps just prefer different things.

 

[Hussar]

Let me make it reeaal simple for you.

4E 1st level fighter 31 starting HP + 84 HP in surges = 115 HP daily value
1E 1st level fighter 9 starting HP + 1 CLW spell from his cleric buddy = 13 HP daily HP value
115-13=102 significant inflation of hit points for a 1st level fighter. The cure shouldn't even count as an external resource but whatever makes ya feel better

But, this is why I say that you are misrepresenting the truth, because that's only half the story. You're ignoring hit percentages and damage, which is what HP are meant to be included in. Don't look at the straight numbers, look at the number of hits it takes, on average, to take down a character. Who cares what the raw numbers are. The raw numbers are very, very misleading, which brings me to:

While ShadyDM overstates his case, I think the basic point is made. In D&D the game as become easier from 1e to 4e. It didn't start with 4e though. It started with 3e and just went another step up in 4e.

It really is a preference. It would be nice if we could modularize this because the two camps just prefer different things.

This is just outright wrong. 3e is FAR more lethal than 1e ever was. Particularly at low levels. Yup, a 3e fighter should have 10 HP, while the 1e fighter has 6 on average. However, an orc (standard fare for either character) averages 4 points of damage in 1e and hits about 20% of the time (presuming chain and shield for the fighter), while the 3.5e orc averages 9 points of damage and hits about 40% of the time. IOW, he's hitting twice as often for twice as much damage.

Do 3e characters really have four times more HP than 2e or 1e characters?

AD&D was lethal because of Save or Die effects (which were all over the place), but, that's outside this discussion because we're talking about hit points.

 

[Obryn]

While ShadyDM overstates his case, I think the basic point is made. In D&D the game as become easier from 1e to 4e. It didn't start with 4e though. It started with 3e and just went another step up in 4e.

It really is a preference. It would be nice if we could modularize this because the two camps just prefer different things.

Actual HP numbers have little to do with this, however. As I said, multiply all HPs and damage x100 in 1e, and you have a game with 100x the hit points where it's no easier.

In 4e, your Fighter has 30 hp ... but so do the hobgoblins, kobolds, etc. You might be doing 2d6+5, but the monsters are doing similar.

4e did move in one major direction - it's less swingy. There are fewer 1-hit kills in either direction, but also fewer outright misses. (And no real save-or-die effects, either.) One hit won't drop you. One round of attacks very well might. I don't see this as easier - your tactics and planning are vital - even moreso because pre-combat buffing and a first-round nova can't win the fight.

If you want to argue that 4e characters are tough to kill at Paragon and higher, I'll agree in a heartbeat - but that's a result of their greater breadth at that level, not the math itself. But arguing that it's tough to kill 1st-level characters just doesn't wash.

-O

 

[Shadeydm]

But, this is why I say that you are misrepresenting the truth, because that's only half the story. You're ignoring hit percentages and damage, which is what HP are meant to be included in. Don't look at the straight numbers, look at the number of hits it takes, on average, to take down a character. Who cares what the raw numbers are. The raw numbers are very, very misleading, which brings me to:

Sigh, no where have I said anything about lethality the conversation started in response to the statement that there has always been a little inflation of 1st level hit point in each edition. You can keep trying with the strawman but it hasn't changed.

 

[Shadeydm]

This is just outright wrong. 3e is FAR more lethal than 1e ever was. Particularly at low levels. Yup, a 3e fighter should have 10 HP, while the 1e fighter has 6 on average. However, an orc (standard fare for either character) averages 4 points of damage in 1e and hits about 20% of the time (presuming chain and shield for the fighter), while the 3.5e orc averages 9 points of damage and hits about 40% of the time. IOW, he's hitting twice as often for twice as much damage.

Do 3e characters really have four times more HP than 2e or 1e characters?

AD&D was lethal because of Save or Die effects (which were all over the place), but, that's outside this discussion because we're talking about hit points.

This is laughable 1st level 1E was an absolute meatgrinder which is what spawned the careful cautious exploration style. 3E at 1st level not even close.

 

[Lanefan]

Or maybe there's actually some training involved in all D&D careers (maybe not sorceror),

True.

and the person straight off the farm is an unrealistic idea in every edition and should be disregarded.

False.

I'm a raw 1st-level Cleric. I've just spent my last 3 years training in a monastery on how to get in touch with my deity to the point where she will actually grant me the occasional spell to cast. In the meantime they've taught me which end of a mace hurts the other guy when you hit him with it, and how to put on armour such that it can later be taken off again. That's it. In all other respects I'm still pretty much the same guy who left his farm 3 years ago and turned up at the monastery seeking training.

I'm ready to go out and try to do heroic things. There's no guarantee I'll succeed or even survive...for every 10 just like me they put into the field, 4 return to ever be seen again...but I intend to be one of those 4. Just because I'm a PC, however, doesn't and shouldn't change those odds any.

Lan-"a long time ago, I was one of the 4; I'm not sure how"-efan