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

[Lanefan]

This is just outright wrong. 3e is FAR more lethal than 1e ever was. Particularly at low levels.

Over long-term experience I've found them to be strikingly similar, and to vary far more from group to group simply due to play style rather than edition. (but see below for clarification)

Yup, a 3e fighter should have 10 HP, while the 1e fighter has 6 on average.

Any 3e Fighter is going to have a Con bonus of +1 or +2, sometimes even +3; let's average it at +2. A 1e Fighter is going to have a Con. bonus of any kind much less often, let's be generous and say the average is +1. So, average starting h.p. in 3e = 12, in 1e = 6.5, rounded up to 7.

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?

Actually yes they do, in an odd way - 3e characters die at -10 h.p. while by RAW 1e characters die at 0. This can make a *huge* difference to survivability because in 3e someone at -6 can still be patched up. Long ago we changed 1e to a -10 death point, which may somewhat explain why I've seen the survivability be so similar as noted above.

Now to bring 4e into the equation, while I'll leave it up to someone else to give accurate numbers (without including heal surges, please) it certainly seems to be the case that starting 1st-level h.p. average much higher than any previous edition. I suspect this is done with the intent of avoiding the one-shot kill from a fall or trap or whatever (in most cases weapons needed two good non-crit. hits to take down any Fighter in any edition pre-4e).

Lanefan

 

[Obryn]

Now to bring 4e into the equation, while I'll leave it up to someone else to give accurate numbers (without including heal surges, please) it certainly seems to be the case that starting 1st-level h.p. average much higher than any previous edition. I suspect this is done with the intent of avoiding the one-shot kill from a fall or trap or whatever (in most cases weapons needed two good non-crit. hits to take down any Fighter in any edition pre-4e).

Yes, which kind of illustrates the problem in taking the raw numbers in isolation.

In 1e, a starting Fighter has ... we'll call it 8 hit points for average of a d10, +2 for Constitution. His AC will be 3, we'll say, for Splint + Shield. A Goblin will have d8-1 hit points, or an average of 3.5. He'll take 4. His AC is 6. The goblin needs an 18 to hit the Fighter. The Fighter needs at worst a 14; if he has an attack bonus from Strength or there's specialization, it's lower. We'll give him a 17, so he needs a 13 to hit and deals 1d8+1 with his sword.

A goblin's average damage is 3.5. He has a 15% chance of hitting, for a DPR of just above 0.5 hit points. On average the Fighter will last 16 rounds, though with the nature of a d20, it's swingy. On the other hand, the Fighter hits 40% of the time for an average of 5.5 damage, or 2.2 DPR. The goblin will probably last 2 rounds on average.

Now, let's take a typical 4e Fighter vs. a 4e Lvl 1 Goblin Cutthroat. The Fighter let's say has a hammer & shield, and a Con of 16. This gives him 31 HP. His AC is ... let's call it 19 for Scale + Large Shield, the best he can buy. It should be high - he's a defender. Before feats, he has a +6 to-hit, and deals 1d10+4 damage.

The Goblin has a +6 attack bonus, so hits on 13+. Without combat advantage (hard to get one on one) he deals 1d6+5 damage. This gives him a 3.4 DPR. The Fighter will last somewhere in the neighborhood of 9 rounds - less, actually, than a decently-equipped 1e Fighter. The Fighter hits the goblin's 15 AC on a 9, or 60% of the time. This gives him a DPR of 5.7. With the Goblin's 30 hit points, it will take him north of 6 rounds, on average, to kill the goblin if all he uses are basic attacks or most at-wills. Throwing in an Encounter or Daily changes this, naturally, but only by a round or two.

So yeah. The math says the 4e fighter's a more even match for a simple level 1 goblin.

-O

 

[Manbearcat]

@Obryn

Get out of here with your fancy numbers and objective analysis. This is wrong. It is wrong because 4e is an easy mode, superhero game with 1st level characters that have unprecedented survivability relative to former editions' because 4e is an easy mode, superhero game with 1st level characters that have unprecedented survivability relative to former editions. And this just so happens to be because 4e is an easy mode, superhero game with 1st level characters that have unprecedented survivability relative to former editions. Further, 4e is an easy mode, superhero game with 1st level characters that have unprecedented survivability relative to former editions. In summation, 4e is an easy mode, superhero game with 1st level characters that have unprecedented survivability relative to former editions. And stuff. Do you relent?

Don't make me turn this dungeon around.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Obryn's analysis pretty much nails this. There's a reason that you cannot 1:1 translate 1e to 3e encounters. If you do, you jack up the level by about 4-6 simply because of the numbers of creatures in a given encounter. Keep on the Borderlands, if you did a straight 1:1 translation, would be an adventure for about 7th level characters. 1st level character's wouldn't even survive the kobold encounters.

However, that being said, Lanefan's point about Death's Door is well taken. From 2e onward, characters had that 10 HP buffer tacked onto their HP automatically. That does tend to make the character's a bit more durable. Only problem is, 3e upped the offense on baddies so much.

But, yeah, if you took out death's door, that would likely bring AD&D in line with 3e as far as what HP mean.

Now, Shadeydm, if all you want to say is that the raw number of hp has increased from edition to edition, fair enough. To which, I respond, so what? Taken in isolation, that increase is meaningless. Without actually placing it in context, it doesn't mean anything. It's the removal of context that I'm questioning here. I mean, a 3e dragon has a LOT more hp than a 1e dragon. Does that mean that it takes a lot longer to kill a 3e dragon? Well, not really since 3e characters also have had their offensive capabilities greatly increased from a baseline 1e character.

Without context, your point doesn't really mean anything. Ok, so different editions give out different starting HP. So what?

 

[Manbearcat]

D&D 67e:

Starting characters' HP - 543.

Kobold to hit (95 %) and damage (1d300 + 300).

Stiff breeze damage - 1d250 air damage (save ends)

Conclusion: D&D 67e starting characters are 77.57% more survivable than 1e characters. Outrageous, superhero, easy-mode nonsense. I'll never play 67e.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, a 3e dragon has a LOT more hp than a 1e dragon. Does that mean that it takes a lot longer to kill a 3e dragon? Well, not really since 3e characters also have had their offensive capabilities greatly increased from a baseline 1e character.

Dragons perhaps aren't the best example, as they and Giants are rather notorious as glass cannons in 1e played by RAW. That said, most monster h.p. numbers in 1e are generally pretty low; I found 3e made more sense in this regard though at times got a bit carried away.

Some of the massively high monster hit point numbers I've seen in 4e modules I can't relate to at all; I can only assume 4e adventurers can really bring the pain in big numbers in a hurry.

One thing that has really changed over the editions is the damage a monster can give out vs. the damage it can take. A 1e Hill Giant using a club does 2d8 (I think) damage and has maybe 40 h.p., so a best-case ratio of about 1:2 or 1:3 (16:40). A 3e Hill Giant using a club might do 2d8+8 and have about 100 h.p., giving a best-case ratio of about 1:4 (24:100). A 4e non-minion Hill Giant using a club - well, I don't know what damage it would give out but I'll guess at 2d10+12 - but it'll probably have 200-300 h.p. for a best-case ratio of about 1:8 (32:250)

If my 4e numbers are out to lunch feel free to fix 'em; but I think my point still stands - the increase in damage dealt has not kept up with the increase in damage absorption.

Lan-"inflation doesn't just apply to economics, it seems"-efan

 

[Tony Vargas]

a 1st level 4E Fighter with a 16 con has 115 HP without even trying to optimize that is way beyond a little higher than any edition that came before it.

You're counting healing surges as hit points? Healing surges acted as a /limit/ on how much healing you could receive. Having a high limit is nice, but prior eds had no such limit.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why do you automatically assume low level "off the farm" PC's are just going to die and why do people keep using movies as a reference? Scripted D&D is one of many styles but it's not a style that I prefer and I don't want Next to be built around that as if it's the default.

Well, if you're letting the dice fall where they may, and a 1st level character has 1-4 or 1-10 hps, some of them are going to roll a bit low, get hit by some monster or fall into a 10' pit or get attacked by a vicious house cat or succumb to some other very minor danger and die. Just, by the numbers. Adventuring's a dangerous life, and if you don't grant that PCs are more than a little above average when it comes to surviving, they're not going to survive.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This post reveals to me that you just stopped by to comment and have not really been following this thread. There was no edition war going on here. No edition came up in the conversation until this guy mentioned it.

Actually, I wondered about it and dug backwards to see what you said that started it:

But a lot of D&D that gets played these days is really for me a poor version of a board game. I'd really rather just play the superior board games out there if thats what I'm looking for. Same for mmos. If a campaign provides nothing an mmo couldn't provide then it's a big fail for me. I'd just play an mmo. And I have no issue with either board games or mmos.

Now, you were talking about "D&D that gets played these days" and not every modern version D&D has endured baseless edition-warring charges of being an MMO or board game.

But, I guess as long as we don't put a number to it, it's not edition warring?

 

[Bluenose]

True. 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

There's a model for people spending three years away from home for the first time, learning a particular skill-set. It's called University. People who go are often changed by it in more ways that simply learning a skill. Interaction with PWATPIGUW "people who aren't the people I grew up with" has unpredictable effects in terms of what you learn from them.