The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D co-creator Dave Arneson wasn't a fan of hit points increasing with level. According to the excellent Jon Peterson's Playing at the World he felt that hit points should be fixed at character creation, with characters becoming harder to hit at higher levels. Of course, this is an early example of the oft-lengthily and vehemently discussed question best summarised as ‘Are hit points meat?’—...
D&D co-creator Dave Arneson wasn't a fan of hit points increasing with level. According to the excellent Jon Peterson's Playing at the World he felt that hit points should be fixed at character creation, with characters becoming harder to hit at higher levels.
Of course, this is an early example of the oft-lengthily and vehemently discussed question best summarised as ‘Are hit points meat?’— a debate which has raged for over 40 years and isn’t likely to be resolved today! (but no they’re not)
Game Wizards is very decidedly not a book about who invented which system in D&D. But early drafts of the book did track one design choic...
playingattheworld.blogspot.com
Arneson later created a hit point equation in his 1979 RPG Adventures in Fantasy which was a game in which he hoped to correct "the many errors in the original rules".
Not as a default rule but maybe the 2024 books might have more variants for my HP, clear distinction of meat and stamina, or more direct design to tiers.
Question: why the focus on tiers rather than individual levels?
From my perspective, ideally the power jump from any one level to the next is, overall, about equal (and, ideally, not very much). Sure, some classes might see a spike in power at a certain level and less at others; that probably can't be helped but there's ways of mitigating it and evening out the power curve. But I'd rather not see all the classes spike at the same level, for a bunch of reasons including that if you've a mixed-level party and those levels happen to cross a tier break the disparity is overly amplified.
This is more a difference between the oD&D/1e intended playstyle and the one 2e locked in for first level and there's a good case it wasn't lying to you.
In 1e at first level as a fighter you were a veteran. Stronger and tougher than those around you - but intended to play as one of a group, bringing hirelings with you to the dungeon. A 1e character can do that at first level (and the first level one-spell wizard was the radio operator who could call in an air strike 1/day).
I still claim that if either of those games seriously intended you bring combat support in the form of henchmen with you, they did a really piss-poor job of depicting it, to the extent I never saw a henchman brought along for much more than logistical support (i.e. someone to manage animals and carry additional things).
What you are looking for, the adventurer who isn't just significantly ahead of his peers but could take on a dungeon as one of a tiny team rather than a large one isn't a veteran but a hero. Which is the level 4 fighter title. oD&D wasn't lying to you - it's just that most people wanted to do something else.
And what it described in the blurbs wasn't exactly what it presented out of the gate. When you use people like Conan and John Carter as examples in blurbs, don't expect people to think you need to be eighth level before you're even vaguely compared to those.
I still claim that if either of those games seriously intended you bring combat support in the form of henchmen with you, they did a really piss-poor job of depicting it, to the extent I never saw a henchman brought along for much more than logistical support (i.e. someone to manage animals and carry additional things).
You aren't wrong. The problem (as has been noted frequently) is that what was written down wasn't the game Gygax played. Or rather it's the same rules but did a terrible job of communicating the metagame. Which meant there was a major difference between those who learned from someone who learned from Gygax and those who learned from the books.
Question: why the focus on tiers rather than individual levels?
From my perspective, ideally the power jump from any one level to the next is, overall, about equal (and, ideally, not very much). Sure, some classes might see a spike in power at a certain level and less at others; that probably can't be helped but there's ways of mitigating it and evening out the power curve. But I'd rather not see all the classes spike at the same level, for a bunch of reasons including that if you've a mixed-level party and those levels happen to cross a tier break the disparity is overly amplified.
Because levels don't mean anything in the grand scheme if you don't put feature attached to them.
I agree that classes don't need to get their spikes at the sametime. However they should all get it in the same tier. All classes should get their novice stuff in the novice tier which means their HP should reflect that of a novice. Same with herioc, master/paragon, and epic tiers.
And how and why are DMs and players getting that impression? Ah, yes, because the box doesn't tell them any different; which means it's either a design fail or a marketing fail.
My observation that the solid majority of DMs adamantly refuse to start games higher than 1st level. Easily four or five times as many. Doesn't matter if the players are new, doesn't matter if the system explicitly says otherwise, doesn't matter if they're past acquaintances and you present them with solid arguments for why they should reconsider. They'll do it anyway. And then, when things go wrong (and in particular when there's a TPK only stopped by DM fiat, which I have repeatedly experienced in low-level 5e), they blame everything but having started at 1st level.
Is it statistical data? No. None of us has that. But I've spent several years looking around for a 5e game I might enjoy. The vast majority of games start at 1st level, unless the DM has a specific campaign premise that wouldn't work with that. And individual players almost always assume first-level characters unless explicitly told otherwise. I haven't seen a single player assume 3rd-level characters unless told otherwise, in all the years I've been sniffing around for a 5e game. (I only play online, so it's a pretty broad base to draw from.)
As a general pattern, from designer to DM to player, the D&D community extremely clearly favors "1st level is when ADVENTURE begins!" It clearly does not favor "1st level means your character is incredibly fragile, such that one unlucky roll can threaten your character's life, and two unlucky rolls (or one extremely unlucky roll) can end your character then and there."
My observation that the solid majority of DMs adamantly refuse to start games higher than 1st level. Easily four or five times as many. Doesn't matter if the players are new, doesn't matter if the system explicitly says otherwise, doesn't matter if they're past acquaintances and you present them with solid arguments for why they should reconsider. They'll do it anyway. And then, when things go wrong (and in particular when there's a TPK only stopped by DM fiat, which I have repeatedly experienced in low-level 5e), they blame everything but having started at 1st level.
Is it statistical data? No. None of us has that. But I've spent several years looking around for a 5e game I might enjoy. The vast majority of games start at 1st level, unless the DM has a specific campaign premise that wouldn't work with that. And individual players almost always assume first-level characters unless explicitly told otherwise. I haven't seen a single player assume 3rd-level characters unless told otherwise, in all the years I've been sniffing around for a 5e game. (I only play online, so it's a pretty broad base to draw from.)
This kinda makes sense, in that you're intentionally seeking people willing to do something other than the default and oftentimes those aren't very thick on the ground.
(note: you probably wouldn't like me as DM then; as were I ever to run 5e I'd severely tweak the advancement tables such that all levels would take longer to get through and low levels would take much longer)
As a general pattern, from designer to DM to player, the D&D community extremely clearly favors "1st level is when ADVENTURE begins!" It clearly does not favor "1st level means your character is incredibly fragile, such that one unlucky roll can threaten your character's life, and two unlucky rolls (or one extremely unlucky roll) can end your character then and there."
You're missing something here: the D&D community extremely clearly favours "1st level is when ADVENTURE begins, and ADVENTURE by its very definition can include danger, maybe even death! That's what we're here for - to face those dangers and succeed or die trying!"
It's a formula that's worked well for coming up 50 years, no reason it can't work for another 50.
This kinda makes sense, in that you're intentionally seeking people willing to do something other than the default and oftentimes those aren't very thick on the ground.
Okay...but...that's sort of the whole point. People treat 1st level as the default. The books are pretty clear that 3rd level is supposed to be the default. They could, potentially, be more clear about that. But given it's already a well-known factor, something relatively easy to deduce simply from looking at the structure of the game, and that fact doesn't matter for whether DMs go for it or fail to go for it, is pretty clearly an issue.
And, as noted, I have seen this fail multiple times. New DMs, old DMs, new players, old players, doesn't matter. I've seen it happen, repeatedly.
(note: you probably wouldn't like me as DM then; as were I ever to run 5e I'd severely tweak the advancement tables such that all levels would take longer to get through and low levels would take much longer)
You're missing something here: the D&D community extremely clearly favours "1st level is when ADVENTURE begins, and ADVENTURE by its very definition can include danger, maybe even death! That's what we're here for - to face those dangers and succeed or die trying!"
My problem with your phrasing here is that you treat death as though it is an unlikely but possible event. It is much more accurate to say that it is a reasonably likely event, especially with the kinds of adventures that DMs tend to throw at their first-level parties. And that's my problem. People think death is an unlikely but possible occurrence, when it is actually a fairly likely occurrence unless both they and their DMs guard against it, something the books do not tell you to do.
I think this is reflecting a rather biased view of history. It's another aspect of the fundamental change in how people approached D&D between the "everyone learned from Gygax, or a chain connecting back to Gygax" period and the "people started learning it on their own."
Stuff like Critical Role or The Adventure Zone is wildly popular because it captures what a ton of players want: a story-heavy exploration of several characters, loosely analogous to watching a TV show, except that it's much heavier on imagined scenery and narration than on CGI and makeup. You can't explore a character that dies in the first episode, and sudden and irretrievable death tends to be much more frustrating than challenging in this context. It's basically inarguable at this point that that's where player opinion has drifted since the early days of D&D, and making it so that the expected starting point is VERY BAD at supporting that desire is not a good design decision.
Also, pulling this out of my above post so you can respond separately:
I want to refer back to the description in the fighter class, of what a fighter both isn't, and is (emphasis added): "Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen's army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge. Veteran soldiers, military officers, trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters."
Veterans, officers, knights. These are the people that are good enough to be Fighters. Even a 1st-level fighter is supposed to be more than just a random city watch member, village militiaman, or soldier in the royal army. Having "basic" combat knowledge isn't enough, and being "relatively untrained" is definitely not enough. With the books saying things like this, why on earth would DMs (let alone players) think that 1st level is supposed to be rough-hewn greenhorns who are supposed to run at the first sign of serious trouble?
Or consider the equivalent blurb from the cleric: "Not every acolyte or officiant at a temple or shrine is a cleric. Some priests are called to a simple life of temple service, carrying out their gods' will through prayer and sacrifice, not by magic and strength of arms. In some cities, priesthood amounts to a political office, viewed as a stepping stone to higher positions of authority and involving no communion with a god at all. True clerics are rare in most hierarchies.
When a cleric takes up an adventuring life, it is usually because his or her god demands it. Pursuing the goals of the gods often involves braving dangers beyond the walls of civilization, smiting evil or seeking holy relics in ancient tombs. Many clerics are expected to protect their deities' worshipers, which can mean fighting rampaging orcs, negotiating peace between warring nations, or sealing a portal that would allow a demon prince to enter the world."
Again, this does not bespeak of a fragile priest just learning the arts of combat. It specifically separates the cleric from ordinary non-combat priests, from folks who don't engage in powerful (non-ritualized) magic, nor martial prowess. The cleric is presented as someone who's already kicking butt and taking names, no matter what level they are. Obviously some of the examples are aspirational (the portal-sealing example), but others are presented very generically ("seeking holy relics in ancient tombs.")
Even the Wizard, very much the most fragile of classes (before subclass anyway), is specifically spoken of as having completed an enormous amount of learning. Emphasis added: "...these surface components barely hint at the expertise gained after years of apprenticeship and countless hours of study." Or, just a bit later, "Wizards' lives are seldom mundane. The closest a wizard is likely to come to an ordinary life is working as a sage or lecturer in a library or university, teaching others the secrets of the multiverse. [...] But the lure of knowledge and power calls even the most unadventurous wizards out of the safety of their libraries and laboratories and into crumbling ruins and lost cities."
To sum up: The books don't present 1st level as the difficult, dangerous experience it is. They don't give any hint that 1st-level characters are supposed to be wet-behind-the-ears novices, untested and barely trained. In fact, the books seem to go out of their way to indicate that that is the opposite of true, that characters have months, years, maybe even decades of training and education before they begin their adventures. I certainly agree that it doesn't say you're an automatic badass hero, who shoots aliens and doesn't afraid of anything, but it absolutely contradicts the notion that a 1st-level character is a clear and distinct novice...despite "you're a novice, try not to die" being reasonably accurate.
Probably a good Idea would be renaming levels.
Make level 3 level 1 and call level 0 to 1 apprentice levels. Problem solved.
Level 0: no class now app 1
Level 1: now app 1
Level 2: now app 2
Maybe restructure wizards to start with level 1 spells at former level 3, now level 1.
This would help martial characters keeping up.
Add levels 21 and 22 where you can have fun with abilities gained at level 20.
If you don't want to go that far,
Level 1 could easily add another hit die (one based on creature type level 0)
I would refrain from adding a big static number (like con) to hp, because enemy creatures would have to get it too, which would rule out low hp creatures like goblins.
One quick fix for people who want heroic 1st level chars:
What is true for PCs, that not every creature you encounter is a trained fighter should be true for enemies too. Most goblins are commoners and only the veterans are actually goblins as in the book.
playingattheworld.blogspot.com
