D&D General Hit Points. Did 3.0 Or 3.5 Get it Right?

[jgsugden]

I would say many consider the math of 4e to work better for character balance and monster design and encounter design and magic item costs and magic item-less campaigns.

5e math has an advantage in bound accuracy so it works better in bringing in creatures of CR more than five below APL compared to 4e.

4E is EXTREMELY efficient, stable and balanced. This is, however, not better. There was a lot of criticism about how monotone it was and how every class was substantially similar in design, and so many powers were essentially reskins of each other because the constraints of the system left them so little creative options.

I once heard it describe that 4E tried to improve the game in the same way that some people try to improve their dietary choices - by stripping it down to a bland repetitive core that hit the marks on paper, but was entirely unsatisfying day after day to most.

 

[MichaelSomething]

4E is EXTREMELY efficient, stable and balanced. This is, however, not better. There was a lot of criticism about how monotone it was and how every class was substantially similar in design, and so many powers were essentially reskins of each other because the constraints of the system left them so little creative options.

I once heard it describe that 4E tried to improve the game in the same way that some people try to improve their dietary choices - by stripping it down to a bland repetitive core that hit the marks on paper, but was entirely unsatisfying day after day to most.

That's because WOTC were cowards who were afraid of making interesting things.

Or maybe it was because DMs complained about being unable to comprehend and deal with unusual PC abilities?? Like how high level was so hard to run??

 

[Voadam]

The big problem with minionizing is how to properly convey that to the players so they can make intelligent decisions. For'ex, if in one encounter they run into 10 kobold minions that each go down in one hit in the first encounter, but in the next those same 10 kobolds have 35 hp each, how do you effectively relay the difference in those two encounters before the characters jump in and possibly get savaged in the 2nd?

In 4e you are unlikely to get a group of 10 non-minions for a fight, while a group of 10 minions in a fight is common supporting a leader or normal monsters. It is sort of the action movie premise of encounters generally either being against a few decent challenge foes, while if there are hordes of bad guys that you actually fight, a bunch are mooks.

You could do a fight in the 4e encounter guidelines where each of the five PCs was up against two non-minion kobolds who were each a couple levels lower than the PCs and the math might work out within suggested encounter design guidelines. Similarly every four minions are generally equal to a levelled monster, so the typical full minion fight for a party of five would be about 20 minion kobolds. If you made the minions higher level the math might still work to be within the target level range and xp budget with only 10 minions for encounter design in 4e. So in 4e you could generally work the math to have the two fights come out as roughly the same challenge by altering different parameters.

That said if there were two groups of 10 one being minions and one being tough guys as measured by hp you would pretty much be left identifying them to the PCs the same way you would distinguish between encountering 10 base kobolds in 5e (5 hp) and then 10 thug kobolds (32 hp). Or 10 base kobolds in 3.5 and 10 level 5 warrior kobolds.

Presumably there is some narrative reason that the two groups are different, rank and file warriors versus elite guard roles or different gangs or whatever and distinguishing between them would probably be based on that. Maybe the scrap warriors of base kobolds have a mouse symbol while the elite guard unit has a raven symbol. Maybe the high level minions gang members are the claw gang while the lower level non-minions are the fang gang.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The big problem with minionizing is how to properly convey that to the players so they can make intelligent decisions. For'ex, if in one encounter they run into 10 kobold minions that each go down in one hit in the first encounter, but in the next those same 10 kobolds have 35 hp each, how do you effectively relay the difference in those two encounters before the characters jump in and possibly get savaged in the 2nd?

By not having 10 kobolds with 35 hp show up?

Minions are for mob situations, non-minions are for standard monster situations.

Yeah, I get some people want to have 'don't fight this' encounters, so in that case, describe them as looking capable as opposed to 'there is a big group of chumps too weak and unimportant to fully describe' like you would when writing a story..

 

[Minigiant]

4E is EXTREMELY efficient, stable and balanced. This is, however, not better. There was a lot of criticism about how monotone it was and how every class was substantially similar in design, and so many powers were essentially reskins of each other because the constraints of the system left them so little creative options.

I once heard it describe that 4E tried to improve the game in the same way that some people try to improve their dietary choices - by stripping it down to a bland repetitive core that hit the marks on paper, but was entirely unsatisfying day after day to most.

It wasn't system constraints.
It was designer lock.

The designers saw things and similar and made them the same. Nothing in the system forced them to adhere to a grid and rigid class structure. In fact, the system due to having clear formulas on what is suppose to be where allows for you to get to the same places multiple ways. 2/2/2 is the same as 2/4/0 or 1/0/5.

It;s the same with HP

Why is the common evil orc, a raider of human villages and inhabitant of a violent warlike society where fighting is constant a one or two Hit Die monster?

It doesn't make sense.

"But it's just a humanoid so it's one HD"

You mean a whole tribe of musclebound warriors who do nothing but raid and pillage and have killed many beasts and humaniods by age 25 are mostly little 5-15 HP losers?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ive never seen the former, only the latter, so I really dont see a point in arguing for something that was never suggested.

I have definitely seen the former, both from those who insist it is the latter and from the rulebooks.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Stupid metaphor. How about am example game that does it?

D&D 4e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Domt think most rules in dnd stand up to that same scrutiny either. Why are we focusing so hard on this one?

This particular rule is very much in-your-face.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The big problem with minionizing is how to properly convey that to the players so they can make intelligent decisions. For'ex, if in one encounter they run into 10 kobold minions that each go down in one hit in the first encounter, but in the next those same 10 kobolds have 35 hp each, how do you effectively relay the difference in those two encounters before the characters jump in and possibly get savaged in the 2nd?

You can't IMO, because it's designed as a narrative distinction. There is no in-universe difference nine times out of ten.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I suggested what now?

They've evolved the underlying structure of the game. The math works better in 5E than in any prior edition. That evolution recognized and balanced several factors. I don't even consider it a matter of opinion to say that 5E is the best rule and design edition we've seen. It is demonstrable for the reasons I, and others, have outlined above.

What's your criteria for best rules, and how can whatever you answer possibly be anything but personal preference?