D&D General D&D Editions: Anybody Else Feel Like They Don't Fit In?

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah we usually had a fighter then a fighter-thief, fighter-magic user, cleric, and sometimes thief. Magic-users and monks just kept dying. Rangers were cool if you could qualify. Paladins and druids were very rare on account of the charisma requirements. Assassins were more common. Illusionists very very rare.

Dragonlance heroes were actually atypical. We thought it cool but odd that there were so many fighters.

I can tell you guys really wanted to avoid the D4 hit point classes. Not that you're wrong about the brittleness there.

 

[Thomas Shey]

With 1e it was - and remains - fairly easy for a DM to tweak the magic-level dials via how many (or how few) magic items the party finds and-or accumulates, along with how powerful those items are.

While true with any treasure-based power question, I still maintain when a game system comes with a set of treasure generating tables, a lot of people are going to use them as-is.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I can tell you guys really wanted to avoid the D4 hit point classes. Not that you're wrong about the brittleness there.

Conceptually-speaking there's nothing wrong with a d4 hit die class... just so long as the game doesn't then have a d12 hit die class (and few if any d10 hit die classes.) The only reason it's ever an issue is when the disparity between highest-HP and lowest-HP classes are so big that DMs are forced to throw more damaging foes on the battlefield in order to challenge the d12 HD character... but which then royally bones the d4 HD character that has only 1/3rd the hit points.

So if all the classes are d4s, d6s, and d8s (for example) the HP levels are all close enough that you can send out reasonable enemies that just do a bit lower damage and all the classes can then work around everything without as much issue.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I can tell you guys really wanted to avoid the D4 hit point classes. Not that you're wrong about the brittleness there.

I played a d4 MU to 10th level but very carefully. Our group gave us max hp at first level, so a little boost there.

 

[Pauln6]

I can tell you guys really wanted to avoid the D4 hit point classes. Not that you're wrong about the brittleness there.

We didn't so much avoid them. We usually started with two level 1 characters each and one of them was usually a wizard. The wizards just didn't last that long. No at will magic and AC 8 - 10, they usually died swinging a dagger somewhere between levels 1 and 5.

2HD for rangers at level 1 was awesome. Probably 2HD for everyone would have helped a lot.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Conceptually-speaking there's nothing wrong with a d4 hit die class... just so long as the game doesn't then have a d12 hit die class (and few if any d10 hit die classes.) The only reason it's ever an issue is when the disparity between highest-HP and lowest-HP classes are so big that DMs are forced to throw more damaging foes on the battlefield in order to challenge the d12 HD character... but which then royally bones the d4 HD character that has only 1/3rd the hit points.

Honestly, the problem was in many cases it was just too easy for too long to get one-shotted. I mean, seriously, it was not difficult for the D4 classes to still expect to get taken down a D8 damage (you know, the post Greyhawk longsword) with one hit at third level. Even RuneQuest characters had better durability than that.

So if all the classes are d4s, d6s, and d8s (for example) the HP levels are all close enough that you can send out reasonable enemies that just do a bit lower damage and all the classes can then work around everything without as much issue.

Like I said, the problem is when you still have that degree of brittleness by third level, its not clear what appropriate opponents are. I'm betting the vast majority of monsters that were avowedly appropriate for "third level of a dungeon" would do more damage than the 7-8 hit points those MUs and thieves had. You might be able to use large numbers of weak opponents, but that's usually asking for generic cleanup by Sleep spells and Turn Undead.

 

[Scribe]

Since at least Tashas, I have disagreed with the direction.

I'm now firmly in the "it's not for you" camp.

And that's fine. I'm more than comfortable with my view being correct.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Honestly, the problem was in many cases it was just too easy for too long to get one-shotted. I mean, seriously, it was not difficult for the D4 classes to still expect to get taken down a D8 damage (you know, the post Greyhawk longsword) with one hit at third level. Even RuneQuest characters had better durability than that.



Like I said, the problem is when you still have that degree of brittleness by third level, its not clear what appropriate opponents are. I'm betting the vast majority of monsters that were avowedly appropriate for "third level of a dungeon" would do more damage than the 7-8 hit points those MUs and thieves had. You might be able to use large numbers of weak opponents, but that's usually asking for generic cleanup by Sleep spells and Turn Undead.

True, but I would attribute that more to DMs just not paying much attention to what their monsters were doing, rather than there be something inherently wrong with the d4. If the DM just grabs monster based on level/CR or any other metric of so-called "difficulty" but doesn't actually take a closer look at what their selections (or the party) can possibly do... there will very often be disparities.

I know there are a lot of DMs out there that want a game that will run perfectly without them having to think about anything at all... but unfortunately that type of game is rare (and most certainly isn't a version of D&D).

All that being said... I actually agree with you that removing the d4 for HD was just a good way of accomplishing things a bit easier. I certainly have never thought the game was losing anything by having Wizards and Sorcerers on the d6.

 

[overgeeked]

Conceptually-speaking there's nothing wrong with a d4 hit die class... just so long as the game doesn't then have a d12 hit die class (and few if any d10 hit die classes.) The only reason it's ever an issue is when the disparity between highest-HP and lowest-HP classes are so big that DMs are forced to throw more damaging foes on the battlefield in order to challenge the d12 HD character... but which then royally bones the d4 HD character that has only 1/3rd the hit points.

So if all the classes are d4s, d6s, and d8s (for example) the HP levels are all close enough that you can send out reasonable enemies that just do a bit lower damage and all the classes can then work around everything without as much issue.

One's not connected to the other. It's a fair tradeoff for the differences in power between them. The d4 wizard is a glass cannon. The d12 barbarian is a meat shield. Their HP is suited to their roles in combat. You send out whatever is reasonable for the situation and let the players sort it out. If the fragile wizard wants to face-tank some giants, that's on them. If the beefy barbarian is a coward and hides behind the wizard, that's on them. The HP balance between PCs, monsters, and monster damage sorts itself out real quick and has for about 50 years.

 

[Thomas Shey]

True, but I would attribute that more to DMs just not paying much attention to what their monsters were doing, rather than there be something inherently wrong with the d4. If the DM just grabs monster based on level/CR or any other metric of so-called "difficulty" but doesn't actually take a closer look at what their selections (or the party) can possibly do... there will very often be disparities.

I dunno. Its not like the game didn't have at least suggestions as to monsters per dungeon level, and this problem was going to apply to an awful lot of them. The truth was, as best I can tell, that brittleness was probably considered a virtue by Gygax.

All that being said... I actually agree with you that removing the d4 for HD was just a good way of accomplishing things a bit easier. I certainly have never thought the game was losing anything by having Wizards and Sorcerers on the d6.

Well, honestly, I've never been sold baking most of a character's defensive skill in as an aspect of hit die was the best way to go anyway, but as I've noted, I haven't been primarily a D&D guy in something like 40 years now, so...