D&D 2E 2e hit points less is more

[GMforPowergamers]

I think its a sad statement of my own messed up personality that i would love playing with that DM.

I find that playing with people who are extreme in one way or another is a fun experience! Now it might not be the best fit for a long term game but I think I'm emotionaly limber enough to handle that as well.

Stillborn characters,that just make me smile wide!

I didnt say his games were not fun... infact both my worst experences in this game and best come from te 2 DMs that did stuff like this... when it is fun it rocks, when it sucks it is the worst.

To understand why 4e HPs are higher, you have to understand that the design goal of 4e is that a standard PC can survive at least 5 hits from a standard monster of their level before going down.

This is a design goal I agree with. Also having more HP makes it easier to add damage variability and granularity among weapons, spells, and attacks, instead of everything being the same.

Where 4e made a misstep was giving monsters (but not PCs) a bit too many HP which sometimes, but not always, contributed to grind. The reason that a common 4e house rule is to halve monster HP but double damage is because with half HP a monster who normally lives 6 rounds will now die in 3. So to keep them a viable threat, you double damage so that overall the amount of damage they can deal to the PCs in those 3 rounds is the same as the amount they would have done in 6.

yea, but like keterys says:

The real problem in 4e is that the damage dealt by PCs varies so wildly, so while some groups are having slogs of over 6 rounds, others are wrapping things up in 1 or 2 rounds and thinking monsters need to be tougher. For those groups, the halve hp, double damage thing is actively harmful because it would make initiative king, so they'd focus on init, win init, and team monster would be dead before they could act.

How many hp PCs and monsters have has to be compared to the damage they do, and both really are about how many hits they can take.

I have a group with a high damage fighter, a high damage cleric, and 3 strikers... we get healed alot, and we throw tons of damage(I am a striker in that game)
I also have a group where I am a warlord and we have a scout, a slayer, a battle rage fighter, and a druid... we throw a bit more damage then the other group but end up with about 3/4 the healing...

Both groups can in a good round drop a level +2 elite. On a great round a level +1 solo. In group 2 (with my warlord) We fought a level +6 solo at level 5 and won before it could bloodie anyone...

on the other hand I have a group I DM for that is a shawman, a hexblade (very non optimized multi into swordmage), a paliden that does 1w on almost all his attacks, and a slayer. this group was level 8 when the group with my warlord at level 5 was fighting the 11th level dragon... and it would have wiped us.





if all hp were lower (PC and Monster) and all damage was lower (PC and Monster) and on avrage a PC of level 3 could kill a monster of level 3 in 3-4 hits, and a monster of level 3 could kill a PC of level 3 in 5-6 hits it would be fine.


I feel like the old yugioh cards... 8000 life points and cards range from 450 attack to 4000 attack. if you drop a 0 or 2 what is the diffrence?

 

[Dragonblade]

The real problem in 4e is that the damage dealt by PCs varies so wildly, so while some groups are having slogs of over 6 rounds, others are wrapping things up in 1 or 2 rounds and thinking monsters need to be tougher. For those groups, the halve hp, double damage thing is actively harmful because it would make initiative king, so they'd focus on init, win init, and team monster would be dead before they could act.

How many hp PCs and monsters have has to be compared to the damage they do, and both really are about how many hits they can take.

I play with a bunch of 4e powergamers, but I find 1 or 2 rounds hard to believe. Assuming you are using errata and are facing challenges of your level, ending a standard encounter of the party's level in 1 or 2 rounds is flat out impossible. I could possibly see 3 rounds if they are completely optimized and the dice all rolls their way. But 4e damage isn't that wildly variable.

How many hits a monster or PC should be able to survive is an important consideration in determing HP, but going to a Hits based system is not something that would interest me. Rolling damage is fun and having variability in damage and healing makes the game more exciting and dynamic.

 

[Dragonblade]

Let me amend my previous post. Yes, if you are highly optimized and focus fire and hit, then yes you could drop one or two creatures a round, so I guess I could see 2 rounds, but I have to think it would be rare.

 

[NewJeffCT]

The real problem in 4e is that the damage dealt by PCs varies so wildly, so while some groups are having slogs of over 6 rounds, others are wrapping things up in 1 or 2 rounds and thinking monsters need to be tougher. For those groups, the halve hp, double damage thing is actively harmful because it would make initiative king, so they'd focus on init, win init, and team monster would be dead before they could act.

How many hp PCs and monsters have has to be compared to the damage they do, and both really are about how many hits they can take.

good point - my group of six PCs has two very effective strikers in it, so they regularly make mincemeat out of solos in 4E.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Hit points is an easy dial.

It's been happening in every edition.

Between Max, Average, or rolled practices in 1e,2e,3.x.
Minion, Regular, Elite, or Solo in 4e makes the hit point illusion more obvious.

Hit points is just part of the 'how long should this creature last' dial and RPG tables have been tweaking it since OD&D.


My preference is to be in the middle as a baseline on the 1e-4e spectrum for PCs.
And more toward 1e on creatures with the option to switch creatures to the Minion/Elite/Solo style.

 

[keterys]

Assuming you are using errata and are facing challenges of your level, ending a standard encounter of the party's level in 1 or 2 rounds is flat out impossible. I could possibly see 3 rounds if they are completely optimized and the dice all rolls their way. But 4e damage isn't that wildly variable.

Errm - I've been writing adventures for LFR and playtesting them with several groups each, and a 3 round combat is usually the maximum. To the extent that I started to encode that maximum into the design of many of the encounters, so that they wrap up then one way or another.

Let's see, recently I threw an EL 25 against an EL 24 group that managed to finish it off before my monsters acted. Granted, they got a little lucky with crits, but it went something like:

Party wins initiative. At some point they used some powers that let folks move around to get into position off-turn, but I don't remember what.

1st person acts - bloodies the elite, which reacts with an attack that crits one PC, the warlord reacts to that attack by striking and crits (1 in 20, here's the real luck) which gives everyone a basic attack (legendary sovereign) which dropped the elite and let the swordmage/warlock eldritch strike to slide the 2nd elite into position.
2nd person acts - warlord - death from two sides on the 2nd elite, bloodying it.
3rd person acts - avenger - oaths, attacks a couple times, critting once.
4th person acts - warlock - kills the standard and does something that triggers another attack from the avenger, finishing off that elite. The trap in the encounter requires the two elite dragons to live, so turns off.

I might be misremembering, and it might have actually hit the monster's turn then it got interrupted to death. Fair chance of that, actually. But still.

I sat at a level 22 table that wanted to fight Lolth. They won init and killed her before she got to act. Granted, that _was_ a truly optimized table who planned around every contingency for how to kill Lolth, whereas the other one was just a bit lucky and had no knowledge of what was going on in the combat, but... yeah, my experience for 4e in general is that encounters over 3 rounds are rare unless there are other objectives. And truly optimized tables are done with 2 rounds, tops.

 

[kitsune9]

The math in D&D could be scaled down. If we take hp lower, then we scale down weapon damage (in terms of doing multiples of damage at higher levels and scaling down damage modifiers). Scaling down modifiers too also can help.

The big benefit is that when there isn't much of a resource to track then going through it should be quick. A wizard who has 4 hp isn't going to stand against a longsword in pretty much after a 1 round. A goblin or kobold should be the same. A dragon who has 100 hp should be something to be greatly feared at 20th level.

I remember that an rpg designer when they were working on 4e was that there was a "sweet spot" at 7th-10th (or so) for 3.x gamers in which the math, abilities, and power was just right. The focus is on the math, but why not move that "sweet spot" to 20th or 30th level therefore by lowering the math at the lower levels? At 20th level, instead of having a +35 to hit, you have around +15 to +20. Maybe.

 

[Dragonblade]

A wizard who has 4 hp isn't going to stand against a longsword in pretty much after a 1 round. A goblin or kobold should be the same. A dragon who has 100 hp should be something to be greatly feared at 20th level.

No more wizards with 4 HP, please. It just doesn't work.

Assuming the average monster attack at level 1 does 1d8 damage. On average thats 4.5 points of damage. If a PC should be able to survive approximately 5 hits from a typical monster before they drop (which I think is a reasonable design goal), then they need around 22-23 HPs. At level 1.

Sorry, but there is no going back to the days of 4 HP wizards. It just doesn't work unless you want to take out random damage and just completely abstract it and say monster X does 1-2 per hit with no roll at all. Talk about not feeling like D&D...

Nobody except hard core old school gamers want to play a level 1 PC that can die in a single hit. Especially not players new to tabletop who have visions of being heroic and cool right at level 1.

 

[CleanCutRogue]

First off, I love rolling hit points. Yes, it sucks when you roll a 1 but when you roll high it's great. Part of the fun of gaining a level. So I'm not a fan of HP acquisition being constants. I'd like to think I'm not alone in this.

Secondly, ALL of my players enjoy the old-school feel of taking a commoner from level 1, hoping to survive the first few adventures, then eventually being able to back up a threat without looking like a fool. If he survives, becoming a mover-and-shaker of the game setting once "name-level" is obtained and followers are attracted, etc. This heroic path FELT good, was fun, and fit the fantasy adventure paradigm perfectly. This feeling was lacking in 4e games I've played and discussed, where even at level 1 you were a powerful force to be reckoned with.

Despite all this, I always allow max HP at start level, so I have no problem with your suggestions of a slight boost at level 1. In fact, I think low-level player death is something that has evolved out of the role-playing game concept and that's fine. But please let me roll them bones when I gain a level

 

[Ranes]

No more wizards with 4 HP, please. It just doesn't work.

Assuming the average monster attack at level 1 does 1d8 damage. On average thats 4.5 points of damage. If a PC should be able to survive approximately 5 hits from a typical monster before they drop (which I think is a reasonable design goal), then they need around 22-23 HPs. At level 1.

Sorry, but there is no going back to the days of 4 HP wizards. It just doesn't work unless you want to take out random damage and just completely abstract it and say monster X does 1-2 per hit with no roll at all. Talk about not feeling like D&D...

Nobody except hard core old school gamers want to play a level 1 PC that can die in a single hit. Especially not players new to tabletop who have visions of being heroic and cool right at level 1.

Your assumptions are out of whack. In 3.5 the d8 becomes the average damage die for a CR2 creature. At first level, damage dice are more typically d3-d4. And sure, make the goal be that a front line fighter can stand up to five such hits but a not any PC, not the squishy wizard, as well. He can go down in one or two (note: go down, not necessarily die).

Then teach your newbie players that smart teamwork is guaranteed to help them achieve their goal of being heroic and cool.

I manage the expectations of new players on a regular basis and I assure you that your final paragraph has no basis in fact.