A simple way of making low-level adventures more survivable?

[Quartz]

How about applying non-proficiency penalties to damage as well as to hit? And only masterwork weapons or better can cause criticals?

So that orc commoner may well be wielding a longsword but since he's not proficient in it, not only does he attack at a penalty of -4 but he can never do maximum damage, (for a longsword 1d8-4, min 1) and can never manage a critical hit to boot. Group a few together and you'll have an encounter where the PCs wil get nickel-and-dimed but no-one will get dropped in one hit.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

That'd be too boring, fights would take forever.

change the -10 you're dead rule and characters don't get one-shotted by a lucky roll.

 

[Arkhandus]

Neh, wouldn't make much difference, and just not that simple. If you want low levels to be more survivable, why not just triple or quadruple HP from the first hit die for PCs?

 

[Mark Chance]

Have fewer combats. No need to change the rules at all.

 

[Quartz]

Have fewer combats. No need to change the rules at all.

I disagree. IMHO the big problem at low levels is not the number of combats but the risk that one of the opponents will do a large amount of damage - typically a critical. Consider a 1st level Orc Barbarian who's got 18 Str while Raging. He maxes his critical on his battle-axe and does 48 HP damage. That's enough to drop many 5th level characters. Now, if you make it that only masterwork weapons can thraten criticals, then he'll only do 16 - enough to drop but not kill. Now consider an Orc Commoner, Str 14. He wields that sword with a non-proficiency penalty of -4, and does 1d8-4+2 damage or 2.75 HP on average with a max of 6 HP - enough to drop the mage but no-one else. And he can't critical.

 

[Destil]

Stop tracking negative HP. Once you hit 0 you're disable, below that you're bleeding out... give players X round to heal their comrades. Not only does it keep an axe crit from ending your 1st level ranger, but it makes healing spells a bit better at low levels (no rolling a 2 and bringing your buddy from -6 to -3).

 

[Mark Chance]

IMHO the big problem at low levels is not the number of combats but the risk that one of the opponents will do a large amount of damage....

In addition to fewer combats, remove that one cherry-picked example from play until after the PCs are above 5th-level. Still no rules need to be changed.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

work up some mechanic for wounds points with hit points, and crits do normal damage + wounds instead of x3 x4 whatever. Fort save for 10 + (number of wound points you currently have) or fall unconscious and start bleeding out. Scales with level, works with reserve points, so healers aren't as necessary.

In my IH game, I'm using a rule I found on this site, I think, slightly modified:

At 0 or fewer hit points, you are Disabled. If you are at 0 or fewer hit points and not Stable, you are Dying.
Every round, you lose 1d4 hit points and then must make a Fort save DC is equal to 10 + 1/2 your negative hit points.
If the Fortitude save succeeds by 10 or more, you automatically become stable without assistance. A character who becomes stable is no longer dying.
If the Fortitude save succeeds by 9 or less, you are still dying. You continues to lose hit points, but survive for a short while longer.
If the Fortitude save fails by 9 or less, you fall unconscious and can take no actions. You continue to lose hit points, but survive for a short while longer.
If the Fortitude save fails by 10 or more, you die.
if you take more damage, such as getting hit again (not the 1d4 from failing to stabilize), immediately make a new save.
You can perform First Aid on yourself, but it counts as strenuous activity if you fail, causing 1d4 damage.

This is, however, used in an Iron Heroes game with reserve points, and normal crit rules.
I changed one thing after playing the first session: only creatures with reserve points follow these rules. Mooks go down at 0 or less hit points. Had one creature give a player like 3 Cleaves before he went down.

 

[Quartz]

In addition to fewer combats, remove that one cherry-picked example from play until after the PCs are above 5th-level. Still no rules need to be changed.

But it's not a cherry-picked example. Consider a Str 14 opponent wielding a spear. Could be 30 HP damage. Consider the same opponent wielding a pick. Could be 24 HP damage.

 

[Mark Chance]

But it's not a cherry-picked example. Consider a Str 14 opponent wielding a spear. Could be 30 HP damage. Consider the same opponent wielding a pick. Could be 24 HP damage.

And those attacks are much more likely to do less to no damage at all. The PCs' attacks are just as likely to inflict maximum damage. What you're attempting to address with the examples seems to be the randomness inherent to the system. This isn't an issue best addressed by altering the rules (unless one wants to remove randomness from the system entirely). Instead, it seems the best way to address the issue is to carefully consider the nature of the adventure and the ways the encounters therein play out.

Thus, if you're concerned that an orc barbarian with a greataxe can insta-kill a PC with a critical hit, don't use that orc barbarian. Or, if you do, ad hoc rule that he can't get a crit. This can be done "behind the screen" without needing to change the rules.

Et cetera.