D&D is not a supers game.

[Doug McCrae]

There's quite a big difference between 1974 OD&D and 3e. 1st level PCs in OD&D have hit dice ranging from a d4 up to a d8, so the average is 3.5. Death is at 0. In 3e, hit points range from 4 to 12, and death is at negative 10.

If we ignore the constitution bonus, the average 1st level OD&D PC can take 3.5 points of damage before dying, whereas the average 3e PC can take 18. That's a fivefold increase.

Over the course of D&D's history we can see a clear trend away from the Gygaxian high lethality game presented in OD&D. Even 1e increases hit dice, and lowers the death threshold into the negatives.

 

[Fenes]

There's quite a big difference between 1974 OD&D and 3e. 1st level PCs in OD&D have hit dice ranging from a d4 up to a d8, so the average is 3.5. Death is at 0. In 3e, hit points range from 4 to 12, and death is at negative 10.

If we ignore the constitution bonus, the average 1st level OD&D PC can take 3.5 points of damage before dying, whereas the average 3e PC can take 18. That's a fivefold increase.

Over the course of D&D's history we can see a clear trend away from the Gygaxian high lethality game presented in OD&D. Even 1e increases hit dice, and lowers the death threshold into the negatives.

3E also boosted the con bonus by a lot - a 12 already gave you a bonus to hitpoints, unlike earlier editions.

 

[Dannager]

There are a whole lot of sweeping assumptions in all of this. Previous editions had 1st Level Characters with less HP, and they recruited new players fine. Current alternative versions of D&D (Pathfinder, C&C) have similar lower levels of HP at 1st Level and again seem to recruit new players fine too.

Did they!

You are also assuming that the lower HP point totals inevitably lead to characters dropping like flies.

No I don't. I'm acknowledging that they enable that possibility.

In my experience it just means that it tones down the level of combat heaviness a DM throws at players at starting levels, whilst also making players a bit more cautious. This is not necessarily a 'bad thing'. All you do when you make PCs power up is escalate the power levels of everything else too.

That's not necessarily true, either.

At the same time, you are just removing the scope for differing D&D experiences by effectively removing low level play from the game.

That's very not true.

 

[jadrax]

Same incorrect assumptions restated. Pathfinder is just as 'modern' as D&D 4th, and still bases HP on a single die roll plus Con bonus. Nobody playing that game complains and it's hardly unsuccessful.

I am reasonably sure that quite a few people complain.

 

[Hussar]

Umm, wasn't the whole "sweet spot" argument based on the idea that the sweet spot started at 3rd level? Wasn't that pretty much the entire justification for 4e's hp base?

If "Killed by a single hit" was so incredibly popular, why does the sweet spot start two levels higher?

 

[Imaro]

Umm, wasn't the whole "sweet spot" argument based on the idea that the sweet spot started at 3rd level? Wasn't that pretty much the entire justification for 4e's hp base?

If "Killed by a single hit" was so incredibly popular, why does the sweet spot start two levels higher?

Ok, I'll guess, Uhm... a vocal minority? No real evidence to support that guess, but I do wonder if the number of players of OD&D, B/X D&D, BECMI D&D, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e Retro-clones, Pathfinder/3.5, etc. outnumber those who have selected 4e as their D&D of choice. If so it would be a strong argument that the supposed "sweet spot" isn't necessary for the majority of players to enjoy D&D.

IME, most casual and new players, don't sit up and analyze games like this, they wouldn't know what the "sweet spot" of D&D is suppose to be if asked. They take the assumptions of the particular edition in stride and play to have fun (and yes a higher chance of death can be fun for many, especially in beer and pretzel games).

In fact, I would aslo argue most new/casual gamers don't get pre-attached to characters like some more experienced gamers do... at least not initially. Now admitedly, this is all anecdotal, but that's all anybody has anyway.

 

[Mercutio01]

There's quite a big difference between 1974 OD&D and 3e. 1st level PCs in OD&D have hit dice ranging from a d4 up to a d8, so the average is 3.5. Death is at 0. In 3e, hit points range from 4 to 12, and death is at negative 10.

If we ignore the constitution bonus, the average 1st level OD&D PC can take 3.5 points of damage before dying, whereas the average 3e PC can take 18. That's a fivefold increase.

Over the course of D&D's history we can see a clear trend away from the Gygaxian high lethality game presented in OD&D. Even 1e increases hit dice, and lowers the death threshold into the negatives.

I agree with this, but I think it was taken one step too far. DDN seems to be paring it back a little, which I'm fine with. My ideal would be starting with HP in the teens, maybe CON score as starting HP. I just see starting HP for 1st level characters in the 30s and it's too high for me.

Again -- modularity dial would be the best way to do this. I don't need Gygax level of 1d6 hit points at level 1, but the alternative doesn't need to be 33. There's a middle point there that works for me.

 

[grimslade]

Death by Housecat

D&D is about fantasy super heroes. More Batman, Green Arrow, Black Widow style than Superman, Spiderman and Thor. They are better than average citizens, or maybe the best of average citizens. Batman isn't downed by one mook in an alley, neither should a PC be downed by one lucky goblin.
I had a wizard in 1E killed by a botched Find Familiar spell. Killed by a house cat. My DM was a Dire Rat Bastard. I had several wizards die at first level under his reign by humiliating means until I earned the right to play a wizard. My fourth wizard leveled enough to die in Tomb of Horrors, and I stopped playing wizards.
I like a higher die for wizards and rogues plus Con mod in 5E. Con score + is too much, unless healing is gimped. With sufficient in combat healing and the Hit Die Surge mechanic, d6 + Con mod is good. You are more than one hit from a sub zero nap and even a great axe crit is not time for new character generation.
The long rest mechanic is too much, unless you change 'long rest' to mean several days of convalescence.

 

[Campbell]

This is a very good point. For some styles of play, it's a good thing to disconnect the PCs from community. High lethality, highly challenging old school D&D play benefits from fast PC generation. It's a waste of time to detail a character's origins or culture. PCs are young, rootless, almost certainly male, fortune seekers. They're troublemakers tbh, who would be unwelcome in most societies. They're motivated by power, wealth, and glory. That's all we need to know. That's enough to get them headed for the DM's dungeon. Personally, I don't think paladins and other altruists are a good fit for this play-style, but 1e AD&D clearly disagrees with me.

This style of D&D actually does motivation rather well, particularly considering it spends so little time on it. The player and PC motivations are the same.

Ofc for low lethality games that are concerned with other aspects of human existence than the misadventures of a bunch of psychopaths, this setup doesn't work so well.

I think the main thing is if your going to have a high level of character investment you either need more durability or need to change the assumptions of play. For example, RuneQuest PCs are fairly weak novice adventurers, but starting PCs are not assumed to venture out into hostile monster territory at first. You stay much closer to home, rely on your connections, and engage enemies on your own terms. Venturing out to where armies of monsters make their home is not the assumed method of play.

Edit: Part of my issue is that I see PCs as rational actors, at least trying to serve their self interests. It's pretty hard for me to justify the calculus of stepping deep into enemy territory facing off against an army of your equals.

 

[Fifth Element]

I agree with this, but I think it was taken one step too far. DDN seems to be paring it back a little, which I'm fine with.

Agreed. I'm no fan of high-lethality low-level games, but 4E pushed it a bit too far for my tastes.