D&D/Saga Edition: Additional Hitpoints at 1st Level...

[hong]

To be truthful, there are only a few things that really drive the 1st level push for me: I'd rather the PCs not have access to second level spells right off the bat. I don't want PCs to start off with second level or third level special abilities at the start of their careers, but rather grow into them. I don't want to start with the potential for multiclassed characters. It's that kind of thing.

By the time you're 10th level, all that business will be a distant, distant memory.

 

[Flynn]

An approach that I've seen work well is to allow characters to remain conscious to their negative con modifier and die at thier negative con score. Characters are still disabled at 0.

For example:

Con: 14
Unconscious: -3
Dead: -14

The low levels tend to go very quickly, so if you want to slow it down a little to give players time to grow into their abilities, I suggest going with the +10 HP you considered.

Thanks to the greatness of Grim Tales, I already use this Staggered/Dying/Death variant. It works pretty good.

Thanks,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

That would get hard to adjudicate, since reducing your CON score reduces your hit points and so should quickly kill a character who was already on 0 HP. Also, you've preserved the character through this battle, but now he's going to be incredibly fragile for any further combats for days to come, so in the long term you're simply exacerbating the problem.

I have to agree. I couldn't put my finger on what was bothering me about this particular suggestion, but I think you hit the nail on the head here.

Thanks,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

Have you considered the Gestalt rules from Unearthed Arcana? They make the characters more durable, without giving them access to key abilities any earlier.

I hadn't considered this before, but I have to admit that my first impression of these rules were not exactly good. I'll reread them, but I fear they may not contain what I'm looking for.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

By the time you're 10th level, all that business will be a distant, distant memory.

Yeah, but my son's never played through 1st level (heck, he's only played the Basic Game's scenario so far), and I want to give that experience to him.

Thanks,
Flynn

 

[Henry]

The average orc from the SRD bears a falchion and deals 2d4+4 damage, for an average of 9 damage (min 4, max 12), if he hits. Assuming that the average PC with a HD of 1d4, 1d6 or 1d8, maxed out, will go down with a single hit, and the 1d10 and 1d12 aren't loving life, either. I don't like that, just because that kind of thing can kill a game in the first session.

Were you around for 3rd edition when orcs were by default equipped with Greataxes? 3d12+9 on a crit hit was living in some interesting times, let me tell you...

 

[Flynn]

Were you around for 3rd edition when orcs were by default equipped with Greataxes? 3d12+9 on a crit hit was living in some interesting times, let me tell you...

Yep, that's why I mentioned orcs with greataxes in my original discussions. It wasn't until I went to the SRD for orcs to get the strength score that I noticed they used different weapons now, and so used the current SRD values in my previous post.

Reading the SECR previews and remembering a bad encounter with an orc that ended a campaign before it ever really got started was the ultimate inspiration for this particular thread, actually.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[JohnSnow]

Flynn, I actually have some feedback for you where I'm not going to just tell you not to do it. First off, I think it's a great idea, and I have a few suggestions for how you should go about it. Second, there are some things you need to consider when making a change like this. Third, it is my considered opinion that you're on the forefront of a trend. More on that later. Now, on to my suggestions, and the things that I think you might want to consider.

Rather than giving characters 3 HD, simply give them a larger number of starting hit points, just as Saga does. That prevents you from having to worry about the side effects of extra hit dice. Bob the fighter doesn't have (3d10 + 2) hit points, he simply starts with 32 hit points. Which means he's more durable.

Increasing hit points this way tends to prolong character "staying power." Rather than having to give up after 4 CR-appropriate encounters, 1st level characters could be able to handle 2-3x that number, or alternatively, handle a couple of tougher encounters without having to pack up and go home.

That said, you're more likely to have characters running out of spells than hit points. That's already something of a problem, with most adventuring days ending when the wizard is out of spells, as opposed to when the party is out of hit points. That's not necessarily bad, but it's certainly worth keeping in mind. For the record, something like this has been done before, with some of the 1e character classes (Ranger and Monk, IIRC).

Now, as to why I think it's a good idea, and why I think you're on the forefront of a trend. Starting games at the point where the characters are so fragile that they need to be handled with kid gloves is less than fun. If slightly more durable characters allow you to have more fun right away, that is, in my opinion, a good thing. Given the number of people who start games at Level 3 now, I suspect that Fourth Edition, when it comes out, will attempt to create characters that aren't quite so fragile. If almost nobody's playing Level 1, there's no reason the game should start there. I think the designers at WotC realize this, and I think that's WHY Saga gives the hit point kicker at Level 1. Because if you needed 3 hit dice to be able to deal with stormtroopers, everyone would just create 3rd-level characters to start with. And if nobody plays through them, what's the point of Level 1 & 2?

Basically, it's beginning to seem that if your goal is to keep the game fun, the progression curve needs to be flattened out a bit. People talk all the time about D&D's "sweet spot." Characters need to be a little more powerful to start with and have that advancement level off as they go up in level. The designers (at WotC anyway) are starting to realize that the untapped design space for "cool stuff" is in the lower-mid levels where most gaming takes place.

We even have a few folks here who've launched a project to preserve and extend the game's "sweet spot." So I applaud you for this decision.

Personally, I am of the opinion that when Fourth Edition materializes, it will be designed so that you'll be at most a few levels from reaching play that feels like the sweet spot, and be able to stay there for most of the campaign.

That expands the fun. And that's a Good Thing (TM).

My two coppers.

 

[Flynn]

Now, as to why I think it's a good idea, and why I think you're on the forefront of a trend. Starting games at the point where the characters are so fragile that they need to be handled with kid gloves is less than fun. If slightly more durable characters allow you to have more fun right away, that is, in my opinion, a good thing. Given the number of people who start games at Level 3 now, I suspect that Fourth Edition, when it comes out, will attempt to create characters that aren't quite so fragile. If almost nobody's playing Level 1, there's no reason the game should start there. I think the designers at WotC realize this, and I think that's WHY Saga gives the hit point kicker at Level 1. Because if you needed 3 hit dice to be able to deal with stormtroopers, everyone would just create 3rd-level characters to start with. And if nobody plays through them, what's the point of Level 1 & 2?

Basically, it's beginning to seem that if your goal is to keep the game fun, the progression curve needs to be flattened out a bit. People talk all the time about D&D's "sweet spot." Characters need to be a little more powerful to start with and have that advancement level off as they go up in level. The designers (at WotC anyway) are starting to realize that the untapped design space for "cool stuff" is in the lower-mid levels where most gaming takes place.

We even have a few folks here who've launched a project to preserve and extend the game's "sweet spot." So I applaud you for this decision.

Personally, I am of the opinion that when Fourth Edition materializes, it will be designed so that you'll be at most a few levels from reaching play that feels like the sweet spot, and be able to stay there for most of the campaign.

That expands the fun. And that's a Good Thing (TM).

My two coppers.

JohnSnow,

You are someone who actually "gets it", i.e. understands the elusive goal I'm pining for. I think you have a great grasp of what I'm looking for and why. Thanks for putting it into words for me.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[JohnSnow]

JohnSnow,

You are someone who actually "gets it", i.e. understands the elusive goal I'm pining for. I think you have a great grasp of what I'm looking for and why. Thanks for putting it into words for me.

With Regards,
Flynn

My pleasure. Personally, I think we're in the vanguard of a new movement I like to call:

"D&D - More Fun Than it Used to Be!"

I dislike arcane management of silly things and game elements that exist for no reason other than that "Gary thought it would be fun in 1974." Yes, this makes me something of a D&D radical. Some of the sacred cows I like. Others, I'd like to see shot.

There's a not more of us than you think. Wulf Ratbane (Bad Axe Games) has started various threads on Enworld about questioning some of the game's assumptions to expand the "sweet spot" of D&D. Ryan "RangerWickett" Nock (EN Publishing) also seems to be doing design along the realm of making things more "fun."

Even some of WotC's designers seem to get it too. Mike Mearls rewrote many of the games assumptions when he designed Iron Heroes and came up with mechanics to let warriors be cooler in the Tome of Battle. Rodney Thompson and Gary Sarli have done a fair amount to address some of the issues in rewriting Star Wars Saga Edition. Even Andy Collins has begun to realize that it's more fun to have more encounters than to have to stop playing for no reason. WotC also finally seems to have realized that they need to add more "cool stuff" at the lower and middle levels where people actually play most of the time.

That said, not everyone agrees on what the right fixes are. But it's reassuring to realize there are professional game designers who realize that fixes need to occur. Personally, I think opening dialogue on the topic is an excellent idea. So I applaud your idea. I've thought about trying to "Saga-ize" my D&D game in order to make it more customizable, more fun and more exciting, but it's quite a daunting task.