D&D 5E First Level Hit Points Need to Increase

[Kavon]

And I'd be less likely to play if the possibility DIDN'T exist. The problem is not low hit points. It's the length of combat. Ideally, getting one shotted should keep you out of action 10-15 minutes. Which is also how long creating a new character should take.

While this might work for some play styles, I don't think that I would enjoy this newly made character automagically appearing at the end of combat and being best life-long buddies with the rest of the party for no reason.

The player had an idea they wanted to play out with the character, and perhaps invested quite some time in its story. The DM integrated the character in their campaign plans. The new character has to be introduced to the old party (which is sometimes not a feasible thing to do right away, depending on where the party is. The player of the recently deceased character needs to figure out something interesting on the spot.

While I like to have the players crap their pants in a tough encounter, I'd also like to have them have a little more protection against death, because in the games I play it's not so simple as just rolling generic Joe #216, who joins up with generic Bob, generic Bill, generic Charlie and generic Phil only because generic Joe #215 just died.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong with playing with (what it seems to me) disposable characters, but please consider that there's people who get emotionally attached to characters they invest time and energy in. I've seen players get so down from their character's death that they lost all motivation in continuing the campaign, essentially killing it because they show up less and less.

I will agree, though, that the encounter time has been far too lengthy in recent editions of the game.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

seems our problem is solved...

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Why not? The bad guys generally have prisoners or slaves, and there's always the odd adventurer who fell prey to a trap or something. And a pc death is a good time for a henchman to get a promotion.

The player had an idea they wanted to play out with the character, and perhaps invested quite some time in its story. The DM integrated the character in their campaign plans. The new character has to be introduced to the old party (which is sometimes not a feasible thing to do right away, depending on where the party is. The player of the recently deceased character needs to figure out something interesting on the spot.

While I like to have the players crap their pants in a tough encounter, I'd also like to have them have a little more protection against death, because in the games I play it's not so simple as just rolling generic Joe #216, who joins up with generic Bob, generic Bill, generic Charlie and generic Phil only because generic Joe #215 just died.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong with playing with (what it seems to me) disposable characters, but please consider that there's people who get emotionally attached to characters they invest time and energy in. I've seen players get so down from their character's death that they lost all motivation in continuing the campaign, essentially killing it because they show up less and less.

I will agree, though, that the encounter time has been far too lengthy in recent editions of the game.

I don't like my characters dying either, but if there's not a decent chance of it happening, then surviving is meaningless and I'll be snoring 10 minutes into the game session.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't like my characters dying either, but if there's not a decent chance of it happening, then surviving is meaningless and I'll be snoring 10 minutes into the game session.

There seem to be two conversations going on in this thread. The first is about mechanics and their interactions, hit points vs spell damage. The second is about challenge, which is something above and beyond the game mechanics.

 

[Son of Meepo]

I don't like my characters dying either, but if there's not a decent chance of it happening, then surviving is meaningless and I'll be snoring 10 minutes into the game session.

If characters have to die, I want it to be meaningful. Having your PC killed in a wandering monster encounter because the monster rolled a lucky crit doesn't add excitement to my game, it makes me feel like my time was wasted.

 

[Son of Meepo]

There seem to be two conversations going on in this thread. The first is about mechanics and their interactions, hit points vs spell damage. The second is about challenge, which is something above and beyond the game mechanics.

Not exactly. The conversation started about whether first level characters should be so fragile that they should constantly fear death is just around the corner. I disliked that feeling about early editions of the game. Personally I like the 4th edition's take where even level 1 PCs are far above the average person (who is most likely a low-level minion). The hit point mechanics do have a big effect on this, even after 4e underwent significant damage inflation later in its life to help speed up combat.

 

[Kavon]

Why not? The bad guys generally have prisoners or slaves, and there's always the odd adventurer who fell prey to a trap or something. And a pc death is a good time for a henchman to get a promotion.

And what if they're on a desolate wasteland being harried by the local overgrown wildlife with no henchmen in sight, just to name an example off the top of my head?

The people I've played with throughout the years have never had henchmen – the only NPC's to tag along were always fully under the DM's control, and then only for story reasons and were just as likely to be on their own merry way after a few sessions (and none of us would consider taking over this NPC as a PC, since that would mess up the DM's intentions).
While it would be nice to be able to, like you said, create a new character by the time the fight is over, for groups like the ones I know, introducing the new PC to the rest of the party requires a little more work than simply having its stats on paper.

I don't like my characters dying either, but if there's not a decent chance of it happening, then surviving is meaningless and I'll be snoring 10 minutes into the game session.

If enemies are supposed to basically one-shot player characters, you might as well just give them 1 to 4 hit points (with that I mean wizards get 1, barbarians get 4) – or would that be going too far?
What constitutes "a decent chance" differs from person to person, table to table. The amount of safety nets the system gives you should depend on what the group wants.

 

[Gorgoroth]

If characters have to die, I want it to be meaningful. Having your PC killed in a wandering monster encounter because the monster rolled a lucky crit doesn't add excitement to my game, it makes me feel like my time was wasted.

Why didn't your character run away? Why didn't the cleric heal him? Why didn't he buy better armor? Or learn to sneak around so as to avoid getting snarfed. Sudden death for no reason is precisely why you take such measures to survive better, that's part of the game! I saw characters die for dumb reasons and in great, epic, novel-like moments. Why should every PC death necesserily be epic? Are all character's actions epic, and worthy of a bard's tale? No.

I say let the dice decide your fate. If not, it's just a chose your own adventure. You tame the game when you remove all randomness. There are ways to boost your survivability, and if you fail at those but still wander off into that perilous forest...why does your character deserve to survive, again? Good men don't win in the end, and bad ones aren't punished.

The whole 4e-mentality of your get narrative epic deaths each time takes the meaning out of it, because if it all deaths are meaningful then none are. Some truly aren't. Bad stuff happens. Open up a beer, roll a new guy, and try again! I'm sure your old party mates will dig a fine grave. It would get really tedious if PCs could only die when their deaths can only be described using colourful, floury prose. I want my PC to be able to die in a ditch somewhere, for no good reason, like so many in real life even, so that when he does die right before saving the known universe, it feels special. The dice and RAW mechanics are 50% of what gives the game meaning. The rest is story. If you make the mechanics so fluffy so as to prevent random PC death, it makes the game feel like it's on rails like a child's pop up story book.

No thanks.

 

[Son of Meepo]

Why didn't your character run away? Why didn't the cleric heal him? Why didn't he buy better armor? Or learn to sneak around so as to avoid getting snarfed.

Orc won initiative. Orc charged and critted for 4d4+8 damage, taking my level 1 PC from 8 hit points to -10 (and dead) on an average roll.

Also I don't want to have to keep sneaking around or running away. That isn't fun for me. It's clear that you and I want totally different games. I want one where the chance of death is low. I like hack-and-slash munchkin gaming where I'm expected to win. I like to kick open doors, kill stuff, and loot the bodies. I want a system that supports my style of play without having to start at mid level.

 

[Celebrim]

If characters have to die, I want it to be meaningful. Having your PC killed in a wandering monster encounter because the monster rolled a lucky crit doesn't add excitement to my game, it makes me feel like my time was wasted.

If that is really what you want, and I'm at least entertaining the possibility that you want several mutually contridictory things, then you don't want a game with hit points at all and you probably don't want one with any sort battle map, combat powers, or tactics. Such a system that could deliver on meaningful death would be really cool (how to do it doesn't immediately occur to me), but at some point I think it would stretch the definition of 'game'. If you have the possibility of losing a contest, then there is the possibility that your death will be meaningless. It's worth noting that in a typical heroic narrative, any death by the hero prior to the anticlimax is meaningless. Characters can die in the heroic narrative, but only after having achieved their goal or else the death is meaningless. One problem this raises in the context of an RPG is rarely have I ever seen a situation where the player really achieved something deeply meaningful, where the player was also now satisfied to end it there with a beloved character rather than telling another story. Generally, you have to reach a point where you set out with the goal of telling the story how the character died, and that requires some foreknowledge on the part of the player (which tends to make it less fun).