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

[JRRNeiklot]

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.

And this bewilders me. A world full of monsters should be dangerous. If my pc is never in danger unless the dm queues the soundtrack for a boss fight, then what are all the other encounters even there for? All those other encounters are time wasted imo.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Meepo, ironically, died a brutal albeit funny death in one of our games a long time ago. Better to be remembered for a good death than a bad one! Even still, better not to die from that orc. There has to be a chance he will kill you, otherwise they aren't scary. I yearn for a game where it's not just an attrition war, some swinginess bring excitement to the game, "edge of your seat" is the phrase that comes to mind. I remember in my 4e games, virtually all the PCs took offensive feats rather than defensive ones, and we still never died.

But I do agree with AD&D HP were too low, it was a bit too swingy. 3e tried to fix it but then the math was busted at higher levels. Damage scaling means that the tough monster you're up against, if you're bloodied, you will fight more defensively or maybe even retreat. After a few dead PCs, you will learn! It'll be exciting and fresh, to have the players have the fear of their beloved PCs dying in them. Makes escaping with the rubies and gold totem and spears flying at your back really great, Indiana Jones style. "Whew, that was close. But we made it out alive! We'll be the talk of the town" is a lot more exciting than "uhhh, ok guys that was a real grind. let's rest up and go back in the dungeon in 5 minutes for the next encounter and get it over with. Surge up. I still have 2 dailies left, how about you?"

It's this expectation that encounters are "balanced" that is what's wrong here. I don't want balanced worlds, with yellow brick roads and clear level ranges for the creatures we're up against. I don't want the DM to think, is it too tough to put this dragon in here? The PCs will expect to fight it, so it's unfair to put in a colossal red dragon who could sneeze and turn them to ash". I want PCs to walk around on their tippie toes! Or they will end up elf pudding or some giant's tooth picks. There can be no real bravery when the game meta factor in to your every decision. The world doesn't feel alive then, it feels scripted. Even if it's dynamic, even with the best DM, I've only had to run maaaaybe twice, with several DMs. Because you do often hear at the table, "nah, the DM wouldn't put a paragon-level creature at us, we can't even hit it let alone beat an entire dungeon with those". I want monsters to be tough, and occasionally kick the Pcs butts. Then when you re-roll the PCs next of kin to come back and reclaim their honour, it's got meaning. Not always succeeding, and sometimes getting crushed in spectacular and brutal ways, is precisely what makes D&D, D&D.

It's like the original Prince of Persia. Still the best game of the series IMO (I worked on a few of them). It was simply shocking the suddenness of the way that traps would kill you. Really made you jump off your seat sometimes. I don't want / need carebear adventures.

 

[Son of Meepo]

And this bewilders me. A world full of monsters should be dangerous. If my pc is never in danger unless the dm queues the soundtrack for a boss fight, then what are all the other encounters even there for? All those other encounters are time wasted imo.

They are there to soften you up for the boss fight.

I have fun building optimized (but not broken) characters that increase my chance of survival and then stomping on the monsters. I play my video games on easy mode. I find that sort of experience fun and relaxing. When a PC dies, it darkens my mood for the rest of the session (whether it's mine, someone else's, or even if I'm the DM).

 

[haakon1]

Meepo, ironically, died a brutal albeit funny death in one of our games a long time ago.

It'll be exciting and fresh, to have the players have the fear of their beloved PCs dying ... Makes escaping with the rubies and gold totem and spears flying at your back really great, Indiana Jones style. "Whew, that was close. But we made it out alive! We'll be the talk of the town" is a lot more exciting ...

It's this expectation that encounters are "balanced" that is what's wrong here. I don't want balanced worlds ... The world doesn't feel alive then, it feels scripted. ... Not always succeeding, and sometimes getting crushed in spectacular and brutal ways, is precisely what makes D&D, D&D.

I agree with you, but that's not important.

Both approaches are "valid" ways to play the game, and I think 5e should try hard to accommodate both styles (as I suspect it will).

If you look at earlier/current editions:
-- Low HP start: Start at 1st level (all editions prior to 4e + Pathfinder default approach)
-- High HP start: Start at higher than 1st level in any edition, or 1st level in 4e

And of course, lethality can also be reduced by fudging dice, rerolls, DM fiat, "fate points", etc., and adventure choice. There are lots of ways.

But we all can agree on: Meepo is awesome!

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

Players should not be afraid of play. You're an adventurer, be you tough or squishy, players shouldn't be afraid of playing the game. Rule through fear is a mark of tyranny, I have played with tyrant DMs and it is NOT FUN. We should not want a system to advocates tyranny and rule through fear. Death should be a real possibility, sure, but at the same time, death should matter. Dropping characters like flies is not a playstyle that attracts many.

 

[Son of Meepo]

Agreed. It's one of the things that I thought 4e helped build into the system as best it could (more level 1 hit points, removal of save or die effects). 4e did encourage a slightly different style of play IMO.

For example, to some degree, earlier editions of D&D encouraged 'gotchas'. "You didn't check that specific 10-foot square? GOTCHA, you're dead, no save. You checked the floor but forgot to check the ceiling? SQUISH!" It exactly that attitude that Hackmaster hilariously lampooned. It's why I never really considered Tomb of Horrors to be a good adventurer, rather an extreme example of what not to do when designing a dungeon. The 4e books pretty much came out and said, "don't do this." (Take a look at the 4e version of the adventure and compare it to the original to see the difference in terms of deadliness.)

 

[Sunseeker]

Agreed. It's one of the things that I thought 4e helped build into the system as best it could (more level 1 hit points, removal of save or die effects). 4e did encourage a slightly different style of play IMO.

For example, to some degree, earlier editions of D&D encouraged 'gotchas'. "You didn't check that specific 10-foot square? GOTCHA, you're dead, no save. You checked the floor but forgot to check the ceiling? SQUISH!" It exactly that attitude that Hackmaster hilariously lampooned. It's why I never really considered Tomb of Horrors to be a good adventurer, rather an extreme example of what not to do when designing a dungeon. The 4e books pretty much came out and said, "don't do this." (Take a look at the 4e version of the adventure and compare it to the original to see the difference in terms of deadliness.)

And "deadliness" is as always, something that is easier to turn up, rather than down. Higher CR monsters, more damage output, more difficult saves; and these are almost entirely at the discretion of the DM, even when running adventures.

I for example, run "deadly" 4e games. Saves are higher, enemy defenses are tougher(but their HP lower to prevent slog), and enemies hit harder(+5 per tier at least). So a generic soldier who did 1d6+2(avg 5 dmg) will now be doing on the order of 1d8+7(avg 11) for their at-will. 2d8+10 for encounters/dailies, with powerful secondary effects. It's not unsurprising for a player to lose half their health in a single attack, but that's enough to get their attention and make them play smarter, without simply killing their character and telling them to reroll...so they can what? Do it again? How is that fun?
-On the same note, players are equally as likely to drop one of my NPCs with a single encounter or daily, with the latter often leading to overkill. But it allows me to run larger, more intimidating forces without the usual 4e grind.