Healing Surges innate Blessed band aids

[med stud]

So, you would consider these characters 1st level or so?

If you try to put words in my mouth, please provide a description as to why I would think something.

So, why would I think they were level 1?

 

[Storm-Bringer]

If you try to put words in my mouth, please provide a description as to why I would think something.

So, why would I think they were level 1?

It was a question. I am asking if you think those are first level characters.

 

[med stud]

It was a question. I am asking if you think those are first level characters.

No, they are probably pretty high level.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

I haven't seen that. The example of John McClane is used to show that most wounds incurred by the protagonist in movies "are merely flesh wounds."

Which is a bad comparison. John McClane will never get anything but 'flesh wounds'. He is the protagonist. He simply can't die. That is the purpose of a movie. You don't interact with it. It isn't a game.

And what is being remedied by making first level characters more survivable is the "start at X level" situation. There have been plenty of games that simply started at 3rd level, as an example, because that was the beginning of the "sweet spot." The spot where survivability and playability met.

There is nothing inherent to first level that makes survivability more difficult.

Just so that you know, the boost in survivability also applies to the opposition. Take a look at a Human Guard 1st level skirmisher and you will see that it applies to their end too. Making the challenge fit the opposition makes the "sweet spot" better. If your group only encounters one solitary guard you can easily and quite correctly assume that the power level of PCs is overwhelming and not what you really want. But when you start looking at the actual rules for building encounters you will see that taking on 4-6 guards is not going to be the cake-walk you are estimating and riling up against.

If hit points and attack damage inflate in exactly the same way for everyone, what has changed? For example, if everything in the US started costing ten times as much, but your income was also increased tenfold, what is the difference?

I'm sorry superheros are in aisle five. You mean like mid-high level D&D?

The point is that D&D in incarnations before 3e was not necessarily super heroes but at mid to high level the characters were head and shoulders over the competition. But at high level playability was horrid.

In 3e, the characters were slightly more survivable at lower levels (more hit points) but the one hit wonders were really bad. Oh, that orc just critted you with his falchion, bye bye rogue. At mid to high level the PCs didn't have that problem so much but the one hit wonders still existed. And to top it off high level playability was still horrid. And if there is one edition that can be considered the Justice League my vote is for 3e.

That is simply playing the odds and losing. That happens in a game. If player gambles that they can take out an orc before they are taken out themselves, there are odds they will and odds they won't. Sometimes the roll is seven, sometimes the roll is craps.

4e attempts to level the curve so that playability is maintained at all levels. So the curve has to be flattened. High level play will still be super heroes but low to mid level are now balanced for survival. They've shifted the sweet spot so that levels 1-4 still provide fun without swingy deaths from random chance.

Color me red, but I prefer to have a game that plays great at all levels than one that only does so from level 4 to level 12.

While this may be a viable strategy, it is hardly the only design that would allow that. There is no requirement for the curve to be flattened to achieve the goals stated.

I don't think that John McClane is a first level character but I don't think that the first level characters we've seen are nearly as bad ass as John McClane.

See if you want your characters to be bums from the git go, then all you have to do is increase the opposition. In previous editions the players that wanted more capable characters started at a higher level. So now all you have to do is start the opposition at a higher level to give the same feel in the opposite direction.

Or, if you want your characters to be heroes from the get go, you can decrease the opposition. It works both ways.

You're right I'm all for supporting a style of game that makes it fun to actually play. If that is off-putting I'm sorry. I guess we'll always have 3e.

No, that style of play isn't off-putting. The One True Wayism is what is off-putting. It shows a contempt for other gamers and their enjoyment.

However, more and more the examples I am reading seem not to point to a failing of rules, but to sub-par DMing. Possibly a communication problem. If a DM is throwing ogres and giants at a first level party, that is clearly not because the rules require it, or that the rules don't prevent it. Perhaps the expectations weren't clearly explained; the DM may be expecting the party to try running away, but the players assume the DM isn't going to kill them off. While the rules can contribute to problems like these, I don't believe that they are the root cause. Since they aren't the root cause, changes to the rules won't properly address the issues of low level play. A DM that throws giants at a first level party in previous editions will throw dragons at a first level party in the new edition. Challenge Ratings were a rough estimate of what is appropriate, just like 'Solo' and 'Elite' are rough estimates. Nothing about these prevents bad DMing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Which is a bad comparison. John McClane will never get anything but 'flesh wounds'. He is the protagonist. He simply can't die. That is the purpose of a movie. You don't interact with it. It isn't a game.

That's true for John McClane, yes. But if I wanted to ... "emulate" the feel of Die Hard? (without preserving the guarantee for a Happy End, but at least rigging it so that it's a reasonable outcome?)
Would I use a system that allows for instant death and a slow healing rate or possibly a death spiral? Would I use a system that makes any kind of injury very unlikely? Or do I use a system that uses a quick recovery from damage?

There is nothing inherent to first level that makes survivability more difficult.

7 hit points vs. 2d4+2 (18-20 x2) seems like a good example for low survivability at 1st level. (Level 1 Rogue attacked by a CR 1/2 Orc). But see below or previous posts.

If hit points and attack damage inflate in exactly the same way for everyone, what has changed? For example, if everything in the US started costing ten times as much, but your income was also increased tenfold, what is the difference?

Nothing would have changed. But we're discussing 4E, right? Hit points have increased. Damage has not. A 1st level Fighter deals still something around 1d8+5 points of damage, against 25 hp Kobold Skirmishers. Or 1d8+5 hit points vs "close-to-zero" hp Kobold Minions.

That is simply playing the odds and losing. That happens in a game. If player gambles that they can take out an orc before they are taken out themselves, there are odds they will and odds they won't. Sometimes the roll is seven, sometimes the roll is craps.


While this may be a viable strategy, it is hardly the only design that would allow that. There is no requirement for the curve to be flattened to achieve the goals stated.


Or, if you want your characters to be heroes from the get go, you can decrease the opposition. It works both ways.

To bring up the Orc example again? How much can you decrease the opposition? I could exchange the Orc with a single Kobolds. That's probably as low as it get.
But do you realy want to run fights that only consists of lonely Kobolds? Or doesn't a fight against 8 Kobolds a lot more exciting?
This isn't an MMORPG, where you send out a scout to attract a single monster (thanks to simple aggro or line of sight rules) and then the whole party focuses its fire on it.

No, that style of play isn't off-putting. The One True Wayism is what is off-putting. It shows a contempt for other gamers and their enjoyment.

However, more and more the examples I am reading seem not to point to a failing of rules, but to sub-par DMing. Possibly a communication problem. If a DM is throwing ogres and giants at a first level party, that is clearly not because the rules require it, or that the rules don't prevent it. Perhaps the expectations weren't clearly explained; the DM may be expecting the party to try running away, but the players assume the DM isn't going to kill them off. While the rules can contribute to problems like these, I don't believe that they are the root cause. Since they aren't the root cause, changes to the rules won't properly address the issues of low level play. A DM that throws giants at a first level party in previous editions will throw dragons at a first level party in the new edition. Challenge Ratings were a rough estimate of what is appropriate, just like 'Solo' and 'Elite' are rough estimates. Nothing about these prevents bad DMing.

Who is talking about throwing Giants or Dragons at 1st level party? The example I've just read before your post discussed an Orc armed with a Falchion! That's totally within the expectations for 1st level play - and possibly totally deadly for a Rogue or Wizard.

 

[D'karr]

Thanks MR, you saved me the effort of doing all that typing.

I'll just reiterate a point. In 4e the 1st level characters are more survivable. That does not mean that they are invincible or indestructible. It just means that they can take more than one heavy hit, which was usually not the case in previous editions.

The hyperbole of giants against first level characters is what usually gets used around here when the point you are trying to make is weak or not valid. An orc with a falchion was my example and I've seen it more than once be a killer against first level rogues, wizards, sorcerers and even a cleric once.

That kind of damage pendulum makes the game very deadly at lower levels and that is one thing that 4e remedies. It doesn't necessarily make the game less deadly. It just flattens that damage curve so that you can take more than one hit and still survive. You can't take that abuse indefinitely, and against the new combat paradigm which is multiple opponents you still have to be very careful. But being able to take more than one hit is a good thing.

Yes, John McClane is the protagonist of a movie and will only take flesh wounds. In D&D the PCs are the protagonist of the adventure the difference is that they don't get plot immunity. And if your PCs are not the protagonists of your adventures then I can see why some are complaining.

If you had gone to see Die Hard and John McClane had died from the first shot fired at him the movie would have lasted 17:10 minutes and people going to see the movie would have felt ripped off. If an evening session kills Kenny the wizard from the first crossbow bolt shot at him by a kobold I'm pretty sure that Kenny' player would feel pretty ripped off too. "You bastards you killed Kenny!!!"

So what does 4e do? It allows Kenny to survive that first shot, take a step back regroup (use second wind) and then blast the heck out of that pesky kobold. He also goes and gets behind some cover. If 6-7 kobolds are targetting Kenny, he'll probably still die. But hey at least he goes out like Boromir, instead of like chump #1.

So the new mechanics serve the game better because they make the fun parts of the game more fun, by leveling the playing field. And because now you face more creatures per encounter it also makes the game more fluid and tactical. Do you show your head around that cover and get it shot to hell by those 7 kobold archers or do you cast mage hand and lift that mirror to peek without getting shot. Or do you step right out and cast a burst that ends up killing 4 of the 7 kobolds.

I prefer my high fantasy heroic adventure to feel like one. 4e seems to do that pretty well.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

That's true for John McClane, yes. But if I wanted to ... "emulate" the feel of Die Hard? (without preserving the guarantee for a Happy End, but at least rigging it so that it's a reasonable outcome?)
Would I use a system that allows for instant death and a slow healing rate or possibly a death spiral? Would I use a system that makes any kind of injury very unlikely? Or do I use a system that uses a quick recovery from damage?

Then you probably want a more skill based system where you can set the number of points to generate a character. Not just D&D, but any class and level system is geared to fragile low level characters. There are ways around that, but there are certain conventions inherent to the genre.


7 hit points vs. 2d4+2 (18-20 x2) seems like a good example for low survivability at 1st level. (Level 1 Rogue attacked by a CR 1/2 Orc). But see below or previous posts.

Nothing would have changed. But we're discussing 4E, right? Hit points have increased. Damage has not. A 1st level Fighter deals still something around 1d8+5 points of damage, against 25 hp Kobold Skirmishers. Or 1d8+5 hit points vs "close-to-zero" hp Kobold Minions.

So, with my pay analogy, your taxes have somewhat decreased. That Kobold Skirmisher is down in about three hits, on average. Roughly comparable with previous editions. Presumably there will be fewer Kobold Skirmishers than standard kobolds to fight.

To bring up the Orc example again? How much can you decrease the opposition? I could exchange the Orc with a single Kobolds. That's probably as low as it get.
But do you realy want to run fights that only consists of lonely Kobolds? Or doesn't a fight against 8 Kobolds a lot more exciting?

A fight is exciting when there is a chance you will lose, but survive through cleverness and teamwork. Sometimes, the DM has to fudge that a bit. They may have a penalty to damage for poor quality weapons. Maybe they have a penalty to attack rolls from bright light. There are dozens of ways to legitimately decrease the 'lethality' of an encounter before the DM has to resort to fudging dice.

This isn't an MMORPG, where you send out a scout to attract a single monster (thanks to simple aggro or line of sight rules) and then the whole party focuses its fire on it.

Why not? It's a tried and true tactic. Sun Tzu extolled its virtues.

Who is talking about throwing Giants or Dragons at 1st level party? The example I've just read before your post discussed an Orc armed with a Falchion! That's totally within the expectations for 1st level play - and possibly totally deadly for a Rogue or Wizard.

Yes, and I was saying that if the DM is throwing inappropriate challenges at the players, it doesn't matter what edition you use. If the players assume they have total script immunity, but the DM wants them to retreat, there is a conflict that isn't covered by any ruleset. They could be fighting orcs, giants, dragons or gods. If the expectations of the DM and players don't match, you can't adjudicate the solution.

 

[D'karr]

Then you probably want a more skill based system where you can set the number of points to generate a character. Not just D&D, but any class and level system is geared to fragile low level characters. There are ways around that, but there are certain conventions inherent to the genre.

No, I think that 4e fits the bill just right.

A fight is exciting when there is a chance you will lose, but survive through cleverness and teamwork. Sometimes, the DM has to fudge that a bit. They may have a penalty to damage for poor quality weapons. Maybe they have a penalty to attack rolls from bright light. There are dozens of ways to legitimately decrease the 'lethality' of an encounter before the DM has to resort to fudging dice.

And since nobody has said that those things are not doable in 4e I fail to see your point. Nobody has mentioned anything about fudging dice.

Why not? It's a tried and true tactic. Sun Tzu extolled its virtues.

Sure, I don't see why you can't send someone to bring the opposition to the battleground of your choosing.

Yes, and I was saying that if the DM is throwing inappropriate challenges at the players, it doesn't matter what edition you use. If the players assume they have total script immunity, but the DM wants them to retreat, there is a conflict that isn't covered by any ruleset. They could be fighting orcs, giants, dragons or gods. If the expectations of the DM and players don't match, you can't adjudicate the solution.

Since I was not talking about inappropriate challenges I once again fail to see your point. Two orcs with falchions are an appropriate challenge for a 1st level party. There is nothing to adjudicate. This has nothing to do with DM fiat.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Isn't this where you usually reference one of your ridiculous 'laws' that have no standing outside of your gaming table?

Trying to mock hong is like trying to drown water,

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Trying to mock hong is like trying to drown water,

Yes Hong just doesn't stop, just ignore him it's not like he's said much worth hearing since the announcement anyway.