"Heroes Aren't Special"?

Jack Daniel

Legend
In 0D&D, player characters' stats were determined by a simple, organic method. Roll 3d6, and that's your STR. Do it again, that's your INT. So on down the line for WIS, DEX, CON, and CHA.

AD&D made an odd change, but apparently one warranted because it was how players and DMs actually ran their games, of introducing multiple methods for generating characters. "Method I" was the organic method, described above. All the other methods involved either rolling more stats and selecting the better numbers, rolling all of one's stats and arranging to taste, adding up "points plus dice" (an unusal method where all stats started at 8, and the player distributed 7 separate d6 rolls among these stats, and one that actually served my own group very well during our happy 2nd edition days), and of course the famous 4d6-drop-lowest that became standard for 3e.

It was the AD&D 2nd edition rules that actually described the method and philosophy behind having different rules for character creation: if the DM wanted to keep his campaign in line with traditional swords and sorcery tropes, heroes weren't special. They were just braver or more foolhardy than the ordinary peasant. Characters would then be rolled under Method I. Each subsequent method pushed the player characters closer and closer to high fantasy super-heroes, the rationale being that adventurers were among the more talented (stronger, smarter, generally better than ordinary) people in the world. As if already being a fighter or a magic-user weren't enough.

This latter rationale became standard in 3rd edition. Sure, the old methods were there in an obscure section of the DMG, but players expected their characters to be above average, in relation to that "commoner average" that the 3e game designers touted, where the average commoner had stats of all 10s and 11s (and therefore mods of +0). PC heroes also got to maximize their first hit die, whereas all the past incarnations of D&D rolled HP at 1st level (though, again, the change was clearly warranted here, since most DMs had either a max hp or a "kicker" house rule already).

Now we have 4th edition, and it doesn't even pretend that the player characters are on the same plane as mortals. Triple hit points, set ability scores that guarantee high numbers, and that's before we even start dealing with powers. Actually, I think powers are cool---the best aspect of 4e that I've seen. What turns me off are the baseline assumptions. You can't have PCs rise from obscurity anymore. They practically have to start the game at what D&D used to call 4th level. They begin as heroes without even having earned that much.

So, here's my question: from what I've seen of 4e, all of the combat encounters are pretty tightly balanced, and the word on the street is that the game can be unmercifully lethal if the players aren't prepared to think tactically. Okay, fine. But what would a game of 4e look like where ability scores are rolled on 3d6 down the line, and hit points are actually determined at random, without a 1st level kicker? Can it be done, or will the PCs just have their backsides handed to them by the first orc minion they run across?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Now we have 4th edition, and it doesn't even pretend that the player characters are on the same plane as mortals. Triple hit points, set ability scores that guarantee high numbers, and that's before we even start dealing with powers. Actually, I think powers are cool---the best aspect of 4e that I've seen. What turns me off are the baseline assumptions. You can't have PCs rise from obscurity anymore. They practically have to start the game at what D&D used to call 4th level. They begin as heroes without even having earned that much.
Are we comparing to townsfok or monsters?

Monster in 4th have just as much hps on average as PCs.
PCs in 3rd had more hps than monsters on average (Kobold, etc).

So, here's my question: from what I've seen of 4e, all of the combat encounters are pretty tightly balanced, and the word on the street is that the game can be unmercifully lethal if the players aren't prepared to think tactically. Okay, fine. But what would a game of 4e look like where ability scores are rolled on 3d6 down the line, and hit points are actually determined at random, without a 1st level kicker? Can it be done, or will the PCs just have their backsides handed to them by the first orc minion they run across?

Will the monsters now roll hps/take average( Method in 3rd edition) too?
I'd say that the hp rolling might hurt alot. Same for 3rd (never rolled at 1st in 3rd).
 

Orc minions would be tougher, but not impossibly so; 4E monsters, without the same alterations, would murder the "nonheroic" PCs. It would be like starting out as Level 1 Commoners in 3E -- maybe worse, as 3E 1 hit dice monsters can be lucky-shotted. Warhammer PCs would be more resilient... :)
 

So, here's my question: from what I've seen of 4e, all of the combat encounters are pretty tightly balanced, and the word on the street is that the game can be unmercifully lethal if the players aren't prepared to think tactically. Okay, fine. But what would a game of 4e look like where ability scores are rolled on 3d6 down the line, and hit points are actually determined at random, without a 1st level kicker? Can it be done, or will the PCs just have their backsides handed to them by the first orc minion they run across?

4E PCs don't actually have a whole lot more hp nor better stats than NPC combatants of similar level - just more powers and gear.

So I would say yes, as long as you adjust monster/NPC stats similarly to the way you adjust PC stats (reduced attack bonus, defenses, hp, and damage totals), it would work fine. Or you could just reduce attacks and defenses and use fewer monsters per fight than the 1-1 assumed in 4E encounter design.
 

IBut what would a game of 4e look like where ability scores are rolled on 3d6 down the line, and hit points are actually determined at random, without a 1st level kicker?

It'd be fine. It might work better in 4E than in some of the earlier editions, in that there are no minimum stat requirements for any of the classes or races.


Cheers,
Roger
 

... if the DM wanted to keep his campaign in line with traditional swords and sorcery tropes, heroes weren't special.
Of course the heroes in swords-and-sorcery fiction were special. They were the protagonists and thus had plot protection.

They were just braver or more foolhardy than the ordinary peasant.
And they had plot protection.

Each subsequent method pushed the player characters closer and closer to high fantasy super-heroes, the rationale being that adventurers were among the more talented (stronger, smarter, generally better than ordinary) people in the world.
D&D characters need higher stats to compensate for their lack of plot protection. This is a crucial difference between fictional characters and their D&D counterparts.

But what would a game of 4e look like where ability scores are rolled on 3d6 down the line, and hit points are actually determined at random, without a 1st level kicker?
Nasty, brutish, short.
 

If you rolled 3d6 for stats in 4e, you're players better pray that they get lucky with their rolls. I'm pretty much convinced that all classes except for a striker needs at least a 16 in their primary attack stat; the striker needs an 18 or 20.
 

4e PCs don't have triple hit points. They are on the same scale as monsters and NPCs, generally. The system was changed to allow for significant play at 1st level. It's not a change in focus, just a change in mechanics. An orc is still a threat at 1st level, but the room for significant play has been increased. An orc can't kill the wizard with a single shot, the fighter can't kill the orc in one round. You have combats at first level in 4e and without half the party going down every fight.

4e responded, and about time, to the way people played the game (as the changes you talk about came about). I love first level play, starting the PCs from the beginning. I've even ran 0 level play in 2e and 3e. But my players hated starting at 1st level, it's too lethal, too slow, too much stab-heal-rest and too much spell-spell-crossbow to be much fun. Not to mention the extreme limits in quality of opponents you can face at 1st level, 1d3 rats doesn't generally get the gaming blood pumping.

Point is, trying to make the changes you suggest wouldn't work very well because the entire game is balanced around a different mechanical representation of the same assumption. 1st level characters are still at the beginning of their heroic exploits, there is just some room to play. They're not badasses unless your group just plays them as such. They can just as easily model that farmboy who walked away from the plow. 3d6 would likely result in characters who can't hit the ACs of 1st level monsters over 75% of the time. While the monsters, unchanged, would hit at an increased rate because their defenses would be lower from lower stats. The game would be very lethal if you did that, and if you just added low rolled hit points on top, it would be a rare PC that survived 1st level.

You would have to lower ACs and hit points of the monsters in a similar fashion to maintain any kind of game balance, and then I would ask what's the point? Rebalancing the whole game to accomplish in the end what is already there, just with lowered numbers, seems a waste of time.
 

Now we have 4th edition, and it doesn't even pretend that the player characters are on the same plane as mortals. Triple hit points, set ability scores that guarantee high numbers, and that's before we even start dealing with powers. Actually, I think powers are cool---the best aspect of 4e that I've seen. What turns me off are the baseline assumptions. You can't have PCs rise from obscurity anymore.

Nobody said they didn't rise from obscurity, that can easily be in the character's history. But I think D&D is a game where the players are heroic. That's kind of the basic flavor of the game, in both it's presentation and mechanics. I think there are many players who look for D&D to be the everything game. Some games are just better for simulating an everyday-man experience.

Ever tried Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay? That's an incredible system for playing the average joe just trying to make it in a complete hell. It is an aweful game for playing epic fantasy heroes. D&D is quite the opposite. They set out to make characters heroes, in the cinematic fantasy sense. It's just intrinsic in the design.
 

Nobody said they didn't rise from obscurity, that can easily be in the character's history. But I think D&D is a game where the players are heroic. That's kind of the basic flavor of the game, in both it's presentation and mechanics. I think there are many players who look for D&D to be the everything game. Some games are just better for simulating an everyday-man experience.

Ever tried Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay? That's an incredible system for playing the average joe just trying to make it in a complete hell. It is an aweful game for playing epic fantasy heroes. D&D is quite the opposite. They set out to make characters heroes, in the cinematic fantasy sense. It's just intrinsic in the design.

For another way to do what is being discussed, you could try this obscure little gem (if you're willing to tolerate Indie games, that is):

BoxOCE
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top