D&D General Hit Points. Did 3.0 Or 3.5 Get it Right?

[jgsugden]

...You mean a whole tribe of musclebound warriors who do nothing but raid and pillage and have killed many beasts and humaniods by age 25 are mostly little 5-15 HP losers?

Who are hunting and killing commoners? They're hunting 4 hp humanoids with a 10 AC. Put 1 orc against 4 commoners and run the combat with the orc attacking the 4 commoners that are sitting around a campfire. The orc will rip them apart if run marginally effectively.

 

[jgsugden]

What's your criteria for best rules, and how can whatever you answer possibly be anything but personal preference?

You're looking at this with an academic and theoretical eye - not a practical one. If I took a survey and asked the following questions, the answers would technically be personal preference - but only technically:

1.) Should DMs be asked to spend a lot of time designing combats only to have a good portion of the combatants be essentially meaningless because they die before doing anything?

2.) Should rules be difficult to interpret and apply?

3.) Should some players feel like their PCs have nothing to contribute in most combats?

4.) Should the math behind the game be hard to calculate at the table?

There are some essentially objective things about rules that are universally desired - and the people creating 5E were aware of these things and had AMPLE experience with the prior editions. This allowed them to attempt to improve on them wherever possible. They made intelligent choices to make 5E a good evolution of the 3.5 model - and even took in a few scant elements of 4E that worked.

The minimal changes they are looking to make between 5E and One D&D is a testament to the confidence in the quality of 5E. The broad approval of the player base to take this tactic is as well.

 

[Minigiant]

Who are hunting and killing commoners? They're hunting 4 hp humanoids with a 10 AC. Put 1 orc against 4 commoners and run the combat with the orc attacking the 4 commoners that are sitting around a campfire. The orc will rip them apart if run marginally effectively.

D&D orc.
Orc

Orcs are burly raiders with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks. They gather in tribes that satisfy their bloodlust by slaying any humanoids that stand against them.

The base D&D orc for decades has relied on raiding and pillaging the villages and towns of other humanoids for their resources.
Hobgoblins start up set up camps and subjugate.
Orcs and hobgoblins even in idiocy would not attempt this even against commoners if they are just 1-2 HD. Orcs only have 13 AC.
Outnumbered 4 to 1 is still way to risky. High chance of death.

Some burly bloodlusted raider and slayer. Only 2 HD.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So why don't players appreciate OSR style strategic caution in their game design??

Who says they don't? I certainly do.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Who says they don't? I certainly do.

The question is not if you like it. The question is how many players in total like it. Do you think you are the majority or the minority on this one??

 

[Micah Sweet]

The minimal changes they are looking to make between 5E and One D&D is a testament to the confidence in the quality of 5E. The broad approval of the player base to take this tactic is as well.

The minimal changes they're making are a testament to WotC's of inadvertently doing anything that might affect sales, the only thing they actually care about. If it weren't for a perceived need to make a big deal about the anniversary, I suspect they wouldn't be doing a "reprint plus" at all.

And the definitions of the terms your questions are using are subjective, so the answers will be too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The question is not if you like it. The question is how many players in total like it. Do you think you are the majority or the minority on this one??

No, but popularity doesn't matter to me, because it's not an indicator of quality.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No, but popularity doesn't matter to me, because it's not an indicator of quality.

Depends on the question if "ease of use" or "fun"* is a quality.

I think it is. I guess a lot of people think so too. Therefore I postulate that popularity is an indicator of a certain quality.

Calculating and theorycrafting is fun for me too. I know people who also like that. And I know people who don't.

 

[Minigiant]

It's really not about fun or ease. This is a discussion of purpose.

1e, 2e, and most of the OSR have rules designed for the purpose of creating the feel of what 5e calls Tier 1. HP are low and slow. Spells are few and heavily tilted to strategic interpretation. Skills are more assumed. The games play best when you act least like heroes.

3e, PF1, and 5e have rules designed for the purpose of creating the feel of what 5e calls Tier 2. HP grows fast. Your states describe your elite status.

4e, PF2, and PH2 have rules designed for the purpose of creating the feel of what 5e calls Tier 3. HP starts big but grows slowly. PCs and monster quickly grow to their expert status and play as paragons of their attributes.

 

[MichaelSomething]

No, but popularity doesn't matter to me, because it's not an indicator of quality.

When I said OSR style strategic caution in game design, I didn't mean game design that encouraged the player to proceed cautiously. I meant the designers were being highly cautious in their design. That they wouldn't include things if they thought it would upset people.

So do you mean you like it when designers not put things into a game out of fear of offending people?? Or something else??