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

jgsugden

Legend
...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.
You're really not seeing this as it is. Do the simulation I suggested. In 5E, this is almost a guaranteed win for the solo orc.

Rd 1: Orc throws a javelin at the commoners from somewhere outside the light ring of the fire. It has both advantage and disadvantage - so just an 80% chance of a kill. Let's say this is the miss and his next 4 attacks hit. Let's also say he only brought one javelin, so he needs to use his axe on the rest.
Rd 2: The commoners grab their clubs and torches and race off to attack the unknown attacking force. They double move - and don't reach him. He charges in and melee attacks one of the commoners. We're down to 3 commoners now as any hit is a kill - and they're all engaged in melee combat.
Rd 3: Commoners get to go and surround the orc. They attack at +2 for d4 damage. They need an 11 to hit, so a 50% chance. Let's say they get 2 hits for 5 damage. Orc is down to 10 hps - when it gets his second kill.
Rd 4: Commoners continue the attack and get another hit for 3 damage. Then the orc gets another kill.
Rd 5: The last commoner gets lucky and deals 3 more damage. The orc took more damage than expected due to bad luck, but still has 4 hps. That is when he kills the last commoner.

That sounds like something out of a Friday the 13th movie. The stranger charges in out of the night and hacks up a family of 4 in less than 30 seconds.

Orcs are terrifying when you consider what a commoner is. It takes fledgling heroes to have a chance to stand up against them - and I'll tell you right now, if you play LMoP a few times, it is not uncommon to have a few PC graves dug on Wyvern Tor.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

jgsugden

Legend
...And the definitions of the terms your questions are using are subjective, so the answers will be too.
Again, that is the difference between academic and practical approaches to these situations. In reality, unless someone is being intentionally obstinate, they'd answer all 4 of those questions in the same basic way.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
You're really not seeing this as it is. Do the simulation I suggested. In 5E, this is almost a guaranteed win for the solo orc.

Rd 1: Orc throws a javelin at the commoners from somewhere outside the light ring of the fire. It has both advantage and disadvantage - so just an 80% chance of a kill. Let's say this is the miss and his next 4 attacks hit. Let's also say he only brought one javelin, so he needs to use his axe on the rest.
Rd 2: The commoners grab their clubs and torches and race off to attack the unknown attacking force. They double move - and don't reach him. He charges in and melee attacks one of the commoners. We're down to 3 commoners now as any hit is a kill - and they're all engaged in melee combat.
Rd 3: Commoners get to go and surround the orc. They attack at +2 for d4 damage. They need an 11 to hit, so a 50% chance. Let's say they get 2 hits for 5 damage. Orc is down to 10 hps - when it gets his second kill.
Rd 4: Commoners continue the attack and get another hit for 3 damage. Then the orc gets another kill.
Rd 5: The last commoner gets lucky and deals 3 more damage. The orc took more damage than expected due to bad luck, but still has 4 hps. That is when he kills the last commoner.

That sounds like something out of a Friday the 13th movie. The stranger charges in out of the night and hacks up a family of 4 in less than 30 seconds.

Orcs are terrifying when you consider what a commoner is. It takes fledgling heroes to have a chance to stand up against them - and I'll tell you right now, if you play LMoP a few times, it is not uncommon to have a few PC graves dug on Wyvern Tor.
You aren't getting what I'm saying.

the description of D&D Orcs who pillage villages, kill commoners, and rely on raids for resources.

The issue is not whether or not an orc can kill 4 commoners. The issue is that 4 commoners should not have a chance against an orc because in the lore a common orc is hardened veteran warrior with several kills on each of their belts.

A 5e Veteran is a 9 HD monster.

Even if you say that is too high, 4-5 Hit Die should be the minimum fora common orc monster by the lore.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
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.
"Fun" is deeply subjective; "ease of use" only slightly less so.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
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??
Ah, I misunderstood. Never mind.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Again, that is the difference between academic and practical approaches to these situations. In reality, unless someone is being intentionally obstinate, they'd answer all 4 of those questions in the same basic way.
Yes, because they'll insert their own definitions of those terms, which will not be the same for everyone.
 

jgsugden

Legend
...The issue is not whether or not an orc can kill 4 commoners. The issue is that 4 commoners should not have a chance against an orc because in the lore a common orc is hardened veteran warrior with several kills on each of their belts....
... ... ...
Did I not just demonstrate that 4 commoners do not have a chance against an orc?
 

jgsugden

Legend
Yes, because they'll insert their own definitions of those terms, which will not be the same for everyone.
You're really hurting your credibility when you say that people seriously answering those questions would not answer them the same way. In a real scenario, we wouldn't even ask those questions because the answers are obvious.
 


Vaalingrade

Legend
4E is EXTREMELY efficient, stable and balanced. This is, however, not better. There was a lot of criticism about how monotone it was and how every class was substantially similar in design, and so many powers were essentially reskins of each other because the constraints of the system left them so little creative options.
Nope.

All classes share a structure is not the same as being 'essentially reskins'.

I once heard it describe that 4E tried to improve the game in the same way that some people try to improve their dietary choices - by stripping it down to a bland repetitive core that hit the marks on paper, but was entirely unsatisfying day after day to most.
And that description... was garbage.

4e added systems and nurtured game design that focused on narrative control and on the design of the game itself and it didn't sit well with people who preferred the simulationist design of 3e and in turn went around describing how the game worked from the point of view of not being simulationist rather than it's own terms.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top