How many hits should a 1st level Fighter be able to take?

[Hassassin]

The real question is what does a monster's level mean? If a monster's level and a PCs level are equal measures of power then you end up with the 3e solution, where 4 PCs are supposed to fight 1 NPC of the same level. I guess that's ok, but it forces the GM to do a bunch of math whenever they have 3, 5 or 6 PCs, or when they want to do a more complicated battle. I prefer the 4e solution, where a Nth-level NPC is an appropriate challenge for a single Nth-level PC.

I don't think that solves anything. For one, "appropriate challenge" shouldn't be the same for all groups - some want more lethality than others - so it isn't as easy to define.

Additionally, you still need math in 4e, only the starting point has changed. Pathfinder replaced the 3e encounter tables with an "XP budget" system, similar to that of 4e, so monster level = character level doesn't in any way imply that encounter construction needs to be more difficult.

(Granted, PF also changed NPC CR = PC class level - 1, but that's mostly due to different wealth guidelines for NPCs and PCs. It shouldn't invalidate my argument.)

 

[KidSnide]

I don't think that solves anything. For one, "appropriate challenge" shouldn't be the same for all groups - some want more lethality than others - so it isn't as easy to define.

Additionally, you still need math in 4e, only the starting point has changed. Pathfinder replaced the 3e encounter tables with an "XP budget" system, similar to that of 4e, so monster level = character level doesn't in any way imply that encounter construction needs to be more difficult.

You're probably right that the math isn't the real issue here.

I guess the real question is whether PCs should start out more powerful than an average humanoid warrior. I think they should. I think a party of 1st level characters should be able to battle an equal number of totally ordinary humanoid warriors and have a decisive advantage. Yes, that should be a dangerous fight (in the sense that it should be exciting and there should be a risk of failure), but it should also be a reasonable encounter for a typical campaign (in that the PCs are almost certain to win).

-KS

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No matter how you choose to handle monster levels, you have to deal with the fact that the PCs are supposed to win almost all of the time. If they win only 90% of the time (a very low percentage for D&D!), then they lose approximately once every 10 combats. Since most campaigns treat defeat roughly, this doesn't result in a long campaign.

The real question is what does a monster's level mean? If a monster's level and a PCs level are equal measures of power then you end up with the 3e solution, where 4 PCs are supposed to fight 1 NPC of the same level. I guess that's ok, but it forces the GM to do a bunch of math whenever they have 3, 5 or 6 PCs, or when they want to do a more complicated battle. I prefer the 4e solution, where a Nth-level NPC is an appropriate challenge for a single Nth-level PC.

-KS

i guess, under normal circumstances, there should be no guarantee that the pc´s win a fight, and i like the 4e method of 1 monster of equal level is an appropriate challenge for 1 pc. But i like the 4e post mm3 assumption, that a pc fighting a monster of equal level will only win by pulling every trick they have (action point, dailies, magic items)
And in the end, i dont see a reason, why a PC should actually win in an equal fight. 50-50 withouth preperations would be the most easy math. equal level = coin flip. Use lower or higher level monsters if you want an easier or harder fight. Everything that assumes PCs winning an equal fight will make the math more complicated.
And PC vs PC fights should be possible by default. (Actually 4e does not work that badly using PC vs PC... only winning initiative combined with dailis and action points are a problem)

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I think one thing that would help keep lower HP totals for PCs without resulting in way-to-easy character deaths would be to better utilize the 0hp and negative hp workspace.

A major beef I have with old-school DnD RAW is the idea that 0hp=death.

I vote 4 hits for a fighter/2 for a wizard for what its worth.

DS

 

[Endur]

I voted 3 hits. I think that's a good average.

2 hits from a strong foe (orc).

4 hits from a weak foe (skeleton).

Average of 3 hits.

 

[Endur]

No matter how you choose to handle monster levels, you have to deal with the fact that the PCs are supposed to win almost all of the time. If they win only 90% of the time (a very low percentage for D&D!), then they lose approximately once every 10 combats. Since most campaigns treat defeat roughly, this doesn't result in a long campaign.

I guess it depends how rough the GM treats defeat for PCs. A defeat can be the heroes run away. A defeat can be the heroes slamming the door and locking the monsters out. A defeat can be the heroes captured (ransom? prisoner escape? slave roleplay opportunities?).

A defeat does not have to result in a TPK (total party kill).

I like location-based encounters, so if the PCs go to the wrong location, they will encounter foes that are far more powerful than they are. The PCs have to know that they can't kill everything (without help).

 

[shamsael]

This blog post inspired this thread with its incredibly bad poll question.

How durable should a first level fighter be? How many hits, on average, should they be able to withstand from a run of the mill first level foe, such as an orc or skeleton, before going down?

Bonus question: How many hits should a first level wizard be able to take in the same circumstances before going down?

Fighter: 10 or more
Wizard: 1

No snark, no joke. I don't think fighters should be worried about getting hit by weak to average opponents. In my perfect world, and in my perfect edition of D&D (best known as WFRP 2nd Edition), Armor provides damage reduction and a well armored first level fighter should be shrugging off hits by kobolds and goblins, only really worried about being hit by the muscly hobgoblin they brought along.

 

[Oni]

Fighter: 10 or more
Wizard: 1

No snark, no joke. I don't think fighters should be worried about getting hit by weak to average opponents. In my perfect world, and in my perfect edition of D&D (best known as WFRP 2nd Edition), Armor provides damage reduction and a well armored first level fighter should be shrugging off hits by kobolds and goblins, only really worried about being hit by the muscly hobgoblin they brought along.

I think the issue with this is that if the fighter is so tough that attacking them is best very inefficient or at worst pointless, then the natural reaction is that to just head straight for the low hanging fruit, i.e. just ignore the fighter and kill everyone else.

 

[SensoryThought]

I think the counter question has to be discussed is that, against the lvl1 Orc, how many hits does it take the lvl1 fighter bring it down?

Personally I think the Orc should go down in half the time of the fighter so they can take out 2 Orcs solo with a 80% success rate. The Orcs should be hitting 1/3 of the time and the fighter 2/3 of the time.