In the heat of battle, is hit point loss a wound?

[Mercutio01]

Wait, are you kidding me?

A 1st level fighter has three to four TIMES more HP than the commoner (6+Con - which he can have up to +4, a feat no commoner can ever match), has saving throws better than the commoner, can use all armor and several weapons, AND can gain xp. A very, very important distinction. That commoner in AD&D will ALWAYS be 2 hp, no matter what.

4 x as much isn't 28 times as much, as in 4E, so yes I stand by my point that in OD&D, BD&D, and AD&D, the difference between a regular 0th level farmer and 1st level PC is minimal, especially when a 0th level farmer legitimately has the ability to kill a 1st level PC.

Clerics had spells.

Not at first level they didn't.

Thieves had thief abilities, again, feats which no commoner can ever match.

With stupidly low percentages that ensured that even 0th level commoners routinely caught thieves in the act.

I also notice that you ignored the other classes - rangers start out possibly with TEN TIMES more HP than a commoner (2d8+con). Monks are in a class all on their own.

Yes, I ignored optional characters that are obviously unbalanced. Perhaps when we consider the fact that a commoner in 4E is a minion with 1 HP and all starting characters have 20+ HP you could see that the gap between 0th level commoners and PCs has grown exponentially.

And, besides that, by third level, the PC's are essentially super human. Even if they only start "a little" above Joe Average, by the end of a fairly short period of play, they're no longer Joe Average.

Which I did point out did I not? Didn't I say that if I wanted to play a game where I didn't start out as Joe the slightly above average that I would start at level 3 or 4? I believe, in fact, that I said exactly that!

Considering that we only play 1st level for a handful of sessions, what's your point?

Who's we? And my point is that I like those handful of sessions which aren't replicable in 4E, but so far seem to be exactly so in 5E.

Most play is not at 1st level. Most play is 2nd or 3rd level and higher.

But some play is at 1st level, and that style of play is ignored if we just skip to the equivalent starting power of much more powerful than a commoner, as 4E did. Low level play didn't play as low-level for me when I played it. 5E, thankfully, does.

AWhile it's true most of the game is played at higher than 1st level, it can still take time to get there.

Exactly.

Where it falls down for me is when there's such a big gap between commoner and 1st. 1e solved this by introducing the idea of 0th level as a bridge. 3e tried to solve it by allowing levels in - among other things - commoner; interesting idea but a bit of a nightmare for bookkeeping. 4e ignored it, and made the gap bigger as well.

That is exactly what my point was.

And a 1st level fighter in AD&D is way better than a 0th level character - and in 3.X a first level fighter is way better than a 1st level commoner.

I dispute that completely. A 0th level character has the legitimate ability to kill a 1st level character in either of those editions, which simply is not the case in 4E. That rabble "monster" simply cannot kill the PC. Its ability scores are dwarfed by the PC. The PC is not just a bit above average. The PC starts out already a hero. That's my objection.

So far, in the 5E playtest, gameplay has gone back to where I think it should be. The 1st level party is not already a group of heroes. Indeed, in the first encounter with kobolds, my current playtest group had the fighter knocked down to 3 HP, and two others knocked down to half total HP, which honest-to-goodness felt awesome, and I'm playing one of those knocked down to half (the halfling rogue).

You'd be talking about the 0th level NPC here? Who dies automatically if he doesn't win initiative? And who dies again automatically if he doesn't one-shot the armoured fighter?

We're not talking 3E here, which increased the starting power level but also added NPC class levels to try to compensate. Does that NPC have the chance to one-shot the fighter in 1e?

OK, so the rabble might be a match for the wizard

Really? You really think that in 4E a rabble might be a match for the wizard? The wizard can easily kill 1/round with Magic Missile, forever. And the rabble cannot do enough damage to even really hurt the wizard, let alone kill him in one shot.

Mostly built on the idea that as DM I don't need the whole pile of information that goes into a PC's character sheet. Or the hassle of designing a PC for an expendible encounter. 3e took things extremely far one way, 4e possibly overcompensated.

Would it shock you to know that I actually agree with this? The prep time as DM is the major problem I have with 3E, even using random-creators for NPCs. It's the one thing I think 4E did the best, until the numbers didn't work. And I don't/didn't have the time, money, or inclination to kick in even more money to buy a book* that fixes a system that shouldn't have been broken in the first place.

*MM3, right? So the third supplement of monsters finally fixed monster math? That didn't come out until almost exactly 2 years later? I don't play a game for 2 years hoping for a fix. I play a different game instead, which I did.

And all of this really is moot because I think 5E has done extremely admirably well in bringing back my preferred playstyle, with the only exception being the healing rate, and that's already been addressed by the designers.

 

[Hussar]

Umm, just as a point, the only edition where 1st level clerics didn't get spells was OD&D and Basic. I'm not sure if that changed in Rules Cyclopedia, I didn't play those rules. But an AD&D cleric got at least 1 first level spell and with even a minimal Wis (13 I believe) got 3.

And when were rangers an optional class? They weren't in 1e. They were a subclass of fighters and I think you're the first person I've ever heard complain that rangers were broken.

I'd point out that a 0 level commoner doesn't really exist in 4e. Anyone who isn't going to get into combat doesn't even get stats. He just dies if you really want to kill him. If the PC's are actually going to mix it up, then we go into encounter design. So, no, a wizard will actually die pretty quickly vs a reasonable number of Human Rabble. I don't know why you need hyperbole, but, 4e characters do not have that much more HP at 1st level. Somewhere in the neighbourhood, depending on class between 20 and 35 at 1st level. Which is certainly not 28 times as much. And, isn't a whole lot more than some AD&D classes got out of the gate.

Look, I get you don't like 4e. But, you really don't have to start making things up to show your point. At least if you're going to criticise editions, take the thirty seconds to actually look up the rules beforehand. It makes conversation work so much easier because we don't have to spend a bajillion pages screwing around trying to correct each other.

 

[Mercutio01]

Umm, just as a point, the only edition where 1st level clerics didn't get spells was OD&D and Basic. I'm not sure if that changed in Rules Cyclopedia, I didn't play those rules. But an AD&D cleric got at least 1 first level spell and with even a minimal Wis (13 I believe) got 3.

You're right. I was thinking of Basic when I said that.

I'd point out that a 0 level commoner doesn't really exist in 4e. Anyone who isn't going to get into combat doesn't even get stats. He just dies if you really want to kill him.

This is exactly my point. This makes the basic 1st Level PC start off so much more powerful than the regular Joe that it completely obviates an entire playstyle (that of average Joe who becomes a hero - like Bilbo Baggins or any number of other fantasy stories where regular people save the world through hard work, determination, and the drive to win).

I don't know why you need hyperbole, but, 4e characters do not have that much more HP at 1st level. Somewhere in the neighbourhood, depending on class between 20 and 35 at 1st level.

Wait, what? Are you honestly trying to tell me that starting HP for a 1st level PC in 4E isn't vastly greater than in previous editions of D&D? You have got to be the first person who's ever argued that. The absolute maximum that a barbarian (with the largest hit die) could have, even in 3E (and spending a feat to get it) was 19. In 2E, the warrior had the highest hit die (d10) and the highest HP he could have at first level was 15.

Which is certainly not 28 times as much. And, isn't a whole lot more than some AD&D classes got out of the gate.

I was comparing the 1st level character to a commoner in 4E (the rabble, a minion, with 1 HD, compared to average for 1st level characters in 4E which is 28 (27.5 rounded up). That gives the 1st level character in 4th Edition 28 times more hit points than the average Joe.

Taking the minimum from 4E (20) and comparing it to the max in AD&D (15) is disingenuous if that's what your using to compare starting HP. Comparing max to max gives the starting HP more than doubled, while starting HP for the average Joe is halved.

Look, I get you don't like 4e. But, you really don't have to start making things up to show your point. At least if you're going to criticise editions, take the thirty seconds to actually look up the rules beforehand. It makes conversation work so much easier because we don't have to spend a bajillion pages screwing around trying to correct each other.

Those were looked up numbers and comparisons. As in, I had 4E, 3.5, and 2E books open to starting HP and comparing the first level characters of each to the commoners in each edition.

Starting HP for each edition (until 5E broke the curve, so far), is practically a Fibonacci sequence (1, 1, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34).

PCs                       NPCs
OD -- 1-6                  1
BD -- 1-6                  1
AD -- 1-15                 2
3E -- 4-19                 4
4E -- 20-35                1
5E -- 16-20                5

That makes the ratios:
6:1
6:1
7.5:1
4.75:1
35:1
4:1

 

[Neonchameleon]

4 x as much isn't 28 times as much, as in 4E, so yes I stand by my point that in OD&D, BD&D, and AD&D, the difference between a regular 0th level farmer and 1st level PC is minimal, especially when a 0th level farmer legitimately has the ability to kill a 1st level PC.

On the other hand a 1st level commoner has literally no chance to survive a first level fighter unless they kill them. They can't even run away effectively pre-4e. To the commoner this is more important.

Yes, I ignored optional characters that are obviously unbalanced. Perhaps when we consider the fact that a commoner in 4E is a minion with 1 HP and all starting characters have 20+ HP you could see that the gap between 0th level commoners and PCs has grown exponentially.

And yet the commoner in 4e is tougher than the 0th level character. You do not need to roll for fighter vs commoner.

Who's we? And my point is that I like those handful of sessions which aren't replicable in 4E, but so far seem to be exactly so in 5E.

You mean those handful of sessions which absolutely are replicable in 4e by the simple expedient of not using minions? They just aren't in the default playstyle. And why are you attacking human minions anyway?

So far, in the 5E playtest, gameplay has gone back to where I think it should be. The 1st level party is not already a group of heroes. Indeed, in the first encounter with kobolds, my current playtest group had the fighter knocked down to 3 HP, and two others knocked down to half total HP, which honest-to-goodness felt awesome, and I'm playing one of those knocked down to half (the halfling rogue).

Your experience is very different from mine. In 5e as both player and DM, the PCs were wading in where 4e characters would have run like buggery. As a group of first level PCs we took on a room full of hardened orc warriors. In 4e you couldn't have paid a first level party to challenge a room full of a couple of dozen Battletested Orcs. Instant TPK with added Darwin Award. As for the Kobolds, it would depend on whether the sentries were tunnellers or a mix of Quickblades and Slingers with the tunnellers busy ... tunneling.

If it was quickblades and slingers the PCs would be in serious trouble. If it was tunnellers the big question would be whether the PCs could stop the tunnellers before they ran for help; tunnellers would not even try to stand and fight.

So yes, our experiences differ. A lot.

 

[Mercutio01]

Your experience is very different from mine. In 5e as both player and DM, the PCs were wading in where 4e characters would have run like buggery.

<snip>

So yes, our experiences differ. A lot.

Wow. Totally different outcomes. I suppose some of it could be that the kobolds had good attack rolls, but we very nearly lost the fighter in the first round of combat. Luckily the last kobold was killed before it could attack again, or else we'd have been going into the caves with one seriously hurt fighter. Three uses of a healing kit and 15 minutes later with some decent die rolls, we finally went into the cave.

 

[Nytmare]

Wait, what? Are you honestly trying to tell me that starting HP for a 1st level PC in 4E isn't vastly greater than in previous editions of D&D?

4th Ed hp = Apple

Non 4th Ed hp = Orange

Apple != Orange

 

[Mercutio01]

4th Ed hp = Apple

Non 4th Ed hp = Orange

Apple != Orange

You're right. Because if you add in Healing Surges, 4E HP pool is even 6-14 times larger, plus overnight full heals and full Healing Surge restoration, something commoners definitely don't have. You just made my point even stronger. First level PCs in 4E are so far above the commoner that they should rightfully be lords and ladies.

That's not my preferred playstyle. If it's yours, then have at it, but don't attempt to restrict my own (PCs start as above average but otherwise fairly regular people and grow into their status as heroes throughout the campaign).

 

[Neonchameleon]

Wow. Totally different outcomes. I suppose some of it could be that the kobolds had good attack rolls, but we very nearly lost the fighter in the first round of combat. Luckily the last kobold was killed before it could attack again, or else we'd have been going into the caves with one seriously hurt fighter. Three uses of a healing kit and 15 minutes later with some decent die rolls, we finally went into the cave.

Our encounter with the Kobolds involved buzz-sawing through the Kobold sentries and rats, and following up into the Kobold common room (where we lost the fighter). We ran away and replaced the fighter with a second Cleric of Moradin at which point the monster's ability to break through our battle line was almost over.

 

[Nytmare]

You're right.

You are misunderstanding me.

You can't compare the worth or value of a 4 edition hit point to other versions of D&D, because they are totally different things.

You're taking two completely different abstract mechanical systems that are attempting to find common ground between real life and a double handful of narrative constructs, and are missing the fact that they are using different units of measure.

They're both called hitpoints, and they both represent the same thing, but that's where the similarities end.

 

[Griego]

I should try narrating all hit point loss as wounds. I want to describe my PCs as walking slabs of shredded beef by the end of the session.