Something that plagues low-level D&D is the swinginess of combat due to the d20 attack roll. A handful of exceptionally poor rolls can easily turn an encounter from a cakewalk to a slaughterhouse (or vice-versa). I'm fine with some degree of swinginess--it helps build tension, after all--but I find that low-level D&D is too swingy for my tastes.
Another issue that I have been trying to solve is the issue of Constitution and hit points. Adding a character's Constitution modifier each level to his hit points creates hit point bloat at later levels. Even a measley +4 bonus translates to +80 HP later on, at least in the world of 3e, and when you're dealing with monsters that have a +6 Constitution bonus...well, it just creates an arms race between damage and hitpoints while cementing Constitution as one of the most important ability scores. The solution to this one is fairly straightforward, exactly as 5e has done: add your Constitution score to your hit points at first level and leave it at that.
But this simple solution comes with a price, and that is that combat is no longer so dangerous at low levels. Even on a critical hit, a PC need not fear so greatly. An ogre--an ogre!--does a piddling 10 damage on a critical hit. A minotaur does 16. A kobold chieftain does 7.
Pathetic, quite pathetic. I struggled with much pondering on how to solve this dilemma, ranging from increasing weapon damage to adding only half a character's Constitution score to his hit points. Then a solution came to me that solve both this problem and the issue of swingy combat.
I propose that characters are allowed two kinds of attacks: a light attack and a heavy attack. Characters may make two light attacks as an action (each doing normal damage), or they may make a single heavy attack (a single attack doing double damage).
The option for two attacks gives a more predictable range of success-failure while characters can also choose to gamble and make a single, riskier attack.
TL;DR: Two normal attacks or one that does bonus damage.
Another issue that I have been trying to solve is the issue of Constitution and hit points. Adding a character's Constitution modifier each level to his hit points creates hit point bloat at later levels. Even a measley +4 bonus translates to +80 HP later on, at least in the world of 3e, and when you're dealing with monsters that have a +6 Constitution bonus...well, it just creates an arms race between damage and hitpoints while cementing Constitution as one of the most important ability scores. The solution to this one is fairly straightforward, exactly as 5e has done: add your Constitution score to your hit points at first level and leave it at that.
But this simple solution comes with a price, and that is that combat is no longer so dangerous at low levels. Even on a critical hit, a PC need not fear so greatly. An ogre--an ogre!--does a piddling 10 damage on a critical hit. A minotaur does 16. A kobold chieftain does 7.
Pathetic, quite pathetic. I struggled with much pondering on how to solve this dilemma, ranging from increasing weapon damage to adding only half a character's Constitution score to his hit points. Then a solution came to me that solve both this problem and the issue of swingy combat.
I propose that characters are allowed two kinds of attacks: a light attack and a heavy attack. Characters may make two light attacks as an action (each doing normal damage), or they may make a single heavy attack (a single attack doing double damage).
The option for two attacks gives a more predictable range of success-failure while characters can also choose to gamble and make a single, riskier attack.
TL;DR: Two normal attacks or one that does bonus damage.
Last edited:
(besides, if you're that fragile you might want to set up the fight a bit more to your advantage...)
