Triple HP at 1st level?

[delericho]

The new 4e rule of no confirmation crits kinda surprised me actually and I wonder if there isn't something we're missing

I really hope so. The confirmation roll was one of the more elegant pieces of design in 3e, and it's removal led me to question whether the 4e designers really are as good as advertised.

 

[Pinotage]

Because new players are going to start at level 1, spend two hours creating their characters, get into their first combat, die before they even get to act... and never play the game again..

It's not that bad. Sure, a goblin can take you down on one hit, but then the party healer can get you back on your feet with one spell too. It's just a different kind of game. The only thing deadly about 1st level is critical hits. Nothing else can really get you past -10 that quickly. And, let's face it, if you can't stick with the game after losing one character in your first fight, why play it? Besides, I would imagine that if a DM did roll so that a newbie's character died, he'd likely just 'cheat' to change the result.

Pinotage

 

[glass]

Then start at level 3. I want the beginning characters to be so goddang easy to be taken out. I want every time someone swings at a level 1 character its a potentially fatal blow.

The trouble is, if there is a non-trivial chance of every single blow being fatal, then one of them eventually will be. The probability of the characters never making it past first level rapidly approaches 1 (or the DM has to fudge like crazy).

And starting at level three brings a whole lot of other things into play beyond extra hit points. Like increased bab, more feats ect, not to mention (in 3e at least) Invisibility!

Wanting more hit points at first level is not about not wanting to play beginners. Quite the opposite; it is about actually being able to play beginners who are lucky enough to become something more (without mad DM fudging all the time).


glass.

 

[Pinotage]

Quite the opposite; it is about actually being able to play beginners who are lucky enough to become something more (without mad DM fudging all the time).


glass.

I quite understand this. However, your average 1st level character is only going to get killed (outright, to -10) on a critical hit. Nothing else is going to do it. Sure, he might drop more often, but killing is going to be determined by how often a DM rolls two good rolls in a row. Fairly good odds, I would say.

But, I think the chances of actually dying are much higher at higher levels. There are far more dangerous spells, far more heavy hitting criters that can take you down at, I would say, higher odds. Higher level play is probably more dangerous than 1st level play.

I suspect the hp increase is not about survivability. It's about injecting more fun so your character doesn't spend half of every fight unconscious.

Pinotage

 

[Plane Sailing]

I really hope so. The confirmation roll was one of the more elegant pieces of design in 3e, and it's removal led me to question whether the 4e designers really are as good as advertised.

I agree with the 4e designers in that the confirmation roll -seems- like an elegant piece of design but in practice it isn't so good, particularly because the fun of rolling a 20(!) then rolling low on the confirmation roll and failing to get a crit is a bit of a downer. Plus there is the whole thing of the extra roll.

Crits work much better when they are straight integrated into the system, like in Runequest2. The best ways of doing it with one die roll in D&D are probably either

a) a natural 20 is always a crit
b) exceeding their AC defence by x (e.g.10) is a crit
c) some combination of the two

Then each attack roll tells you whether it is a crit or not.

(b) is my favourite option, for various reasons, but I can understand why others might prefer other options to it.

Cheers

 

[JDJblatherings]

Maybe it's because I've played so many newer RPG systems, but D&D masochistic insistence on killing low-level characters is a definite turn off for me.

you think D&D players have it tough? A GURPS noobie with a new 100 pt character is lucky to survive 10 or 12 seconds of combat.

 

[glass]

I quite understand this. However, your average 1st level character is only going to get killed (outright, to -10) on a critical hit. Nothing else is going to do it. Sure, he might drop more often, but killing is going to be determined by how often a DM rolls two good rolls in a row. Fairly good odds, I would say.

One crit is (usually) only the equivalent of two hits. All it needs is two hits in the same encounter; it doesn't have to two consecutive good rolls. EDIT: And that is from a 3e PoV. We already know that it only takes on 20 for a crit in 4e (I think).

But, I think the chances of actually dying are much higher at higher levels. There are far more dangerous spells, far more heavy hitting criters that can take you down at, I would say, higher odds. Higher level play is probably more dangerous than 1st level play.

Possibly, but rumour has it they are doing something about that too.

I suspect the hp increase is not about survivability. It's about injecting more fun so your character doesn't spend half of every fight unconscious.

I think it is about both, but either reason is good enough IMO.


glass.

 

[JDJblatherings]

I agree with the 4e designers in that the confirmation roll -seems- like an elegant piece of design but in practice it isn't so good, particularly because the fun of rolling a 20(!) then rolling low on the confirmation roll and failing to get a crit is a bit of a downer. Plus there is the whole thing of the extra roll.

Crits work much better when they are straight integrated into the system, like in Runequest2. The best ways of doing it with one die roll in D&D are probably either

a) a natural 20 is always a crit
b) exceeding their AC defence by x (e.g.10) is a crit
c) some combination of the two

Then each attack roll tells you whether it is a crit or not.

(b) is my favourite option, for various reasons, but I can understand why others might prefer other options to it.

Cheers

The conformation roll is a good idea it factors in skill along with luck. Runequest crits are based on skill and luck also as they are a fraction of ones total % to attack with a weapon.
Critting on every 20 is just luck and far too common if crits allow multipliers to damage as per 3e.

Replacing it with something quick like option b you mention above could work, but it makes more math work for the DM and likely exposing more about the foe to the PCs.

 

[delericho]

It's not that bad. Sure, a goblin can take you down on one hit, but then the party healer can get you back on your feet with one spell too. It's just a different kind of game. The only thing deadly about 1st level is critical hits. Nothing else can really get you past -10 that quickly.

I like low-level play. I feel it gives better developed and more organic characters than you get if you start at higher levels. And the greater lethality is a part of that experience. However, I believe it represents a barrier to new players coming into the game.

Although the example I gave was extreme, it isn't hugely uncommon for the party Wizard, at least, to be dropped out of action by a single attack before he even gets to act. Even if he's not killed outright, that is not a good advert for the game.

And, let's face it, if you can't stick with the game after losing one character in your first fight, why play it?

Frankly, I'm at a loss as to why anyone would start playing D&D. This is all connected to my "the buy-in is too high" argument. But here's the thing:

Before you get to play, someone has to buy the three core rulebooks ($105 at cover price in 4e), then read those near-1,000 pages of text, then create an adventure.

The rest of the players either need to read a significant chunk of the PHB (say, 100 pages), or need to have the rules explained to them by the DM. Then they have to go through the process of creating characters.

And then they get to start having fun.

Now, you add the very real possibility that the 1st level Wizard can get hit by a critical hit from that Goblin's arrow and taken out of action before he even gets to take his first action, followed by several minutes waiting for the Cleric to heal him... if the Cleric isn't too busy doing other things, and if the Cleric rolls well enough on Cure Light Wounds to restore him to positive hit points.

Suddenly, WoW looks very good by comparison.

Besides, I would imagine that if a DM did roll so that a newbie's character died, he'd likely just 'cheat' to change the result.

I'm not keen on any rule system that requires the DM to start cheating right at the outset of the campaign in order for people to have fun. It's a really bad precedent to set. Better, IMO, to fix the rules, and let the experts house rule things back to better suit themselves.

 

[infax]

For those arguing starting the PCs beyond level 1 (level 3 having been the most commonly suggested). Starting PCs beyond level 1 has more impact than just just starting hp. Skill check chances, to hit chances and - perhaps specially - spell selection also improve. Some GMs, like me, like the feel of the initial levels, the grittiness, the challenge of having to cross a raging river or a chasm that you can only get for the first few levels of play. Starting the PCs at level 3, for instance, robs us of that many levels of gritty adventuring.

Also, having more hit points may allow, for some of us, some more interesting challenges. As a poster has mentioned, having to battle giant vermin and rats at first levels is a bit humiliating. A couple of wolves can tear down some members of a party in no time with a random encounter in the wilds. It is related with the simple math of having dice that potentially do, in a single roll, as much hit points as some of the characters have in totoal. Giving the characters some more hit points may allow some GMs to use 6 rats againts a wizard, each bite delivering one or two hit points at most and still allowing him to decide to flee after he sees the opposition. Or to take a few bites in a surprise round, get pissed off and wipe them with a Burning Hands spell.

OTOH, just suggesting starting with more hit points is a simple and good suggestion. I GMed more than a game with characters simply starting with an additional 20hp. It seems to me that simply suggesting greater hit points for some campaigns and less hit points for others is a simple solution. And it may work well with the math.

Just my 2c.