Triple HP at 1st level?

[delericho]

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.

Two things, though:

1) That 20(!) actually isn't that uncommon - that's 5% of attacks, which means an average of one such roll every four or five encounters. And that's assuming you're not using a longsword, rapier or keen weapon, and don't have the Improved Critical feat. Throw in iterative attacks on top of that, and crits happen a lot more often.

2) The same is also true of rolling a hit with your greataxe-weilding Barbarian, only to roll a 1 on the damage roll. At some point, the game has to acknowledge that you can't just have to your own way all the time.

Plus there is the whole thing of the extra roll.

True.

If they're looking to remove rolls, though, they'd be better switching to an alternate damage mechanic where your damage done equals the amount by which you beat the AC, modified by the weapon you are using. This eliminates far more rolls than removing the critical confirmation, gets rid of the "good attack/bad damage" phenomenon, and actually eliminates the need for critical hits at all.

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

(b) or (c) would represent the 'something else' I'm hoping will be in place in the critical hit rules. I suspect we'll be getting (a) though.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

I've run a few games of SWSE and I gotta say, I like triple hit points at 1st level. Yeah, those hit points were great when the party was fighting against some low-level mooks but when they hit the "boss fight," it didn't keep one of the characters from dropping to 0..twice.

Also, I haven't had anyone whine at me about "I wish we started at third level rather than 1st" since I've been running it, which was an almost-every-campaign gripe I got with 3.x.

So, in summation...

I'm all for x3 hit points at 1st.

 

[Bluenose]

I think it looks like a good thing. It plays well enough in SWSE, though that's with somewhat different weapons in play. What I'm hoping is that the level of danger involved in combat will be evened up between the levels more than with 3.x edition. At the moment low-level and high-level characters are at a much higher risk of dying than their mid-level counterparts, though the reasons are somewhat different (HP loss at low levels, failed saves at high). The removel/reduction of save-or-die effects seems to be heading this way. It should still be possible for PCs to die, but it shouldn't be because the greataxe-wielding orc rolled a crit, or the fighter couldn't make a DC 25 Will Save to avoid dying.

 

[DaveMage]

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.

IIRC, a reason for the second roll was to avoid the "automatic critical" in cases where an attacker would only hit on a natural 20.

 

[Pinotage]

Yeah, those hit points were great when the party was fighting against some low-level mooks but when they hit the "boss fight," it didn't keep one of the characters from dropping to 0..twice.

Doesn't this just up the power level all round, though? Give PCs triple hp, so the enemies they face can now be tougher, which means effectively you're starting at a higher level in any case. Triple hp is just a 'poor man's' 3rd level, really, simply because the enemies also get tougher.

I hope this is an across the board thing, though. While I haven't thought about it, it seems odd that your 1st level commoner will have a 4 hp, for example, while you're PC has 30 hp. Then, if that same commoner picks up a level of fighter, does he suddenly get a 30 hp jump? Or is he just a poor fighter because his first level is commoner?

Pinotage

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Having crits on a natural 20 makes the game much more fun, especially for newbies (the idea of rolling a 20 has a special magic). It also gives a group of low level monsters more of a chance against higher level PCs. These are good enough reasons for me.

 

[delericho]

I hope this is an across the board thing, though. While I haven't thought about it, it seems odd that your 1st level commoner will have a 4 hp, for example, while you're PC has 30 hp. Then, if that same commoner picks up a level of fighter, does he suddenly get a 30 hp jump? Or is he just a poor fighter because his first level is commoner?

I suspect they're going to evade that one simply by not having stats for 'everyone else'. So, that Commoner won't have much more than a number of hit points, an attack bonus (maybe), and an AC.

If he then becomes a Fighter, then he ceases to be part of 'everyone else', and is just a Fighter.

IOW, I think they're more interested in making a good game with 4e than with trying to somehow 'model reality'. I think that's the right decision, even if it does throw up some odd corner cases.

 

[pawsplay]

I think it's actually kind of a problem if two 1st level fighters don't have the ability to cut each other in half with one lucky blow from a greataxe. Greataxes seem like they should be, well, dangerous.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Doesn't this just up the power level all round, though? Give PCs triple hp, so the enemies they face can now be tougher, which means effectively you're starting at a higher level in any case. Triple hp is just a 'poor man's' 3rd level, really, simply because the enemies also get tougher.

I hope this is an across the board thing, though. While I haven't thought about it, it seems odd that your 1st level commoner will have a 4 hp, for example, while you're PC has 30 hp. Then, if that same commoner picks up a level of fighter, does he suddenly get a 30 hp jump? Or is he just a poor fighter because his first level is commoner?

It depends on whether or not the commoner is destined to become a great adventurer. If not, the he'll just have sucky hitpoints and be a minion. Indeed, if the 4e minion rules are like SWSE, minions will have d4 hit dice but could have good BAB. The storm trooper is a good example - it's level 4 but has very little hitpoints.

Let's face it - PCs and important NPCs are "special." The gods/fate/whatever have decreed that they can do great things. The rest of the world is a bunch of mooks and lackeys.

 

[Pinotage]

Let's face it - PCs and important NPCs are "special." The gods/fate/whatever have decreed that they can do great things. The rest of the world is a bunch of mooks and lackeys.

Doesn't this necessarily preclude the idea that somebody starts out as a lackey and through fate and circumstance turns into something great? That 60 year old blacksmit that picks up his sword and becomes famous, for example?

Pinotage