Triple HP at 1st level?

[Aus_Snow]

Oh, just to put my previous post in perspective, while 1st level beings have more hit points, I also have wound categories, called shots and critical effects as defaults, so lethality is still in fact higher than in the RAW, regardless.

So anyway, I personally wouldn't like simply more hit points all round, in 3e (or wherever.) FWIW.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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

Only if you want to force the character to make a purely linear progression to reflect that. If you allow a "side-ways" progression, it still works - "you were a 4th level commoner? Now you become a 2nd level Fighter!"

Yes, some details might get lost in the process, but how bad is that really for the in-game experience?

 

[Najo]

Well I can pretty much guarantee that they'll come out with "0th level" or some other kind of training level rules at some point. Personally I love the change, like many others I hate having to fudge dice at low levels so that fully healthy characters aren't wiped by errant crits or even just 2 successful normal attacks...

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[houser2112]

Perhaps you could say that 1st level characters get triple, but don't actually start gaining hp until 4th level. So, you're not increasing the total across the board, just giving the low level characters increased survivability.

 

[1 hp]

I'd rather just have the full range of pathetic to mighty...

For the DMs who want the PCs to start-off as pathetic, like yourself, the solution is easy. Use more dangerous monsters and traps. A DM can have his 30hp 1st-level PCs terrified with little effort by tossing a couple extra ogres into a room.

I don't see how extra hps will prevent you from killing PCs, if that's what you want.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I love the idea of just giving out triple hit points at 1st level - it's an elegant and simple way of ensuring that the PC's have durability early one, without giving them extra powers.

It doesn't really mean they can fight tougher foes, but it does mean that they can fight more weaker foes without resting - and that's a good thing, in my book.

 

[drothgery]

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.

If all they're doing is giving 1st level characters extra hit points*, it's just as trivial to house rule "in my campaign you need to earn them", once you know what you're doing. But it's better to set up the game so that experts can house rule the system, rather than newbies have to house rule the system.

* I suspect they're doing more than that, and that a 4e 1st level PC will be equivalent to a 3e 3rd level PC. In which case, house ruling the low levels back in becomes much harder.

Well, a 1st level SWSE PC is not equivalent to a 3rd level SW RCR PC, FWIW. The Saga guy has more hit points than the RCR guy had VP unless he rolled really well or had a high Con score (though the Saga guy doesn't have WP). His skill bonuses are slightly lower than the RCR guy (ability score +5 for trained skills, rather than +7 for maxed out skills) and they advance more slowly. His defenses and attack bonuses are lower. If he's a force user, he can probably do fewer things, but he's better at them (because the skill-based and VP-powered Force power system had as many issues as Vancian magic). He's got more Force points (same progression as Eberron action points), but they're not as powerful as they were. And he's got destiny points, though those are something of a patch to allow you do over-the-top things from the movies and other source material, and I don't think they'll be in D&D. His starting abilities are a little better, and he's got more flexibility in chosing one of them, but the RCR guy has three levels worth of abilities rather than one.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

It should still be possible for PCs to die, but it shouldn't be because the greataxe-wielding orc rolled a crit

In 3.5, a non-elite-array orc warrior (17 Str) with a greataxe would do 1d12+4 damage, crits for 15-48. An elite array orc barbarian with Power Attack does 1d12+10, crits for 33-66.
So, for this to no longer be lethal, they need to tone down crits. Maybe "minions" can't crit, or maybe greataxes aren't x3.

 

[delericho]

Indeed. As discussed in the 3.5e DMG, the more randomness in the game, the more it hurts PCs, since the DM rolls a lot more dice (and, anyway, has a huge array of 'disposable' characters). As a result of that, a higher frequency of critical hits actually hurts PCs more than it helps. So, despite the downer represented by missing that confirmation roll, PCs are actually worse off with the "20 always crits" rule.

That was actually one of the reasons the 3.5e Orc carried a falchion, instead of the 3.0e Orc's greataxe.

However, I'm also pretty sure that in 4e Orcs won't be opponents intended for 1st level characters any more. In 3e, despite the CR 1/2 they were stuck with, they were somewhat overpowered because of this huge attack they had.

 

[hazel monday]

I'm concerned about the elimination of low level play in the new edition. My players and I like low levels. They're simple and fun.