Triple HP at 1st level?

[shilsen]

Funny, my complaint has always been that a sword blow to the head (or a fall from over 60ft) should kill the untrained as well as the very well trained, veteran soldier. YMMV though.

Not if the well trained veteran soldier is Hercules, Cuchulainn, Beowulf, Siegfried, Bhima, or others of their ilk. Which is what D&D heroes with a few levels under their belts are much closer to than any well trained veteran soldier from human history.

 

[ZappoHisbane]

After all this discussion, I'm on the fence about the 3x HP at first level thing. Right now I'm leaning towards splitting the difference and giving 2x HP at first and second levels.

 

[Ahglock]

After all this discussion, I'm on the fence about the 3x HP at first level thing. Right now I'm leaning towards splitting the difference and giving 2x HP at first and second levels.

It may be x2 anyways. As pointed out earlier SAGA has X3 but also has more damaging weapons. PCs and NPCs have done 20+ damage on non-crits at level 1 multiple times in my SAGA game.

If they are going to have the condition track like SAGA and hero points I don't think you need extra HP on top of that in order to make it fairly non-lethal at level 1.

 

[Nikosandros]

That's kind of lame. I liked making a character for low level games with a high Con because it increased my survivability, it's a shame that that doesn't come into play as much.

On the other hand, triple HPs already drastically increase survivability, while perhaps bringing the usefulness of con more in line with the rest of the stats.

 

[Steely Dan]

If they are going to have the condition track like SAGA

From the Spined Devil stats it doesn't look like the Condition Track is in 4th Ed, only the Bloodied condition.

 

[One Horse town]

To my mind this development changes nothing. All it does is up the bar at 1st level. Sure, you'll all be able to take more damage at first, but from what i've seen this will simply be to accomodate tackling more foes at first level. The disparity between low hit dice classes and high hit dice classes will be even more problematic than it is now.

That's the real problem. The wizard with 5 hits and fighter with 12 hits at first level becomes the wizard with 13 hits and fighter with 32 hits if this development is in. The difference between classes becomes even greater, potentially leading to even greater problems in keeping the low HD guys alive. I would rather any design decisions on hits at 1st level concentrated on closing the gap between low & high HD characters at first level than the inflation hinted at. Wizard 12 hits and fighter 16 hits at 1st level is better to my mind than 13 and 32 respectively. Then from 2nd level onwards, the gap starts widening again to better reflect training etc.

 

[med stud]

If D&D lvl 1 will be like SWSE lvl 1 I like it. When DMing low levels I feel many situations are too insecure. If two hobgoblins get into flanking position vs one lvl 1 3.0 fighter there is a very good chance of that fighter dying right there. You may say that it is realistic (and it is, two vs one is realistically a very dangerous situation) but it also limits the use of intelligent opponents IMO.

If four adventurers take on a dungeon with, say, 10 hobgoblins I feel like I have to invent a reason why the hobgoblins don't fall back, get together and attack in full force. Besides, triple HP will provide for a "critical hit buffer" so that a PC won't be one shotted by a critical.

Besides, I think that with intelligent monsters lethality doesn't have to be a function of low HP. If a bunch of PCs decide to run from hobgoblins, all it takes for them not to get away is if one of them is short or is wearing medium or heavy armor. If the PCs attack hobgoblins, are overwhelmed and run for it then the hobgoblins can pursue them far beyond the dungeon and hobgoblins seem well suited for pursues. So I still think that you can keep low level lethality even if it will be a different kind.

 

[Ahglock]

To my mind this development changes nothing. All it does is up the bar at 1st level. Sure, you'll all be able to take more damage at first, but from what i've seen this will simply be to accomodate tackling more foes at first level. The disparity between low hit dice classes and high hit dice classes will be even more problematic than it is now.

That's the real problem. The wizard with 5 hits and fighter with 12 hits at first level becomes the wizard with 13 hits and fighter with 32 hits if this development is in. The difference between classes becomes even greater, potentially leading to even greater problems in keeping the low HD guys alive. I would rather any design decisions on hits at 1st level concentrated on closing the gap between low & high HD characters at first level than the inflation hinted at. Wizard 12 hits and fighter 16 hits at 1st level is better to my mind than 13 and 32 respectively. Then from 2nd level onwards, the gap starts widening again to better reflect training etc.

They may change the HD classes get though. In saga there are only two HD types D8 and D10. Personally I'm fond of D4 HP for mages but that style of gaming is out of fashion it seems.

 

[qstor]

Force point. The PCs will NEVER DIE IN ONE SHOT. It takes them being down on the ground and shot in the head a second time to do it. Even then, the PC who feels strongly enough about it can spend a Destiny Point to make it miss after the fact. I've seen it a dozen times in the game.

Right but Star Wars isn't D&D. I've missed the thing about starting hit points. I think its a bad idea.

Yet another reason not to like 4e.

Mike

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Since they've said race will matter more, maybe max class HD plus max racial HD?

omg that would be sexy.