Triple HP at 1st level?

[JohnSnow]

The part i've always disagreed with is increasing numbers just for the sake of increasing numbers. Why have hit point totals in the dozens and damage in the dozens, when having both in the teens work just as well? I can certainly increase numbers as you mention, but I'm speaking in terms of the game being useful for DMs of all stripes, not just the majority. That the game seems to be phasing out low-level "fragile" play completely in favor of a more powerful baseline means one thing: For the 5th edition, the majority that was happy in 4E is no longer the majority, and the game gets rewritten to even higher baseline numbers again; then in 6E, it gets written to even higher baselines. Before long, it's like RIFTS with "megadamage" and tac-nuke equivalents for 1st level PCs.

While I agree that a continually escalating trend would be a bad thing, I can actually understand the reason for doing it in Fourth Edition. That doesn't mean it won't increase again, but I could understand increasing it now and then leaving it alone. Before you disagree on principle, bear with me. There might be a reason that addresses your concern.

Third Edition has a granularity problem with hit points. The oft-quoted "commoner vs. cat" battle is an excellent example of this. Since no creature in D&D can have fewer than 1 hit point or do less than 1 hit point in damage, cats (and other small animals) are amazingly durable. While this is excellent for modeling how difficult it can be to kill them (many small mammals are hard to hit solidly), it can lead to the situation where a weak human is easier to kill than a cat. And less combat effective. Now, this is patently ridiculous, but it IS how the numbers work out.

By giving low level heroes more hit points, you open up more ground below them for handling the difference between weak commoners and small animals. To do this, you might increase the damage that weapons do.

There's another point here. Many (most?) people do not enjoy the fragility of low-level play. I understand that you're one of the ones who does enjoy that level of play Henry, and that's fine. The typical response from your group to those of us who hate the lethality of levels 1-3 is "well, why don't you just start at 3rd-level?" The problem with that is that what we want is less lethal play without the characters having more offensive potential. Yes, we could houserule more hit points for starting characters, but by the same token, those who prefer more lethal games can also houserule in fewer. And, honestly, the game should cater to the majority of its player base "out of the box." If the vast majority of players are skipping levels 1-3 (or 13-20), then a good portion of the published game is essentially worthless to them. Any smart business would try to fix that.

Just curiously Henry, if there's an optional rule in the DMG for "starting the game with apprentice-level or nonheroic characters," would you be happy with the game? Or have you already decided that 4e's "style" isn't for you?

 

[Fifth Element]

Yet another reason not to like 4e.

Can we keep the topic on hit points please? There's no reason to mention other reasons why you don't like 4E. We're discussing hit points at 1st level.

 

[Delta]

If the vast majority of players are skipping levels 1-3 (or 13-20), then a good portion of the published game is essentially worthless to them.

Except for all the low-level NPC's in the world.

While I agree that housecats doing lethal damage is a crack in the system, I think that the proper fix is to make such small animals do no effective damage. The scale of damage in D&D is at the level of swords & axes, it shouldn't be forced to track hit points in the dozens or hundreds just to allow for attacks of mice and cats.

I think this first popped up in 1E AD&D MM2, giving normal cats 1 hp damage. I thought it was broken then, and I still think it's broken now.

One thing I've noticed looking at OD&D in recent months is that almost all of the original monster stats were just one digit each. (AC, move, hits, attacks, treasure.) It's easily memorizable for any monster. Ah, those were the days.

 

[JoeGKushner]

And in terms of cat domination, don't forget they get three attacks a round.

 

[JohnSnow]

Except for all the low-level NPC's in the world.

If the low-levels are for NPCs, then put the rules for handling them where they belong - in the Dungeon Masters Guide. Then throw in a sidebar like the following:

"Optional Rule: Starting play with Ordinary (nonheroic) characters.

"Most gaming groups prefer to start play with heroic characters. Ordinarily, play progresses from the Heroic Tier to the Paragon Tier, and finally to Epic Play. While this is the default system of Dungeons & Dragons, there is another option.

"As stated, most of the NPCs in the world are not heroic characters. Rather, they are ordinary people, who are more fragile than most PCs. The average NPC might be quite skilled in a variety of non-combat skills, but they are NOT adventurers. As an option, DMs may elect to start the campaign with PCs as ordinary characters. At this level, they are not members of any heroic class. Rather, they are ordinary individuals. They receive the starting benefits of their race and are considered 1st-level members of the Nonheroic class.

"As stated, nonheroic classes only go up to level 3. When they achieve the 4th level of experience as nonheroics, they convert to the Heroic class of the player's choice."


Obviously, you'd need a section in the DMG on handling nonheroic characters. And a way for them to take, for example, Wizard, Ranger, or Fighter training, to get some of the benefits of the heroic classes.

To me, the idea of a 6th level nonheroic character is almost absurd. The average individual fills that "ordinary" category. By the time they'd be level 4, they should become "heroes." This is especially true if there's a way for a character to become well-trained in a skill without improving his combat prowess.

To me, better rules like this for handling noncombatant NPCs (with a sidebar on using those rules for those who want to start play as "ordinary" characters) would be much more useful than PCs starting out so fragile.

But that's just me. Maybe others have no interest in more realistic rules for handling NPCs.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Third Edition has a granularity problem with hit points. The oft-quoted "commoner vs. cat" battle is an excellent example of this. Since no creature in D&D can have fewer than 1 hit point or do less than 1 hit point in damage, cats (and other small animals) are amazingly durable. While this is excellent for modeling how difficult it can be to kill them (many small mammals are hard to hit solidly), it can lead to the situation where a weak human is easier to kill than a cat. And less combat effective. Now, this is patently ridiculous, but it IS how the numbers work out.

More good stuff from JohnSnow!

 

[Plane Sailing]

One of the effects of increased hit points at 1st level which I like is that it smooths the 'resiliency' curve as levels increase.

Although max hp at 1st level skews this a little, I think the principle still stands.

With 1 hd per level, 2nd level is twice as tough to kill as 1st level, and 3rd level is three times as tough

If it goes 3hd, 4hd, 5hd then 2nd level is only a third as tough again, 3rd level is two thirds as tough again and you have to reach 4th level to be twice as tough (instead of it happening at 2nd level in previous editions of the game).

I think this smoothing or flattening of the 'resiliency curve' is good for gameplay and also good for whatever rationale of hit points actually comes about, because it doesn't have to explain the huge jump in damage resistance which otherwise happens at 2nd level (which is relatively easy to reach now. In 1e a wizard had to kill ~100 orcs to reach 2nd level!)

Cheers

 

[Sadrik]

Monte Cook, I read recently, was testing something CON score (3-18) + hd.

This could be another way they might handle it.

LEVEL 1 Fighter
STR 14
DEX 14
CON 14
HP 24 (14 + 10)

...

 

[Sadrik]

Also, how does a level 6 skirmisher monster get 47/23 HP (from the spine devil stat card)

x3 HD +2 CON
x1 HD +2 CON
x1 HD +2 CON
x1 HD +2 CON
x1 HD +2 CON
x1 HD +2 CON
-------------
x8 HD +12 CON
47 -12 = 35
35/8 = garbage

I have no idea how they got the HP's on that creature.

 

[JohnSnow]

Also, how does a level 6 skirmisher monster get 47/23 HP (from the spine devil stat card)

x3 HD +2 CON
x1 HD +2 CON
x1 HD +2 CON
x1 HD +2 CON
x1 HD +2 CON
x1 HD +2 CON
-------------
x8 HD +12 CON
47 -12 = 35
35/8 = garbage

I have no idea how they got the HP's on that creature.

Assuming you're right on the CON bonus, we just have to guess what the hit die type is they're modeling this after.

If you assume it's based on a hit die, and that the character gets 3x Max at Level 1 and average results after that, we can try a hit die type. Let's try the obvious: a d6.

Level 1: 18 hp
Level 2: 3.5 hp
Level 3: 3.5 hp
Level 4: 3.5 hp
Level 5: 3.5 hp
Level 6: 3.5 hp

Total: 35.5 hp

If we round down, that fits what we need it to. So I'd guess that skirmishers get:

18 hp at Level 1.
3.5 hp at every subsequent level.

No rolling required. On the other hand, DMs could allow players to either "take the average" or roll. It's also consistent with alternating 3 hp at even levels and 4 hp at odd levels.

That's roughly my guess as to how it works.