Triple HP at 1st level?

[Sadrik]

That looks very solid to me.

3 times max HD and then roll thereafter.

I think I will make the assumption that is how they are doing it for characters too.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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

Why should monsters start with the 3HD at 1st level though? They could still just be based on HD since we know that monsters and NPCs don't necessarily follow the same rules as PCs in 4e (unlike 3e).

Regards

 

[Sadrik]

Why should monsters start with the 3HD at 1st level though? They could still just be based on HD since we know that monsters and NPCs don't necessarily follow the same rules as PCs in 4e (unlike 3e).

Regards

Do you have another way of doing the math so that they add up to 47?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Honestly, that's one part that I really dislike about 4E - it looks like they're totally discontinuing low-level play, and they're making "Level 4 the new Level 1." I'd rather just have the full range of pathetic to mighty, and give DMs much better advice of where to start their player groups at. Having GM'ed a campaign of the new Star Wars now, it's nothing BUT over-the-top heroism from Level 1 onward, and to me that doesn't fit the spirit of previous incarnations of D&D, where you worked to see the results of your adventuring. I'm concerned with seeing PCs start at "Awesome," and just keeping going to "More Awesome" to finish at "Slightly More Awesome yet cool."

Breaking down first level into three sub-levels would be a pretty easy (and expected) OGL add-on, though.

 

[Sadrik]

I wouldn't mind this at all:
Bloodied portion = con score (not mod) + 10 accounting for going to -10 (die at 0)
Non-bloodied portion = HD + con mod

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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

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

My best guess from everything I've heard is that creatures hitpoints, BAB, and saves aren't based on a formula so much as a "balanced against the players" ideal.

They said they hated the fact that you'd make a 20 hitdice creature and it would give you so much bab, so much saves, so much hitpoints, etc.

So, I think the hitpoints got to be there like this:
The average PC does...let's say 12 damage per hit at about 6th level. We think a battle is no fun unless the enemy survives about 5 rounds. That gives us around 60 hitpoints. Since encounters should have about 1 enemy per PC, each one will have to do about enough damage to kill any one of them in the 5 rounds. This is a skirmisher so it is supposed to be weaker than average for his level. Let's take off around one round worth of hitpoints from him, making...around...47.

The reason I believe this is because of comments made by the devs saying things like "DR is bad because it adds another factor when estimating how many rounds it takes for a PC to defeat an enemy. Normally you just need hitpoints, ac, and attack bonus." Also, the above complaints that hitdice were tied to bab, skills and saves. They wanted a method to make one creature have large amounts of hitpoints and still have no skillpoints and only have a BAB of 1.

So, the only way to do this is to stop tying any of these things to level. You can instead have guidelines per level, but no rules. They've said it's easier to develop monsters and this would help. They also said they wanted to fix the fact that they continually got stat blocks wrong and one of them made a comment that they didn't think there should be such thing as "wrong". They've said they didn't like formulas that created unfun creatures. Plus they've also made comments that they had a formula that worked on all monsters in terms of hitpoints, attack bonuses, and defenses. That they changed the formula once and they knew exactly how to change every monster in the monster manual based on that change.

Thus, the easiest formula(and the one that causes the most fun battles) is one that takes into account the damage of the party, the hitpoints and ac of the enemy and an estimated time the battle should take before it ends.

 

[Delta]

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.

Wha? This is so complicated I couldn't even parse all of that. Making separate Nonheroic classes of multiple levels in the DMG is (a) really complex, (b) doesn't answer the "what mechanics do NPCs use" question, and (c) creates an unnecessary barrier to people who like PCs starting at classic-1st-level. Personally, I think the 3E NPC classes were among the worst ideas in that ruleset.

I mean, just having a simple continuity of classes from 1st level is clearly the most elegant solution. NPCs are generally first, start your Pcs wherever you like -- 3rd, 5th, 10th, to taste.

The idea that NPCs can't use standard classes because you want to call those classes "Heroic" is unhelpful word games.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Wha? This is so complicated I couldn't even parse all of that. Making separate Nonheroic classes of multiple levels in the DMG is (a) really complex, (b) doesn't answer the "what mechanics do NPCs use" question, and (c) creates an unnecessary barrier to people who like PCs starting at classic-1st-level. Personally, I think the 3E NPC classes were among the worst ideas in that ruleset.

I mean, just having a simple continuity of classes from 1st level is clearly the most elegant solution. NPCs are generally first, start your Pcs wherever you like -- 3rd, 5th, 10th, to taste.

The idea that NPCs can't use standard classes because you want to call those classes "Heroic" is unhelpful word games.

In regards to "what do NPCs use", since hobgoblin NPCs use monster stats (that is, do not use class levels) I would think that they will do the same thing with elves, gnomes and humans, allowing GM's to give them appropriate abilities without messing around with classes.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The idea that NPCs can't use standard classes because you want to call those classes "Heroic" is unhelpful word games.

Not at all. A clear distinction between PCs (and therefore the rules that govern them) and everything else is completely appropriate.

In addition to just being easier to model, it also has the added weight of thousands of years of mythic structure behind it.

If you don't want the PCs to be Heroes in that model, then you were already playing the wrong game, well before anything 4e had to say. After spending years playing, designing, and selling "gritty" versions of 3e, it strikes me quite funny that 4e has suddenly crossed the line, and folks pine for the gritty days of 3e.

 

[thalmin]

If you don't want the PCs to be Heroes in that model, then you were already playing the wrong game, well before anything 4e had to say. After spending years playing, designing, and selling "gritty" versions of 3e, it strikes me quite funny that 4e has suddenly crossed the line, and folks pine for the gritty days of 3e.

Funny, I thought D&D worked fine playing that way, too. Here I've been wrong for over 25 years. And I thought I was having fun.

Some of us, though probably not the majority, have fun playing at low levels, not just the "sweet spot." I like the challenges. (Though admittedly not the "fun" of playing a fighter who rolled a 1 on his first hit die. We have played 1st HD max for a long time.)