Triple HP at 1st level?

[GlassJaw]

We have played 1st HD max for a long time.

Per the 3ed core rules, that's not a house rule - max hp's at 1st level is in the PHB.

 

[thalmin]

I meant a long time, over 20 years, slightly before 3E.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Some of us, though probably not the majority, have fun playing at low levels, not just the "sweet spot." I like the challenges.

Well, me too-- obviously.

I think you could expand your comment, though, to cover all sorts of minority styles of play. "Some of us, though probably not the majority, have fun playing at epic levels..." and so on.

But I don't think that makes it a bad thing for the developers to find the sweet spot and make the game engine run as smoothly in that spot as possible. It will still be possible to tweak the rules of D&D to run what exactly what fires your own cylinders.

 

[HeinorNY]

Some of us, though probably not the majority, have fun playing at low levels, not just the "sweet spot." I like the challenges.

Me too.
What will I do with those 4E 1st level character with triple HPs?
I'll add more monsters, isn't that a sweet?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Question: What's the purpose of hit points?
Answer: They allow players to track their progress within a battle. If a player is getting smacked to low HP quickly and not making a significant dent on the enemy, he knows he's out of his league and can sound the retreat. He's also able to make minor mistakes and get unlucky without straight-out losing. Hit points allow for more tactical flexibility.

In 3e, hit points don't work like this at low levels. The player doesn't have enough HP to know whether he has a chance before he's dead, a single mistake probably means death, and even NO mistakes can mean death if the bad guy gets a lucky crit.

4e is trying to make the "sweet spot" of challenging, varied, tactical gameplay stretch from 1st level to 30th. If you don't like that "sweet spot" - if you'd rather have 1st-level players start praying every time the DM picks up the dice - that's fine, but that definitely seems like variant-rules stuff. What the designers SHOULDN'T want is a game that drastically changes in tone and playstyle from 1st level to 3rd. Low levels should be about learning the system, not playing something completely different.

 

[JohnSnow]

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.

I was trying to provide a sidebar to explain something. In the interest of being succinct, I wasn't entirely clear. To make it clear, we're probably talking about a page of text and a couple of tables. I'll attempt to explain the concept here, without trying to be what I'm not - a professional game designer.

I'm proceeding with the following assumptions. You can disagree with them as preferences, but I believe they're smart business decisions for WotC.

1) The first rulebooks for 4e (PHB, DMG, and MM) should be designed, by default, to appeal to beginning players.
2) The default start of play for beginning players should be first-level, not second, third or something else.
3) The way 3e plays, the early levels involve a fair amount of random luck that can be discouraging to new players. An experienced DM is needed to keep the first 3 levels of play interesting, challenging, and fun.

By changing the dynamics of the early levels, you can make the game more accessible and more fun. The fact that many experienced players CHOOSE to skip the early levels implies that for many players, the game is not fun at those levels.

It is easier to tell people who are experienced and enjoy the higher lethality of low-level play how to alter the rules than it is to tell people who are new to the game that "low level play requires experienced players." It is counterintuitive that the earliest levels of the game are "harder" than those above it.

Once you realize that, you come to the conclusion that "gritty play" should be something provided as an option for advanced players, not as the default starting point for beginning players.

I was simply providing a way to integrate that with something that is needed: rules for non-adventuring types in the world. It is my belief that the "gritty" style of play could be accommodated by providing rules for starting play as "one of the masses."

If people want to progress from that to standard heroic play, transition rules would have to be provided. That was the point of what I wrote: a proposed sidebar on how to do that. Complete rules would, obviously, be needed.

So, is that less nonsensical?

 

[thalmin]

Very good points, John. Can't disagree at all. I still hope to see lower powered options for low level included in the DMG or an early product.

 

[Henry]

It is easier to tell people who are experienced and enjoy the higher lethality of low-level play how to alter the rules than it is to tell people who are new to the game that "low level play requires experienced players."...Once you realize that, you come to the conclusion that "gritty play" should be something provided as an option for advanced players, not as the default starting point for beginning players.

I can agree with it... but whether WotC will DO it that way or not, I'm doubting it. It might require too much reworking of the base system assumptions to offer an easy way to do it -- kind of like with the dropping of the 1st level multiclassing rules out of 3.5, or doing away with most save or die spells in 3.5.