D&D 2E 2e hit points less is more

[Dragonblade]

Your assumptions are out of whack. In 3.5 the d8 becomes the average damage die for a CR2 creature. At first level, damage dice are more typically d3-d4. And sure, make the goal be that a front line fighter can stand up to five such hits but a not any PC, not the squishy wizard, as well. He can go down in one or two (note: go down, not necessarily die).

Then teach your newbie players that smart teamwork is guaranteed to help them achieve their goal of being heroic and cool.

I manage the expectations of new players on a regular basis and I assure you that your final paragraph has no basis in fact.

A single orc with a sword does d8 damage without accounting for a strength mod or anything else. That's a CR 1 challenge, I'm pretty sure. But its been a while since I played 3e. I avoid 3e monster math and the CR system like the plague. It's totally broken.

I have introduced newbies to the game before and watched other people introduce them. I completely disagree. Especially in the case of someone learning the game on their own without veteran's influencing their experience of the game.

More often than not, I hear "I tried D&D once and I wanted to play a wizard, but I only had 1 spell and then I got hit once and died. It sucked. I don't really see why you like it so much."

 

[Ranes]

A single orc with a sword does d8 damage without accounting for a strength mod or anything else. That's a CR 1 challenge, I'm pretty sure. But its been a while since I played 3e. I avoid 3e monster math and the CR system like the plague. It's totally broken.

Actually, it's worse than that. A default orc hits with a falchion for 2d4+4 and he's CR 1/2! But orcs typically appear in gangs of 2-4 or greater. In other words, they're not really suitable for first level encounters. And yes, 3e's CR system is wonky and I treat it with a pinch of salt but 'totally broken' is over-claiming.

I have introduced newbies to the game before and watched other people introduce them. I completely disagree. Especially in the case of someone learning the game on their own without veteran's influencing their experience of the game.

More often than not, I hear "I tried D&D once and I wanted to play a wizard, but I only had 1 spell and then I got hit once and died. It sucked. I don't really see why you like it so much."

I, too, have seen hundreds and hundreds of newbies introduced to the game and badly let down and I've heard the complaints. They are inevitable if you're going to throw gangs of orcs at newbies with first level PCs...

 

[keterys]

Eh, doesn't even need to be a gang. A single orc crit at low level can outright kill a lot of 1st level characters. 18 damage from that example orc, and they switched to falchions off of greataxes since 1d12+4 * 3 was even more swingy. Yeah...

I vote no rolling for hit points as a core concept. There are tons of reasons, and if folks feel a need, they can always house rule that in quite easily. In the meantime, put the best foot forward with the default.

 

[NewJeffCT]

First off, I love rolling hit points. Yes, it sucks when you roll a 1 but when you roll high it's great. Part of the fun of gaining a level. So I'm not a fan of HP acquisition being constants. I'd like to think I'm not alone in this.

I love rolling hit points as well. However, I've always played with the condition that after getting the max at first level, if you have the d4 for your hit points, you can re-roll a "1"... if you have the d6 or d8, you can reroll a "1" or a "2", and if you have the d10 hit die, you can reroll "1", "2" or "3" That way, the tank fighter isn't stuck with a "1" when he goes from level 2 to level 3.

 

[Hassassin]

To understand why 4e HPs are higher, you have to understand that the design goal of 4e is that a standard PC can survive at least 5 hits from a standard monster of their level before going down.

The correct fix isn't a lot of hit points, but lower damage. That leads to lower numbers with no real down side.

 

[mmadsen]

No more wizards with 4 HP, please. It just doesn't work.

The first-level wizard has both terrible hit points and a terrible armor class. If anyone attacks him, he will die. The first-level fighter has both far more hit points and a far better armor class. Either difference would make one fragile and the other hardy, but together they're pretty extreme.

If a PC should be able to survive approximately 5 hits from a typical monster before they drop (which I think is a reasonable design goal), then they need around 22-23 HPs. At level 1.

Five hits seems a bit high, but I suppose we need to consider what a "hit" is supposed to mean, and what "hit points" are supposed to mean. Right now a wizard gets hit more often and can't take as many hits. I can imagine a system where everyone can take roughly three hits, but the Fighter has a high enough armor class to rarely take a serious hit, while the wizard is bloodied immediately.

Nobody except hard core old school gamers want to play a level 1 PC that can die in a single hit. Especially not players new to tabletop who have visions of being heroic and cool right at level 1.

I'm not sure why competent heroes should be level 1. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to start heroes at level 4, or whatever, and have them beat up level-1 through -3 bandits and orcs.