# D&D is not a supers game.



## TrippyHippy (Jun 4, 2012)

OK, so I've got the play test, read it and played it. I actually like much of it, including the Backgrounds and Themes ideas. It generally feels like D&D (as an 'old school gamer') although it still needs expanding on some ideas. 

The big bugbear for me, however, largely boils down to to same core issue I have with D&D 4th edition (_and_ Pathfinder actually). And that is the power creep. 

Why do Hit Points have to be so high at 1st level - out of synch with all other NPC dwellers? Why do Fighters need to have a D12 Hit Dice, and cause unstoppable damage at 1st level? Why do Wizards need an inexhaustible supply of unerring Magic Missiles to launch? Why do classes all need a schtick-like effects to be enjoyable to play in the 1st level? 

Seriously, if your group wants to play a higher level style fantasy, what is stopping them simply giving all PCs 10,000 XP to start with and simply begin play at a higher level? 

For me half the fun of D&D is starting off as relatively ordinary characters, and then _becoming_ heroic as they gain experience. This seems to be lost in practically all modern iterations of D&D. I recall the 1st time I played D&D, being wowed by the experience of our party overcoming an Ogre with something like _30HP_ at the climax of the session. You lose that sense of danger, if the individual characters have nearly that much HP each already. You cannot play a Lord of the Rings style Hobbity adventure with these rules, which is a clear failure in my book. 

So, for me: 

1) Make the HD the sole measure of HP (with a Con _modifier_ for each level). Have characters gain up to 10HD at 10th Level, then simply stop awarding them after that.

2) Give Fighters a d10 HD again. Actually, I'd arguably give them a D8, so that the HP are equitable with other characters and NPC Warriors). Levy their 'Feats' so that, at 1st level at least, combat is challenging. They can gain more dramatic feats as they progress, but it needs to be levied. 

3) Make Wizards 'minor spells' actually minor in effect. Anything that directly causes damage, without needing to roll, is not a minor effect. Cantrips should be effects that gain useful little benefits, like opening doors or moving small objects around, but are not flashy evocations of power. 

4) Make the skills the main focus of the Rogue Class - not just the 'striker' role (although, admittedly, this is much better in D&D Next than it was in 4th Ed). I'm not asking for big long lists (definitely not!), but what about being able to pickpocket again? 

5) Be wary of escalating bonuses. Already, at 1st level the Fighter seems to have massive bonuses on damage and attacks - indeed, almost all the characters have bonuses of some type, and it's hard to track where some of them are coming from.  Also, incidentally, are they going to go back to adding 1/2 Level to Skill checks and Attacks? It is not clear in the play test, although I actually wouldn't mind as it's an easy method of calculating.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 4, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> Why do Hit Points have to be so high at 1st level - out of synch with all other NPC dwellers? Why do Fighters need to have a D12 Hit Dice, and cause unstoppable damage at 1st level? Why do Wizards need an inexhaustible supply of unerring Magic Missiles to launch? Why do classes all need a schtick-like effects to be enjoyable to play in the 1st level?




They don't need any of these things, but most players think that those things are cool. Given the choice between having things that are cool and not having things that are cool, I will take the things that are cool. So will most people.


----------



## fjw70 (Jun 4, 2012)

I prefer starting PCs be more heroic but I am willing to accept starting at a higher level (say 3) and leaving the first couple levels to the don't-want-to-start-as-heroes crowd.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 4, 2012)

I disagree. D&D - especially high level D&D - has pretty much been a superhero game since 2nd Edition.

I will agree with a proposition that D&D _shouldn't_ be a superhero game. But I can't agree with a statement that it isn't one, because it has been - to my displeasure - for a long time. Most of its lifetime, for sure.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 4, 2012)

I understand your point, and its not a bad one. In a large sense I actually agree with you, level one IMHO has a magic place where you are the player are about as heroic as a pastry chef (no offence to the pastry chefs out there, I love your work), and you have to survive with very little. Its a very satisfying experience to overcome obstacles with very little, and for what its worth, its an easily preserved experience by saying "if you DONT like it, just start at a higher level".

Totally sympathetic on that point.



TrippyHippy said:


> ...which is a clear failure in my book.



No. Not so much saying "No" cause I disagree with you, its the rhetoric. Let the children use the "fail" word like its going out of fashion. Let we the wise use terms that don't imply the extreme of negativity just because we disagree. Its enough to say "it wont be the experience I am looking for" rather than "its going to fail because I dont like it". I dont have a magic ball to predict the future and neither do you.



TrippyHippy said:


> 2) Give Fighters a d10 HD again. Actually, I'd arguably give them a D8, so that the HP are equitable with other characters and NPC Warriors). Levy their 'Feats' so that, at 1st level at least, combat is challenging. They can gain more dramatic feats as they progress, but it needs to be levied.



I was kinda happy they had moved fighters to d12. I have always felt that was a good move. Tom"ay"toes, Tom"ar"toes.



TrippyHippy said:


> 4) Make the skills the main focus of the Rogue Class - not just the 'striker' role (although, admittedly, this is much better in D&D Next than it was in 4th Ed). I'm not asking for big long lists (definitely not!), but what about being able to pickpocket again?



Yes Yes Yes Yes. I have hated what the rogue has turned into since 3e+, damage monkeys...bletch.

I would point out, dont draw too much from the characters that were included. They were just samples intended for testing and far from complete. A different build of rogue might well have pick pocket.



TrippyHippy said:


> 5) Be wary of escalating bonuses. Already, at 1st level the Fighter seems to have massive bonuses on damage and attacks - indeed, almost all the characters have bonuses of some type, and it's hard to track where some of them are coming from.  Also, incidentally, are they going to go back to adding 1/2 Level to Skill checks and Attacks? It is not clear in the play test, although I actually wouldn't mind as it's an easy method of calculating.



Sorta covered off in many places. The to-hit bonus ISNT scaling hard(yes, that +2 they get doesnt go up by much, if at all. Most speculation is around the 1 per 5 levels, but no-one really know. Whatever it will be, it aint much) and the damage is intended to scale harder than before, or something along those lines.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 4, 2012)

D&D is also not a dirt farmers game.

Maybe 5E will wind up something in between?


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 4, 2012)

Once you get to about level 10 or so, D&D is a supers game.

Pretty much since forever. Once you hit teens, you are playing the B or C squad of the Avengers or Justice League.

In the past, low levels was a swingy mess. You were normals fighting incredible odds at best and supernatural killing fields at worse. The swinginess could easily kill fun. You were kobolds and the world was the fighter, wizard, rogue, and cleric. You could barely place any attachment to a PC unless your DM was nice enough to go easy and level you pathetic behind up.

Whether level 1 should be regular pathetic normals or well trained semi-professionals is another thing.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 4, 2012)

Reduce power everywhere? Yes, you're right.

D&D should be a superhero game at high and epic levels, but 1st level characters should suck.



> For me half the fun of D&D is starting off as relatively ordinary characters, and then becoming heroic as they gain experience. This seems to be lost in practically all modern iterations of D&D



Having only briefly played any pre-3e D&D, I can't speak on the history, but I agree that the heroic _journey_ is a major motif in D&D and in fantasy in general and to have a journey you have to start pretty far from where you end. I think 3e st level characters were somewhat too powerful, and 4e were ridiculous, and 5e seems to be in between.

I don't think hp are the biggest issue. If you have 4 hp wizards, you get into silly situations with cats. I think the powers that characters have and the relative ineptitude of the monsters are bigger problems than the hp, which is a little high but not crazy.


----------



## am181d (Jun 4, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I disagree. D&D - especially high level D&D - has pretty much been a superhero game since 2nd Edition.
> 
> I will agree with a proposition that D&D _shouldn't_ be a superhero game. But I can't agree with a statement that it isn't one, because it has been - to my displeasure - for a long time. Most of its lifetime, for sure.




Only 2e? 2e wasn't the edition that presented a Monster Manual worth of gods to beat up.

The difference, if one wants to draw a line, is maybe about the progression. I'm sympathetic to the previous poster's point that even in 3e, your first level characters were still barely more competent than commoners. (Especially with the 3e quirk that you could have 4th level commoners, etc.)


----------



## Drowbane (Jun 4, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I disagree. D&D - especially high level D&D - has pretty much been a superhero game since 2nd Edition.
> 
> I will agree with a proposition that D&D _shouldn't_ be a superhero game. But I can't agree with a statement that it isn't one, because it has been - to my displeasure - for a long time. Most of its lifetime, for sure.




Was it not 1e that gave Fighter the title of "Super Hero" around level 8? I would argue that D&D has been a Supers game since the addition of magic using classes. And I'm cool with that.


----------



## Gold Roger (Jun 4, 2012)

I like the notion that PC's are more than ordinary people. They are the guys that go out there in a small band and face things most would rather run from. They study the arcane or call upon the favor of gods, they are martial prodigys, masters of improvisation and people who stand up to beasts and trained soldiers with nothing but their bare hands.

Having said that, I agree with a lot you said, especialy where it concerns the lowest levels. First level PC's belong to the five percent who have a talent that may allow them to really make a difference. They are more skilled than ordinary people, but they don't tower over them. And an experience guardsman, a mercenary worth his money or gangleader in the slums certainly aren't ordinary either and shouldn't be a pushover in the face of a first level group.

So I think that there are some things on the playtest characters I feel should be toned down a bit. But I'm optimistic.

Mearls already said they went a bit big on the hitpoints to be on the safe side for example, though I'd prefer them a bit higher than you suggest (if only because I can run a rather tough game and would like some characters to actually see the campaign start to finish).

As for escalating boni, the designers have stated that they want to keep the math flat for attack boni, AC, saving throws and skills. In the playtest none of these things increase past the first level. For all we know they never do. Though I'd expect attack boni and saves at least to increase a small bit, as certain creatures could get sats up to 30 (for a +10 bonus) and they'd be incredibly hard to deal with at even the highest level without some increase.


----------



## jadrax (Jun 4, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> 2) Give Fighters a d10 HD again. Actually, I'd arguably give them a D8, so that the HP are equitable with other characters and NPC Warriors). Levy their 'Feats' so that, at 1st level at least, combat is challenging. They can gain more dramatic feats as they progress, but it needs to be levied.




Fighters do have a d10 Hit Dice (and I to personally would rather it be d8). The playtest Fighter has a d12 due to the fact he is a Dwarf.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 4, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> D&D should be a superhero game at high and epic levels, but 1st level characters should suck.




I don't think they should suck at all. 1st level is where I daresay most new players to D&D begin. You don't want to introduce new players to the game of D&D by effectively saying, "Welcome to D&D! You suck and can't do anything well!" You want to introduce them by saying, "Welcome to D&D! You can do some awesome things now, and the more you play the more awesome you'll become!"


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 4, 2012)

Dannager said:


> I don't think they should suck at all. 1st level is where I daresay most new players to D&D begin. You don't want to introduce new players to the game of D&D by effectively saying, "Welcome to D&D! You suck and can't do anything well!" You want to introduce them by saying, "Welcome to D&D! You can do some awesome things now, and the more you play the more awesome you'll become!"



1. Pet peeve: the word "awesome" is decades out of date. I don't know why it gets used so much in the gaming community.
2. The last thing I want is for new players to think that they can accomplish something without earning it.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 4, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> 1. Pet peeve: the word "awesome" is decades out of date. I don't know why it gets used so much in the gaming community.
> 2. The last thing I want is for new players to think that they can accomplish something without earning it.




The awesome thing is that we have people willing to point out how out of date we really are.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Jun 4, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> 1. Pet peeve: the word "awesome" is decades out of date. I don't know why it gets used so much in the gaming community.
> 2. The last thing I want is for new players to think that they can accomplish something without earning it.




Awesome and D&D peaked at the same time. 

Mr. Spicoli if you please...

Awesome! - YouTube



I'd rather have PCs be well above your average slack jawed yokel right from level one.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 4, 2012)

There should be a level 0 for our pathetic normals if someone wants to start there. 

Although the playtest is higher than I like in HPs. But they stated that it is high for testing purposes.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 4, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> 2. The last thing I want is for new players to think that they can accomplish something without earning it.




I'm not of the persuasion that my friends who have decided to sit down to enjoy a game in their free time should have to earn anything in order to have fun, or to enjoy the things their character can do.

The notion that players should have to "earn" their enjoyment is nonsense, and I'm tempted to say it comes from a place of gamer elitism, which this hobby has *no* room for.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 4, 2012)

Dannager said:


> The notion that players should have to "earn" their enjoyment is nonsense, and I'm tempted to say it comes from a place of gamer elitism, which this hobby has *no* room for.



Not at all. The sense of accomplishment you get when playing rpgs comes from overcoming challenges. This is true in any game, really. I don't think that beginning tennis players should be firing aces, or beginning poker players should be capable of winning money against experienced ones. Likewise, I don't believe that beginning D&D *characters* should be capable of shooting infinite magic bolts or defeating competent opponents in combat.

Beginning D&D *players* should be helped along, but that doesn't really conflict with any of the above.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 4, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Not at all. The sense of accomplishment you get when playing rpgs comes from overcoming challenges.




Absolutely. You can challenge your players aplenty while still giving their characters awesome things to do. "Cool" and "powerful" are not interchangeable words.


----------



## jadrax (Jun 4, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> 1. Pet peeve: the word "awesome" is decades out of date. I don't know why it gets used so much in the gaming community.




yeah, you kinda answered your own question there.


----------



## Ratinyourwalls (Jun 4, 2012)

Don't tell me what D&D is or is not please. This is the edition that's supposed to be modular and capable of supporting many different styles and preferences. Don't ruin it for everyone by trying to enforce YOUR version of the magical elf game as the standard.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jun 4, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I disagree. D&D - especially high level D&D - has pretty much been a superhero game since 2nd Edition.
> 
> I will agree with a proposition that D&D _shouldn't_ be a superhero game. But I can't agree with a statement that it isn't one, because it has been - to my displeasure - for a long time. Most of its lifetime, for sure.



I agree.  Why, oh why, can't I give you XP?


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 4, 2012)

Ratinyourwalls said:


> Don't tell me what D&D is or is not please. This is the edition that's supposed to be modular and capable of supporting many different styles and preferences. Don't ruin it for everyone by trying to enforce YOUR version of the magical elf game as the standard.




In all fairness to the OP he did state it as his preference. He put arguments forward for why that was his preference, sure, but thats entirely different to him trying to force a mandate. Everyone is allowed to put preference and argument supporting it forward.

Im sorry you interpreted that as him trying to "enforce HIS version of the magical elf game".

Just what was it in his post that made you think he was pushing in that way?


----------



## ren1999 (Jun 4, 2012)

I agree and disagree. 

D&D shouldn't be a superhero game unless there is magic involved.
Cap natural humanoid bonuses at STR20(+5)
and with magic they could become a superhero if the DM allows that magic to exist
Cap natural + magic for humanoids at STR30(+10)


----------



## thewok (Jun 4, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> Why do Wizards need an inexhaustible supply of unerring Magic Missiles to launch?



I don't care if it's magic missile.  I'm totally okay with a spell that requires an attack roll.  But then, I actually liked rolling for magic missile damage in 4E.

I just believe that a wizard should be casting spells rather than firing a crossbow.  If a wizard ever has to resort to using a mundane weapon, then the class concept fails to capture the essence of wizard.



> Why do classes all need a schtick-like effects to be enjoyable to play in the 1st level?



I'm not sure what you mean here.  All classes need their own schticks.  Otherwise, there's no reason to play them.  In 3E, if a sorcerer and wizard were exactly the same, why bother even having the sorcerer?  And if the Favored One didn't have a different spell list from the sorcerer, why bother with it?  Every class has to have something different about it, whether it be sneak attack, lay hands, spontaneous casting, favored enemies, or whatever.  Without something to differentiate a class from other classes, the class concept fails, and the class in question is unnecessary.



> 3) Make Wizards 'minor spells' actually minor in effect. Anything that directly causes damage, without needing to roll, is not a minor effect. Cantrips should be effects that gain useful little benefits, like opening doors or moving small objects around, but are not flashy evocations of power.



I wholeheartedly and without any hesitation disagree with this.  As I stated above, I believe that if the wizard ever has need of using mundane weaponry, then the wizard class fails to do its job.  Wizards should be using magic _every round_.  That said, I'm fine with wizards needing to make attack rolls.  In fact, I encourage it.  Magic Missile is a boring spell.  It always has been.



> 4) Make the skills the main focus of the Rogue Class - not just the 'striker' role (although, admittedly, this is much better in D&D Next than it was in 4th Ed). I'm not asking for big long lists (definitely not!), but what about being able to pickpocket again?



Rogues in 4E could pick pockets just fine.  It was involved in the Thievery skill.  I disagree with this point, because I believe that everyone should have equal access to skills.  There is no reason why a fighter, a wizard or even a cleric should not be able to pick locks.  There's no reason why a fighter can't learn the activation word for a magic wand.  Restricted skills are an immersion-breaking part of 3E that I hope never returns to see the light of day.  Everyone should be able to learn anything he or she wants.  So, with that in mind, I detest the idea of a "skill class."



> 5) Be wary of escalating bonuses. Already, at 1st level the Fighter seems to have massive bonuses on damage and attacks - indeed, almost all the characters have bonuses of some type, and it's hard to track where some of them are coming from.  Also, incidentally, are they going to go back to adding 1/2 Level to Skill checks and Attacks? It is not clear in the play test, although I actually wouldn't mind as it's an easy method of calculating.



Those bonuses on the character sheets are coming from places we don't know about because we don't have the entire ruleset.  It's not from random escalation of bonuses, which doesn't seem to be in this edition.

Check the DM document.  There are guidelines in there for DCs.  Those DCs don't shift the way that 4E DCs do.  They are set, which tells me that there will be no half-level bonuses to rolls.  The progression seems to be somewhat horizontal rather than vertical.  Most of the situations that are resolved via bonuses and penalties in previous editions seem to be resolved via the advantage system now, which makes for a lot less on-the-fly math.  If you want to improve a skill, you'll need to spend a feat or whatever to do that.

Next seems to me to be a game that likes breadth of abilities, rather than extreme specialization.  It looks like specialization still is an option, but at the cost of some utility outside of that specialization.  I think that's a good thing.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 4, 2012)

When you look at 3e and 5e PCs and perform a positive analysis of them against their opponents the primary difference is that the play test PCs are more durable. The overall destructive capacity is pretty much the same. The casters in 3e will have more daily spells that are more easily game-able, but lack at will abilities. The 3e fighter still kills just about anything he hits and has cleave at 1st level. The 5e fighter is slightly more accurate and does 3 more damage on average, but lacks the amazing burst of 3e critical hits. The 3e rogue built for skills has a less powerful melee attack, but when facing anything relevant for 1st level characters other than undead his sneak attack takes the 5e rogue's sneak attack behind the shed thanks to the power of flanking.

3e PCs have incredible destructive power. They also have comically low hp in relation to the monsters they face. Low level combat in 3e feels like playing Russian Roulette. A critical hit from any character or monster when both are at full hp pretty much means a trip to death and dying. I have issues with believing these PCs would leave their houses.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 4, 2012)

thewok said:


> Rogues in 4E could pick pockets just fine.  It was involved in the Thievery skill.  I disagree with this point, because I believe that everyone should have equal access to skills.  There is no reason why a fighter, a wizard or even a cleric should not be able to pick locks.  There's no reason why a fighter can't learn the activation word for a magic wand.  Restricted skills are an immersion-breaking part of 3E that I hope never returns to see the light of day.  Everyone should be able to learn anything he or she wants.  So, with that in mind, I detest the idea of a "skill class."




I LOVE the idea of a skill class....but I wont get into it. This is a point that has been argued till those involved had to see doctors for the arthritis in their fingers.

Personally I detest the idea that rogues shouldnt get better at rogue style skills than everyone else. Without it, how do you intend to define the rogue? A backstab monkey? Yuck. The 4e "agile combatent" ... <cutting response here...go lookup previous threads on this topic, this is a very divided community>

p.s. the philosophy for 5e is that no-one is restricted from anything...its just that the rogue gets the +3, I think thats more what he meant. So yes, you fighter can pick a pocket...make a dex check, its just that the rogue makes a dex+3 check. In essence its more open that ever in 5e. All the OP said was he wanted pickpocket included in the list of rogue skills that were there


----------



## Campbell (Jun 4, 2012)

I'd advocate that we don't need a skill for picking pockets. We already have a skill that encompasses doing stuff without other people noticing. Picking someone's pocket should just be a more difficult application of the stealth skill. that way the thief is already good at it which he should be.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 4, 2012)

Campbell said:


> I'd advocate that we don't need a skill for picking pockets. We already have a skill that encompasses doing stuff without other people noticing. Picking someone's pocket should just be a more difficult application of the stealth skill. that way the thief is already good at it which he should be.




People really arent reading the OP's post here. This was the point from the OP

_4) Make the skills the main focus of the Rogue Class - not just the 'striker' role (although, admittedly, this is much better in D&D Next than it was in 4th Ed). I'm not asking for big long lists (definitely not!), but what about being able to pickpocket again? _

What he said was he wanted pick pockets on the list of theif skills. Have a look on the character sheet from the playtest, its not there. He is right.

What he DIDNT say (and which people for some reason think he is saying) is that it should be rogue only. No one at any point during this thread said that rogue should be the only class capable. In fact, the makers of 5e have stated that that is exactlywhat they dont want either.

Want your fighter/cleric/mage to pick pockets? Fine. They can. Roll Dex. What the OP is asking for is simply that the theif background includes pickpocket in its bonus. He want the theif to be better at it than the other classes. Frankly I agree.

Rogue = Pickpockets well, everyone else = allowed to give it a shot (and have a fair chance due to the flattening phiulosophy of design in 5e). It all sounds good to me.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 4, 2012)

I kind of agree I like first level to be scary. I don't want to go back to wizards with 1 hit point so I like the way you get max hit points at first level. 

I want my 1 st level characters to be new at all this and easily killed if they mess up this s the level to learn that not working as a team or just charging blindly in gets you killed.

If I want to start with better trained PCs then I start at a higher level. 

I have never heard any newbie complain that there characters suck at first level they don't know that they supposedly suck. I have seen excitement and fear on their faces and the high fiving that comes after defeating their first encounter.

I see far more experienced players complain about first level because they want to get on to higher level cool things that they prefer.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 4, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> The last thing I want is for new players to think that they can accomplish something without earning it.





Dannager said:


> The notion that players should have to "earn" their enjoyment is nonsense



I'm with Dannager on this one.

D&D is an entertainment - a game - and it should be able to provide enjoyment in play to new players who take the effort to learn the rules. That's not to say that there can't be better or worse play (although probably not to the same degree of contrast between inexperienced and expert as exists in chess, say). But it has to be fun to play out of the box.

In this respect, I don't think D&D is ever going to be quite like learning a musical instrument or how to play golf, where you start out sucking but through dedicated application you become able to do something at least a little bit worthwhile. Because with these things, even at the start there is a pleasure - a pleasure in your own creativity, on the musical side, and various types of physical pleasure (as well as the company of friends, etc) on the sporting side.

D&D needs to provide pleasure at the start. If that is the pleasure of creativity, then 1st level PCs need to be viable vehicles for creativity. If this is the pleasure of overcoming challenges, then 1st level PCs need to be viable vehicles for taking on challenges, even for those who have just learned the rules.



Ahnehnois said:


> The sense of accomplishment you get when playing rpgs comes from overcoming challenges.



This is contentious. I mean, there is a well-known RPG site (The Forge) the whole premise of which is that there are at least _three_ identifiable and distinct ways to gain a sense of accomplishment from playing an RPG, of which overcoming challenges is only one. (The Forge calls it _gamism_. The other two species of accomplishent that The Forge identifies are the accomplishment of "being there" in the fiction - they call that _simulationism_ - and the accomplishment of creating a literarily worthwhile story via play - they call that _narrativism_.)



Ahnehnois said:


> This is true in any game, really. I don't think that beginning tennis players should be firing aces, or beginning poker players should be capable of winning money against experienced ones. Likewise, I don't believe that beginning D&D *characters* should be capable of shooting infinite magic bolts or defeating competent opponents in combat.



You seem here to be running together players and PCs.

Beginning tennis players don't play very well, but they can still enjoy playing, because they still get to do (in a novice way) the sort of stuff that social tennis is about - hitting the ball, enjoying physicality, hanging out with their friends, etc.

Beginning D&D players won't play very well, either. In a tactically-oriented game they'll have trouble coordinating with one another and will miss opportunities and make bad action choices. (If the PC build rules are complex enough, they'll also make bad choices at build relative to their goals for their PCs.) In a story-oriented game they'll be timid and shy and hesitant in seeing the opportunity for theme and following it, and new GMs will tend to be railroady and shut down their players and generally be afraid of letting ingame events develop their own dynamics.

But none of this is possible if their playing pieces - their PCs - are mechanically incapable. New musicians don't start with instruments that don't work. New sports players don't start with broken golf clubs or racquets without strings. New D&D players need PCs that work too, and that are _capable_ of being played well - whatever exactly _playing well_ means for a particular group.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 4, 2012)

BobTheNob said:


> People really arent reading the OP's post here. This was the point from the OP
> 
> _4) Make the skills the main focus of the Rogue Class - not just the 'striker' role (although, admittedly, this is much better in D&D Next than it was in 4th Ed). I'm not asking for big long lists (definitely not!), but what about being able to pickpocket again? _
> 
> ...




Under my interpretation he is better at it. He's trained in Stealth and thus benefits from Skill Mastery. At 2nd level he can use his Knack ability to get advantage on the check. The rogue is a skill class, you just have to look at more than skill numbers. He gets roughly twice the skills that every other character gets and is far more consistent. 

I can see where some people would prefer that they were separate skills for traditions sake. I just think they occupy the same conceptual space.


----------



## variant (Jun 4, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> 1. Pet peeve: the word "awesome" is decades out of date. I don't know why it gets used so much in the gaming community.




That's one of the most goofy things I've read on this forum.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 4, 2012)

Campbell said:


> Under my interpretation he is better at it. He's trained in Stealth and thus benefits from Skill Mastery. At 2nd level he can use his Knack ability to get advantage on the check. The rogue is a skill class, you just have to look at more than skill numbers. He gets roughly twice the skills that every other character gets and is far more consistent.
> 
> I can see where some people would prefer that they were separate skills for traditions sake. I just think they occupy the same conceptual space.




Sorry, my bad (so many people were having a shot at the op, I was frantically trying to defend the poor guy, I didnt understand)

Yes, of course, use stealth to pick pockets. You could do it that way, though I do wonder why a ranger under that idea would be good at picking pockets?

Thing is, we are not sure how skills are actually acquired. If the skills are just tied directly to the scheme and it doesn't cost you any extra to include another skill, why not just put pick pockets in?


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 4, 2012)

Dannager said:


> I'm not of the persuasion that my friends who have decided to sit down to enjoy a game in their free time should have to earn anything in order to have fun, or to enjoy the things their character can do.
> 
> The notion that players should have to "earn" their enjoyment is nonsense, and I'm tempted to say it comes from a place of gamer elitism, which this hobby has *no* room for.




At what point did earning experience and power thereof become the same thing as 'earning' enjoyment? I find it enjoyable to start off relatively ordinary and then earn greatness through adventuring deeds. D&D in it's current iteration denies me this enjoyment because it basically starts PCs off as superheroes.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 4, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> At what point did earning experience and power thereof become the same thing as 'earning' enjoyment? I find it enjoyable to start off relatively ordinary and then earn greatness through adventuring deeds. D&D in it's current iteration denies me this enjoyment because it basically starts PCs off as superheroes.




You start off being able to do cool things. You don't start out as superheroes. And you _certainly_ don't start out anywhere near as powerful as you will be at paragon and epic tiers. If you can't find enjoyment in that, you're probably actively trying not to.


----------



## Celestian (Jun 4, 2012)

I agree that the HP "kicker" at level 1 needs to be removed. While I can appreciate the desire to make level 1 not so deadly... leave that up to the DM. The HP kicker can make some npc encounters laughable, specially the low HD/CR/level/whatever it ends up being.

I always liked the older version of D&D's level 1 PCs. They are just a step up from a dirt farmer (outside of something like Cavaliers/etc). Ex-town militia turned adventurer, apprentice wizard sets out on his own... they all start somewhere... and level 1 does appear to be where. 
Just being a wizard that can cast a single spell a day does make them "super heroes" to all the dirt farmers though. The ex-militia is a honored hero for his services... but he does not have to be someone that can cut down an ogre in 1 hit on his first adventure.


----------



## The Human Target (Jun 4, 2012)

I fall into the camp on not wanting D&D to be an exercise in self flagellation in which I lose 4 characters before we even get to the dungeon.

If that makes me a superhero munchkin power gamer, I am comfortable with that.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 4, 2012)

Dannager said:


> You start off being able to do cool things. You don't start out as superheroes. And you _certainly_ don't start out anywhere near as powerful as you will be at paragon and epic tiers. If you can't find enjoyment in that, you're probably actively trying not to.




Well that's a provocative statement, because the fact is that there are plenty of RPGs that cater to this taste - how many 'cool things' does a beginning character get in WFRP or TOR or RuneQuest? Not nearly as much as they do in D&D as it stands. Moreover, as a fan of fantasy literature in general, the basic problem with D&D is that it doesn't recreate the feel of a whole bulk of the genre it purports to be about. Yet, to me at least, previous iterations of the game - the one I grew up with - did. 

If D&D Next is supposed to be about unification, then people need to start thinking more inclusive than this.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 4, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> Well that's a provocative statement, because the fact is that there are plenty of RPGs that cater to this taste - how many 'cool things' does a beginning character get in WFRP or TOR or RuneQuest? Not nearly as much as they do in D&D as it stands. Moreover, as a fan of fantasy literature in general, the basic problem with D&D is that it doesn't recreate the feel of a whole bulk of the genre it purports to be about. Yet, to me at least, previous iterations of the game - the one I grew up with - did.
> 
> If D&D Next is supposed to be about unification, then people need to start thinking more inclusive than this.




So advocate for the game to include a "level 0" optional module that allows you to start out sucking. Just don't return D&D to the days of, "Welcome to D&D! Roll initiative! Oh, a 1? I'm sorry! The orc attacks you! Ooh, a natural 20! What's that? It deals more damage than your hit point total? I'm so sorry, looks like you don't get to play D&D today!"


----------



## Keldryn (Jun 4, 2012)

BobTheNob said:


> The awesome thing is that we have people willing to point out how out of date we really are.




That's the most awesome thing I've read all day.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 4, 2012)

Dannager said:


> So advocate for the game to include a "level 0" optional module that allows you to start out sucking. Just don't return D&D to the days of, "Welcome to D&D! Roll initiative! Oh, a 1? I'm sorry! The orc attacks you! Ooh, a natural 20! What's that? It deals more damage than your hit point total? I'm so sorry, looks like you don't get to play D&D today!"




No, I don't want a 'Level 0' option. I want Level 1 to actually be Level 1. And as for the scenario you are presenting, well, it never really happened to me that much whenever I played previous versions of the game. Moreover, those times that characters died merely meant that you rolled up a new character and just got on with it. The danger of character death was just part of the experience of D&D adventuring. It seems that some attitudes preclude the notion that PCs should be able to die at all. Like I say, Supers gaming.


----------



## The Human Target (Jun 4, 2012)

And we want Level 1 not to mean Level 0.

There really is no way to appease both sides without having some sort of power modularity.


----------



## Samurai (Jun 4, 2012)

Personally, I like the extra HP at 1st level.  It's something we've been doing in Pathfinder for years.  Characters get their Con score + max HD at 1st level, regular after that.  It gives some breathing room and lets them take a hit or 2 without dropping like flies.  Before we did that, we started all characters at 3rd level, but that inflated spells, feats, skills, etc, and we found we liked the beginning characters access to those things, just with a bit more survivability.

Also, HD don't mean the same thing in 5e.  Characters get a set number of HPs, and Hit Dice are the Healing Surge/Second Wind mechanic from 4e with a new/old name attached.  You roll your HD to see how many HP you regain during a short rest.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 4, 2012)

The Human Target said:


> And we want Level 1 not to mean Level 0.
> 
> There really is no way to appease both sides without having some sort of power modularity.




As I said before, the modularity lies in having the option to start at higher levels of experience. The notion that Level 1=Level 0 simply because you want characters to start at equitable HP levels to everybody else in the fantasy world is a straw man in itself. Believe it or not, this is how D&D was played for decades before 4th Edition came along. And I, for one, enjoyed it.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jun 4, 2012)

Yeah, I can't agree with the OP. The endgame in Classic was divine ascension. That means that from 1st to 36th level, your character transitioned from a special hero-- head and shoulders above the common man whether or not he could survive a deadly duel with the neighbor's cat-- to the borderline of divinity itself.

How many gods, in any version of D&D that statted them out, were built using the Elite Array?

Hell, how many mid- or high-level NPCs in any official version of any official D&D campaign setting were built on 25 points, or 28 points, or 36 points?

Drizzt's low stat is a 14 in something he took a racial penalty to.

I don't like this artificial cap of 20 for PCs and 30 for god-like things, because according to the game fluff and most of the novels, high-level PCs *are* god-like things.

D&D is not gritty sword and sorcery fantasy. It's built all wrong for it, and it always has been. (Though later editions more so.) People talk about the 'zero to hero' structure of the level system, but they've got it all wrong-- 'zero to hero' is an integral part of the D&D experience, but it's the *opening act*.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 4, 2012)

Viktyr Korimir said:


> D&D is not gritty sword and sorcery fantasy.




In which case it holds little interest for me anymore. 

I accept that at different tiers, different types of fantasy are represented, but to simply deny an aspect of the game that was present in previous iterations (and that is basically all I am asking for!) is hardly an inclusive attitude.


----------



## jbear (Jun 4, 2012)

variant said:


> That's one of the most goofy things I've read on this forum.



The author of that comment has quite the talent for saying goofy things.


----------



## jbear (Jun 4, 2012)

So ...what would the expectation be ... ? Play the game being play tested and come away thinking ... wow! My character was really crap! This game rocks!!



Being  hopeless at level  1 is not a core expectation of D&D. They can build in that option for play style, but it's not something you want to have be the core of a game.
And despite some people being in denial about it, D&D is a game. People play it to have fun. Not everyone's definition of fun is being crap and having to work your way up to defeating an angry cat in a fight.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 4, 2012)

I'd prefer the Constitution Score Kicker and HD mechanic be the default to ease players into the game, but I can still see a place for an OD&D style module without the kicker, HD, 3d6 drop lowest ability scores, a daily limit on minor spells, no themes, and possibly no backgrounds with explicit guidance on the careful considered approach to adventuring that requires. Game balance should still be roughly up to the tolerance of the target audience.

Honestly my issue with D&D as a zero to hero game is that given the level of abstraction in the game encounters where PCs engage 3 or 4 kobolds are not very engaging and I'm very much of the mind that especially for new players all elements of the game should be engaging. 

I've been reading through Legend, Mongoose's fork of Runequest now that they've lost the license, and I think it's default highly precise rules is more appropriate for gritty action. I'm also somewhat enamored of its optional rules modules to increase the level of abstraction presented by enemies lets you scale up the level of detail for more experienced adventurers. That along with the presence of a character generation process that grounds you more firmly in the world and the ability to dial up heroics with optional meta resources (hero points and heroic feats) along with a variety of magic systems makes it suit zero to hero far more effectively than D&D. It's still too precise for what I prefer to use D&D for but that's why there are multiple RPGs on the market.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 4, 2012)

jbear said:


> So ...what would the expectation be ... ? Play the game being play tested and come away thinking ... wow! My character was really crap! This game rocks!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And neither is it mine. Having an equitable level of HP to everybody else in the fantasy world does not equate to 'being hopeless' or 'crap'. Nor does it mean that it isn't fun, or that people didn't have fun for the decades in which D&D actually operated this way at 1st level. Straw man again.


----------



## jbear (Jun 4, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> And neither is it mine. Having an equitable level of HP to everybody else in the fantasy world does not equate to 'being hopeless' or 'crap'. Nor does it mean that it isn't fun, or that people didn't have fun for the decades in which D&D actually operated this way at 1st level. Straw man again.



Well, I want my character to feel like a hero at level 1.

So what are we going to do now?

Who is right?


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 4, 2012)

jbear said:


> Well, I want my character to feel like a hero at level 1.
> 
> So what are we going to do now?
> 
> Who is right?




At first level your character is a hero because he taking chances instead of hiding in his cottage letting other people face the kobold hoarde. A hero is not a hero just because he is stronger and better than everyone else.


----------



## ren1999 (Jun 4, 2012)

Never again will I allow any character with HP5 on the battle grid. Never, never, nevaaa!

If  you don' like static hit points, fine. I can live with allowing you to roll hit points every level. But you will add your constitution score to your starting hit point roll. 

We've all wasted too much time rerolling new characters over and over at 1st level. It is depressing and people have  been known to walk away from the game over this before.


----------



## Khaalis (Jun 4, 2012)

Coming in very late on this and I admit I have not read the whole thread so this may already have been said, so I apologize for that up front.

My response on this topic is, as Morrus stated, that D&D has always been, is, and will always be a game of HEROIC Fantasy.  D&D characters are heroes and a cut above the "average" NPC, otherwise the whole world would be adventurers. 

The game is about telling extraordinary tales by extraordinary people. This is what the core of the game is and will be designed around.  Why would a village need to hire adventurers to protect them from marauding [insert monster here] if the adventurers were no more talented than all the people in the village?

However, with that said, it has already been stated that there will be a set of "modular" options that will allow you to change the basic playstyle from "Heroic" to the "I'm just an average Joe", "Grim & Gritty", "I'm an Apprentice" etc. style games if that is how you want to play your D&D.

IMHO this is a great way to do it. So long as they include the options to play the game how you see fit, I have no problem with the "core" retaining its heroic fantasy roots.


----------



## jbear (Jun 4, 2012)

By "your" I assume you mean "a" character, and are referring to how you see things.

Which is my point.

As a baseline concept of what type of hero should be the starting point for a game these positions don't have a point of reconciliation.

I don't want what you want in so far as what it means to be a hero. I want my hero to be better than average out of the gate. I don't want his past to be limited to shovelling horse dung in a barn. 

I want my character to already have an interesting and rich past when the came begins, which represents the talents I have already acquired.

And I also think that should be the baseline starting position of  heros in D&D. Want to start in the barn ... fine, then use the optional rules to make level 0 characters.

I understand that you don't agree. Do you understand that I also do not agree with you?
So we have a point that can't be reconciled.

So what do we do?


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 4, 2012)

Well, it's very simple what we do. We give feedback to the play test programme, then wait and see. If the final product is to our liking then we might buy it. If it isn't then we don't. 

If we have a D&D game with unequitable levels of HP to NPCs at 1st Level then, for me, it's a deal breaker. Quite simply, it doesn't replicate the D&D experience I want and can find from other RPGs. And that is the feedback I am providing.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jun 4, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> I accept that at different tiers, different types of fantasy are represented, but to simply deny an aspect of the game that was present in previous iterations (and that is basically all I am asking for!) is hardly an inclusive attitude.




I don't mind low-level D&D being gritty as long as people stop trying to make high-level D&D gritty-- in worlds that were clearly not designed that way. If my PC is the same level as the authors' pets, my PC should be as important and powerful as the authors' pets if not moreso.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 4, 2012)

I agree with the OP. I've said elsewhere that the 5e draft feels to me a lot like D&D, but not like 1st level D&D. The power creep across editions is undenyable, although each step is not particularly large.

The problem is that while those who want more power can easily add stuff (who didn't shell out a few bonus feats in 3ed?), replace rolls with maxed numbers, or just start at higher level, those who don't like to start powerful have a more difficult time toning it down in a way that keeps everybody balanced.

Right now, I think 5e 1st-lv PCs can be toned down in the easiest way by removing Theme and Background, and adding them back later on, but still...


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jun 4, 2012)

I would love 5e to have the current starting HP, but adding them up more slowly than they do in the playtest, or that there is a cutoff quite fast. For instance in AD&D you didn't get much additional hp past level 10 or so.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 4, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> Well, it's very simple what we do. We give feedback to the play test programme, then wait and see. If the final product is to our liking then we might buy it. If it isn't then we don't.
> 
> If we have a D&D game with unequitable levels of HP to NPCs at 1st Level then, for me, it's a deal breaker. Quite simply, it doesn't replicate the D&D experience I want and can find from other RPGs. And that is the feedback I am providing.




Really it comes down to what the default rule is. We're literally talking about the difference between having a sidebar titled "For More Heroic 1st Level PCs" and "For More Down to Earth  PCs". For experienced gamers like you and me it makes no difference which solution is implemented. The question is which makes for a better default experience for new players using the default dials. I personally believe more heroic PCs is a better introduction to the game and I refuse to believe that a game that assumes rolled hp is going to be so finely balanced that a difference of ~14 hp is going to be so finely balanced. It's not about your game or my game. It's about theirs.

Edit: Like I said previously if low level D&D provided a more  satisfactory experience I might feel different.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 4, 2012)

Campbell said:


> Really it comes down to what the default rule is. We're literally talking about the difference between having a sidebar titled "For More Heroic 1st Level PCs" and "For More Down to Earth  PCs". For experienced gamers like you and me it makes no difference which solution is implemented. The question is which makes for a better default experience for new players using the default dials. I personally believe more heroic PCs is a better introduction to the game and I refuse to believe that a game that assumes rolled hp is going to be so finely balanced that a difference of ~14 hp is going to be so finely balanced. It's not about your game or my game. It's about theirs.
> 
> Edit: Like I said previously if low level D&D provided a more  satisfactory experience I might feel different.



You are presenting your own preferences and experiences as being universal. Where is the research to say that new players want higher powered beginning characters? From my own experiences, starting play in older editions provided fun, memorable experiences that has hooked me for most of my life since.


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 4, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> 1. Pet peeve: the word "awesome" is decades out of date. I don't know why it gets used so much in the gaming community.
> 2. The last thing I want is for new players to think that they can accomplish something without earning it.




Maybe HIMYM is popular amongst gamers?



Dannager said:


> I'm not of the persuasion that my friends who have decided to sit down to enjoy a game in their free time should have to earn anything in order to have fun, or to enjoy the things their character can do.
> 
> The notion that players should have to "earn" their enjoyment is nonsense, and I'm tempted to say it comes from a place of gamer elitism, which this hobby has *no* room for.




Disco.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 4, 2012)

Dannager said:


> I'm not of the persuasion that my friends who have decided to sit down to enjoy a game in their free time should have to earn anything in order to have fun, or to enjoy the things their character can do.
> 
> The notion that players should have to "earn" their enjoyment is nonsense



I think, even in games that are very heavily gamist, and feature a high level of challenge, players don't have to earn their enjoyment. Playing the game, participating, should be enjoyable from the start. In gamist play, players certainly do earn something, but those are markers of success - level ups, magic items, treasure, castles and the like. Achieving these does produce a sense of accomplishment, and pleasure, but the whole process - the striving, sometimes losing and sometimes winning - ought to be enjoyable.

Not everyone wants high challenge gamism, ofc. Some people want low challenge gamism, or games that are gamist in some aspects but not others, or no gamism at all. One example would be a Friday night hack n' slash game, where everyone is frazzled from the week's work and just wants to relax and kill things. Another would be a game where the main emphasis is on roleplaying - developing and portraying character and/or exploring the GM's world.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 4, 2012)

I think Zero To Hero, Hero To Even More Awesome Hero, and Zero To Competent Guy, are all perfectly legitimate ways to play D&D. Zero To Competent Guy is probably best represented by E6.

Prior to 4e, we always struggled with the problem of 1st level PCs not having enough hit points, solving it either by starting at higher than 1st level, or levelling up very rapidly in the first few sessions. We also struggled with high level play not really working in 3e, but had no good solution other than to end the game.

I played in a long running 2e campaign that was pretty much Zero To Competent Guy, due to low magic and lack of PC casters. Personally I found it to be quite dull, although it was very well DM-ed.


----------



## Ichneumon (Jun 4, 2012)

D&D is not a supers game, even with starting hit point levels in the mid to late teens. Neither is it an austerity exercise doling out success like Scrooge dispensing hundred-dollar bills. I tend to distrust games that masquerade as thinly veiled attempts to teach me to be a better, less entitled person.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 4, 2012)

Ichneumon said:


> D&D is not a supers game, even with starting hit point levels in the mid to late teens. Neither is it an austerity exercise doling out success like Scrooge dispensing hundred-dollar bills. I tend to distrust games that masquerade as thinly veiled attempts to teach me to be a better, less entitled person.




Talk about self entitlement. "The world owes me a living, and D&D owes me Superpowers..."


----------



## Ichneumon (Jun 4, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> Talk about self entitlement. "The world owes me a living, and D&D owes me Superpowers..."




Time to get a new post interpreter. The one you're using looks broken.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 4, 2012)

I like my starting character to be competent.

Why?

Because I am tired of inventing an great personality and background for a PC only for him or her to be slain by a goblin or rat. Then having to us his or her sibling... omly  for him or her to die too.

It's not entitlement. It's the ability to stay in character.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 4, 2012)

Ichneumon said:


> Time to get a new post interpreter. The one you're using looks broken.




Not at all. I'm simply recognizing that some players apparently don't feel fulfilled unless they are given a bunch of powers they feel they are entitled to from the get go.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 4, 2012)

If D&D ends with larger than life superheroes battling demon kings and gods, then it should not start out with zeroes, but heroes. Otherwise you have a sort of bait and switch for new players. Those who expect Dungeons with Dragons get disappointed when the actual game is not about slaying dangerous monsters but running from angry house cats and hungry rats, and those who start out and like to struggle against half-blind legless kobolds get disappointed when you leave hat level and become a competent hero.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 4, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> Not at all. I'm simply recognizing that some players apparently don't feel fulfilled unless they are given a bunch of powers they feel they are entitled to from the get go.




Are you actually trying to condemn people for wanting to play powerful characters in a game?


----------



## Ichneumon (Jun 4, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> Not at all. I'm simply recognizing that some players apparently don't feel fulfilled unless they are given a bunch of powers they feel they are entitled to from the get go.




Lack of fulfilment has many more possible causes than that. Personally, I'd place a game that focused on _discouragement_ well in front of one that didn't dole out a bunch of super powers first up, when it comes to not fulfilling players. Hare versus tortoise, in fact.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 4, 2012)

Fenes said:


> Are you actually trying to condemn people for wanting to play powerful characters in a game?




I'm condemning people for using this as a reason for refusing the allowance of lower-powered modes of play that used to be the norm at low levels in previous iterations of the game.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 4, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> You are presenting your own preferences and experiences as being universal. Where is the research to say that new players want higher powered beginning characters? From my own experiences, starting play in older editions provided fun, memorable experiences that has hooked me for most of my life since.




Archetypes exist for a reason. When I choose to play a warrior type I'm saying I want to engage in meaningful combat encounters where my decisions have a direct bearing on the party's success. If an encounter is reduced to Russian Roulette where matters like target selection, choosing to stay back and ready an action to attack anything that comes near the wizard, etc. have no effect I'm not playing the game I signed up. When my rogue has no meaningful ability to sneak about or unlock traps I'm not playing a rogue. If the careful application of spells isn't meaningful than I'm not playing a wizard. We're all playing Calvin Ball waiting for the chance to actually play the game. It's about meaningful choices.

Like I mentioned before default RuneQuest PCs start off at a similar level of competence and combat is just as short and brutal, but the results are much different. A goblin is just as threatening, but there are all sorts of decisions players get to make. You have multiple actions per round, but you have to use actions to defend yourself too. Let's assume I'm playing a novice warrior with a great sword and 3 combat actions. I lose initiative and the bugger attacks me with a short sword. Do I trust in my armor to protect me and risk a wound so I have more actions to attack with? Do I attempt to evade and deny myself the oppurtunity to use my next CA to attack? Do I try to parry knowing that if I succeed he won't damage me possibly opening myself up to a bleeding wound or free shot to the head if I fail my skill test to parry and his attack is a success? 

Or lets say we scout ahead and see that the goblins in the next room have bows. At this point if I possess a shield and weapon combat style and access to the right equipment I face a quandry. Do I use a shield so I can parry missile weapons or do I rely on my greatsword for its superior reach and ability to completely parry the short sword one of the goblins is using knowing that means I have to use the evade action against missile weapons?

Same 3 goblins as a legitimate threat. Far more interesting because I actually get to make meaningful decisions that matter.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 4, 2012)

Ichneumon said:


> Lack of fulfilment has many more possible causes than that. Personally, I'd place a game that focused on _discouragement_ well in front of one that didn't dole out a bunch of super powers first up, when it comes to not fulfilling players. Hare versus tortoise, in fact.




After reading through this three times already, y'know I might need a new post interpreter afterall...


----------



## Chalice (Jun 4, 2012)

I think high powered characters, right from the start and ever increasingly, suit D&D (and its source material of old) very well.

Larger than life heroes, anti-heroes and villains are the stuff of classic sword & sorcery, heroic fantasy, and many a myth and legend. Shrugging off solid blows, calling upon mighty powers, and being superhuman in general, is all par for the course. And more! Much more.

There is room for various perspectives on D&D, I know, but that is mine.


----------



## Drowbane (Jun 4, 2012)

The hyperbole is strong in this thread.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 4, 2012)

Drowbane said:


> The hyperbole is strong in this thread.




Maybe it is. But I am wondering if we will ever see an official version of D&D where beginning characters are actually vulnerable in a fight again? As it stands a 'killing blow' from a NPC can't kill, while PCs can literally kill some monsters at will. It doesn't create a D&D feel that I grew up with.


----------



## Drowbane (Jun 4, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> Maybe it is. But I am wondering if we will ever see an official version of D&D where beginning characters are actually vulnerable in a fight again? As it stands a 'killing blow' from a NPC can't kill, while PCs can literally kill some monsters at will. It doesn't create a D&D feel that I grew up with.




Oh, I'm on your side.  In my new 3.5 Campaign the PCs get Average +1 hp. d4 = 3.5, d6 = 4.5, d8 = 5.5, d10 = 6.5, d12 = 7.5... plus Con mod.

The PCs managed to survive the first session, though a couple of them nearly died.


----------



## Ichneumon (Jun 4, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> Maybe it is. But I am wondering if we will ever see an official version of D&D where beginning characters are actually vulnerable in a fight again? As it stands a 'killing blow' from a NPC can't kill, while PCs can literally kill some monsters at will. It doesn't create a D&D feel that I grew up with.




Remove hit dice, background, theme, and the negative hit point buffer, and you're three-quarters of the way home. You can do that. The rumors of swiftly descending skies have been greatly exaggerated.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 4, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> I like my starting character to be competent.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...




And I am sometimes tired of players who invent a great personality and background... for a freakin' 1st level PC!

There's nothing wrong with starting the game at level 3, 10 or epic, except that normally if you're not familiar with the rules system you may need to get used to them when you have less options i.e. lower level. You don't need to change the rules or risk destroying some balance by starting at higher level.

But if the game has 1st level characters who are very competent, then you cannot play that grim-n-gritty style of RPG at all without risky house rules. My favourite style is actually mid-level, but I would still want the game to support as many styles as possible, maybe one day I'll feel like playing grim-n-gritty without the need to buy another system.

BTW, it seems to me that your concern is on survivability, but that is not exactly the same as having another power creep step in next edition. It might be even possible that 1st level 5e PC are more survivable than higher level 5e PC, when pitted against presumably balanced encounters.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 4, 2012)

Dannager said:


> I'm not of the persuasion that my friends who have decided to sit down to enjoy a game in their free time should have to earn anything in order to have fun, or to enjoy the things their character can do.




I think it is very dependent on the group playing. Some want to unwind after a long day of work or school and play fully competent characters right out of the gate with minimal chance of their character meeting an untimely demise.

Other groups want their games a little grittier in those early levels.

Neither play group is doing it wrong. You just have to figure out which group yours is.



			
				Dannager said:
			
		

> The notion that players should have to "earn" their enjoyment is nonsense, and I'm tempted to say it comes from a place of gamer elitism, which this hobby has *no* room for.




For you and your group maybe. Other groups do enjoy the grittier style of play. There is nothing wrong with a group enjoying this style of play. It is no more elitist than the groups that want strong, powerful characters to start at 1st level saying the folks that like a gritty game are doing it wrong.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 4, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> And I am sometimes tired of players who invent a great personality and background... for a freakin' 1st level PC!




Hey. 
There is a reason why I run from "First level only" DMs now.


Problem is ½ of all DMs are "First level DMs".. it is hard to get a game. And I prefer purity in my character's roleplay.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 4, 2012)

Ichneumon said:


> Remove hit dice, background, theme, and the negative hit point buffer, and you're three-quarters of the way home. You can do that. The rumors of swiftly descending skies have been greatly exaggerated.




I'd rather just have the game make the changes I suggested in my original post actually. I actually like the idea of Background and Theme. I just don't grok with inequitable HP levels and automatic death powers at 1st Level.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 4, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> There's nothing wrong with starting the game at level 3, 10 or epic, except that normally if you're not familiar with the rules system you may need to get used to them when you have less options i.e. lower level. You don't need to change the rules or risk destroying some balance by starting at higher level.




This has always seemed the solution to me. Don't like a 1st level character's competence? Then start at 3rd, 4th, or 5th. Or whatever level has the power band you like.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 4, 2012)

This so easily an optional thing, you have many ways to start off 1st level character's HP: the current Con score + 1/2 HD, or just Con score, or max HD, or roll 1 HD + Con modifier, or 2 HD like a 1st Ed monk and ranger, and so on; many ways to mix it up.

In my 1st/2nd Ed campaigns I like to start off all character's with 2HD (max) + Con modifier at 1st level (so a wizard has 8 + Con modifier etc).


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 4, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> This so easily an optional thing, you have many ways to start off 1st level character's HP: the current Con score + 1/2 HD, or just Con score, or max HD, or roll 1 HD + Con modifier, or 2 HD like a 1st Ed monk and ranger, and so on; many ways to mix it up.




That addresses durability. 

There is still the question of whether some of the "powers" at first level or at-will magic that is considered a little strong would be at first level.


----------



## Jorunkun (Jun 4, 2012)

It is a fact that in Basic D&D as well as AD&D (1st edition) 1st level PCs were less powerful than later editions.

By the RAW, A/D&D 1st level characters rolled for HP, which could well leave you with 3 points or less. Fighters had no special attack powers and only marginally better attack-bonuses than other characters. Spellcasters, wizards in particular, knew only a select few  spells, and had no at-will powers. Some people liked this, others didn't but this is how it was.

With every edition, 1st level characters were given a larger number of relatively more powerful abilities, culminating in 4e granting a signifcant increase in HPS and things like at-will powers and teleport-like "shifting". Again, some people liked this, others did not, but it's a fact.

I don't see why 5e couldn't accommodate both playstyles in the form of optional rules. WotC should introduce an optional 0-level rule, where PCs start with low HP (maybe just CON) and only the most basic abilities, to emulate old-school play. It should also relegate spells that always hit and powers that do damage even on a miss to levels 2 or 3, and optionally allow players who want their characters to have these powers from the start to just begin play at a higher level. 

This way, both historical extremes of power (or lack thereof) are covered and the "official" game is somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 4, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> But I am wondering if we will ever see an official version of D&D where beginning characters are actually vulnerable in a fight again?



You mean like AD&D, AD&D 2e, 3e, 3,5e, and Pathfinder? (I'll grant you 1st level 4e PCs were pretty durable, by design). 

Besides, it was clearly stated the PC hit points were deliberately inflated for the play test. The goal was to test the core resolution mechanics. 

P.S. I started w/AD&D back in the 1980s. It was always a superhero game in fantasy drag, so long as the PC made it to mid-level. As soon as PCs begin flying, fireballing, and walking away from falls off 30ft towers while in armor, you've left the pastoral confines of the Shire far behind. 

P.P.S. Back in my day, it was common to grant 1st level PCs maximum HP. Which meant 1st level rangers almost as durable as _ogres_. Fighters tended to have high strengths and weapon specialization (UA was common in my parts, too). Players wanted more power and durability at 1st level, not less. In fact, the idea of arguing for rules changes that lowered your chance of surviving to 2nd level would have sounded absurd to everyone I first played D&D with (and this includes the adult parents of our friends who taught us).

P.P.P.S It's not about _entitlement_, it's about having enough interesting options at the start of play, and enough durability to survive a little bad luck (ie, having the opportunity to use them once or twice before dying).


----------



## herrozerro (Jun 4, 2012)

Mallus said:


> You mean like AD&D, AD&D 2e, 3e, 3,5e, and Pathfinder? (I'll grant you 1st level 4e PCs were pretty durable, by design).
> 
> Besides, it was clearly stated the PC hit points were deliberately inflated for the play test. The goal was to test the core resolution mechanics.




another point would be that in 4e, everybody had inflated hit points.  that 1st level goblin had 25 or so hit points as well.  it was not some kind of one sided durability match.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 4, 2012)

The problem with Zero To Hero is that it's outside the 'sweet spot' at low and high level. Low level PCs, at least prior to 4e, have too few hit points and not enough options to be mechanically interesting. At high level the game becomes too complex, PCs have too many crazy spells such as _Raise Dead_, _Teleport_, and _Wish_, and casters dominate.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 4, 2012)

Jorunkun said:


> It is a fact that in Basic D&D as well as AD&D (1st edition) 1st level PCs were less powerful than later editions.




Definitely. If the 1st-level PCs had received all the power creep in one single "bump" from OD&D to 5e, almost everyone would have considered it ridiculous. But because it was "spread" through many editions, each bump has been more acceptable.

The sad truth is that we've all grown up with consumerists' minds, so the best way to sell us something is to make it look "more" than the previous version. But by now that most of us gamers are middle-aged (i.e. 30+) we should have become wiser.




Jorunkun said:


> I don't see why 5e couldn't accommodate both playstyles in the form of optional rules. WotC should introduce an optional 0-level rule, where PCs start with low HP (maybe just CON) and only the most basic abilities, to emulate old-school play. It should also relegate spells that always hit and powers that do damage even on a miss to levels 2 or 3, and optionally allow players who want their characters to have these powers from the start to just begin play at a higher level.




It's a possibility but it's harder that way than just set the "floor" a bit lower. There was a 0-th level optional rule in 3e but nearly nobody used it.


----------



## On Puget Sound (Jun 4, 2012)

When I learned D&D (3 beige books plus Greyhawk) we would make 20 characters at once, and we never named them until they made second level, because most of them never did.  Yeah, magical times, but remember that at the time we were also pretty amazed by Pong.  I'm not interested in going back to that; if I were I would play Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play, which is very deliberately powerless at first level.


----------



## The Human Target (Jun 4, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> As I said before, the modularity lies in having the option to start at higher levels of experience. The notion that Level 1=Level 0 simply because you want characters to start at equitable HP levels to everybody else in the fantasy world is a straw man in itself. Believe it or not, this is how D&D was played for decades before 4th Edition came along. And I, for one, enjoyed it.




Why should we who disagree with you lose out on levels of gameplay because you want less HP?


----------



## herrozerro (Jun 4, 2012)

The Human Target said:


> Why should we who disagree with you lose out on levels of gameplay because you want less HP?




+1

No experience, but i wish I could.


----------



## mlund (Jun 4, 2012)

If I'm interested in playing a scenario where I can kill the PC Wizard by throwing a surprised house cat in his face I'll use a Level 0 module to have a party full of up-jumped dirt farmers. 

- Marty Lund


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 4, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> And I am sometimes tired of players who invent a great personality and background... for a freakin' 1st level PC!



Yeah, everybody knows roleplaying isn't important at 1st level!

I mean, what?



IronWolf said:


> There is nothing wrong with a group enjoying this style of play. It is no more elitist than the groups that want strong, powerful characters to start at 1st level saying the folks that like a gritty game are doing it wrong.



No, the elitist ones are those who come on message boards like this and literally call other players pampered or entitled because they don't "earn" their gameplay experience. That actually does happen, those very words are used (I've seen them many times), and it's happened in this very thread.



TrippyHippy said:


> Talk about self entitlement. "The world owes me a living, and D&D owes me Superpowers..."



Yeah, this game here that I paid my own money for and am investing my own time into, how dare I want it to deliver what I want to get out of it! Playing a game is exactly like real life, after all.


----------



## renau1g (Jun 4, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> And I am sometimes tired of players who invent a great personality and background... for a freakin' 1st level PC!




Really? You're tired of it? I'd love it if my players invested time into their PC's like that. If it was super-duper deadly, 1 bite from a rat kills you, well I'd expect them to play paper-thin PC's and be bored as a DM with no hooks to draw from. 

I've looked over the playtest PC's and they're a far cry from super heroes. Hyperbole FTW! IMO 4e had the most competent 1st level PC's, they had very high survivability and access to fairly powerful abilities regularly. I'd like to step back from there, but not all the way to house cat fearing wizards. 

So we have some that want super-gritty, barely above commoner PC's that are starting their journey from 0, while another that wants their PC's to have some level of competence from the start. 

Personally, I think a 0-level module would work well, it would still allow those in the 2nd group to start at level 1 and experience the full level curve, and it would allow those in the first group to start at their very beginning level of adventuring (which probably tend to skew towards older players that the earliest editions of the game was more like). Again, this is my opinion.


----------



## B.T. (Jun 4, 2012)

jbear said:


> Well, I want my character to feel like a hero at level 1.
> 
> So what are we going to do now?
> 
> Who is right?



I don't see what's wrong with having characters starting the heroism at level three.  It's much easier for the DM to say, "We're going to start at a higher level" than it is for the DM to say, "We're going to start with half HP."


----------



## Grydan (Jun 4, 2012)

B.T. said:


> I don't see what's wrong with having characters starting the heroism at level three.  It's much easier for the DM to say, "We're going to start at a higher level" than it is for the DM to say, "We're going to start with half HP."




It seems to me that saying either thing takes about the same amount of time and effort, which is to say, very little time and effort at all.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 4, 2012)

Fifth Element said:


> Yeah, everybody knows roleplaying isn't important at 1st level!



And neither is enjoyment. 1st level should be a test of the player's tenacity and ability to delay gratification.

Note: I do not actually believe this.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2012)

Folks,

We are seeing an increase in the sarcasm and snark in this thread.  That makes it a perfect time to remind you that sarcasm and snark generally don't work well as teaching tools.  If your goal is to get someone else to see that you have a valid point, sarcasm is *not* a place you want to do, because it will more usually do the exact opposite.  Sarcasm and snark tend to polarize arguments and sides, and make nasty argument more likely.

So, please consider leaving the snide stuff at the door.  Thanks, all!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 4, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> And I am sometimes tired of players who invent a great personality and background... for a freakin' 1st level PC!



That style of play has been mainstream from the early 80s onwards.



Li Shenron said:


> But if the game has 1st level characters who are very competent, then you cannot play that grim-n-gritty style of RPG at all without risky house rules.



To me, even high lethality, highly gamist old school D&D (the style I'm intending to run next) isn't grim-n-gritty. PCs have their brains sucked out by alien jellyfish-things, or get pulled apart by by giant gears, or dissolved in a vat of acid. They die like characters in a Roger Corman movie. It's a mad, deadly funhouse, but it's not realistic.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 4, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> To me, even high lethality, highly gamist old school D&D (the style I'm intending to run next) isn't grim-n-gritty.



And, oddly enough, old-school D&D parties aren't necessarily weak, when you broaden your analysis to include things like changes to PC spells and the general quality of the opposition.

I've seen 1st-level AD&D parties that were _much_ stronger than their 3e counterparts, thanks to the cumulative effects of numerous rules changes, ie changes to the Sleep and Charm Person spells, "percentile strength", minimum monster damage, ranger's starting hit points, etc.


----------



## Aenghus (Jun 4, 2012)

I want the option to  be able to play 1st level D&D without it being russian roulette. Others  can have 1st level russian roulette if they want.

Having to start at higher level to avoid sudden death syndrome isn't an option, its a restricition that favours only the grittily inclined. Having variable power levels for PCs to cater to different preferences at and past 1st level is properly providing options.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 4, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> Why do Hit Points have to be so high at 1st level - out of synch with all other NPC dwellers?




Because if they were just like the other NPC dwellers, they'd BE just NPC dwellers. This has always been the case. PCs are special, they're heroes. As E.G.G. wrote in the first AD&D PHB, characters are expected to start with at least a 15 stat, probably more than one. 15 was the attribute point for truly exceptional, with 9-11 being average and 12-14 being a cut above to gifted and 18 being awe-inspiring. 

There's been some power creep, but not as drastic as you are purporting.


----------



## Celestian (Jun 4, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> Because I am tired of inventing an great personality and background for a PC only for him or her to be slain by a goblin or rat.




Character background is what happens between levels one and six. 
-- Gary Gygax



The Human Target said:


> Why should we who disagree with you lose out on levels of gameplay because you want less HP?




Turn that question around on yourself and see if you can come up with an answer.

The solution is to make the kicker a option and not a default, tweak some of the at-will powers and call it done.



Doug McCrae said:


> That style of play has been mainstream from the early 80s onwards.




I'll have to disagree with you on that. It wasn't "mainstream" till 3e came out which was well after the 80s.

The complexity of character creation created this need/desire to make character survivability a requirement. If you could knock out a character in 5-10 minutes without an online tool we would not be having this sort of conversation.


----------



## Minigiant (Jun 4, 2012)

Celestian said:


> Character background is what happens between levels one and six.
> -- Gary Gygax




So D&D is really only 4 levels. From level 6 when you stop being a no name smuck to level 10 when the game breaks down and you are encouraged to retire.


----------



## aybkamen (Jun 4, 2012)

BobTheNob said:


> Want your fighter/cleric/mage to pick pockets? Fine. They can. Roll Dex. What the OP is asking for is simply that the theif background includes pickpocket in its bonus. He want the theif to be better at it than the other classes. Frankly I agree.




If you want the rogue to be good in pickpocket give him a thief background instead of a commoner background. So, with skill mastery he will be the best pickpocketeer. Easy enough.


----------



## thewok (Jun 4, 2012)

Celestian said:


> Character background is what happens between levels one and six.
> -- Gary Gygax



"Character background is everything that's happened to the character up to the present time."
-- Me.

My definition is just as valid as Gygax's.  In fact, mine's more valid, because it's actually supported by the dictionary:

"one's origin, education, experience, etc., in relation to one's present character, status, etc."
Background | Define Background at Dictionary.com

Gygax created D&D a long time ago.  But now, his views on the game are no more valid than anyone else's.



> The complexity of character creation created this need/desire to make character survivability a requirement. If you could knock out a character in 5-10 minutes without an online tool we would not be having this sort of conversation.



I don't know about other people, but, for me, the character builder is the last place I go when making a character.  The first part of the process is a spark of an idea.  Sometimes it's seeing a character on TV whose personality I like.  Sometimes it's as simple as making an interesting race/class combination.

Then, comes filling out the personality.  Is this person meek or boisterous?  Do they follow their racial/familial upbringing, or do they rebel against it?  At this time I'll also try to figure out why this person is the way he or she is.

Once that's figured out, I'll load up the builder and start putting together the mechanics of the character.  Sometimes the mechanics will help me flesh out the character even more, especially with backgrounds and themes in 4E.

This is my process most of the time.  Sure, sometimes I'll load up the builder and play around, and that messing around will result in a character I want to play.  But usually, the character creation process begins long before the builder is even loaded.

So, yes, character survivability is something of a concern, because I don't make throwaway characters.  Ever.  Sometimes my process for making a character takes a week.  Sometimes a few hours, and sometimes more than a week.  I take forever to decide on a name, because that's a very important part of a character for me.  I literally can't make a character in 5 minutes, regardless of the system, because it takes me longer than that just to think up the name.  And when I put in that amount of work, I want the character to have a reasonable chance of sticking around a while.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 4, 2012)

Celestian said:


> I'll have to disagree with you on that. It wasn't "mainstream" till 3e came out which was well after the 80s.




Every 2e supplement would like to have a word with you. As would NWPs.


----------



## Walker N. Waistz (Jun 4, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> D&D is not a supers game.



I don't accept the premise of the OP, and I think too many people are. The things listed do not make it a supers game. If I played in a supers game where my character started out as powerful as a 1st level D&D character, I'd be angry.

d12 instead of d10 for the fighter is not a huge difference. 1d4+1 damage each round for the wizard is not a crazy damage output.

The ability to kill a fair number of kobolds at 1st level in D&D does not make you super-heroic or even necessarily heroic. It just makes you an adventurer.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Jun 4, 2012)

Aenghus said:


> I want the option to  be able to play 1st level D&D without it being russian roulette.




It should be the default RAW. Gritty fights with house cats should be relegated to optional status.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jun 4, 2012)

thewok said:


> My definition is just as valid as Gygax's.  In fact, mine's more valid, because it's actually supported by the dictionary:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Gygax created D&D a long time ago.  But now, his views on the game are no more valid than anyone else's.



That's exactly how I feel about hit points. Even to the point of using dictionaries to define "hit" and "damage."


----------



## Baron Von Mandrick (Jun 4, 2012)

I'm late to the discussion, and unfortunately will probably ramble on far too much...

It seems like a lot of the argument is over the minutia which isn't necessarily bad for things to discuss, but hopefully nobody will get upset or take things personally with that in mind.

In AD&D first level was more dangerous, but that doesn't mean that characters weren't heroes.  I think part of the problem is different people are arguing about characters not being heroic enough when 10 people probably have 11 different ideas about what a hero actually is.

The first level fighter who might only have 7 HP to start the campaign was titled a _veteran_.  So he already a background that included training, and experience thought not necessarily experience points.  It was fine to limit the powers, spells, abilities that characters had because all of that could increase as they leveled.  In a way I liked it then because I was starting out playing, and got powers when I as a player gained experience with the game, so my character and I were gaining experience more or less equally.

I also didn't mind having more powers and skills and things by the time 4e came out because I was a more experienced player.

In AD&D at a certain point our DM have us max HP's at first level.  At level 2 we got to roll 2 hit dice and take the best roll.  At level 3 we rolled, and the DM rolled a hidden die.  We could look at our roll and take our roll or take the hidden roll the DM rolled.  That in itself was fun, especially if you rolled a 5 or 6 and were sweating whether or not to choose the DM's die or your own.  But it also kept the characters alive a bit more early on, and kept the party from having guys that rolled well their first three levels while other members might have 3 poor rolls and then within the party there was a wide gap in HP's.

Eventually our DM felt that we weren't first level players anymore, and we started out with the 3rd or 4th level characters partially because that's where we were in the campaign but it made sense that the characters were on par with the players.

But even when our AD&D characters were first level and not given max hp's they were still above the common towns person.  The villager would have fewer hp's and not know any spells or anything like that because they were villagers.  They had interaction with the party, and our party could tell that we were above average from that interaction.  But when meeting nobles or career criminals or villains we saw that they too were above average which is why the villagers would be afraid of them and want a band of heroes to protect them.  It worked out.

I like that there is a progression though and that power and abilities increase as characters level.  It's fun to know that you will get better, and have something to shoot for and room to grow.

But within the criteria mentioned in the above paragraph I think people on different sides of the debate here could all play happily in the same gaming world.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 5, 2012)

Zero to hero is a matter of gaming experience, not numbers.

It depends entirely on how the particular game at the table is written.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 5, 2012)

I'm honestly surprised by what's considered "superhero" these days.  We had a TPK in our playtest.  Didn't feel all that superheroic to us. 

-O


----------



## thewok (Jun 5, 2012)

Obryn said:


> I'm honestly surprised by what's considered "superhero" these days.  We had a TPK in our playtest.  Didn't feel all that superheroic to us.



Heh.  I've seen more death since I switched to 4E than I ever did playing 3E.  I've never felt like a superhero in D&D.  I definitely feel more powerful than your normal everyday peon, but I've never felt like Green Lantern or anything.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Jun 5, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> OK, so I've got the play test, read it and played it. I actually like much of it, including the Backgrounds and Themes ideas. It generally feels like D&D (as an 'old school gamer') although it still needs expanding on some ideas.
> 
> The big bugbear for me, however, largely boils down to to same core issue I have with D&D 4th edition (_and_ Pathfinder actually). And that is the power creep.
> 
> ...




Spot on!

I want a game where "I" earn my heroic status, not one that's given to me at the start.

I think a few people have mentioned making 1st level PC's strong because it will attract players. I think that's BS and I don't want a game like that. 

Here is an example of this: I new a Taekwon-Do school that used to give black belts to smaller kids, who didn't earn them, in order to keep them in the school. I think a black belt should be earned, not given to keep kids interested.


----------



## am181d (Jun 5, 2012)

Celestian said:


> The complexity of character creation created this need/desire to make character survivability a requirement. If you could knock out a character in 5-10 minutes without an online tool we would not be having this sort of conversation.




Character survivability was a need/desire AND A REALITY for plenty of groups playing 1e and 2e. This idea that every group played charnel house D&D in the 80s is not accurate.


----------



## am181d (Jun 5, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I want a game where "I" earn my heroic status, not one that's given to me at the start.




This is a distinction without a difference. If you start at Power Level X and later reach Power Level Z, then you've earned Power Level Z.

You might as well ask, "Why do 1st level character start out already knowing how to use weapons or cast spells?" 

You're not making a broad argument about "earning" power. You're making a targeted argument about how MUCH power they should have to begin with.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 5, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I want a game where "I" earn my heroic status, not one that's given to me at the start.




Being able to do cool things does not mean that you have any kind of heroic "status". You still have to earn your notoriety. Why are you trying to conflate the two?



> I think a few people have mentioned making 1st level PC's strong because it will attract players. I think that's BS and I don't want a game like that.




It won't attract players. What it will do is help retain them. And, given that you're not a new player, your opinion on the value of parts of the game designed to support new players is going to be limited in its worth. 



> Here is an example of this: I new a Taekwon-Do school that used to give black belts to smaller kids, who didn't earn them, in order to keep them in the school. I think a black belt should be earned, not given to keep kids interested.




Why do you care? In what possible way does little kids being given black belts to build their self-esteem and keep them invested in an activity that fosters discipline and physical fitness affect you in a negative way?


----------



## Dannager (Jun 5, 2012)

am181d said:


> This is a distinction without a difference. If you start at Power Level X and later reach Power Level Z, then you've earned Power Level Z.
> 
> You might as well ask, "Why do 1st level character start out already knowing how to use weapons or cast spells?"
> 
> You're not making a broad argument about "earning" power. You're making a targeted argument about how MUCH power they should have to begin with.




And it's arbitrarily-targeted, to boot.


----------



## mlund (Jun 5, 2012)

Dannager said:


> And it's arbitrarily-targeted, to boot.




It's also conflating Characters and Players. *I* am a fat nerd sitting at a table rolling dice and eating Cheesy-Poofs. *Bruno the Warrior* is an imaginary character being put into motion by said overweight nerd - his choices driven for the sake of entertainment and constrained by all manner of meta-level concerns and mechanics. Bruno is an imaginary engine to pretend at heroism. At best he's the Lone Ranger a character in a story. He doesn't really earn anything - it's a contrivance. I'm a gamer rolling dice - I certainly didn't earn any status on my end either.

Now, Audie Murphy was a hero. He earned his heroic status like you read about. Griping over how anybody "earned" heroic status in Dungeons and Dragons when men like that walked the earth is just ridiculous.

Simulating an arc of dirt-grubbing peasant to competent warrior in our little game of imaginary men and plastic polyhedrons is all well and good. It's for amusement purposes only, after all.

- Marty Lund


----------



## The Human Target (Jun 5, 2012)

Celestian said:


> Turn that question around on yourself and see if you can come up with an answer.
> 
> The solution is to make the kicker a option and not a default, tweak some of the at-will powers and call it done.




Turn that question back on yourself.

Make not having the kicker an option, leave the at-wills alone, and then provide options for people who want to play differently than the core assumptions.

Neither way is correct, but I dislike when people assume what they want is both the correct thing and the most popular.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 5, 2012)

am181d said:


> This is a distinction without a difference. If you start at Power Level X and later reach Power Level Z, then you've earned Power Level Z.
> 
> You might as well ask, "Why do 1st level character start out already knowing how to use weapons or cast spells?"
> 
> You're not making a broad argument about "earning" power. You're making a targeted argument about how MUCH power they should have to begin with.



Outstanding point. Well reasoned. Good show and all that.


----------



## jadrax (Jun 5, 2012)

I think the problem with the way D&D was originally set up is a legacy from Wargaming. The PCs are, according to the rules, veterans. But they have the lowest available stats on the scale because they are basically footmen from Chainmail and that's as low as that system ever needed to go.

The problem is, stuff then gets added to the game which chainmail never needed. Wizards get familiars that do stuff, so suddenly you need squirrel stats. And because starting PCs are at the absolute mechanical bottom of the scale, that means there no available rules space for fluffy woodland critters. So they end up being as powerful as those starting veteran PCs.

So either, you end up living with house-cats that can mechanically take on a wizard in a fair fight, or you lift the PCs starting level a bit so there is squirrel space underneath them. Out of these two, I take option b every time.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 5, 2012)

jadrax said:


> So either, you end up living with house-cats that can mechanically take on a wizard in a fair fight, or you lift the PCs starting level a bit so there is squirrel space underneath them. Out of these two, I take option b every time.



"Needing squirrel space underneath them" is perhaps the most poetic explanation of this I've ever seen.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jun 5, 2012)

[MENTION=7175]jadrax[/MENTION] - Those aren't the only two options. You could make the woodland critter even below the base power. You could have a house-cat that is effectively a minion. You could not sweat the small stuff and just leave it out of the mechanics entirely. There are other options. And of the two you list, I'd pick option a). But given my druthers, I'd probably do something like my option a or b.


----------



## jadrax (Jun 5, 2012)

Fifth Element said:


> "Needing squirrel space underneath them" is perhaps the most poetic explanation of this I've ever seen.




*bows*, I thank you.

It just goes to show what you can achieve by posting at 3am with far to few cups of tea.


----------



## molepunch (Jun 5, 2012)

Sorry OP I'm with Dannager too. Let your taste for grittiness be an option and not the core rules. The crowd that likes the grittiness and challenge is more niche, I reckon. I also feel like there's some level of gaming elitism going on. 

It's like saying we are too soft to play "real" D&D so "go ahead and give yourselves some handicap and bump your happy selves up to level 7 where the at-will magic missiles and Reaper features are... Me? I'll frakking EARN my level 7 thank you very much. *epeen*"



The way I see it, you start off with a Class and that already implies a local hero of some measure in terms of capabilities. Normal Joes don't even have a Class.

It's fine to have zero to hero tastes though. I certainly enjoy it.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Jun 5, 2012)

am181d said:


> This is a distinction without a difference. If you start at Power Level X and later reach Power Level Z, then you've earned Power Level Z.
> 
> You might as well ask, "Why do 1st level character start out already knowing how to use weapons or cast spells?"
> 
> You're not making a broad argument about "earning" power. You're making a targeted argument about how MUCH power they should have to begin with.




Actually I am. I am arguing that I want to start with very little and then earn more power as I gain levels.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 5, 2012)

Fifth Element said:


> Yeah, everybody knows roleplaying isn't important at 1st level!
> 
> I mean, what?






renau1g said:


> Really? You're tired of it? I'd love it if my players invested time into their PC's like that. If it was super-duper deadly, 1 bite from a rat kills you, well I'd expect them to play paper-thin PC's and be bored as a DM with no hooks to draw from.




I didn't really write anything extraordinary with that sentence... It just means that when players overdo their characters' "great personality and background" (and by the way, writing the personality and background is not really roleplay, it's character design, but of course it's very much part of the game) maybe they should be reminded that if they're playing at 1st-level their personality and background is going to come from how they play (i.e. roleplay indeed) the upcoming adventures... If you want to play someone with the character and history of a king, perhaps you should consider higher level play.

Lethality however is truly orthogonal. You can have a high-mortality game at low level which becomes low-mortality at high level (like some older editions) or viceversa. One way to adjust lethality is just to control the size and CR of encounters and their frequency per day, or tinker with treasure/wealth levels.

What I'm trying to say (and I wonder how many times do I really need to rephrase that...) is that the only problem is at the "floor", the 1st level, where I think that there is absolutely no need for the designers to give too much stuff at once to the characters, except for non-design motivations (read: marketing). Giving too much stuff and too high survivability just takes away one valid gaming experience, that of what used to be the typical dire situation of a 1st-level D&D PC in earlier editions, with their combination of limited resources, low flexibility and higher risk of death. Why removing that option for the game? The opposite option would still be there after a couple of levels, and is generally easier to house rule than removing stuff (although not impossible, and the 5e draft it seems indeed easier than 3e to remove some stuff as a house rule).

IYKWIMAITYD


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 5, 2012)

2¢.

For me, powerful options for D&D PCs are like properly seasoning a dish.  If the dish tastes wrong, it is very easy to add seasoning, it is very difficult to take it out.

...Which is why I prefer a D&D where the default is 1st level characters that are only slightly more powerful than the commoners they protect; a game where Wizards are wary of cars and keep their crossbows in rop working order.  A game like that can easily support characters who start a campaign at higher levels, like the original DarkSun.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 5, 2012)

Celestian said:


> The complexity of character creation created this need/desire to make character survivability a requirement. If you could knock out a character in 5-10 minutes without an online tool we would not be having this sort of conversation.



The two certainly go together, no question. Complex characters require a low lethality game, high lethality requires fast PC generation.

You can see signs of increasing PC complexity as far back as 1e, with weapon proficiencies, secondary skills, and methods of attribute generation that involve more dice rolling than 3d6 in order. 1e PCs also have more survivability than in OD&D, as death is no longer at zero hit points.

But it's the Dragonlance style of Tolkien-esque epic quest play, that first appeared in published material in the early 80s, that most strongly requires a much lower lethality than traditional Gygaxian D&D. It should be noted that in DL1 Dragons of Despair the PCs all start at 5th level.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2012)

B.T. said:


> I don't see what's wrong with having characters starting the heroism at level three.  It's much easier for the DM to say, "We're going to start at a higher level" than it is for the DM to say, "We're going to start with half HP."



As someone else said, I don't see how one is harder then the other.

But I think it's a serious design flaw from the point of teachability to have the game start at a 1st level that will provide an unsatisfying play experience. Because every new player is going to begin at level 1. It's a natural and default starting point - if you weren't meant to start there, why would it be labelled "first"?



TrippyHippy said:


> if we will ever see an official version of D&D where beginning characters are actually vulnerable in a fight again?



This is a red herring in my view. 4e PCs are highly vulnerable in fights at low levels - it's just that it will take multiple blows to drop them from full to zero hp. (Thereby reducing the Russian roulette factor.)



TrippyHippy said:


> some players apparently don't feel fulfilled unless they are given a bunch of powers they feel they are entitled to from the get go.



Correct. When I sit down to play chess I don't feel fulfilled unless all the pieces are there (if I want to forfeit a piece, that's my choice).

When I sit down to play 500 or bridge, I don't feel fulfilled unless I'm dealt a complete hand.

Of course, whether I play chess well or poorly is independent of starting with all the pieces. And I've played cards with people who would barely know what to bid even if they picked up a single-suit, Ace-high hand.

But, as I said upthread and as others are saying, it's about having the necessary components of a PC to actually play the game as advertised!



Campbell said:


> Archetypes exist for a reason. When I choose to play a warrior type I'm saying I want to engage in meaningful combat encounters where my decisions have a direct bearing on the party's success. If an encounter is reduced to Russian Roulette where matters like target selection, choosing to stay back and ready an action to attack anything that comes near the wizard, etc. have no effect I'm not playing the game I signed up. When my rogue has no meaningful ability to sneak about or unlock traps I'm not playing a rogue. If the careful application of spells isn't meaningful than I'm not playing a wizard.



This is a big issue in B/X and AD&D. The Basic rulebook talks about Hercules and Merlin, but it is impossible to play such a character using those rules. Hercules cannot be one-shotted by a kobold, and Merlin is not a snivelling weakling who can cast a single (randomly determined) spell.

The foreword to the game even has a narrative about rescuing a princess by killing a fire-breathing dragon tyrant with a single swing of an enchanted sword - a feat that it is impossible to replicate using the game mechanics, given max damage would be 16 (10 for 2h sword +3 for enchantment +3 for STR) and no fire breathing dragon tyrant in the game is going to have so few hit points (I think red dragons in basic have 9 HD).



TrippyHippy said:


> I'm condemning people for using this as a reason for refusing the allowance of lower-powered modes of play that used to be the norm at low levels in previous iterations of the game.



I'm happy to be frank about this: in my experience, 1st level play in B/X D&D and 1st ed AD&D sucks. The game expects you to fight (there are fights within the first couple of rooms in the examples of play in both sets of rulebooks, and most of the rules are about fighting) but you don't have enough hit points to confidently have your PC enter a fight. A wizard has almost no magic. And a thief's success chance for special abilities is crap (AD&D is a bit better here with DEX and racial bonuses). In AD&D (but not B/X) a 1st level fighter also has the worst saves of any character.

Just making it to second level doubles your hit points. Making it to 3rd level gets fighter (in AD&D, at least) onto a better attack chart and a better saving throw chart.

The one time I really enjoyed a 1st level AD&D PC was in 2nd ed. But that PC was an uber-cleric built using the broken rules from Skills and Powers. So although I was technically 1st level, in functional terms I was probably closer to 3rd in all respects but hp (eg I had access to Evocation spells while using a cleric's spell table, including bonus spells for WIS; and the +/-2 to stat rules ensured that my relevant WIS score was 18).

I would strongly encourage the designers to avoid building a game which will repicate classic 1st level D&d play as the default.



mlund said:


> It's also conflating Characters and Players. *I* am a fat nerd sitting at a table rolling dice and eating Cheesy-Poofs. *Bruno the Warrior* is an imaginary character being put into motion by said overweight nerd - his choices driven for the sake of entertainment and constrained by all manner of meta-level concerns and mechanics. Bruno is an imaginary engine to pretend at heroism. At best he's the Lone Ranger a character in a story. He doesn't really earn anything - it's a contrivance. I'm a gamer rolling dice - I certainly didn't earn any status on my end either.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Simulating an arc of dirt-grubbing peasant to competent warrior in our little game of imaginary men and plastic polyhedrons is all well and good. It's for amusement purposes only, after all.



Nicely put.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> And I am sometimes tired of players who invent a great personality and background... for a freakin' 1st level PC!





On Puget Sound said:


> When I learned D&D (3 beige books plus Greyhawk) we would make 20 characters at once, and we never named them until they made second level, because most of them never did.  Yeah, magical times, but remember that at the time we were also pretty amazed by Pong.  I'm not interested in going back to that



In the first game I ever GMed, my brother rolled up 14 PCs, and named them all after the character in the hobbit.

Only 1 survived to 2nd level. Thus, it came about that the lead PC in that game was "Gloin Baggins".

As you say, magical times that I never want to go back to!



jadrax said:


> The PCs are, according to the rules, veterans. But they have the lowest available stats on the scale because they are basically footmen from Chainmail and that's as low as that system ever needed to go.
> 
> The problem is, stuff then gets added to the game which chainmail never needed.
> 
> ...



Good post.



Doug McCrae said:


> To me, even high lethality, highly gamist old school D&D (the style I'm intending to run next) isn't grim-n-gritty.



I've been re-reading Best of White Dwarf scenarios (copyright 1980 - I assume they're from the first dozen or so numbers of the magazine).

Don Turnbull has a dungeon where there is an "immovable" statue, and underneath the statue a dial marked from 120 to 400. The numbers represent total STR points required to move the statue, and the design intention is that when the players work this out, and move the dial down to 120, they will be able to get enough STR together to move the statue (a party size of 8+ is assumed).

That's highly gamist, but it's not remotely gritty!

There are a number of other scenarios in the collection that are much closer to Whiteplume Mountain then to Runequest. The exceptions, unsurprisingly enough, are the Runequest, Chivalry & Sorcery and Traveller encounters. These are much grittier. (And the C&S one is surprisingly good, I think, with a nice Arthurian vibe. If I'd noticed it back when the PCs in my 4e game were 2nd or 3rd level I would have tried to run it. The RQ scenarios, on the other hand, seem pretty ordinary.)


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 5, 2012)

Again, this my way or the highway malarkey, why not let different groups decide what 1st level HP values they are comfortable with (the core rules could of course have several options).


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 5, 2012)

pemerton said:


> As someone else said, I don't see how one is harder then the other.
> 
> But I think it's a serious design flaw from the point of teachability to have the game start at a 1st level that will provide an unsatisfying play experience. Because every new player is going to begin at level 1. It's a natural and default starting point - if you weren't meant to start there, why would it be labelled "first"?



Its not unsatisfying to me. And I'm not the only one who feels like this.



> This is a red herring in my view. 4e PCs are highly vulnerable in fights at low levels - it's just that it will take multiple blows to drop them from full to zero hp. (Thereby reducing the Russian roulette factor.)



If it is a fact to say that a 1st level PC can take a full strength blow in the face from a broadsword and still come out smiling, whilst being able to hand out deadly 
damage at will, then it is fair to say that PCs are not vulnerable. Certainly not as vulnerable as in previous editions. That's not Russian roulette, that is gritty, realistic fantasy.


> I would strongly encourage the designers to avoid building a game which will repicate classic 1st level D&d play as the default.




I would suggest that risking alienating players who simply wish to play in an authentic D&D experience, something akin to their previous experiences of the game, in yet another edition of the game is folly.


----------



## herrozerro (Jun 5, 2012)

Two points: 


TrippyHippy said:


> If it is a fact to say that a 1st level PC can take a full strength blow in the face from a broadsword and still come out smiling, whilst being able to hand out deadly
> damage at will, then it is fair to say that PCs are not vulnerable. Certainly not as vulnerable as in previous editions. That's not Russian roulette, that is gritty, realistic fantasy.




The PC isnt taking a broadsword to the face... at least not until the blow that drops him or her to 0 or less.
Being able to be dropped in a single blow is indeed russian roulette, it discourages ever entering combat, to take the path of least heroics.



TrippyHippy said:


> I would suggest that risking alienating players who simply wish to play in an authentic D&D experience, something akin to their previous experiences of the game, in yet another edition of the game is folly.




So anything other than your version is not authentic D&D?


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 5, 2012)

*!*



herrozerro said:


> So anything other than your version is not authentic D&D?




And some people want to argue in the face of logic and options, it would seem - my way - wah-wah!

I may want to start my campaign at all characters roll their HD for 1st level (you rolled a 1, tough), or Con + X, or, or, or etc, what's the problem?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 5, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Don Turnbull has a dungeon where there is an "immovable" statue, and underneath the statue a dial marked from 120 to 400. The numbers represent total STR points required to move the statue, and the design intention is that when the players work this out, and move the dial down to 120, they will be able to get enough STR together to move the statue (a party size of 8+ is assumed).
> 
> That's highly gamist, but it's not remotely gritty!



That's a great example of non-simulationist play.


----------



## B.T. (Jun 5, 2012)

What I believe Li Shenron is saying is that he's sick of people coming to the table with eight pages of backstory about how their character is a disowned prince from a forgotten kingdom who was raised by wolves and who possesses dichromatic eyes and a mysterious scar across the cheek.

Personally, I am in agreement.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 5, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> Its not unsatisfying to me. And I'm not the only one who feels like this.




You are not a new player.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> If it is a fact to say that a 1st level PC can take a full strength blow in the face from a broadsword and still come out smiling, whilst being able to hand out deadly  damage at will, then it is fair to say that PCs are not vulnerable.



What makes you think that 1st level PCs in any edition of the game can take full strength blows from broadswords and come out smiling? Given that there are no hit location rules in any core version of D&D, a blow to the face with a broadsword would be a matter of free narration. And who would narrate that if the blow didn't knock the PC unconscious?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2012)

On backgrounds: I want my players to provide their PCs with backgrounds that give them a place in the world and give me something to hook onto. In my previous (Rolemaster) campaign, the PCs included two samurai from a family down on its luck, their retainer from a middle class family hoping to move up in the world, an animal spirit banished from the heavens, and a couple of monks with mysterious pasts. These backgrounds weren't everything in the game - a lot of relevant material was generated, and came out, during play. But they certainly helped push the game.

In my current (4e) campaign, I gave instructions at the beginning that every PC must (i) have a loyalty to someone/something, and (ii) must have a reason to be ready to fight goblins. Once again, those backstories have played an important role in driving the game forward.

When PCs don't have backstories, or some other way for the player to run up a flag for the GM, I find the game tends to default to GM-dominated and driven plotting. Which is not what I'm really interested in.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 5, 2012)

pemerton said:


> And I've played cards with people who would barely know what to bid even if they picked up a single-suit, Ace-high hand.



One no-trump?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 5, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Actually I am. I am arguing that I want to start with very little and then earn more power as I gain levels.



All D&D characters earn more power as they gain levels. The starting point has no effect on that.

The point is, you're only arguing for an arbitrary starting point, not for being able to "earn" anything, since characters of any power level can earn more.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 5, 2012)

Fifth Element said:


> The starting point has no effect on that.




Of course it does.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 5, 2012)

Dannager said:


> TrippyHippy said:
> 
> 
> > pemerton said:
> ...




But we all were, once.

Considering my first ever PC died- last man standing in a long, standard dungeon crawl (and still low-level)-  I have to say that I'm with TrippyHippy- my view of what is "unsatisfying" or "flawed" clearly differs from pemerton's & Dannager's.  Having experienced what I expererienced, I can say that the old style design can definitely deliver a satisfying play experience, "will" and "flawed" assumes something that is simply not true- that we all interact with the rules in the same emotional way.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 5, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Of course it does.



Unless you mean starting at the highest level possible, I don't know what you mean. If you start at third level, when you reach ninth level, you've "earned" everything from fourth to ninth. The implication was that characters more powerful than the poster desired do not "earn" what they get.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 5, 2012)

Fifth Element said:


> All D&D characters earn more power as they gain levels. The starting point has no effect on that.
> 
> The point is, you're only arguing for an arbitrary starting point, not for being able to "earn" anything, since characters of any power level can earn more.



The idea might be that the weaker the starting position, the more challenging the game. I think this could be true, as not everything is relative. The encounters placed by the GM may, or may not, be level appropriate, but other challenges can arise from the world around the PCs as a result of unanticipated events, or the GM may be improvising to some degree. Those sorts of trials can be more difficult if the PCs are weaker relative to the surrounding world.

In addition, in order to earn power, acquisition of that power must be contingent, not necessary. It must be possible to earn 0xp, no level ups, no treasure, no magic items. Only certain types of player behaviour will be rewarded. I don't think that has anything to do with starting power level.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 5, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> The idea might be that the weaker the starting position, the more challenging the game. I think this could be true, as not everything is relative. The encounters placed by the GM may, or may not, be level appropriate, but other challenges can arise from the world around the PCs as a result of unanticipated events, or the GM may be improvising to some degree. Those sorts of challenges can be more challenging if the PCs are weaker relative to the surrounding world, I think.



But since so much of the challenge is dependant on the DM, I think suggesting that lower starting power = more "challenging" is fallacious, or at least far too simplistic.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 5, 2012)

Celestian said:


> I'll have to disagree with you on that. It wasn't "mainstream" till 3e came out which was well after the 80s.



It certainly was among the gamers I knew back in the 1980s, playing AD&D and then 2e (or some hybrid thereof). Creating a personality for a new 1st level character was only slightly less important than rolling stats. Backgrounds were more optional. But showing up without a name and some idea of who this fictional character _was_ would have earned you derisive laughter from my pals. After all, we weren't playing a board game...



> ]The complexity of character creation created this need/desire to make character survivability a requirement. If you could knock out a character in 5-10 minutes without an online tool we would not be having this sort of conversation.



Sure we would. Because there's been a segment of the audience that has no desire to run through 20 unnamed, interchangeable 1st-level PCs before managing to get one to 2nd level. These players want to start the game with a personality, with ready characterization, and possibly even a few goals/motivations. High lethality at 1st level, which sends that back the drawing board almost immediately does not serve them well. 

And this has nothing to do with the edition.



ForeverSlayer said:


> I want a game where "I" earn my heroic status, not one that's given to me at the start.



OK. Regardless of edition played, start your PC with 3 HP. Easy-peasy!.



> Here is an example of this: I new a Taekwon-Do school that used to give black belts to smaller kids, who didn't earn them, in order to keep them in the school. I think a black belt should be earned, not given to keep kids interested.



Tae Kwan Do is a skill which can objectively measured. Through violent confrontation. D&D playing is not. The only objective measure of D&D play is the still subjective measure of whether how well you entertained yourself and your fellow players at the table. 



mlund said:


> It's also conflating Characters and Players. *I* am a fat nerd sitting at a table rolling dice and eating Cheesy-Poofs. *Bruno the Warrior* is an imaginary character being put into motion by said overweight nerd - his choices driven for the sake of entertainment and constrained by all manner of meta-level concerns and mechanics. Bruno is an imaginary engine to pretend at heroism. At best he's the Lone Ranger a character in a story. He doesn't really earn anything - it's a contrivance. I'm a gamer rolling dice - I certainly didn't earn any status on my end either.



Why can't I give you XP for this! There ain't no justice.



Doug McCrae said:


> But it's the Dragonlance style of Tolkien-esque epic quest play, that first appeared in published material in the early 80s, that most strongly requires a much lower lethality than traditional Gygaxian D&D. It should be noted that in DL1 Dragons of Despair the PCs all start at 5th level.



And let's remember that the Dragonlance modules didn't _introduce_ this style of play to D&D. The Lord of the Rings did. Dragonlance is best seen as a reaction to a part of the audience desiring a style of D&D play which more closely resembled the epic fantasy novels they enjoyed, the fiction which, in many cases, led them to D&D. 

Everyone I knew who was into fantasy read Tolkien and his imitators. Their knowledge of Conan was limited to the Arnold movies. And no one had heard of Vance or Leiber.



TrippyHippy said:


> If it is a fact to say that a 1st level PC can take a full strength blow in the face from a broadsword and still come out smiling, whilst being able to hand out deadly damage at will, then it is fair to say that PCs are not vulnerable.



In AD&D, a broadsword does a maximum of 8 pts. of damage, barring STR bonuses.

I've seen plenty of 1st level AD&D characters with 8+ HP at 1st level. A ranger with no CON bonus, rolling for HP, would have an average of 9.

So 1st level AD&D characters aren't vulnerable (at least fighters, fighter subclasses, cavaliers, cavalier subclasses, and barbarians)? 



> I would suggest that risking alienating players who simply wish to play in an authentic D&D experience, something akin to their previous experiences of the game, in yet another edition of the game is folly.



Whose authentic D&D experience are we talking about? It's already clear mine and yours are fairly different. 



B.T. said:


> What I believe Li Shenron is saying is that he's sick of people coming to the table with eight pages of backstory about how their character is a disowned prince from a forgotten kingdom who was raised by wolves and who possesses dichromatic eyes and a mysterious scar across the cheek.



While I'm not fan of long (and insipid) backstories, remember, we're all playing D&D. Let he who is not pretending to be an elf cast the first stone. 



pemerton said:


> What makes you think that 1st level PCs in any edition of the game can take full strength blows from broadswords and come out smiling?



Because, as I pointed out, some of them can!  Old-school D&D can be deadly, but stories of its' unrelenting grittiness have been greatly exaggerated.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 5, 2012)

Mallus said:


> And, oddly enough, old-school D&D parties aren't necessarily weak, when you broaden your analysis to include things like changes to PC spells and the general quality of the opposition.
> 
> I've seen 1st-level AD&D parties that were _much_ stronger than their 3e counterparts, thanks to the cumulative effects of numerous rules changes, ie changes to the Sleep and Charm Person spells, "percentile strength", minimum monster damage, ranger's starting hit points, etc.



My own experience of Basic and 1e was that PCs seldom died, and won quite easily. But it was a long time ago and I think we were probably playing it wrong.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 5, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> The idea might be that the weaker the starting position, the more challenging the game. I think this could be true, as not everything is relative.





Fifth Element said:


> But since so much of the challenge is dependant on the DM, I think suggesting that lower starting power = more "challenging" is fallacious, or at least far too simplistic.



There's more going on than just starting power level, but there's still a certain sort of challenge at first level, just because (i) the main form of confict is combat, and (ii) a single hit will do about the same amount as damage as your hit die, meaning (iii) a single round of combat with a single foe can be deadly.

I don't think it's a challenge of skill, though. Luck plays a huge part. Once you get to 2nd level and get that 2nd hit die (at least if you're a cleric or fighter!), the role of luck starts to decline (though obviously is still there).



Mallus said:


> as I pointed out, some of them can!  Old-school D&D can be deadly, but stories of its' unrelenting grittiness have been greatly exaggerated.



I know the hit point ranges and damage ranges. I was talking about the narration. If a 1st level ranger with (let's say) 12 hit points gets hit by a broadsword for 8 hp (max damage on 2d4), s/he walks away smiling with 4 hp. From which I infer that s/he wasn't smacked in the face full strength. She dodged, weaved, or otherwise ablated what (in the fiction) was the full potential of the blow (thus wearing down her metaphysical reservoir of luck, divine favour etc).

Another way to put it is that while, mechanically speaking, it is possible for a 1st level ranger to survive a full-strength (8 hp) broadsword hit, what this means for the fiction is that, because s/he has 12 hp, that ranger will never actually suffer a full-strength blow to the face from the first broadsword attack of the day.

And as a side-note, it's this non-simulationist aspect of hit points (they render it impossible, at the mechanical level, for stuff to happen in the fiction that clearly _is_ possible within the fiction - ie, within the fiction there is no reason why that 1st level ranger _couldn't_ be one-shotted by a skilled or lucky broadsword attack) that makes me puzzled by so many people's outrage at martial dailies and encounter powers in 4e.

Or, conversely, if they re-simulation-ise hit points by going for "hp as meat" - so that ranger really _does_ get smacked full strength in the face by a broadsword, but having a face made of steel walks away anyway without even a dint to the teeth!


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 6, 2012)

herrozerro said:


> Two points:
> The PC isnt taking a broadsword to the face... at least not until the blow that drops him or her to 0 or less.
> Being able to be dropped in a single blow is indeed russian roulette, it discourages ever entering combat, to take the path of least heroics.




Being able to be dropped from a single blow by a lethal weapon in combat is nothing more and nothing less than realistic.



> So anything other than your version is not authentic D&D?




Essentially, this is reducing my argument into an ad hominem. I am saying that, for lots of players including myself, 4th Edition did not provide an authentic D&D experience (the D&D Next design crew acknowledge as much!). One of the reasons was because of the unequitable standards of 1st level PCs compared to NPCs and previous edition 1st Level characters. If D&D Next also follows down this path, then it will likewise not feel like authentic D&D.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 6, 2012)

pemerton said:


> There's more going on than just starting power level, but there's still a certain sort of challenge at first level, just because (i) the main form of confict is combat, and (ii) a single hit will do about the same amount as damage as your hit die, meaning (iii) a single round of combat with a single foe can be deadly.



A single hit is not a constant, though. It depends on the damage that the particular opponent causes with a single hit. This is why so much is dependent on the DM, and on what challenges he sets out for the characters.



pemerton said:


> I don't think it's a challenge of skill, though. Luck plays a huge part. Once you get to 2nd level and get that 2nd hit die (at least if you're a cleric or fighter!), the role of luck starts to decline (though obviously is still there).



That's a good point.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 6, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But we all were, once.
> 
> Considering my first ever PC died- last man standing in a long, standard dungeon crawl (and still low-level)-  I have to say that I'm with TrippyHippy- my view of what is "unsatisfying" or "flawed" clearly differs from pemerton's & Dannager's.  Having experienced what I expererienced, I can say that the old style design can definitely deliver a satisfying play experience, "will" and "flawed" assumes something that is simply not true- that we all interact with the rules in the same emotional way.




What I am advocating is that you do more harm to the game by making 1st-level characters fragile than you do good. Yes, you enjoyed your first D&D experience despite the loss of your PC (or perhaps because of it, for reasons unknown), but you probably would have enjoyed it if you *hadn't* died, too. The fact of the matter is that there's a pretty good chance that a brand new player enjoying D&D for the first time is more likely to have his experienced soured by losing his first character at the very beginning of the game than he is to have his experience soured by having his character live to hit 2nd level. That's what this boils down to. If you want fragile 1st-level characters as an option, that's certainly something you could advocate. But as the default, it's an idea that would do more harm than good.


----------



## IanB (Jun 6, 2012)

The part of all this discussion I don't understand is why having one's preferred method of play in the game as an option isn't _good enough_. It has to be the default or the game is ruined forever. There is probably no house rule in the game that is easier to make than starting PC hit points, in any direction.

I want 3e-style multiclassing so bad I can taste it, but I'm not going to boycott the company if it only makes it in as an optional module. This whole argument just makes no sense to me from the get-go.

Furthermore it relies on assumptions we simply _should not_ make at the moment. The rogue in the playtest doesn't have pickpocket, but we don't know there won't be some other background or scheme that does. Hit points seem slightly high now but they've said they were pumped up to test the core mechanics, so we don't even know what the actual starting level will be. And so on.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jun 6, 2012)

IanB said:


> The part of all this discussion I don't understand is why having one's preferred method of play in the game as an option isn't _good enough_. It has to be the default or the game is ruined forever.




Here's the answer for why, whether I agree with it or not: The default assumption is what most players and DMs assume. It's why the variant rules in the DMG, although they are there and available, see far less use than the ones presented in the PHB. Having it as an option makes it seem less valid than the default, and thus creates problems whenever someone chooses that option rather than the default.

Luckily, I tend to game with people who are friends and thus reasonable when it comes to agreeing to options. It's got a lot more to do with the social contract inherent in setting up the group. If the social connections are more adversarial, then anything that isn't the core rule is met with resistance.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 6, 2012)

The first step to making rules variants more accessible is including them in the PHB close to the relevant section so that players can access them in play. A player should never have to reference the DMG in play. The other effect this has is encouraging all players to discuss the sort of game they want to play.  2e did this and a lot of groups ended up using a good portion of optional rules.

As far as PC backgrounds go I would actually like to see 5e take it a step farther. All too often PCs seem to be entirely disconnected from their communities to the point where it seems they do nothing but adventure. I would like to see an optional Community module reminiscent of RuneQuest or the lifepaths in Burning Wheel that helps to provide PCs with connections to the world. Of course the backgrounds that describe a PC's profession are a good start.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 6, 2012)

Dannager said:


> What I am advocating is that you do more harm to the game by making 1st-level characters fragile than you do good. Yes, you enjoyed your first D&D experience despite the loss of your PC (or perhaps because of it, for reasons unknown), but you probably would have enjoyed it if you *hadn't* died, too. The fact of the matter is that there's a pretty good chance that a brand new player enjoying D&D for the first time is more likely to have his experienced soured by losing his first character at the very beginning of the game than he is to have his experience soured by having his character live to hit 2nd level. That's what this boils down to. If you want fragile 1st-level characters as an option, that's certainly something you could advocate. But as the default, it's an idea that would do more harm than good.




There are a whole lot of sweeping assumptions in all of this. Previous editions had 1st Level Characters with less HP, and they recruited new players fine. Current alternative versions of D&D (Pathfinder, C&C) have similar lower levels of HP at 1st Level and again seem to recruit new players fine too. The only version of D&D that differed from the original approach of single HD+ Con bonus, was 4th Edition. There is simply no evidence to suggest that initiates of previous editions had off-putting experiences compared to 4th edition. 

You are also assuming that the lower HP point totals inevitably lead to characters dropping like flies. In my experience it just means that it tones down the level of combat heaviness a DM throws at players at starting levels, whilst also making players a bit more cautious. This is not necessarily a 'bad thing'. All you do when you make PCs power up is escalate the power levels of everything else too. At the same time, you are just removing the scope for differing D&D experiences by effectively removing low level play from the game.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 6, 2012)

IanB said:


> The part of all this discussion I don't understand is why having one's preferred method of play in the game as an option isn't _good enough_. It has to be the default or the game is ruined forever. There is probably no house rule in the game that is easier to make than starting PC hit points, in any direction.
> 
> I want 3e-style multiclassing so bad I can taste it, but I'm not going to boycott the company if it only makes it in as an optional module. This whole argument just makes no sense to me from the get-go.
> 
> Furthermore it relies on assumptions we simply _should not_ make at the moment. The rogue in the playtest doesn't have pickpocket, but we don't know there won't be some other background or scheme that does. Hit points seem slightly high now but they've said they were pumped up to test the core mechanics, so we don't even know what the actual starting level will be. And so on.




The whole point of having a playtest is to provide feedback. We have no idea how the game will change after each stage of the playtest, but if we don't speak up about the aspects of the game _we see in front of us_, then nobody will hear our concerns. My concern is that 1st level characters are too powered up, and consequently it doesn't feel like D&D should to me (at lower levels). Entirely legitimate and honest feedback.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2012)

Campbell said:


> As far as PC backgrounds go I would actually like to see 5e take it a step farther. All too often PCs seem to be entirely disconnected from their communities to the point where it seems they do nothing but adventure. I would like to see an optional Community module reminiscent of RuneQuest or the lifepaths in Burning Wheel that helps to provide PCs with connections to the world. Of course the backgrounds that describe a PC's profession are a good start.



I posted some ideas on using Backgrounds in this thread, although in the context of adjudicating skill checks rather than building connections to the community.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 6, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I posted some ideas on using Backgrounds in this thread, although in the context of adjudicating skill checks rather than building connections to the community.




Hopefully this "community" will not have too much of an impact on the new edition.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 6, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Hopefully this "community" will not have too much of an impact on the new edition.



You didn't like my ideas on how to use backgrounds?


----------



## Steely_Dan (Jun 6, 2012)

pemerton said:


> You didn't like my ideas on how to use backgrounds?




Oh, nothing to do with your Backgrounds - very cool, like your ideas; I'm talking about the D&D "community".


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jun 6, 2012)

So you're saying that the people who *play* D&D, and who are the people expected to *buy* D&D, should not have any influence over what D&D is?

I understand the perils of design by committee as well as any man, but if the people making D&D don't listen to what the people buying D&D want, they run a very real risk of designing a type of D&D that nobody *wants*-- made more real by the possibility that, whatever its merits, people may decide they don't want it solely *because* the people who made it didn't listen to them.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 6, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> There are a whole lot of sweeping assumptions in all of this. Previous editions had 1st Level Characters with less HP, and they recruited new players fine. Current alternative versions of D&D (Pathfinder, C&C) have similar lower levels of HP at 1st Level and again seem to recruit new players fine too. The only version of D&D that differed from the original approach of single HD+ Con bonus, was 4th Edition. There is simply no evidence to suggest that initiates of previous editions had off-putting experiences compared to 4th edition.




Previous editions are not quite a few years back, and people and games changed since the "glory days" of 1E. I started playing in 1992, and we never played those "low level games" you speak of, where random death was just around the corner.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 6, 2012)

Campbell said:


> All too often PCs seem to be entirely disconnected from their communities to the point where it seems they do nothing but adventure.



This is a very good point. For some styles of play, it's a good thing to disconnect the PCs from community. High lethality, highly challenging old school D&D play benefits from fast PC generation. It's a waste of time to detail a character's origins or culture. PCs are young, rootless, almost certainly male, fortune seekers. They're troublemakers tbh, who would be unwelcome in most societies. They're motivated by power, wealth, and glory. That's all we need to know. That's enough to get them headed for the DM's dungeon. Personally, I don't think paladins and other altruists are a good fit for this play-style, but 1e AD&D clearly disagrees with me.

This style of D&D actually does motivation rather well, particularly considering it spends so little time on it. The player and PC motivations are the same.

Ofc for low lethality games that are concerned with other aspects of human existence than the misadventures of a bunch of psychopaths, this setup doesn't work so well.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 6, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> Ofc for low lethality games that are concerned with other aspects of human existence than the misadventures of a bunch of psychopaths, this setup doesn't work so well.




I posit that D&D should offer more than just playing murdering marauders, and (among other things not related to 1E) take a look at 1E and their high-level options.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 6, 2012)

Fenes said:


> Previous editions are not quite a few years back, and people and games changed since the "glory days" of 1E. I started playing in 1992, and we never played those "low level games" you speak of, where random death was just around the corner.




Same incorrect assumptions restated. Pathfinder is just as 'modern' as D&D 4th, and still bases HP on a single die roll plus Con bonus. Nobody playing that game complains and it's hardly unsuccessful. 

As stated before, the 'random death' you claim is grossly exaggerated.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 6, 2012)

Viktyr Korimir said:


> So you're saying that the people who *play* D&D, and who are the people expected to *buy* D&D, should not have any influence over what D&D is?
> 
> I understand the perils of design by committee as well as any man, but if the people making D&D don't listen to what the people buying D&D want, they run a very real risk of designing a type of D&D that nobody *wants*-- made more real by the possibility that, whatever its merits, people may decide they don't want it solely *because* the people who made it didn't listen to them.




Is the only valid customer feedback the one you agree with? If the D&D game is to my liking, I am as likely to buy it as anyone here. The fact that anybody is spending time playtesting is enough to warrant the validity of their feedback.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 6, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> Same incorrect assumptions restated. Pathfinder is just as 'modern' as D&D 4th, and still bases HP on a single die roll plus Con bonus. Nobody playing that game complains and it's hardly unsuccessful.
> 
> As stated before, the 'random death' you claim is grossly exaggerated.




Pathfinder raised hitpoints for the less tough classes and made the "max hitpoints at level 1" rule official. Not exactly an endorsement of 1E.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 6, 2012)

Fenes said:


> Pathfinder raised hitpoints for the less tough classes and made the "max hitpoints at level 1" rule official. Not exactly an endorsement of 1E.




It raised a d4 to a d6 in two cases, and made a typical house rule used in 1st Ed standard. Hardly a ringing endorsement of adding the entire Con score as a kicker.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 6, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> It raised a d4 to a d6 in two cases, and made a typical house rule used in 1st Ed standard. Hardly a ringing endorsement of adding the entire Con score as a kicker.




Not really, yes. But it shows they at least wanted characters not to go down in one hit from a kobold or housecat.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 6, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> Pathfinder is just as 'modern' as D&D 4th, and still bases HP on a single die roll plus Con bonus. *Nobody playing that game complains* and it's hardly unsuccessful.



*raises hand*



Fenes said:


> Pathfinder raised hitpoints for the less tough classes and made the "max hitpoints at level 1" rule official. Not exactly an endorsement of 1E.



That was a 3E rule, wasn't it?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 6, 2012)

There's quite a big difference between 1974 OD&D and 3e. 1st level PCs in OD&D have hit dice ranging from a d4 up to a d8, so the average is 3.5. Death is at 0. In 3e, hit points range from 4 to 12, and death is at negative 10.

If we ignore the constitution bonus, the average 1st level OD&D PC can take 3.5 points of damage before dying, whereas the average 3e PC can take 18. That's a fivefold increase.

Over the course of D&D's history we can see a clear trend away from the Gygaxian high lethality game presented in OD&D. Even 1e increases hit dice, and lowers the death threshold into the negatives.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 6, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> There's quite a big difference between 1974 OD&D and 3e. 1st level PCs in OD&D have hit dice ranging from a d4 up to a d8, so the average is 3.5. Death is at 0. In 3e, hit points range from 4 to 12, and death is at negative 10.
> 
> If we ignore the constitution bonus, the average 1st level OD&D PC can take 3.5 points of damage before dying, whereas the average 3e PC can take 18. That's a fivefold increase.
> 
> Over the course of D&D's history we can see a clear trend away from the Gygaxian high lethality game presented in OD&D. Even 1e increases hit dice, and lowers the death threshold into the negatives.




3E also boosted the con bonus by a lot - a 12 already gave you a bonus to hitpoints, unlike earlier editions.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 6, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> There are a whole lot of sweeping assumptions in all of this. Previous editions had 1st Level Characters with less HP, and they recruited new players fine. Current alternative versions of D&D (Pathfinder, C&C) have similar lower levels of HP at 1st Level and again seem to recruit new players fine too.




Did they!



> You are also assuming that the lower HP point totals inevitably lead to characters dropping like flies.




No I don't. I'm acknowledging that they enable that possibility.



> In my experience it just means that it tones down the level of combat heaviness a DM throws at players at starting levels, whilst also making players a bit more cautious. This is not necessarily a 'bad thing'. All you do when you make PCs power up is escalate the power levels of everything else too.




That's not necessarily true, either.



> At the same time, you are just removing the scope for differing D&D experiences by effectively removing low level play from the game.




That's *very* not true.


----------



## jadrax (Jun 6, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> Same incorrect assumptions restated. Pathfinder is just as 'modern' as D&D 4th, and still bases HP on a single die roll plus Con bonus. Nobody playing that game complains and it's hardly unsuccessful.




I am reasonably sure that quite a few people complain.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 6, 2012)

Umm, wasn't the whole "sweet spot" argument based on the idea that the sweet spot started at 3rd level?  Wasn't that pretty much the entire justification for 4e's hp base?

If "Killed by a single hit" was so incredibly popular, why does the sweet spot start two levels higher?


----------



## Imaro (Jun 6, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Umm, wasn't the whole "sweet spot" argument based on the idea that the sweet spot started at 3rd level? Wasn't that pretty much the entire justification for 4e's hp base?
> 
> If "Killed by a single hit" was so incredibly popular, why does the sweet spot start two levels higher?




Ok, I'll guess, Uhm... a vocal minority? No real evidence to support that guess, but I do wonder if the number of players of OD&D, B/X D&D, BECMI D&D, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e Retro-clones, Pathfinder/3.5, etc. outnumber those who have selected 4e as their D&D of choice. If so it would be a strong argument that the supposed "sweet spot" isn't necessary for the majority of players to enjoy D&D. 

IME, most casual and new players, don't sit up and analyze games like this, they wouldn't know what the "sweet spot" of D&D is suppose to be if asked. They take the assumptions of the particular edition in stride and play to have fun (and yes a higher chance of death can be fun for many, especially in beer and pretzel games). 

In fact, I would aslo argue most new/casual gamers don't get pre-attached to characters like some more experienced gamers do... at least not initially. Now admitedly, this is all anecdotal, but that's all anybody has anyway.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jun 6, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> There's quite a big difference between 1974 OD&D and 3e. 1st level PCs in OD&D have hit dice ranging from a d4 up to a d8, so the average is 3.5. Death is at 0. In 3e, hit points range from 4 to 12, and death is at negative 10.
> 
> If we ignore the constitution bonus, the average 1st level OD&D PC can take 3.5 points of damage before dying, whereas the average 3e PC can take 18. That's a fivefold increase.
> 
> Over the course of D&D's history we can see a clear trend away from the Gygaxian high lethality game presented in OD&D. Even 1e increases hit dice, and lowers the death threshold into the negatives.



I agree with this, but I think it was taken one step too far. DDN seems to be paring it back a little, which I'm fine with. My ideal would be starting with HP in the teens, maybe CON score as starting HP. I just see starting HP for 1st level characters in the 30s and it's too high for me.

Again -- modularity dial would be the best way to do this. I don't need Gygax level of 1d6 hit points at level 1, but the alternative doesn't need to be 33. There's a middle point there that works for me.


----------



## grimslade (Jun 6, 2012)

*Death by Housecat*

D&D is about fantasy super heroes. More Batman, Green Arrow, Black Widow style than Superman, Spiderman and Thor. They are better than average citizens, or maybe the best of average citizens. Batman isn't downed by one mook in an alley, neither should a PC be downed by one lucky goblin.
I had a wizard in 1E killed by a botched Find Familiar spell. Killed by a house cat. My DM was a Dire Rat Bastard. I had several wizards die at first level under his reign by humiliating means until I earned the right to play a wizard. My fourth wizard leveled enough to die in Tomb of Horrors, and I stopped playing wizards.
I like a higher die for wizards and rogues plus Con mod in 5E. Con score + is too much, unless healing is gimped. With sufficient in combat healing and the Hit Die Surge mechanic, d6 + Con mod is good. You are more than one hit from a sub zero nap and even a great axe crit is not time for new character generation.
The long rest mechanic is too much, unless you change 'long rest' to mean several days of convalescence.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 6, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> This is a very good point. For some styles of play, it's a good thing to disconnect the PCs from community. High lethality, highly challenging old school D&D play benefits from fast PC generation. It's a waste of time to detail a character's origins or culture. PCs are young, rootless, almost certainly male, fortune seekers. They're troublemakers tbh, who would be unwelcome in most societies. They're motivated by power, wealth, and glory. That's all we need to know. That's enough to get them headed for the DM's dungeon. Personally, I don't think paladins and other altruists are a good fit for this play-style, but 1e AD&D clearly disagrees with me.
> 
> This style of D&D actually does motivation rather well, particularly considering it spends so little time on it. The player and PC motivations are the same.
> 
> Ofc for low lethality games that are concerned with other aspects of human existence than the misadventures of a bunch of psychopaths, this setup doesn't work so well.




I think the main thing is if your going to have a high level of character investment you either need more durability or need to change the assumptions of play. For example, RuneQuest PCs are fairly weak novice adventurers, but starting PCs are not assumed to venture out into hostile monster territory at first. You stay much closer to home, rely on your connections, and engage enemies on your own terms. Venturing out to where armies of monsters make their home is not the assumed method of play.

Edit: Part of my issue is that I see PCs as rational actors, at least trying to serve their self interests. It's pretty hard for me to justify the calculus of stepping deep into enemy territory facing off against an army of your equals.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 6, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> I agree with this, but I think it was taken one step too far. DDN seems to be paring it back a little, which I'm fine with.



Agreed. I'm no fan of high-lethality low-level games, but 4E pushed it a bit too far for my tastes.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 6, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> 4) Make the skills the main focus of the Rogue Class - not just the 'striker' role (although, admittedly, this is much better in D&D Next than it was in 4th Ed). I'm not asking for big long lists (definitely not!), but what about being able to pickpocket again?




You mean that this is probably _worse_ in D&D next than it was in 4th ed?  D&D next where Sneak Attack scales at a rate of 1d6 per level as opposed to 2d6 at first, 3d6 at _11th_, and 5d6 at _21st_?  And it's six skills all (although from everything I've seen the 4e rogue has an easier time getting more skills) - but the 4e skills are broader.  One of the rogue skills is called Thievery - that skill covers disarming traps, picking locks, and picking pockets - that's a very comfortable two skills in one (at +5 vs +3 with a minimum of 10, granted - there's not much difference there).  And then one gets tricks, the other gets utility powers.

And let's not get into the thief...  4e thieves are more skills-focussed than 4e rogues.  A seventh skill (again broad), some skills support, and all the advantages of the 4e rogue.

So at present I'd call the classic 4e rogue slightly more of a skill monkey (and slightly less of a striker) than the 5e rogue.  The 3e rogue on the other hand just looks on in envy as they need to spend separate skill slots on a lot of things.

The 4th edition rogue might be called a striker.  But it's more skills focussed and less striking focussed than either the 3rd ed rogue or the D&D next rogue.



> Also, incidentally, are they going to go back to adding 1/2 Level to Skill checks and Attacks?




No.



TrippyHippy said:


> At what point did earning experience and power thereof become the same thing as 'earning' enjoyment?.




See the different types of players.  Different people enjoy different things.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 6, 2012)

Fifth Element said:


> Agreed. I'm no fan of high-lethality low-level games, but 4E pushed it a bit too far for my tastes.




What I find interesting is that I am a fan of that style of game; yet I still agree with you.  There's a general ballpark area of style that I prefer; I'm willing to make concessions to slide my scale one way or the other.  After all, it is a group game, so I understand that my desires may not match the desires of others.

That all being said, I agree that 4E pushed some things too far.  I still have and do enjoy 4E, but I do not feel the mechanics of the game are a good fit for the implied setting nor many D&D settings.  (Oddly, I found 4E's Forgotten Realms to be a very good fit; I'm aware I'm in the minority.)  I had my most fun with D&D when I ran it as a sort of psuedo-sci-fi game and completely embraced the gonzo nature of the rules and pushing the envelope.  Still, while I had a blast with that game, it's not my preferred style of play; doing it from 1-30 gets old after the first few times.

One thing I'd like to note is that I do not feel harsher/more realistic combat necessarily translates into lethality.  Taking damage in GURPS means something far more tangible than taking damage in D&D 4th Edition; however, GURPS gives me (as the defender) the option to dodge, parry, and/or block rather than just standing there and getting hit.  Now, I would say it is more lethal than the current edition of D&D right out of the box, but I would also say that I would have to crank some of the optional dials up to mythic fantasy for a more accurate side-by-side comparison.

Speaking of 'mythic fantasy,' I think that might be what is meant by the 'superhero comments.'  If fantasy occupies the middle ground between myth and history, D&D 4th Edition is (I think) much closer to myth.


----------



## IanB (Jun 6, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> The whole point of having a playtest is to provide feedback. We have no idea how the game will change after each stage of the playtest, but if we don't speak up about the aspects of the game _we see in front of us_, then nobody will hear our concerns. My concern is that 1st level characters are too powered up, and consequently it doesn't feel like D&D should to me (at lower levels). Entirely legitimate and honest feedback.




You didn't answer my question, though; why is it not OK for the thing you want to just be an option? "Make my way the default or I refuse to buy this" doesn't feel like feedback, it feels like an ultimatum.


----------



## Celestian (Jun 6, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> So D&D is really only 4 levels. From level 6 when you stop being a no name smuck to level 10 when the game breaks down and you are encouraged to retire.




I do not know about your games but I played into the upper teens and some of them in made it to 20 in AD&D 1e. Game did not break down... infact it was brilliantly fun.



Campbell said:


> Every 2e supplement would like to have a word with you. As would NWPs.




NWP are now a complex background? Colour me surprised.



The Human Target said:


> Turn that question back on yourself.
> 
> Make not having the kicker an option, leave the at-wills alone, and then provide options for people who want to play differently than the core assumptions.
> 
> Neither way is correct, but I dislike when people assume what they want is both the correct thing and the most popular.




The way I suggested allows both you and I have our way. Your way does not. Has nothing to do with most popular. It is about modularity and options.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 6, 2012)

Fifth Element said:


> Agreed. I'm no fan of high-lethality low-level games, but 4E pushed it a bit too far for my tastes.




I find this kind of funny though as the first session of a 4E campaign I ran was Keep on the Shadowfell and I had a TPK before they ever got to the keep in the kobold ambush. (Rogue tried to scout and botched his hide roll, dead, Warlord was in front during attack, went down immediately, rest of party followed suit.)

Then I had a TPK getting in to the keep, and Irontooth almost caused another. It was a crash course in tactical play for the players who had previously played in my 1E/2E hybrid game.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 7, 2012)

Herschel said:


> I find this kind of funny though as the first session of a 4E campaign I ran was Keep on the Shadowfell and I had a TPK before they ever got to the keep in the kobold ambush.



By no means am I trying to suggest that TPKs are impossible in 4E, or that character death is necessarily rare. But the balance is certainly different in 4E than in any earlier edition.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 7, 2012)

Kits more so than NWP were a direct validation of elaborate PC background. The Complete Books of X were certainly something I'd call fairly mainstream. Some even see use in the biweekly 2e/1e game I play in.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jun 7, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> Is the only valid customer feedback the one you agree with? If the D&D game is to my liking, I am as likely to buy it as anyone here. The fact that anybody is spending time playtesting is enough to warrant the validity of their feedback.






Doug McCrae said:


> Over the course of D&D's history we can see a clear trend away from the Gygaxian high lethality game presented in OD&D. Even 1e increases hit dice, and lowers the death threshold into the negatives.




And Mr. Gygax also moved away from the high lethality of his games by starting his players at 3rd level. I don't know from experience, but my understanding that what Mr. Gygax played at his table was considerably different-- and much higher-powered-- than what he wrote in his rulebooks. It seems that many of his most fervent admirers would not have cared to have played at his table.



Mercutio01 said:


> DDN seems to be paring it back a little, which I'm fine with. My ideal would be starting with HP in the teens, maybe CON score as starting HP. I just see starting HP for 1st level characters in the 30s and it's too high for me.




Perhaps 10 + half-HD + Constitution modifier? Gives you a range between 10 for 8 CON Wizard and 20 for 20 CON Fighter. It's tempting to use Constitution score in place of the ten... but there's a twelve point variance in starting Con values.

And then each level is half-HD + Constitution modifier because seriously, of all the things you have to roll in D&D, hit points are the worst. And Constitution should be *important*.

If they're going to stick with rolling hit dice, because they hate me, and don't want to add Constitution modifier (to avoid inflation)... they should have you roll 1 HD + 1 HD per point of Constitution bonus and take the best roll. If you have a negative Constitution modifier... welcome to the wonderful world of Disadvantage.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Jun 7, 2012)

IanB said:


> You didn't answer my question, though; why is it not OK for the thing you want to just be an option? "Make my way the default or I refuse to buy this" doesn't feel like feedback, it feels like an ultimatum.




Having a bunch of options can lead to problems if all they amount to is fudging the issues. 

Moreover, I am simply being honest in my feedback. If I don't like the game when it is finally made, for whatever reason, of course I won't buy it. That's not an ultamatum, is a customer's perogative. For me, a critical issue is whether you can actually start 1st level with something equitable to the power levels of previous editions - it's part of my decision making as to whether I would buy it or not. I'm merely expressing this view as part of the playtest. If other people want to say different, then it is up to them.


----------



## underfoot007ct (Jun 7, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> Having a bunch of options can lead to problems if all they amount to is fundging the issues.
> 
> Moreover, I am simply being honest in my feedback. If I don't like the game when it is finally made, for whatever reason, of course I won't buy it. That's not an ultamatum, is a customer's perogative. For me, a critical issue is whether you can actually start 1st level with something equitable to the power levels of previous editions - it's part of my decision making as to whether I would buy it or not. I'm merely expressing this view as part of the playtest. If other people want to say different, then it is up to them.




Since D&D Next is the "unity" edition, with lots of options. Prepare for lots of options. If options are not your thing fine. It's your prerogative to wait for the old school/grognard module or not. It's my prerogative not to want to play the "dirt farmer" gone adventerin' RPG. I am expressing my need for the game NOT to be a bunch of commoners with pitch-forks seeking copper pieces.

We need to playtest what we have received, not what we hoped for.  I am waiting for the tactical module they promised, so far the rules are way to simplistic, for myself.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 7, 2012)

Fifth Element said:


> By no means am I trying to suggest that TPKs are impossible in 4E, or that character death is necessarily rare. But the balance is certainly different in 4E than in any earlier edition.





Yeah, character deaths still happen easily enough, they're just not as random.


----------



## Mattachine (Jun 7, 2012)

A common nickname for that first 4e adventure was "Keep on the TPK-Fell."

The first time I ran it, my group had a TPK.

The difference I saw compared to early editions was a TPK in 4e came about after 4-5 rounds of combat (which took an hour!). In AD&D, a TPK could come about from a single round of good attacks and failed saves--remember fighting ghouls at low level?


----------



## Gryph (Jun 7, 2012)

TrippyHippy said:


> As I said before, the modularity lies in having the option to start at higher levels of experience. The notion that Level 1=Level 0 simply because you want characters to start at equitable HP levels to everybody else in the fantasy world is a straw man in itself. Believe it or not, this is how D&D was played for decades before 4th Edition came along. And I, for one, enjoyed it.




I, on the other hand, have been enjoying D&D for decades (started with Holmes Basic in '77) but not with crappy starting HP values. 

One of our long standing houserules was starting with Con score + HD roll at first level. The speed of character generation in did not alleviate the loss of enjoyment we felt from losing a first level character we were already becoming attached to.

My friends and I liked creating fairly detailed backstories with hooks for the DM to use during the campaign. Fragile starting PCs are harmful to the enjoyment of this playstyle.

My gut tells me that truly new players will enjoy the game more if their first character isn't fragile (single digit starting hp), but that could well be personal bias talking.

Still, there is no real need to argue over wich is better. This is a pretty simple dial and a sidebar in the main rules explaining other starting HP options makes it easy enough for either of us to play with the style we like regardless of the default dial setting.


----------



## grimslade (Jun 7, 2012)

A PC should able to withstand at least one hit, even a crit, at 1st level. No one likes being wiped out from a bad initiative roll. Getting ambushed by multiple goons? Sure, it sucks but it's plausible.
Too many hit points leads to bloat and kobolds not being any threat. So d4 hit die plus anemic 1E con bonus is too few hit points. Con score plus Con mod plus d6 is too high. D6 plus Con mod for wiz is about right. Wizards shouldn't be in melee, Shocking Grasp or no. Maybe max hp at 1st. 6+ hp should survive a great axe crit. 1+ hp is way too low.


----------



## Gryph (Jun 7, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 2¢.
> 
> For me, powerful options for D&D PCs are like properly seasoning a dish. If the dish tastes wrong, it is very easy to add seasoning, it is very difficult to take it out.
> 
> ...Which is why I prefer a D&D where the default is 1st level characters that are only slightly more powerful than the commoners they protect; a game where Wizards are wary of cars and keep their crossbows in rop working order. A game like that can easily support characters who start a campaign at higher levels, like the original DarkSun.




Honestly, I think the PC options are more like a recipe than a finished dish. It is equally easy to bump the amount of spice down to taste as up to taste; so long as the spices are well labeled.

With a lot of the power options being packed into Themes and Backgrounds it's going to be pretty easy to dial down overall power by excluding them or change the pace of power gain by delaying (or accelerating) their features.

Starting HP options are more about the density of the dough rather than the flavor. I can whip my batter longer adding air and making the pastry more fragile or I can simply mix in my eggs and reduce the flour and make my pastry rich and dense. Either way the 70% cocoa baking chocolate I use is going to make it yummy.

It's lunch time and I'm getting hungry.

I myself like 1st level to be a little lighter on the spice and dense and chewy in play (Fewer power options but enough HP to not be fragile).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 7, 2012)

Viktyr Korimir said:


> And Mr. Gygax also moved away from the high lethality of his games by starting his players at 3rd level. I don't know from experience, but my understanding that what Mr. Gygax played at his table was considerably different-- and much higher-powered-- than what he wrote in his rulebooks.



The 1e DMG actually does recommend starting at higher than 1st level if it's not the player's first character, and, in some situations, even if it is. Gary thinks that a new player's first experience of D&D ideally should be at level one, alongside other beginners.


As a general rule the greatest thrill for any neophyte player will be the first adventure, when he or she doesn’t have any real idea of what is happening, how powerful any encountered monster is, or what rewards will be gained from the adventure. This assumes survival, and you should gear your dungeon to accommodate 1st level players. If your campaign has a mixture of experienced and inexperienced players, you should arrange for the two groups to adventure separately, possibly in separate dungeons, at first. Allow the novice players to learn for themselves, and give experienced players tougher situations to face, for they already understand most of what is happening - quite unlike true 1st level adventurers of the would-be sort, were such persons actually to exist. 

If you have an existing campaign, with the majority of the players being already above 1st level, it might be better to allow the few newcomers to begin at 2nd level or even 3rd or 4th in order to give them a survival chance when the group sets off for some lower dungeon level. I do not personally favor granting unearned experience level(s) except in extreme circumstances such as just mentioned, for it tends to rob the new player of the real enjoyment he or she would normally feel upon actually gaining levels of experience by dint of cleverness, risk, and hard fighting.​ - page 12


Experienced players without existing characters should generally be brought into the campaign at a level roughly equal to the average of that of the other player characters. If the average is 4th level, far example, an  "average" die or d4 + 1 can be rolled to find a level between 2 and 5. This actually works well even if the average experience level of the campaign is 5th, 6th, 7th, or even 8th, especially when the "averaging" die is used. If the experience level is above 8th, you will wish to start such newcomers out at 4th or higher level. After all, they are not missing out on anything, as they have already played beginning character roles elsewhere​ - page 111


----------



## airwalkrr (Jun 8, 2012)

While I disagree with the premise of the title of this thread (IMHO D&D is a supers game), I agree with the content of the OP. What I like best about old-school D&D is the feeling of developing from a "street-level" hero to a "super" hero. All D&D player characters are a cut above the crop. They are those individuals who begin at 1st-level as being just a little bit better at their trade. The fighter is not just a soldier, he is a born and bred fighter, with fighting in his heart. The wizard is not just a dabbler in magic, he is a true master of magic with the potential to become a mighty magus.

I disliked the notion of 1st-level characters in 4e being mega heroes and I dislike the approach of the playtest in this regard as well. There is something special about playing a character from being a lowly and weak 1st-level something and turning him into an epic warrior of legend over the course of a campaign. The developers are trying to avoid the 1st-level lethality problem, as it has often been described, by giving 1st-level heroes a huge hit point buffer. But I think this is the wrong way to do this. Make the hit point buffer an optional rule for DMs who want their PCs to be extra special instead of just regular special. Personally, I like campaigns where adventuring is a dangerous enterprise where death is commonplace. Those that survive have many great stories to tell.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 8, 2012)

airwalkrr said:


> I disliked the notion of 1st-level characters in 4e being mega heroes



I also dislike this notion, largely because it's untrue in any meaningful sense since you have to compare characters to their environments to know how powerful they are.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 8, 2012)

Fifth Element said:


> I also dislike this notion, largely because it's untrue in any meaningful sense since you have to compare characters to their environments to know how powerful they are.




I'm honestly unsure of this... but is 4e the only edition where a 1st level character cannot possibly be killed by a single hit from an equal level/HD opponent?

EDIT: OAN: Is it the only edition where full hp recovery is granted after an 8 hour rest?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 8, 2012)

Imaro said:


> I'm honestly unsure of this... but is 4e the only edition where a 1st level character cannot possibly be killed by a single hit from an equal level/HD opponent?




4e is _also_ the only edition where it is almost impossible for a 1st level character (or any other level character) to kill an equal level/hd opponent in one hit.  Swings and roundabouts.



> EDIT: OAN: Is it the only edition where full hp recovery is granted after an 8 hour rest?




In theory or in practice?  Because 3.X had the mistake of making the cheap and easily craftable Wand of Cure Light Wounds making healing much more abundant even than in 4e.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 8, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> 4e is _also_ the only edition where it is almost impossible for a 1st level character (or any other level character) to kill an equal level/hd opponent in one hit.  Swings and roundabouts.



Exactly. Some people see a 1st-level character's hp in 4E, being used to earlier editions, and assume they're mega heroes. I guess they forget to check how many hp an orc has.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 8, 2012)

Imaro said:


> I'm honestly unsure of this... but is 4e the only edition where a 1st level character cannot possibly be killed by a single hit from an equal level/HD opponent?



Kinda. In AD&D, for example, it depends on the 1st level character. It was common for some classes/characters to be virtually immune to one-shotting from like-level opponents. It wasn't impossible, but from a practical standpoint, it was extremely unlikely.

Consider: an orc can do a maximum of 8 points of damage with a single hit. That's enough to kill any magic-users and thieves (if you weren't using the death's door, unconscious at zero, dead at -10 option), but not clerics (w/high CON), fighters, cavaliers, or barbarians (and their subclasses). It was also common, in my experience, to grant PCs maximum HP at first level, meaning a fighter with no CON adjustment had 10 HP, a barbarian 12 HP, and a ranger 16 HP. 

BTW, this means the barbarian and ranger can't be killed by a single hit from an _ogre_ (max 10 per hit). 

And it was _uncommon_ from what I saw in actual play for martial PCs to not have a positive CON adj. 



> EDIT: OAN: Is it the only edition where full hp recovery is granted after an 8 hour rest?



This is true.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 8, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> 4e is _also_ the only edition where it is almost impossible for a 1st level character (or any other level character) to kill an equal level/hd opponent in one hit. Swings and roundabouts.




The argument wasn't about whether monsters were stronger... but you are wrong since 4e has minions so there are actually a ton of monsters 4e characters can kill with one blow that are of equal level.





Neonchameleon said:


> In theory or in practice? Because 3.X had the mistake of making the cheap and easily craftable Wand of Cure Light Wounds making healing much more abundant even than in 4e.




I didn't say with magic, but nice way to try and move the goalposts (also I don't remember those wands being all that available, without DM intervention at 1st level either). 

It's a simple question... is there any other edition where every character can heal themselves fully from resting 8 hours?


----------



## Imaro (Jun 8, 2012)

Fifth Element said:


> Exactly. Some people see a 1st-level character's hp in 4E, being used to earlier editions, and assume they're mega heroes. I guess they forget to check how many hp an orc has.




Orc Drudge: Level 4 Minion.
AC: 16  Fort: 15 Ref: 12 Will: 12
*HP: 1*

Easily killable in one hit from a 1st level 4e character.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 8, 2012)

Mallus said:


> Kinda. In AD&D, for example, it depends on the 1st level character. An orc can do a maximum of 8 points of damage with a single hit.
> 
> That's enough to kill any magic-users and thieves (if you weren't using the death's door, unconscious at zero, dead at -10 option), but not clerics (w/high CON), fighters, cavaliers, or barbarians (and their subclasses). It was also common, in my experience, to grant PCs maximum HP at first level, meaning a fighter with no CON adjustment had 10 HP, a barbarian 12 HP, and a ranger 16 HP.
> 
> ...



_

Ok, cool... thanks Mallus.  I'm not the most experienced with pre-WotC editions and that's why I stated upfront I was unsure... of course this still doesn't approach the durability of a 4e character._


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 8, 2012)

Fifth Element said:


> Exactly. Some people see a 1st-level character's hp in 4E, being used to earlier editions, and assume they're mega heroes. I guess they forget to check how many hp an orc has.





While I would never use the term 'mega heroes,' I would say that -for me personally- that view would come from monsters of pretty much any level not having much (if any) chance against equal PCs.  Even monsters of higher levels have trouble against lower PCs.  As the PCs level up, it only gets worse.  

I've read plenty of stories in which people talk about rampant TPKs in 4E; I really have no way to relate to it because that has not been anywhere near my experience with the game -not any of the times I've gone 1-30.  When running games, I've hurt (and killed PCs,) but I was not running stock 4E; the version of 4E I run has been modified enough that (while being the same game) it functions quite differently than the RAW game.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 8, 2012)

Imaro said:


> The argument wasn't about whether monsters were stronger... but you are wrong since 4e has minions so there are actually a ton of monsters 4e characters can kill with one blow that are of equal level.




Nice way to move the goalposts there. You said equal level/hd. And minions are a mechanic that make monsters that are emphatically not meant to be a threat to the PCs 1:1 into monsters worth paying attention to who still aren't a significant threat to the PCs. They may technically be the same level but emphatically aren't the same hit dice equivalent.

And if you're going to play that way then I'm going to tell you that by using your rules a first level monster almost certainly _can_ 1-shot a 1st level 4e PC. If that first level monster happens to be a Dragon (e.g. the Young White from Monster Vault) or other L1 solo (Id Fiend, Dark Sun Creature Guide also springs to mind). But using them as examples of equal level monsters would be silly. Every bit as silly as silly as claiming that minions are equal level.



> I didn't say with magic, but nice way to try and move the goalposts (also I don't remember those wands being all that available, without DM intervention at 1st level either).
> 
> It's a simple question... is there any other edition where every character can heal themselves fully from resting 8 hours?




You didn't say without magic either. And didn't specify at level 1 in that challenge. According to the Wealth By Level rules, and using the DMG's guidance for magic item shops, PCs can afford Wands of Cure Light Wounds from _Level 2_. So there's a grand total of 1 level where PCs can't heal up almost at will in 3.X unless the DM deviates from the guidelines in the DMG. W00t!

Edit: The Orc Drudge is _not_ an Orc Warrior.  In 3.X terms he'd be a level 1 Orc Commoner.  And almost certainly have a lower strength than most orcs - if he could fight effectively he'd have his chance at being a warrior at the very least.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 8, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> While I would never use the term 'mega heroes,' I would say that -for me personally- that view would come from monsters of pretty much any level having much (if any) chance against equal PCs. Even monsters of higher levels have trouble against lower PCs. As the PCs level up, it only gets worse.
> 
> I've read plenty of stories in which people talk about rampant TPKs in 4E; I really have no way to relate to it because that has not been anywhere near my experience with the game -not any of the times I've gone 1-30. When running games, I've hurt (and killed PCs,) but I was not running stock 4E; the version of 4E has been modified enough that (while being the same game) it functions quite differently than the RAW game.




I've noticed that often, though not always, the stories of TPK's tend to have one of two things in common...

A.) The players are just starting 4e and thus it can be attributed more to unfmiliarity with the game, their characters, the other player's characters, etc, or...

B.) It's that the encounter basically breaks the given guidelines.  As an example the Iroontooth encounter from KoS is often cited... but a hard encounter is defined as 2-4 levels above your PC's and Iroontooth was 5 levels above the PC's, and even then many parties defeated the encounter without a TPK. 

On a side note, it makes me wonder if the guidelines for 4e encounter building are actually as good as people claim or do they just minimize party death and thus get less slack for being inaccurate than CR and EL.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 8, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Nice way to move the goalposts there. You said equal level/hd. And minions are a mechanic that make monsters that are emphatically not meant to be a threat to the PCs 1:1 into monsters worth paying attention to who still aren't a significant threat to the PCs. They may technically be the same level but emphatically aren't the same hit dice equivalent.




4e doesn't have hit die... so there's only level. I included HD in reference to earlier editions. And no, it's not moving the goalposts, it's something 4e fans conveniently ignore when talking about the ramped up power feel of 4e characters... yet it plays a significant part in it.



Neonchameleon said:


> And if you're going to play that way then I'm going to tell you that by using your rules a first level monster almost certainly _can_ 1-shot a 1st level 4e PC. If that first level monster happens to be a Dragon (e.g. the Young White from Monster Vault) or other L1 solo (Id Fiend, Dark Sun Creature Guide also springs to mind). But using them as examples of equal level monsters would be silly. Every bit as silly as silly as claiming that minions are equal level.
> 
> You didn't say without magic either. And didn't specify at level 1 in that challenge. According to the Wealth By Level rules, and using the DMG's guidance for magic item shops, PCs can afford Wands of Cure Light Wounds from _Level 2_. So there's a grand total of 1 level where PCs can't heal up almost at will in 3.X unless the DM deviates from the guidelines in the DMG. W00t!




Uhmm, the Young White is a level 3 Solo Brute... not a level one. The Id FIend is a level one solo and his strongest attack does 2d6+5... so between 7 and 17 points of damage... I'm not seeing a one shot here. So yeah, both examples fall short. 

I said by resting... where does "resting" inherently include magic? Unless youre definition of resting is totally different from the definition in the books.  they are different dynamics and generate different feels in the game.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 8, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Edit: The Orc Drudge is _not_ an Orc Warrior. In 3.X terms he'd be a level 1 Orc Commoner. And almost certainly have a lower strength than most orcs - if he could fight effectively he'd have his chance at being a warrior at the very least.




... Riiiight. I'm sure if we squint hard enough and go through contortions (especially forgetting the fact he's not a level 1 monster but a *level 4* monster in 4e... there's some way to justify it. Whatever man.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 8, 2012)

Imaro said:


> 4e doesn't have hit die... so there's only level.




4e doesn't have hit die. What it has is level and classification. The Solo/Elite/Standard/Minion classification matters. If you do not take this second part into account, no wonder you have problems understanding anything about monsters in 4e.

According to you, a level 3 young white dragon is of lower level than a level 4 orc drudge. Do you _really_ think that this is a fair and accurate reflection of the game? And are you arguing this seriously or rhetorically?

Alternatively you can go by XP value for the encounter as broken down by PCs _as laid out in the DMG_.



> I included HD in reference to earlier editions. And no, it's not moving the goalposts, it's something 4e fans conveniently ignore when talking about the ramped up power feel of 4e characters... yet it plays a significant part in it.




No. It's something you're actively misrepresenting. Possibly you do believe what you are saying and that an orc drudge should be classed as a higher ranking threat to a party than a dragon. Is this the case?



> Uhmm, the Young White is a level 3 Solo Brute...




Fledgeling White. Monster Vault. Mea culpa.



> The Id FIend is a level one solo and his strongest attack does 2d6+5... so between 7 and 17 points of damage... I'm not seeing a one shot here. So yeah, both examples fall short.




I should have looked that one up as well. Either way, 1 on 1 the monsters will utterly _destroy_ the PCs.



> I said by resting... where does "resting" inherently include magic? Unless youre definition of resting is totally different from the definition in the books. they are different dynamics and generate different feels in the game.




Yes. They do. The 3.X healing and crafting rules turn PCs into magic-fuelled supermen who can keep going until someone gets a lucky hit in (this part of the RAW being broken is big enough to warp the whole game). The 4e healing rules actually do eventually force the PCs to stop - and makes them vulnerable to attrition. Neither is like the slow recovery of the AD&D characters.

Edit: The Orc Drudge is most emphatically not a level 4 *Standard *Monster. He's a level 4 *Minion*. And should no more be treated as an ordinary level 4 monster should than a Young Black Dragon who's a *Solo. *The Solo/Elite/Standard/Minion part of the monster matters. And if you wish to ignore it, that's your affair.

Edit 2: And of _course_ the drudge is a commoner.  What else would a _drudge_ be in 3.X terms?  A warrior?  _Drudge_ is right there in the name.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 8, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> 4e doesn't have hit die. What it has is level and classification. The Solo/Elite/Standard/Minion classification matters. If you do not take this second part into account, no wonder you have problems understanding anything about monsters in 4e.




I don't have a problem understanding anything. How about you cool it with the personal attacks and conjecture about what I do and don't have problems with and just address the argument. 



Neonchameleon said:


> According to you, a level 3 young white dragon is of lower level than a level 4 orc drudge. Do you _really_ think that this is a fair and accurate reflection of the game? And are you arguing this seriously or rhetorically?




Uhm  4 >  3 seems pretty simple. No one said one was tougher, stronger, etc. than the other but the Orc Drudge is a level 4 monster plain and simple. As far as how it reflects the game... that was never my argument in the first place. My argument was that a 4e character can in fact one shot a monster of equal *level*. I've proven it and now you're creating arbitrary restrictions, rules, etc. to try and somehow make a pretty simple statement false.



Neonchameleon said:


> Alternatively you can go by XP value for the encounter as broken down by PCs _as laid out in the DMG_.




I could, but that wasn't my argument and it in fact would totally disregards minions... Yet, as I stated earlier they are a part of the game and one of the factors that contributes to the greater super hero feel of 4e. So sorry, but I feel they should be accounted for instead of conveniently ignored as you seem to be trying to argue for. 



Neonchameleon said:


> No. It's something you're actively misrepresenting. Possibly you do believe what you are saying and that an orc drudge should be classed as a higher ranking threat to a party than a dragon. Is this the case?




The problem is you're trying to attach more to my argument than what it consisted of. It was clear and concise, it's not my fault you are now trying to obfuscate it.





Neonchameleon said:


> Fledgeling White. Monster Vault. Mea culpa.




Is this the part where I should question your understanding of monsters...





Neonchameleon said:


> I should have looked that one up as well. Either way, 1 on 1 the monsters will utterly _destroy_ the PCs.




Or maybe here??



Neonchameleon said:


> Yes. They do. The 3.X healing and crafting rules turn PCs into magic-fuelled supermen who can keep going until someone gets a lucky hit in (this part of the RAW being broken is big enough to warp the whole game). The 4e healing rules actually do eventually force the PCs to stop - and makes them vulnerable to attrition. Neither is like the slow recovery of the AD&D characters.




Again, not argung about healing in general... arguing about how much one can heal naturally from resting... one is represented by purchased or created magic... the other is represented by super heroic healing ability, super heroic determination, etc... Do you get the difference now?


----------



## Imaro (Jun 8, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Edit: The Orc Drudge is most emphatically not a level 4 *Standard *Monster. He's a level 4 *Minion*. And should no more be treated as an ordinary level 4 monster should than a Young Black Dragon who's a *Solo. *The Solo/Elite/Standard/Minion part of the monster matters. And if you wish to ignore it, that's your affair.
> 
> Edit 2: And of _course_ the drudge is a commoner. What else would a _drudge_ be in 3.X terms? A warrior? _Drudge_ is right there in the name.




Wow more twisting and contortions... along with trying to arbitrarily impose neonchameleon's rules... I think I'll pass. 

The one interesting thing I did notice from this back and forth about minions and solos is that (using the Id Fiend as an example) we know for a fact that there are at least some 4e solos who cannot one shot a PC... yet, using XP a Solo= 5 PC's of equal level... 

However 5 minions = 1 PC of equal level and a PC can always one shot a minion. Seems like there's an imbalance here. and it seems like it's the PC's who are favored... again adding to the greater durability and super hero feel that many experience with 4e .


----------



## Mattachine (Jun 8, 2012)

If no one responds to edition-war posts, then the thread can get back on track.

EDIT: Original post was simply too mean-spirited.


----------



## herrozerro (Jun 8, 2012)

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]

You do indeed need to look at 4e creatures with a greater depth than just level.  A level 4 minion is not > than a level 1 solo.  Minions should never be compared against any other kind of monster except a minion.  Unless you start adding more of them together.

In either case, I dont feel that One shotting PCs is a measure of how super a game is.  As in 4e, not only did the PCs get stronger their opposition did as well.  All 4e did was make it so that it takes at least 2-3 good hits to drop a PC and about the same for a monster.  It made it so that a lucky crit didnt put you out of the game until you can roll up your next guy and imo made the game a bit better without the swinglyness.


----------



## nogray (Jun 8, 2012)

*CR-like Comparisons*

I'm restricting myself to 3e and 4e, here, as those are the systems with which I have the most experience DMing. (I've played everything but OD&D, but only really DMed extensively in the latest two editions.)

TL;DR: 4e monsters potentially OHKO 4e PCs with the same (or greater) frequency than 3e monsters of the same "game usage" space do to 3e PCs. 3e monsters are far more vulnerable to being OHKOed by the PCs than are 4e monsters.

I think that "hit die" is a poor choice for comparison within the 3e/4e rules set. The better tool, in my opinion, is to look at how they are intended to be used, meaning by CR (3e) or level (4e).

[sblock="Rationale for CR and Level usage"]By definitions, we can look at CR 1/4 as being roughly equivalent to a level one monster. (Reasoning: Four CR 1/4 monsters create an "equal level" challenge for a party of four 3e characters; this is identical to the situation for a 4e party facing off against an equal number of level one monsters.) Similarly, a CR 1/2 monster is equal to either a level one elite or a level five standard monster. A full CR 1 monster would be roughly equal to a level one solo.

The closest thing to a level one minion is a CR 1/10 or so 3e critter. (It should be a CR 1/16 or so, but no such creatures exist, to my knowledge.) The CR 1/10, 1/8, and 1/6 will have to fill in for minions up to about level 8; a level 9 minion is 100 xp, the same as a level 1 standard monster, so CR 1/4.[/sblock]

What that means to me is that I can look at CR 1/4 stuff and compare it to standard level one monsters (no elites, solos, or minions).

[sblock="3e and 4e Damage Comparisons"]With that basis for comparison, only rogues and wizards are vulnerable to one-shot-KOs from CR 1/4 types. The highest damage I found for a single standard action used to attack was the kobold at 1d6-1. (The kobold zombie is listed in the table as CR 1/4, it is in the book as CR 1/2. It has a crossbow attack that does 1d6 damage.) In no case is a tougher class vulnerable. All the CR 1/4 types (except the ambiguous zombie kobold) have really tiny hit points, making them equally vulnerable to being taken out by single attacks from pretty much anyone.

In 4e, there are several standard monsters with damages that let them one-shot the same sort of lower-hit-point PCs that are vulnerable in 3e. Bullywug Muckers and Leapers can get to 24 damage (30 for the mucker if the PC is already prone), Lowtown Urchins get to 24, and topping things out, the Silt Runner Rager can hit for up to 33. (28 is the normal max, but that same hit gives vulnerable 5 to all damage. Though getting 33 damage does require a previous hit from the Rager, it is theoretically possible that the Rager hit, the target was healed to full, then the rager hit again, one-shotting the PC from full hit points -- this is obviously a corner case.)

The damages here of the bullywug and silt runner put even defenders without a con priority in serious danger. About a dozen level one standards can one-hit-KO those low-hit-point PCs. (This doesn't include ongoing damage, which can technically OHKO a target if its luck is bad enough ... ) Honorable mention goes to the Kobold quickblade, who deals 1d6+11 if used well, the goblin archer who deals 1d8+1d6+2, and the lesser air elemental who deals 2d6+4 plus grabs the target (while grabbed, the target takes ongoing 5, plus it takes half the damage from any ranged or melee attacks on the air elemental). Though unable to OHKO, these deal pretty decent damage, enough to scare relatively high hit point characters.

The real winner, then, is the durability of the 4e monsters. They seem to mostly have between 22 and 28 hit points (with outliers as low as 17 and as high as 38, I think). That puts them, unlike every one of the 3e CR 1/4 monsters, largely out of reach of PC at-will damages. (Everything is vulnerable to the right daily or even some encounter option, and most are easily within reach of the right sort of rogue with combat advantage sneak-attacking or other high-damage striker.)[/sblock]

In conclusion, a smallish subset of 4e level one standard monsters can one-shot a PC of low max hit points, and a couple (out of the 66 or so in the monster-builder) can even one-shot all but the toughest 4e PCs. They are only vulnerable to being one-shotted by damage-optimized PCs or through use of daily abilities (and maybe an odd encounter power or so from a semi-damage-optimized PC). A similarly small subset of the 3e CR 1/4 monsters (essentially equivalent to the above in game usage) can one-shot relatively low hit point characters, but none can one-shot a fighter-type. They are all within easy reach of being killed by one shot from pretty much any PC.

------------------

To address the OP:



			
				TrippyHippy said:
			
		

> The big bugbear for me, however, largely boils down to to same core issue I have with D&D 4th edition (and Pathfinder actually). And that is the power creep.
> 
> Why do Hit Points have to be so high at 1st level - out of synch with all other NPC dwellers?




You are partly right, there. For at least four editions (1e-4e), the hit point values for PCs have been in the ballpark of the hit point values for monsters/NPCs. It is only in the 5e playtest where this isn't the case, and there is little reason to suspect that it will remain that way, as monsters are admittedly unfinished. (I object to the implication that PCs had more hit points than NPCs in 4e. That is largely false. What they do have is access to more in-combat healing and much more between-encounter healing. Where 4e PCs largely deviate from earlier-editions PCs' hit-point totals is when compared to base weapon damages. There, they are much more resilient. As seen above, though, this doesn't likely apply to actual attacks from many sources, be they PC or NPC.)

[sblock="The OP's Five Points, and Comments thereupon"]







> 1) Make the HD the sole measure of HP (with a Con modifier for each level). Have characters gain up to 10HD at 10th Level, then simply stop awarding them after that.
> 
> 2) Give Fighters a d10 HD again. Actually, I'd arguably give them a D8, so that the HP are equitable with other characters and NPC Warriors). Levy their 'Feats' so that, at 1st level at least, combat is challenging. They can gain more dramatic feats as they progress, but it needs to be levied.
> 
> ...




1. I can't say I agree here. I'd rather constitution (or con mod) apply only once to the hit point total. I can see 1st level being 10 + con mod + hit die (roll or average or what-have-you). I like the subsequent levels not having a con mod applied, except to mitigate bad luck on rolls (as in the playtest now, where your per-level hit points are your roll or the con mod, whichever is higher, or just taking half-max of the hit dice). This could also allow for a level zero "low power" option where you haven't yet earned your first hit die.

A maximum hit die (like level 10 in your suggestion) is doable, but then you would need to acknowledge that through monster design, encounter design, campaign design (does the campaign by default change goals at a certain level?) or some other area(s).

2. Not an issue. Playtest fighters do have d10; it's just that the "tough dwarf" raised that to d12. Still, I sympathize. I like the hit-point equity of 4e far more than 1e or 3e. 

4e: your first level characters had no fewer than 18 but, barring feats, no more than 37 -- a doubling in range from weakest to strongest -- and very much in parallel to the level one standard monsters.

1e: anywhere from 1 hit point for an unlucky character with no con bonus to 24 for a lucky ranger with an 18 constitution, low-level monsters tended to cluster around the lower ranges

3e: 2 hit points for the frail 6-con elf wizard up to 17 for the 20-con dwarf barbarian. Low CR monsters tend strongly towards the lower end there, too.

Even cutting out the extremes of the 1e and 3e examples, you were left with easily a highest number that was three to five times the lowest number for max hit points, and a max hit points for monsters/NPCs that was towards that lower end.​
3. I can definitely agree that to-hit rolls of some sort should probably apply to wizard minor spells that cause damage. I liked the 4e magic missile in its original form far more than the revised version for similar reasons. Scaling and whatnot should be closely examined, too, so that no minor spell reaches the level of what a fighter can do on his normal attack, even with an improvised weapon. (Okay, _maybe_ on the level of what can be done with an improvised weapon, but no better, without some sort of investment of resources from the wizard to make his at-wills better.)

4. I like a balance of sorts. More characters should be good at skills than we've seen in prior editions, but the 1e thief was just bad at combat, and I don't want to go back there. I think 4e struck a good balance (well, better than prior editions) with rogues (and especially their thief cousins from essentials) being the kings and queens of skill usage. The damage scaling of the playtest rogue seems to be too high (higher than even the 3e sneak attack scaling), and much higher than the scaling of 4e sneak attack. Then again, with recent insight, the action cost of gaining advantage might be just enough to offset that back to a 3e level. Still, perhaps, more than I like.

I didn't get the "dig" on 4e, here, as the scaling of the rogue's sneak attack there was pretty trivial. (2d6 at 1, 3d6 at 11, 5d6 at 21; most likely changed to d8s via a feat somewhere in that progression.) 4e rogues are not the best strikers by a long shot. They are the best with skills, though, by at least one trained skill. Thieves really rock out the skills.

5. It really looks like there is no scaling of bonuses to checks, though there is obviously scaling to damage, and it looks like it needs close monitoring. The magic missile spell and the rogue's sneak attack both go up far more than the fighter's damage, and that needs to be watched.[/sblock]


----------



## IanB (Jun 8, 2012)

Imaro said:


> Uhm  4 >  3 seems pretty simple. No one said one was tougher, stronger, etc. than the other but the Orc Drudge is a level 4 monster plain and simple. As far as how it reflects the game... that was never my argument in the first place. My argument was that a 4e character can in fact one shot a monster of equal *level*. I've proven it and now you're creating arbitrary restrictions, rules, etc. to try and somehow make a pretty simple statement false.




The real issue is you're creating a meaningless comparison, because 4e simply does not use level in the same way the other editions do. While your argument may be literally true - a 1st level minion is indeed the same "level" as a 1st level character - it isn't especially relevant because minions don't exist in the same design space as 1 HD or CR 1 monsters in previous editions. A first level minion is the equivalent of those 1 hp rats in the Caves of Chaos. If you're going to try to make comparisons and your goal is something other than winning rhetorical points, then you should be comparing apples to apples.

EDIT: Something I just noticed in nogray's post:



> Originally Posted by TrippyHippy
> The big bugbear for me, however, largely boils down to to same core issue I have with D&D 4th edition (and Pathfinder actually). And that is the power creep.
> 
> Why do Hit Points have to be so high at 1st level - out of synch with all other NPC dwellers?




It is hardly out of synch with "all other NPC dwellers". The kobold chief has 44 hit points! Leader type monsters only go up from there. The minotaur is over a hundred!


----------



## Imaro (Jun 9, 2012)

IanB said:


> The real issue is you're creating a meaningless comparison, because 4e simply does not use level in the same way the other editions do. While your argument may be literally true - a 1st level minion is indeed the same "level" as a 1st level character - it isn't especially relevant because minions don't exist in the same design space as 1 HD or CR 1 monsters in previous editions. A first level minion is the equivalent of those 1 hp rats in the Caves of Chaos. If you're going to try to make comparisons and your goal is something other than winning rhetorical points, then you should be comparing apples to apples.




IanB this will be the last thing I say on this because I don't want to clog the thread up anymore... 

I'm looking at the mechanics in 4ed that make PC's look and feel like superheroes compared to previous editions.... disregarding minions whose sole purpose is to make 4e PC's appear to be uber bad asses that kill with one blow... is not conducive to that. 

I don't believe for one moment that hit point increase alone is in fact the only cause that many have this impression of 4e as the "superhero" edition after playing it. It's easy, as has been shown in this thread to dismiss individual mechanics (and/or claim they should be exempt for some reason for comparisons)... but when you add up increased hit points, minions, full hp's after 8 hours, short rest HS expenditure, etc. it's easy to see, at least IMO, why 4e characters do feel like superheroes compared to previous editions. Claiming minions shouldn't be regarded in the discussion is saying as conscious design choice in how PC's interact with monsters (that doesn't exist in previous editions) should be ignored... I don't believe that, I believe a level 1 minion has been put in 4e specifically to be one-shoted by a PC and thus adds to the "superhero" like feeling the game invokes compared to previous edtions. YMMV and all that of course.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 9, 2012)

Imaro said:


> Orc Drudge: Level 4 Minion.
> AC: 16  Fort: 15 Ref: 12 Will: 12
> *HP: 1*
> 
> Easily killable in one hit from a 1st level 4e character.



Krayd the Butcher (medium natural humanoid, orc): Level 1 Solo Brute
AC: 13 Fort: 14 Ref: 12 Will: 10
*HP: 124
* 
Isn't this fun?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 9, 2012)

Imaro said:


> I believe a level 1 minion has been put in 4e specifically to be one-shoted by a PC and thus adds to the "superhero" like feeling the game invokes compared to previous edtions.  YMMV and all that of course.



Of course they were designed to be one-shotted, that's explicit in their design. It was done so that DMs could use a large number of monsters in an encounter and not lose his mind trying to their individual hit points. Minions are a DM aid, not a character super-heroifier.


----------



## IanB (Jun 9, 2012)

Imaro said:


> Claiming minions shouldn't be regarded in the discussion is saying as conscious design choice in how PC's interact with monsters (that doesn't exist in previous editions) should be ignored... I don't believe that, I believe a level 1 minion has been put in 4e specifically to be one-shoted by a PC and thus adds to the "superhero" like feeling the game invokes compared to previous edtions. YMMV and all that of course.




But prior editions have those same monsters - witness those 1 hit point rats and 1/2 hit die kobolds that fighters can 'sweep' through in 1e. 4e just codified them mechanically.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 9, 2012)

Fifth Element said:


> Of course they were designed to be one-shotted, that's explicit in their design. It was done so that DMs could use a large number of monsters in an encounter and not lose his mind trying to their individual hit points. Minions are a DM aid, not a character super-heroifier.




I disagree... all over the internet, numerous 4e fans have made the claim that minions are there to make the PC's look bad ass.  I honestly find it hard to believe that you haven't seen this sentiment expressed by numerous DM's who run the game... especially in the various comparisons they make between minions and action movie mooks.  So I guess we will have to agree to disagree because I, and apparently many proponents of 4e, actually do think they are a mechanic designed to create a feeling of "super-heroics" when it comes to 4e PC's.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 9, 2012)

IanB said:


> But prior editions have those same monsters - witness those 1 hit point rats and 1/2 hit die kobolds that fighters can 'sweep' through in 1e. 4e just codified them mechanically.




Yep I agree, upon further reflection minions can exist in previous editions though in the case of previous editions minions were not specifically codified and were instead the result of chance... the interesting thing is that we don't exclude a monster from being that monster in other editions because random chance gave him a single hit point... In previous editions a goblin (warrior) is still a goblin (warrior), even if he has 1 hit point... so if minions exsist in the case of previous editions (except in so far as them being specifically called out) why are minions a seperate case in 4e?


----------



## Obryn (Jun 9, 2012)

Imaro said:


> So I guess we will have to agree to disagree because I, and apparently many proponents of 4e, actually do think they are a mechanic designed to create a feeling of "super-heroics" when it comes to 4e PC's.



I just see them as another interesting tactical element.

They're just a way to use low-level foes against higher-level PCs while still presenting a reasonable challenge.  Recently, I used them for a raiding tribe of Silt Stalker elves.

I also tend to kill PCs with minions.  I dunno; they can get pretty deadly, used properly.

Does it really matter how someone feels when they drop one?  I mean, what's the purpose of this argument?

-O


----------



## herrozerro (Jun 9, 2012)

Imaro said:


> Yep I agree, upon further reflection minions can exist in previous editions though in the case of previous editions minions were not specifically codified and were instead the result of chance... the interesting thing is that we don't exclude a monster from being that monster in other editions because random chance gave him a single hit point... In previous editions a goblin (warrior) is still a goblin (warrior), even if he has 1 hit point... so if minions exsist in the case of previous editions (except in so far as them being specifically called out) why are minions a seperate case in 4e?




Because 4e codified the combat encounter and the base monster math.  A minion is approximately worth 4-5 standard monsters, an an elite is worth 2-3 standards and a solo 5-6 standard monsters.

Monsters were broken away from the pc generation rules and given their own math.


----------



## herrozerro (Jun 9, 2012)

Imaro said:


> I disagree... all over the internet, numerous 4e fans have made the claim that minions are there to make the PC's look bad ass.  I honestly find it hard to believe that you haven't seen this sentiment expressed by numerous DM's who run the game... especially in the various comparisons they make between minions and action movie mooks.  So I guess we will have to agree to disagree because I, and apparently many proponents of 4e, actually do think they are a mechanic designed to create a feeling of "super-heroics" when it comes to 4e PC's.




Here is the thing though, using the term super heroics is quite misleading, super heroes are a bit of a genera flavor difference from action stars.

While both are much bigger than life, super heroes are usually imo in the epic scale of things rather than the normal heroic scale.

James bond, Indiana jones, John mclane, rambo or aragorn are quite different than superman, green lantern, batman or wolverine.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 9, 2012)

Obryn said:


> I just see them as another interesting tactical element.
> 
> They're just a way to use low-level foes against higher-level PCs while still presenting a reasonable challenge. Recently, I used them for a raiding tribe of Silt Stalker elves.
> 
> ...




The purpose was discussing why a few/some/many people who have played 4e feel that it, in comparison to previous editions, feels more like a super hero game.  I've stated this a few times in the thread.  While a slight tangent to the OP's thread, it still touches on the basic premise and could lead to a better understanding of what mechanics give that type of feel... and yes it does matter how someone feels when they drop someone since that's the point.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 9, 2012)

herrozerro said:


> Here is the thing though, using the term super heroics is quite misleading, super heroes are a bit of a genera flavor difference from action stars.
> 
> While both are much bigger than life, super heroes are usually imo in the epic scale of things rather than the normal heroic scale.
> 
> James bond, Indiana jones, John mclane, rambo or aragorn are quite different than superman, green lantern, batman or wolverine.




Yes, but IMO, many of the conventions, especially when it comes to more grounded super heroes like Batman, Green Arrow, Punisher, Deathstroke, etc. are the same. In fact I would say the combat in 4e is more similar, IMO, to a Batman or Punisher comic book brawl than it is to most of the fight scenes in Die Hard or Indiana Jones. Though again, I feel they are ver similar in scale.

EDIT: Also the fact that as you rise in level you (in all editions) end up more similar to Superman or Martian Manhunter than any action hero (except maybe a wuxia warrior) tends to, IMO, reinforce the superhero meme with more powerful lower level heroes.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 9, 2012)

herrozerro said:


> Because 4e codified the combat encounter and the base monster math. A minion is approximately worth 4-5 standard monsters, an an elite is worth 2-3 standards and a solo 5-6 standard monsters.
> 
> Monsters were broken away from the pc generation rules and given their own math.




I understand this, what I'm saying is we aren't disregarding 1 hp monsters in other editions when comparing... so why do we exclude them in 4e because they've been purposefully siloed?  In every edition you had the possibility of fighting a standard 1 hit monster... but in 4e they don't count for some reason... I'm not understanding why.  And PC generation rules have nothing to do with it when you look at earlier editions like AD&D and BECMI... it's based on randomness.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 9, 2012)

Imaro said:


> I disagree... all over the internet, numerous 4e fans have made the claim that minions are there to make the PC's look bad ass.  I honestly find it hard to believe that you haven't seen this sentiment expressed by numerous DM's who run the game... especially in the various comparisons they make between minions and action movie mooks.  So I guess we will have to agree to disagree because I, and apparently many proponents of 4e, actually do think they are a mechanic designed to create a feeling of "super-heroics" when it comes to 4e PC's.




As a 4e player and current DM, I find minions useful for all sorts of things.  They make for great additions to boss battles, especially as summoned creatures that are supposed to harass the players.  They're great for representing general townfolk to aid in giving populated areas some life without having to stat out Joe the Plumber.  I use them a lot to represent "swarms" of medium creatures, such as an angry mob or fanatical cultists.  There are a lot of creative uses for minions, and to be honest until I read you post I never even considered using them to make players feel awesome.  But maybe that is be wise I don't have those kinda of players.  

Once again, its important to remember that even the loud fans on the internet, even this post are merely anecdotal.  There's really no way to get empirical evidence one way or the other, but perhaps the versatility of minions is something 5e should endevor to maintain.  Some folks can use minions rules to feel awesome, others can use them more as I do above.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 9, 2012)

Imaro said:


> I disagree... all over the internet, numerous 4e fans have made the claim that minions are there to make the PC's look bad ass.  I honestly find it hard to believe that you haven't seen this sentiment expressed by numerous DM's who run the game... especially in the various comparisons they make between minions and action movie mooks.  So I guess we will have to agree to disagree because I, and apparently many proponents of 4e, actually do think they are a mechanic designed to create a feeling of "super-heroics" when it comes to 4e PC's.




I agree that minions are there in part to make the PCs feel awesome, but that's not an example of "super hero" gaming. Cutting down mooks left and right during a fight is a staple of basically every fantasy franchise, ever. In fact, if you think about it, it was sort of weird that there really wasn't something along these lines earlier in D&D's history.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 9, 2012)

Dannager said:


> I agree that minions are there in part to make the PCs feel awesome, but that's not an example of "super hero" gaming. Cutting down mooks left and right during a fight is a staple of basically every fantasy franchise, ever. In fact, if you think about it, it was sort of weird that there really wasn't something along these lines earlier in D&D's history.




Again, and this is why my argument may seem like rambling, I don't believe one mechanical aspect (in isolation) is the cause for the "super-heroic" feel many get with 4e compared to older editions. This is just one of the things I think contributes to it though. Some of the things I think contribute to it when taken as a whole...

1.) Increased hit points and durability...

2.) Minions, even with relatively high level monsters (which, the high level monster part is, contrary to your assertion above, not in line with how most fantasy literature is written.). Very few stories have a hero one-shot monsters like ogres, demons, etc. Yet they (along with the more genre common tropes of Orcs, goblins, etc.) are minions in 4e and IMO, the higher level monsters can make it feel a little over the top) 

3.)The ability to rest for 8 hours and heal all hit points and healing surges

4.) Short rests and the ability to expend healing surges

5.) Powers (a naming and "feel" issue)

6.) The math, which tends to favor PC's heavily


----------



## Imaro (Jun 9, 2012)

shidaku said:


> As a 4e player and current DM, I find minions useful for all sorts of things. They make for great additions to boss battles, especially as summoned creatures that are supposed to harass the players. They're great for representing general townfolk to aid in giving populated areas some life without having to stat out Joe the Plumber. I use them a lot to represent "swarms" of medium creatures, such as an angry mob or fanatical cultists. There are a lot of creative uses for minions, and to be honest until I read you post I never even considered using them to make players feel awesome. But maybe that is be wise I don't have those kinda of players.




That's cool, I have no issue with the fact that how I've heard others use minions isn't 100% across the board for all 4e fans. My issue arisess when I am specifically speaking to why some might view the game in a specific light... and others are more concerned with defending some kind of imaginary attack on their game (and note I haven't said the feel of 4e was a negative or a positive just different) and have to leap to the defense rather than discuss. 



shidaku said:


> Once again, its important to remember that even the loud fans on the internet, even this post are merely anecdotal. There's really no way to get empirical evidence one way or the other, but perhaps the versatility of minions is something 5e should endevor to maintain. Some folks can use minions rules to feel awesome, others can use them more as I do above.




I'm not looking for empirical evidence, especially as this is a subject dealing more with feel. I was just giving some of the mechanics I've experienced with 4e that could possibly explain (when taken as a whole) why 4e may feel like a certain play experience to some folks. I'm nto arguing for the removal of minions, as has been demonstarted... they've been in every edition any way. What I do think is that the siloing of minions shouldn't be looked at in a vacum but in combination with other mechanics in the game.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 9, 2012)

Imaro said:


> The purpose was discussing why a few/some/many people who have played 4e feel that it, in comparison to previous editions, feels more like a super hero game.  I've stated this a few times in the thread.  While a slight tangent to the OP's thread, it still touches on the basic premise and could lead to a better understanding of what mechanics give that type of feel... and yes it does matter how someone feels when they drop someone since that's the point.



No, you're asking two different questions.  Does a game feel "superheroic"?  Do you feel "cool" when dropping minions.  I don't really see that the two are at all related.  My players feel just as "cool" - or even moreso - when dropping big-time Elites and Solos.  They also felt "cool" when they killed a bunch of rats with Burning Hands in the Next playtest.  _And_ when they dismantled a flight of giant crows when we played 1e.  And when they demolished Stormtroopers in SWSE and mutants in WFRP.

So I am still not seeing where the problem is - what's wrong with players feeling "cool" for killing monsters?



Imaro said:


> 2.) Minions, even with relatively high level monsters (which, the high level monster part is, contrary to your assertion above, not in line with how most fantasy literature is written.). Very few stories have a hero one-shot monsters like ogres, demons, etc. Yet they (along with the more genre common tropes of Orcs, goblins, etc.) are minions in 4e and IMO, the higher level monsters can make it feel a little over the top)



[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Dance-Demons-Gord-Rogue-Gygax/dp/0425113426]Dance of Demons[/ame]

-O


----------



## Dannager (Jun 9, 2012)

Imaro said:


> 1.) Increased hit points and durability...




Ability to withstand extended punishment is a trope of the fantasy and action genres as a whole. It's not solely characteristic of the super hero genre.



> 2.) Minions, even with relatively high level monsters (which, the high level monster part is, contrary to your assertion above, not in line with how most fantasy literature is written.). Very few stories have a hero one-shot monsters like ogres, demons, etc. Yet they (along with the more genre common tropes of Orcs, goblins, etc.) are minions in 4e and IMO, the higher level monsters can make it feel a little over the top)



You don't fight those minions until you are high level yourself. Very few examples of fantasy media depict what could be considered high level characters. I daresay most fantasy media focuses on characters that would be best represented as heroic-tier. This isn't a super hero genre issue. It's just a matter of D&D allowing for greater power growth than most typical fantasy media tackles, and that's _*how it's always been*_.



> 3.)The ability to rest for 8 hours and heal all hit points and healing surges



Fast recovery is a fantasy genre trope. In addition, lengthy recovery and serious injury have a significant history in the super hero genre. And, once you've accepted that hit points don't necessarily represent physical injury, there's no disconnect to begin with.



> 4.) Short rests and the ability to expend healing surges



Spending five minutes for the heroes to catch their breath is now solely the purview of the super hero genre?



> 5.) Powers (a naming and "feel" issue)



"It feels super hero-y!" is not an argument that has any traction with me whatsoever. If you want to advance your position, you need to explain it.



> 6.) The math, which tends to favor PC's heavily



If the math didn't favor the PCs, 50% of games would end with a TPK in the first encounter of the campaign. The math has always favored the PCs, and always will, because the PCs are supposed to win most of the time. This is, again, a common fantasy trope. Nothing specific to the super hero genre.

"It's a super hero game!" is a hollow shell of an argument. It has no substance, and is as rhetorically valid in discussions of D&D as "4e is just like WoW!" is.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jun 9, 2012)

Well 3E can be pretty super heroic as well.  One campaign I ran once had a fighter kill 8 or so enemy hobgoblins in one round.  In one campaign, I was part of a three person party that more or less took out a whole army in a day.  One rounding Dragons and liches (in other campaigns) can may you feel pretty heroic as well.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 9, 2012)

Obryn said:


> No, you're asking two different questions. Does a game feel "superheroic"? Do you feel "cool" when dropping minions. I don't really see that the two are at all related. My players feel just as "cool" - or even moreso - when dropping big-time Elites and Solos. They also felt "cool" when they killed a bunch of rats with Burning Hands in the Next playtest. _And_ when they dismantled a flight of giant crows when we played 1e. And when they demolished Stormtroopers in SWSE and mutants in WFRP.
> 
> *So I am still not seeing where the problem is - what's wrong with players feeling "cool" for killing monsters?*
> 
> ...




Emphasis mine...

And this sums up the problem... it's only a "problem" if people don't like the "feel".  I didn't attach a negative conotation at all in this discussion (purposefully I might add) and yet I find 4e fans trying to force me into a position where I am portrayed as viewing 4e in a negative light... again my point was discussion and maybe understanding a different point of view.  I guess alot of people just aren't interested in understanding anything, just "winning".  Ok, cool you guys win, I'm done.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 9, 2012)

Dannager said:


> "It feels super hero-y!" is not an argument that has any traction with me whatsoever. If you want to advance your position, you need to explain it.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's a super hero game!" is a hollow shell of an argument. It has no substance, and is as rhetorically valid in discussions of D&D as "4e is just like WoW!" is.




These are mis-characterizations of the argument. The argument isn't that "4e is a super hero game" it's that "4e feels more super-heroic than previous editions" (and I would go so far as to add the caveat that this is mainly at lower levels.).

The difference is Gilgamesh and Beowulf (Super-heroic even though they are both still fantasy) as compared to Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Jon Snow or Conan (borderline action heroes of fantasy).

EDIT: Or using a roleplaying game analogy... Exalted and Earthdawn are super heroic fantasy... Dragon Age and A Song of Ice and Fire are not, and each game has mechanics that promote a particular feel when playing it.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 9, 2012)

MichaelSomething said:


> Well 3E can be pretty super heroic as well. One campaign I ran once had a fighter kill 8 or so enemy hobgoblins in one round. In one campaign, I was part of a three person party that more or less took out a whole army in a day. One rounding Dragons and liches (in other campaigns) can may you feel pretty heroic as well.




See now what level was this at, because I agree that would feel super heroic.  The thing is, (and this is utilizing just one of the mechanics I feel gives the same type of feel to 4e at lower levels) using minions... a 4e tempest fighter could easily kill 4 hobgoblins in a round... at first level.  Now yes we understand the minion mechanic but it can give the same feel, at a much earlier level as what you described above.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 9, 2012)

Obryn said:


> Dance of Demons
> 
> -O




Not sure what this was suppose to prove... He's high-level, and it's still not most of the fantasy literature out there...


----------



## jadrax (Jun 9, 2012)

Minions were a by product of the relentless scaling of 4e. You couldn't really use lower level creatures as opponents as in earlier editions as there chance of hitting was lamentable. So Minions where introduced to fit that void.

With bounded accuracy, they will not be necessary.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 9, 2012)

Minions didn't make me feel like a super-hero.

Being part of a party which crushed Strahd so badly that he didn't even have a chance to consider turning into mist form to flee before dying sort of did. (Note: he was not by himself)

Dominating Orcus to the extent that the DM found it reasonable he would surrender in response to my Warlord's intimidate attempt pushed me closer, but I thought maybe it was a fluke; lucky dice.  Plus, monster math was later changed.

Then, the last campaign from 1-30 ended with the party dismantling a level [36 or 37, I cannot remember exactly what we figured out the XP budget to be] encounter so badly that the DM saw no point in doing the second part of the final battle.  (His initial plan was to have two back-to-back encounters as an epic fight to wrap up the campaign; he went so overboard with it due to how easily we had won earlier encounters.)


I think super hero is a poor term though.  I'd say that a more appropriate term would be to say that 4E PCs tend toward being Mythic Heroes.  I don't mind that so much if that's what I know I'm going into.  I've played and highly enjoyed games of that style.  What threw me off was that -to me- the preview material and the default campaign fluff of 4E made me expect something closer to a sword & sorcery experience.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 10, 2012)

It's really amusing about this whole "super hero" thing if you advance the levels about ten.  A 10th level 4e character is still fighting roughly the same sorts of opponents as he was at 1st.  Not a hugely big gap.

1e characters at 10th level are killing GODS.

Which edition is superheroic?


----------



## rounser (Jun 10, 2012)

Tabletop gaming is not the movies.  Things that will fly on screen will not necessarily when you see screwy mechanics which enable it.  D&D is not a Pirates of the Carribbean or Lord of the Rings movie, nor is it a book, nor a computer game, and nor should it seek to be.  D&D has a realism of it's own that hinges on die rolls and mechanics that the players can see.  If they seem screwy, then the game seems screwy.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 10, 2012)

Imaro said:


> Not sure what this was suppose to prove... He's high-level, and it's still not most of the fantasy literature out there...



It's that he and his buddy Gellor take down literally thousands of demons which would be a challenge to others.  Very minion-y.  Maybe swarms, even.

Also, if you're looking for a superheroic feel ... Gary invented the munchkin character!

-O


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jun 10, 2012)

Imaro said:


> See now what level was this at, because I agree that would feel super heroic.  The thing is, (and this is utilizing just one of the mechanics I feel gives the same type of feel to 4e at lower levels) using minions... a 4e tempest fighter could easily kill 4 hobgoblins in a round... at first level.  Now yes we understand the minion mechanic but it can give the same feel, at a much earlier level as what you described above.




Well the lowest level was 5 with the killing of 8 hobgoblins in round.  Though it could be done at as low as level two since all you really need is four feats and a great strength score!  Spike Chain proficiency, Power attack, Cleave, Great Cleave and you're good to go!

While a level one tempest fighter could kill 4 minions in one round, chances are they won't be hobgoblins since aren't the default hobgoblins above level 5?  Although that may be nitpicking.

Now that I think about, killing 4-8 guys in a round may simply not be that super heroic.  Sure killing 4 minions in a round is good but the average encounter isn't even remotely done by killing 4 minions.  In 3.5, 4 hobgoblins are a speed bump to most parties with a couple of levels.  However, in 3.5 that depends heavily on the optimization and tactics of both the PCs and the monsters.  Simply by changing the feat selection, you can drastically alter a monster's combat power.      

Well honestly, 4e WAS designed so that a first level adventurer would be more like a fifth level 3.5 guy then a first level 3.5 guy.  This was done in the name of the 5ish-10ish "sweet spot" of D&D adventure.  While it may not be the favorite of everyone player, it did seem to have a lot of fans.  

At the very least, it seems to be the easiest level range to write adventures for.  An old Dungeon magazine had a letter response that more or less said that the majority of adventure submission they receive are from the "sweet spot" range.  That is because PCs are too weak beforehand and too powerful afterwords for the average published adventure (or at least the average writer).  

However, I do think it's wrong to say D&D isn't a super hero.  It very well can be at higher levels (or earlier with the right rules).  It's also not just a superhero game.  In general, low level D&D is frakin' fantasy Vietnam.  While some people enjoyed it, many also did NOT enjoy it...


----------



## jadrax (Jun 10, 2012)

rounser said:


> Tabletop gaming is not the movies.  Things that will fly on screen will not necessarily when you see screwy mechanics which enable it.  D&D is not a Pirates of the Carribbean or Lord of the Rings movie, nor is it a book, nor a computer game, and nor should it seek to be.  D&D has a realism of it's own that hinges on die rolls and mechanics that the players can see.  If they seem screwy, then the game seems screwy.




Apparently you have said to many wise things in to short a period of time for me to reward you with XP.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 10, 2012)

MichaelSomething said:


> An old Dungeon magazine had a letter response that more or less said that the majority of adventure submission they receive are from the "sweet spot" range.  That is because PCs are too weak beforehand and too powerful afterwords for the average published adventure (or at least the average writer).



Yeah, this feature of D&D has been noted for some time.

D&D is most fun for third to sixth level characters, who are strong enough to adventure without fear of immediate death, strong enough to have more combat options than flight, melee and _sleep _spells, but not so strong that they can laugh at monsters​ - Lew Pulsipher, Introduction to Dungeons & Dragons, White Dwarf #24, 1981


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 10, 2012)

Agreed 100%, TrippyHippy.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 10, 2012)

rounser said:


> Tabletop gaming is not the movies.  Things that will fly on screen will not necessarily when you see screwy mechanics which enable it.  D&D is not a Pirates of the Carribbean or Lord of the Rings movie, nor is it a book, nor a computer game, and nor should it seek to be.  D&D has a realism of it's own that hinges on die rolls and mechanics that the players can see.  If they seem screwy, then the game seems screwy.



In the late 90s, looking at the rules of 2e AD&D my friends all assumed that, because they were so unrealistic, D&D must be a fiction-simulationist game like Feng Shui, James Bond 007, or Champions.

I used to argue with them, because I knew that wasn't D&D's original aim, though I didn't have the understanding then that I do now regarding why D&D's mechanics are so unrealistic - a mixture of happenstance, tradition, and aiming to support a play style which has a huge number of fights over a short space of time.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 10, 2012)

MichaelSomething said:


> However, I do think it's wrong to say D&D isn't a super hero. It very well can be at higher levels (or earlier with the right rules). It's also not just a superhero game. In general, low level D&D is frakin' fantasy Vietnam. While some people enjoyed it, many also did NOT enjoy it...




The problem is that in earlier editions one could easily skip over the "fantasy Vietnam" levels by choosing to play at a higher level.  4e changed this by elimintaing that play from it's span of levels, and didn't really give an easy way to get back to that style of play for those who enjoyed it.  That's why I think this is such a divisive subjects, because WotC has shown that they may make the choice to actively disregard what a subset (on either side of the argument) of it's players enjoyed without giving an easily implemented solution for the game to be played that way.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 10, 2012)

Imaro said:


> The problem is that in earlier editions one could easily skip over the "fantasy Vietnam" levels by choosing to play at a higher level.  4e changed this by elimintaing that play from it's span of levels, and didn't really give an easy way to get back to that style of play for those who enjoyed it.



Could I really be the only one who found low-level 4e at least as deadly as low-level 3e?

-O


----------



## Hussar (Jun 10, 2012)

Fantasy Viet Nam?  Really?  You never played 2e did you?  I can make a 1st level 2e fighter, straight from the PHB, that kills ogres in 2 rounds by himself.  (longsword specs - 14 points/hit, 3/2 attacks = 42 points of damage in 2 rounds without a strength bonus - kills anything less than 6 hit dice automatically).

By 2e, characters were so powerful relative to the monsters that the only way to kill them was AT very low levels when they didn't have enough hit points.  After about 3rd, it took ridiculous numbers to kill PC's.  There's a reason that a 5th level party is expected to gank an ancient black dragon in AD&D.  (First Dragonlance module)

Sure, you might be a mere mortal for a level, maybe two, but, that's about it.


----------



## herrozerro (Jun 10, 2012)

Obryn said:


> Could I really be the only one who found low-level 4e at least as deadly as low-level 3e?
> 
> -O




Im finding 4e to be quite deadly at all levels, my players just fought calastrix.  Three headed dragon with a bite of 3d12+8 at 14th level!


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 10, 2012)

Obryn said:


> Could I really be the only one who found low-level 4e at least as deadly as low-level 3e?
> 
> -O





I found levels 1-8 to be fairly well balanced between PCs and the creatures.  Depending on group and part composition, I might extend that range a little bit.

I also found that (sometimes) the levels right around the tier breaks can be rough.  For example, 10 and 21.  Usually that's because you are fighting monsters which are a tier above you and have things available to them that you don't.  

Otherwise -for me personally- I very rarely took my 4E antagonists and opponents seriously.  I used to find metagame ways to challenge myself so I'd stay interested.  With one character, I challenged myself to see how many encounters I could go without using a healing surge or a daily.  Eventually, I gave up on that because one of the encounters was starting to drag really bad, so I used some dailies to speed things up.  

With my last 4E character, I played a Bard, and my challenge was to see how many times I could multiclass.  At epic levels I went into the Primal ED which allows you to start counting as different races.  (Reincarnate champion?)  I wanted to see how many races and classes I could count as before I hit level 30.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 10, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Fantasy Viet Nam? Really? You never played 2e did you? I can make a 1st level 2e fighter, straight from the PHB, that kills ogres in 2 rounds by himself. (longsword specs - 14 points/hit, 3/2 attacks = 42 points of damage in 2 rounds without a strength bonus - kills anything less than 6 hit dice automatically).
> 
> By 2e, characters were so powerful relative to the monsters that the only way to kill them was AT very low levels when they didn't have enough hit points. After about 3rd, it took ridiculous numbers to kill PC's. There's a reason that a 5th level party is expected to gank an ancient black dragon in AD&D. (First Dragonlance module)
> 
> Sure, you might be a mere mortal for a level, maybe two, but, that's about it.




You do realize we are mostly talking about low levels (1-3 in particular) right?? You keep bringing up higher levels but I don't think anyone is arguing against the fact that in any edition of D&D your character is going to be a (super) hero at that point.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 10, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> Otherwise -for me personally- I very rarely took my 4E antagonists and opponents seriously. I used to find metagame ways to challenge myself so I'd stay interested. With one character, I challenged myself to see how many encounters I could go without using a healing surge or a daily. Eventually, I gave up on that because one of the encounters was starting to drag really bad, so I used some dailies to speed things up.




As a DM running a 4e game (at level 5 right now) I am experiencing this.  Danger in 4e, as far as my players are concerned, is pretty much a joke.... especially if I stick to the guidelines given in the 4e DMG.  I mean the fights take long but there's very little tension during the battles which is making the game less and less fun for all of us.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 10, 2012)

Imaro said:


> As a DM running a 4e game (at level 5 right now) I am experiencing this.  Danger in 4e, as far as my players are concerned, is pretty much a joke.... especially if I stick to the guidelines given in the 4e DMG.  I mean the fights take long but there's very little tension during the battles which is making the game less and less fun for all of us.




In defense of 4E, I will admit that things got a lot better later on in the system.  The fixed monster math which came with MM3 helped.  It didn't completely alleviate the problem, but it most certainly helped.  Unfortunately, the higher damage values normally came with lower defenses, so a lot of the harder hitting monsters died faster too; before their increased damage could come into play.

Out of the 4E DMGs, I'd say that I feel the second one is far better than the first one.  That being said, I honestly have no idea how the skill challenge DCs found in DMG2 were deemed reasonable.  I ended up writing my own DC table.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 10, 2012)

Yeah, the unfortunate truth is that the 4e designers didn't really figure out the system during the first 3 books.  More extensive playtesting would have found this.  The great thing is that there was a steady increase in quality, starting at PHB2, hitting a really good stride starting somewhere around MM3/Demonomicon/Dark Sun, and peaking around the Essentials releases.  Monster Vault is IMO one of the best monster supplements ever produced, bar none.

Different strokes, I suppose, but my players were threatened pretty much constantly during low levels - and not just because we were running Dark Sun. 

I personally couldn't get a good challenge for my own group using 3.5's CR/EL system by the guidelines, so YM Absolutely V.

-O


----------



## Imaro (Jun 10, 2012)

herrozerro said:


> Im finding 4e to be quite deadly at all levels, my players just fought calastrix. Three headed dragon with a bite of 3d12+8 at 14th level!






Obryn said:


> Different strokes, I suppose, but my players were threatened pretty much constantly during low levels - and not just because we were running Dark Sun.




Just out of curiosity... how many PC's did you two have that died, and/or TPK's between levels 1 to 3?  One thing my group noticed in earlier levels was one, maybe two of them went unconscious during a fight, but they were always healed before they were in any real danger of dying.  Thus it felt scary the first few times, then it just felt like an illusion.

Also on another note, what exactly do you two consider a challenging fight in 4e?  Do you follow the guidelines or do you tend to disregard them?


----------



## Obryn (Jun 10, 2012)

Imaro said:


> Just out of curiosity... how many PC's did you two have that died, and/or TPK's between levels 1 to 3?  One thing my group noticed in earlier levels was one, maybe two of them went unconscious during a fight, but they were always healed before they were in any real danger of dying.  Thus it felt scary the first few times, then it just felt like an illusion.
> 
> Also on another note, what exactly do you two consider a challenging fight in 4e?  Do you follow the guidelines or do you tend to disregard them?



No TPKs.  Every player but one lost a character.  One of these lost two.  These weren't newbies, and they had competent characters.

As for the guidelines, I think they work okay at lower levels, but tend to underrate the effectiveness of mid- to high-level parties - especially in a leader-heavy or control-heavy group.

Much like in 3.x, an at-level encounter isn't expected to be particularly hard.  It'll drain some resources (dailies, healing surges, etc.) but shouldn't kill anyone.  I go more for L+1 or L+2 encounters these days, but part of that is that a 6-character party is a lot more effective than a 5-character party - again, if they have lots of healing or control.

-O


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> The 1e DMG actually does recommend starting at higher than 1st level if it's not the player's first character, and, in some situations, even if it is.



This is true. But I still think the game should be packaged with the default assumption being that play will begin at 1st level. (Where do you sesnsibly start, if not at 1?)

Gygax's approach to campaign design, integration of PCs into campaigns, etc, presupposed (as far as I can tell) a well developed play community that new players would be absorbed into - with regular sessions taking place (multiple times per week), rotating GMs, rotating PC rosters, etc. In this context, explaining to a new initiate that his/her PC will start at 2nd or 3rd level makes some sense. (Though I think still might be a bit weird for the initiate in question.)

But in the contemporary era, when presumably WotC is hoping that new players will pick up the rulebook and teach themseleves and their friends to play without being part of a Gygaxian community of hardcore players, I think a new-player-and-new-GM-friendly 1st level is pretty essential.



Mallus said:


> an orc can do a maximum of 8 points of damage with a single hit. That's enough to kill any magic-users and thieves (if you weren't using the death's door, unconscious at zero, dead at -10 option



Random AD&D factoid (at least as best I recall it): even if you're using the "death's door" option, a single hit will still kill you if it drops you below zero in a single blow (there is an option within an option to make the "single blow" threshold -3). I think it is 3E (may be 2nd ed?) that changed the threshold for unconsciousness rather than death being the same as the threshold for death (ie -10).

That very small window for unconsciousness obviously relies, for its practical viability, on AD&D damage numbers being a lot small than in later editions.



Johnny3D3D said:


> I've read plenty of stories in which people talk about rampant TPKs in 4E; I really have no way to relate to it because that has not been anywhere near my experience with the game



Likewise. I've had one TPK - at 2nd or 3rd level (I can't remember which) in an encounter that was not to bad from a level point of view but destroyed the PCs via action denial (I had a spectre with a daze aura, and I think some other action denial as well, and started with a surpirse attack).

Other than that, I've had two PC deaths - the PC wizard has died twice, once at 2nd and once at 15th, both times in over-level encounters (and the second time he probably wouldn't have died if he'd played better - he was stuck in a swarm, used a ranged spell to try and get out, and dropped from the oppy, but he could have used an ability to swap in a close burst that would have been just as effective _and_ given him temporary hit points).

And I routinely use over-level encounters (with MM3 damage numbers), often in waves but by no means always. Level +1 and +2 very often. Level +3 to +5 less frequently. And my players are not particularly dedicated focus-firers either.



herrozerro said:


> Im finding 4e to be quite deadly at all levels, my players just fought calastrix.  Three headed dragon with a bite of 3d12+8 at 14th level!



Here's a link to my Calaystryx encounter - the PCs were 15th level, but had already faced a lot of encounters until Calastryx turned up! No one died, but it went to the wire:

*Comp 2 L14 skill challenge (as a result of which each PC lost one encounter power until their next extended rest);

*L17 combat;

*L15 combat;

*L7 combat;

*L13 combat;

*L15 combat (PCs advance from 14th to 15th level);

*Comp 1 L14 skill challenge;

*L16 combat;

*L14 combat (Calastryx);

*L13 combat;

*Comp 1 L15 skill challenge;

*L16 combat (the L15 solo was defeated by being pushed over a bridge down a waterfall);

*L15 combat (the solo returned later in the night, having survived the fall and climbed back up).​


Johnny3D3D said:


> I very rarely took my 4E antagonists and opponents seriously.  I used to find metagame ways to challenge myself so I'd stay interested.



I haven't found this at all. My players don't let their PCs die, but that's because they play well. As the story about the wizard above shows, if they do slip then PCs can die. That need to focus on the play is part of what keeps the game interesting, for us at least.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2012)

Imaro said:


> Very few stories have a hero one-shot monsters like ogres, demons, etc.



"A Paladin in Hell" is one of the best-known of all D&D images. And if that paladin is not one-shotting at least some of those devils, than he(?) is in a world of hurt . . .



Imaro said:


> The difference is Gilgamesh and Beowulf (Super-heroic even though they are both still fantasy) as compared to Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Jon Snow or Conan (borderline action heroes of fantasy).





MichaelSomething said:


> Now that I think about, killing 4-8 guys in a round may simply not be that super heroic.



Conan one-shots nearly everything he fights - soldiers, assassins, pirates, were-hyenas, etc. You can't emulate Conan in a game without one-shotting 4 to 8 guys a round!


----------



## nogray (Jun 11, 2012)

Imaro said:


> Just out of curiosity... how many PC's did you two have that died, and/or TPK's between levels 1 to 3?  One thing my group noticed in earlier levels was one, maybe two of them went unconscious during a fight, but they were always healed before they were in any real danger of dying.  Thus it felt scary the first few times, then it just felt like an illusion.
> 
> Also on another note, what exactly do you two consider a challenging fight in 4e?  Do you follow the guidelines or do you tend to disregard them?




I've lost or seen another player lose about five or six low-ish level characters as a player in 4e. At first or second level, I personally lost two in one encounter. (Most of the time, our group has three players, so we often have one or two players that run an additional character to more fully round out the party.) That encounter was probably a little over-leveled, but it killed my Monk and my Bard. One died due to death saves, and the other due to hitting negative-bloodied, I think. The rest of the party survived.

Not part of your requested data, but as a DM, I recently killed off one player's level 13 Invoker in a level 16 encounter that was a re-flavored and math-updated version of the final encounter from the level 13 delve (from the _Dungeon Delve_ product). He went from just above bloodied to dead at negative bloodied in a surprisingly short time (between his turn and the leader's). Area attacks were the main culprit, as I didn't target him specifically once he had fallen.

I haven't, as a DM, had any TPKs. I don't think I've experienced any as a player either, though there might have been one that the DM retconned out of existence, as he was trying some off-the-wall things, but I could be misremembering.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 11, 2012)

pemerton said:


> "A Paladin in Hell" is one of the best-known of all D&D images. And if that paladin is not one-shotting at least some of those devils, than he(?) is in a world of hurt . . .




If that's how you choose to interpret that picture cool... I've always thought the "Paladin in Hell" pic was more of a cautionary tale about taking on more that one can handle or a depiction of a lone figure sacrificing himself for his beliefs... or it could just represent him killing minions, without speaking to the artist we'll never know.





pemerton said:


> Conan one-shots nearly everything he fights - soldiers, assassins, pirates, were-hyenas, etc. You can't emulate Conan in a game without one-shotting 4 to 8 guys a round!




D&D =/= Conan... That said, Conan commonly one-shots humanoids, brigands, etc. Not demons, devils and cthulthoid horrors... those are usually the big fights. I would also argue that there is no way to prove or disprove that Conan at that point is or isn't a begining adventurer.

EDIT: A better way to state my thoughts in the last paragraph is... Not everyone believes that PC's, at first level, should start at the level of capabiltiy that Conan is commonly depicted as having.  In fact, insofar as 4e goes I would think Conan would be an example of a high heroic level adventurer... not 1st level.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 11, 2012)

Imaro said:


> I understand this, what I'm saying is we aren't disregarding 1 hp monsters in other editions when comparing...




Because a 1hp monster in other editions isn't any sort of threat.  A 1hp monster in 4e is outclassed but can still do damage.



Imaro said:


> Again, and this is why my argument may seem like rambling, I don't believe one mechanical aspect (in isolation) is the cause for the "super-heroic" feel many get with 4e compared to older editions. This is just one of the things I think contributes to it though. Some of the things I think contribute to it when taken as a whole...
> 
> 1.) Increased hit points and durability...
> 
> 2.) Minions, even with relatively high level monsters (which, the high level monster part is, contrary to your assertion above, not in line with how most fantasy literature is written.). Very few stories have a hero one-shot monsters like ogres, demons, etc. Yet they (along with the more genre common tropes of Orcs, goblins, etc.) are minions in 4e and IMO, the higher level monsters can make it feel a little over the top)




1: This has been rebutted with "A Paladin In Hell".
2: "One Shotting" isn't just one attack.
3: I guess you should excise 2e from canon.  A 2e L9 fighter with weapon mastery, a +3 greatsword, and gauntlets of ogre power is one-shotting ogres roughly one attack in two as I demonstrated to Lanefan earlier.  

In 3e a basic ogre gets 29hp.  A strength 22 greatsword fighter (again not unreasonable by level 9) with a +1 shocking flaming weapon (for +3 equivalent - not unreasonable if I remember my WBL) does 4d6+10 damage on a basic hit.  Put in a three point power attack and the fighter is doing 4d6+16 damage per hit (I'm not even trying for optimisation here) and hitting with his first attack on a three without buffs.  The 4e level 9 fighter is not just routinely one-shotting ogres, he's _cleaving_ them.  So I guess that 3.X is out as well.  Come join us with 4e where your level 9 fighters _don't_ one-shot ogres?

And orcs are not minions.  Orc _drudges_ are minions.  The word drudge literally means "A person who does tedious, menial, or unpleasant work"; orc drudges in 3.X would be commoners.  And outlevelled orcs take one hit - but then they do in 3.X as well.  4e is just honest about it.  "Battletested Orcs" have hit points.

So in both 2e and 3.X with very little optimisation a fighter can easily and regularly one-shot ogres at level 9 without buffs.  This is apparently not a problem when one-shotting ogres at level 15 is for 4e fighters?  Please explain what changed between the editions other than that 4e makes it explicit that you are expected to one-shot things you have a good chance of one-shotting?



> 3.)The ability to rest for 8 hours and heal all hit points and healing surges




For once I agree.  I can house rule this in one line - and do.



> 4.) Short rests and the ability to expend healing surges




You mean ability to remain damaged but recover your breath?  I've said before that 4e would be much better received if they'd called hit points "shock value" and healing surges "hit points".



Imaro said:


> These are mis-characterizations of the argument. The argument isn't that "4e is a super hero game" it's that "4e feels more super-heroic than previous editions" (and I would go so far as to add the caveat that this is mainly at lower levels.)




I disagree.  4e to me feels like an action movie not a superhero movie.  Yes, some sit on the borderline like Batman.  If I want Superman or Green Lantern I'm using a 3.X spellcaster.



> The difference is Gilgamesh and Beowulf (Super-heroic even though they are both still fantasy) as compared to Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Jon Snow or Conan (borderline action heroes of fantasy).
> 
> EDIT: Or using a roleplaying game analogy... Exalted and Earthdawn are super heroic fantasy... Dragon Age and A Song of Ice and Fire are not, and each game has mechanics that promote a particular feel when playing it.




And 4e is on the action side.  Exalted is on the supers side.  Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are excellent 4e PCs.  But if I want ASoIaF, I'm going to ignore D&D entirely and reach for WFRP or even GURPS.  Keep your hit points out of my gritty games.



Obryn said:


> Could I really be the only one who found low-level 4e at least as deadly as low-level 3e?




No.



Hussar said:


> Fantasy Viet Nam? Really? You never played 2e did you? I can make a 1st level 2e fighter, straight from the PHB, that kills ogres in 2 rounds by himself. (longsword specs - 14 points/hit, 3/2 attacks = 42 points of damage in 2 rounds without a strength bonus - kills anything less than 6 hit dice automatically).




And remember the greatsword was doing 3d6 damage vs large foes...



> After about 3rd, it took ridiculous numbers to kill PC's. There's a reason that a 5th level party is expected to gank an ancient black dragon in AD&D. (First Dragonlance module)




I didn't realise it was quite that bad.



Imaro said:


> As a DM running a 4e game (at level 5 right now) I am experiencing this. Danger in 4e, as far as my players are concerned, is pretty much a joke.... especially if I stick to the guidelines given in the 4e DMG. I mean the fights take long but there's very little tension during the battles which is making the game less and less fun for all of us.




Which monster manuals are you using?  And what sort of terrain and tactics?  Because when I stick to level appropriate I scare the life out of my PCs.  When I don't it gets worse.  But then I don't use anything pre MM3.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 11, 2012)

Minions and solos were meant to be solutions to the tyranny of scaling accuracy and defenses in D&D. Minions were there so that creatures of a "lower level" in the fiction could still be relevant as PCs leveled and solos were there to have satisfying fights against "higher level" creatures without the game turning into praying for 20s. They're meta game mechanics meant to portray the advantage of numbers. Now I can understand why this might be unsatisfying to some. Hopefully bounded accuracy and extending the hp metaphor works better for those who had issues with minions and solos.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 11, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Because a 1hp monster in other editions isn't any sort of threat. A 1hp monster in 4e is outclassed but can still do damage.




At low levels (1-3), which I have reiterated numerous times within the thread that I am speaking about, they very much are a threat. 




Neonchameleon said:


> 1: This has been rebutted with "A Paladin In Hell".
> 2: "One Shotting" isn't just one attack.
> 3: I guess you should excise 2e from canon. A 2e L9 fighter with weapon mastery, a +3 greatsword, and gauntlets of ogre power is one-shotting ogres roughly one attack in two as I demonstrated to Lanefan earlier.




1. Uhm, that picture doesn't objectively rebutt anything.
2. This is tangental and pendantic at best to the point. have I even claimed it was specifically one attack? Or have I said one-shotting as in one attack roll?? I honestly don't remember.
3. Level 9 is not low level.



Neonchameleon said:


> In 3e a basic ogre gets 29hp. A strength 22 greatsword fighter (again not unreasonable by level 9) with a +1 shocking flaming weapon (for +3 equivalent - not unreasonable if I remember my WBL) does 4d6+10 damage on a basic hit. Put in a three point power attack and the fighter is doing 4d6+16 damage per hit (I'm not even trying for optimisation here) and hitting with his first attack on a three without buffs. The 4e level 9 fighter is not just routinely one-shotting ogres, he's _cleaving_ them. So I guess that 3.X is out as well. Come join us with 4e where your level 9 fighters _don't_ one-shot ogres?




First, this is high level which I have stated before in every edition amounts to super-heroic fantasy... Yet, and this is key... in 3.x he can still roll low enough, damage wise that he may not kill the ogre with one attack roll (I'll try to carefully word this now so as to avoid the distracting pendantic arguments on verbiage.)... A minion on the other hand will always be killed with one successful attack roll.



Neonchameleon said:


> And orcs are not minions. Orc _drudges_ are minions. The word drudge literally means "A person who does tedious, menial, or unpleasant work"; orc drudges in 3.X would be commoners. And outlevelled orcs take one hit - but then they do in 3.X as well. 4e is just honest about it. "Battletested Orcs" have hit points.




Did I ever claim all orcs were minions? Nope, I claimed some level 4 Orcs were miniions... which they are. See this is what I mean about stating an argument I didn't make and then attributing it to me... don't. as to the name... in 4e that fluff/fiction doesn't mean anything so why are you now trying to use it in some way to strengthen your own categorization of the monsters?



Neonchameleon said:


> So in both 2e and 3.X with very little optimisation a fighter can easily and regularly one-shot ogres at level 9 without buffs. This is apparently not a problem when one-shotting ogres at level 15 is for 4e fighters? Please explain what changed between the editions other than that 4e makes it explicit that you are expected to one-shot things you have a good chance of one-shotting?




Again level 9 is not low level. They can one-shot, but are not guaranteed, upon a successful attack, of one-shotting like they are in 4e with minions. There's a different feel there.





Neonchameleon said:


> For once I agree. I can house rule this in one line - and do.




Ok, cool... does the fact that you can houserule it change the fact that it is the official rule of the game and adds to a super-heroic feel? If not, I'm uncertain as to why you're telling me this? Oh, I get it again... I'm attacking 4e so you're trying to help me fix my problems... only that's not what I'm doing and I'm not trying to "fix" anything. 



Neonchameleon said:


> You mean ability to remain damaged but recover your breath? I've said before that 4e would be much better received if they'd called hit points "shock value" and healing surges "hit points".




I mean the action of bringing your ability to stay in the fight up to the max it can be in an encounter by taking a 5 minute rest. 




Neonchameleon said:


> I disagree. 4e to me feels like an action movie not a superhero movie. Yes, some sit on the borderline like Batman. If I want Superman or Green Lantern I'm using a 3.X spellcaster.




Then I guess I'm not trying to present your PoV to others. The thing I'm wondering is if you can see why the mechanics of 4e can make some (let me clarify that in saying "some" I am not referenceing you) people feel like the game is drifting into the realm, of super heroics. If you're not even willing to entertain the fact that some people could honestly (and without any malice toward the game) feel that way, well then we can agree to disagree at this point because this discussion won't go anywhere prodiuctive.





Neonchameleon said:


> And 4e is on the action side. Exalted is on the supers side. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are excellent 4e PCs. But if I want ASoIaF, I'm going to ignore D&D entirely and reach for WFRP or even GURPS. Keep your hit points out of my gritty games.




And yet until 4e it was possible to have a gritty low-level game, for those who wanted it. So you can choose to ignore D&D but for some/many it worked fine for that until recently.







Neonchameleon said:


> Which monster manuals are you using? And what sort of terrain and tactics? Because when I stick to level appropriate I scare the life out of my PCs. When I don't it gets worse. But then I don't use anything pre MM3.




So you're saying for the game to work correctly I need to purchase more books... and disregard the books I initially bought. That sucks.  To answer your question I was, until recently, using any monster in the online Adventure Tools... are they updated to the new specs?  If not I don't see why I would have to go out and buy more books to get the game to the corrected point for combats.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2012)

Imaro said:


> D&D =/= Conan
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Not everyone believes that PC's, at first level, should start at the level of capabiltiy that Conan is commonly depicted as having.



You're the one who brought up Conan, not me.



Imaro said:


> That said, Conan commonly one-shots humanoids, brigands, etc. Not demons, devils and cthulthoid horrors...



In Tower of the Elephant he one-shots a lion, doesn't he? In Queen of the Black Coast he one-shots were-hyenas.

Anyway, turning to another fantasy protagonist - who may or may not be D&D-ish, depending on the individual making that judgement - Ged in A Wizard of Earthsea one-shots several young dragons.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 11, 2012)

pemerton said:


> You're the one who brought up Conan, not me.
> 
> In Tower of the Elephant he one-shots a lion, doesn't he? In Queen of the Black Coast he one-shots were-hyenas.
> 
> Anyway, turning to another fantasy protagonist - who may or may not be D&D-ish, depending on the individual making that judgement - Ged in A Wizard of Earthsea one-shots several young dragons.




If I remember correctly (and it has been awhile), not in the beginning (low-level) of the books he doesn't.  Ged in the beginning isn't all that powerful, knowledgeable or wise at all, and barely survives a few times because of luck... Now at high levels, that's a different story... but I've already stated numeroous times high level D&D is a super-heroic fantasy game in every edition.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 11, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Random AD&D factoid (at least as best I recall it): even if you're using the "death's door" option, a single hit will still kill you if it drops you below zero in a single blow (there is an option within an option to make the "single blow" threshold -3).



Ah, like so much of the AD&D crunch, it's vaguely worded. The rules state unequivocally death occurs at -10 HP (DMG, p.82). Characters brought to 0 HP (optionally -3 "by the same blow") are at "death's door" and lose 1 HP per round until -10 is reached, at which point they "buy the Shire". 

Character brought to 0 HP and below are seriously wounded. Regardless of healing, they're comatose for 1d6 turns, and at least 1 full week of bed rest. Unless you use the UA spell Death's Door, which permits immediate healing back to full functionality. The spell also reiterates "death's door" being between 0 and -9 HP. 

Also, if the character is brought to -6 or below, they _might_ suffer permanent scarring and/or limb loss.

What's unclear is the result of being reduced to - 4 through -9 HP in a single blow/attack. We always played it as "alive, but dying", because the rules explicitly state "dead = -10 HP", while assuming otherwise required an element of conjecture. 

As for the larger issue of "superheroic feel" -- this topic always seems strange to me. Every edition of D&D starts to feel "superheroic" by about 9th level, give or take, and it has everything to do with the amount of player-controlled magic and nothing, at all, to do with hit points. Following from this, 3e/Pathfinder are the most "superheroic" versions of D&D, since their default assumptions involve the most magic under the most player control. 

Having just played my 13th level Wind Oracle yesterday afternoon, I can say with confidence she'd qualify for both the X-Men and the Avengers.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2012)

Imaro said:


> If I remember correctly (and it has been awhile), not in the beginning (low-level) of the books he doesn't.



Conan one-shots the lion in Tower of the Elephant - an "early Conan" story.

Ged one-shots the young dragons in chapter 5 or so of A Wizard of Earthsea - it is basically his first encounter after leaving the school of wizardry. What level you think someone is when they leave the school I don't know.



Imaro said:


> I've already stated numeroous times high level D&D is a super-heroic fantasy game in every edition.



I don't know what your criteria are for supheroic - The Phantom? Superman? - but I do know there are well-known fantasy characters who are able to one-shot dangerous monsters, as I've instanced.

Moldvay Basic tells me that a famous Magic-User is Merlin and a famous fighter Hercules. That makes me expect that my PC might at least resemble Ged (who in a Wizard of Earthsea is fairy clearly not on a par with Merlin) or Conan (who in Tower of the Elephant is clearly not on a par with Hercules). I gather the 2nd ed PHB gives similar examples.

There is a huge dissonance between those expectations and the actual play of a 1st level PC. (Especially but not only a 1st level MU.) My view is that every edition of the game since then has taken some steps - more or less modest - to reduce that dissonance and close the gap between the rhetoric and the actual mechanics of play.

I would be surprised if D&Dnext went back to OD&D standards for starting hit points. But then, I've been wrong before.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2012)

Mallus said:


> What's unclear is the result of being reduced to - 4 through -9 HP in a single blow/attack. We always played it as "alive, but dying", because the rules explicitly state "dead = -10 HP", while assuming otherwise required an element of conjecture.



While accepting that it is fundamentally irrational to quibble over the details of AD&D rules interpretation, I'm still moved to ask: what, then, do you think the "zero (or -3 hp)" wording is doing, if anything?

I always assumed that if a single blow dropped you below zero (or below -3, if the option to the option is in play) that you die, but if it drops you only to zero (or to as much as -3, if the option to the option is in play) you are "at death's door", losing 1 hp per round, able to be revived by the Death's Door spell, killed by any blow that hits you, etc.



Mallus said:


> Having just played my 13th level Wind Oracle yesterday afternoon, I can say with confidence she'd qualify for both the X-Men and the Avengers.



What is a Wind Oracle? (I'm thinking Storm, but only because of your X-Men reference - and maybe Thor as the Avengers' equivalent?)


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 11, 2012)

Imaro said:


> At low levels (1-3), which I have reiterated numerous times within the thread that I am speaking about, they very much are a threat.




It might help you to get your case across if you aren't on one hand talking about levels 1-3 and on the other mentioning ogre minions.  They aren't levels 1-3.  Hell, the lowest level ogre I can think of in any monster manual is a level 7 *standard*.  So when you talk about ogre minions you are not talking about levels 1-3. 



> Did I ever claim all orcs were minions? Nope, I claimed some level 4 Orcs were miniions... which they are.




And an orc drudge in 4e would be statted up as an Orc Commoner 1 in 3.X.  He's a drudge.  And I've provided the actual meaning of the word Drudge.  If you think that a Drudge _isn't_ a type of commoner then we really disagree about the use of English.

Some 4e orcs are drudges.  Do 3.X orcs have no commoners?  Are they all warriors?



> in 4e that fluff/fiction doesn't mean anything so why are you now trying to use it in some way to strengthen your own categorization of the monsters?




What do you mean that the fluff/fiction doesn't mean anything?   The fiction/fluff tells you what to use and how to use it - it just has a _different_ relationship to the game than it does in 3.X.



> Again level 9 is not low level. They can one-shot, but are not guaranteed, upon a successful attack, of one-shotting like they are in 4e with minions. There's a different feel there.




Not much of one IME.  You're basically rolling once for each as the to hit roll is a formality.



> I mean the action of bringing your ability to stay in the fight up to the max it can be in an encounter by taking a 5 minute rest.




And here's the hit point disconnect - if they have one hit point they are still acting at full capacity.



> Then I guess I'm not trying to present your PoV to others. The thing I'm wondering is if you can see why the mechanics of 4e can make some (let me clarify that in saying "some" I am not referenceing you) people feel like the game is drifting into the realm, of super heroics. If you're not even willing to entertain the fact that some people could honestly (and without any malice toward the game) feel that way, well then we can agree to disagree at this point because this discussion won't go anywhere prodiuctive.




I see how some people could consider 4e a low powered superhero game.  What I don't see is how they can see it as more so than 3.X or AD&D.  Except that not everyone got superpowers (or crypto-superpowers like Batman) in 3.X.



> And yet until 4e it was possible to have a gritty low-level game, for those who wanted it. So you can choose to ignore D&D but for some/many it worked fine for that until recently.




From memory, it worked badly.  If I wanted a gritty low level game I'd reach for GURPS or WHFRP - the two games I cut my RPG teeth on.  But if the DM chooses not to use minions at low level (a perfectly acceptable choice) then fights get very brutal.  For instance the Kobold level 1 skirmisher (quickblade I think?) does +2 damage for every square they shifted that turn before attacking, and can shift up to four squares in a turn.  I think that means that unless you've shut the kobold down they are doing d6+11 damage per attack, and with a four square shift you can get to whoever you want and flank them.  With kobolds with more than 20 hit points doing that amount of damage it can get very scary very fast.



> So you're saying for the game to work correctly I need to purchase more books... and disregard the books I initially bought. That sucks. To answer your question I was, until recently, using any monster in the online Adventure Tools... are they updated to the new specs? If not I don't see why I would have to go out and buy more books to get the game to the corrected point for combats.




The monsters aren't updated - they are printed as they are in the source material.  The Monster Vault monsters more or less replace the MM1 monsters for 90+% of the monsters you are ever going to use - filter your search to Monster Vault, Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale, the Dark Sun Creature Catalog, and the MM 3.  And honestly there's enough awesome in the two Monster Vaults that most of the time I just use them - I've said in the past that they are the best two monster manuals produced for any edition of D&D and stand by it.  (Yes, I own the 2E Monstrous Manual).

And yes it does suck.  As a rule 4e is the only edition of D&D where every book to come out (with the single exception of the PHB3) has been significantly better than the previous one in that line (not to say that I don't have a lot of time for e.g. the Bo9S).  And knowing which published monsters to use and avoid is something that shouldn't have been needed but is very useful.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 11, 2012)

pemerton said:


> ... what, then, do you think the "zero (or -3 hp)" wording is doing, if anything?



Confusing the issue, and nothing more. Gygax had this wonderful tendency to use "decorative specifics" in his rules texts. I liken this to the preferred usage of concrete language in poetry! 



> I always assumed that if a single blow dropped you below zero (or below -3, if the option to the option is in play) that you die, but if it drops you only to zero (or to as much as -3, if the option to the option is in play) you are "at death's door", losing 1 hp per round, able to be revived by the Death's Door spell, killed by any blow that hits you, etc.



My reading of the rule is based on the low odds of being reduced to _exactly_ zero HP by an attack. Why bother establishing the "death's door" condition and subsequent mechanics for something that is, statistically speaking, a corner case? The intent of rule is clear, but the use of 0 HP as the boundary impedes that. Therefore it should be ignored.

The 0 to -3 range makes more sense, but even so, since death is clearly defined as -10 HP or lower, I find the most sensible reading is extend Death's Door to -9. Or at least that's the way all my old AD&D DM's did it. 

Playing "but what did he _mean_" is half, well, some, of the fun with AD&D.



> What is a Wind Oracle?



Oracle is a Pathfinder base class from the Advanced Players Guide. Spontaneous divine casters with various Supernatural abilities based on their chosen "mystery" ie, theme/power source. 

Mechanically, she resembles absolutely nothing found in the works of Tolkien, Howard, or Moorcock. The works of Stan Lee are another story...


----------



## Celestian (Jun 11, 2012)

Just played another session of #dndnext and one thing I noticed was that an ogre's max damage was less than a 1st level dwarven fighters max damage. The same ogre has a LOT more health (80something) while the fighter was much lower.

Something on this scale is out of wack. I lean towards thinking that the fighter does to much damage and the fighter and ogre have to much health.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 11, 2012)

Celestian said:


> Just played another session of #dndnext and one thing I noticed was that an ogre's max damage was less than a 1st level dwarven fighters max damage.



It's the same in AD&D.

A standard ogre's maximum damage is 10. A dwarven fighter with exceptional STR and or weapon specialization from Unearthed Arcana can get well over 10 (16, I think: 8 max battle axe + 5 from a 18/91-99 STR + 3 from double-specialization). 

A dwarven fighter with any static positive damage modifier will have a higher mean, and usually higher average, damage output than the ogre.

I mean, how common was it to play a single-classed AD&D fighter without a plus to damage?


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 11, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Conan one-shots nearly everything he fights - soldiers, assassins, pirates, were-hyenas, etc. You can't emulate Conan in a game without one-shotting 4 to 8 guys a round!





I'd argue that Conan's world doesn't use D&D style hitpoints.  Yes, I completely agree that Conan is b.a., but you also have to consider that (in my opinion) combat in Conan's world is more deadly than the typical D&D campaign as presented by today's version of the game.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 12, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I'd argue that Conan's world doesn't use D&D style hitpoints.  Yes, I completely agree that Conan is b.a., but you also have to consider that (in my opinion) combat in Conan's world is more deadly than the typical D&D campaign as presented by today's version of the game.




I dunno.

How often does Conan die?

I'd say 4e combat is far, far more lethal to the protagonists than Conan combat is.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Jun 12, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I dunno.
> 
> How often does Conan die?
> 
> I'd say 4e combat is far, far more lethal to the protagonists than Conan combat is.




That's because Conan has script immunity. Ask many of his adventuring comrades the same question and you'll get a lot of "No answer. He's dead."

In any case, I'm done trying to convert anyone, and I hope most of us have got it out of our systems.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 12, 2012)

Mallus said:


> I mean, how common was it to play a single-classed AD&D fighter without a plus to damage?




Depends how much you cheat. +1 to damage is pretty common, but more than that is unusual. (Of course, if you *do* have an 18 strength as a fighter, it goes up pretty quickly).

That said, the fighter with a longsword in AD&D without UA does 1d12 damage against said ogre, or 3d6 with a 2-handed sword.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 12, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> That's because Conan has script immunity. Ask many of his adventuring comrades the same question and you'll get a lot of "No answer. He's dead."
> 
> In any case, I'm done trying to convert anyone, and I hope most of us have got it out of our systems.




That's not necessarily true though.  Aside from various Red Shirts, most of Conan's companions survive as well.  Some die, sure, but, lots don't.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 12, 2012)

All this bickering about conan is pointless when everyone knows superman would whip him in a real fight


----------



## Campbell (Jun 12, 2012)

Celestian said:


> Just played another session of #dndnext and one thing I noticed was that an ogre's max damage was less than a 1st level dwarven fighters max damage. The same ogre has a LOT more health (80something) while the fighter was much lower.
> 
> Something on this scale is out of wack. I lean towards thinking that the fighter does to much damage and the fighter and ogre have to much health.




I actually think it's kind of appropriate. Ogres are tough. There's a lot of meat to them, but while they might be strong they are not particularly skilled. The ogre swings his club around without much precision. He'll probably wallop you, but he doesn't care where he hits you. On the other hand the fighter is a trained killer. He knows where he needs to strike and goes for the jugular at every opportunity. Also the ogre is not that much stronger than the fighter.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 12, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I dunno.
> 
> How often does Conan die?
> 
> I'd say 4e combat is far, far more lethal to the protagonists than Conan combat is.





True, but Conan also has plot protection by virtue of being the main character of the book series.  It's kind of hard to have a Conan story if there's no Conan.

However, Conan most certainly does get seriously hurt and/or injured, and he is on death's door in multiple stories.  He has even been captured and/or tortured.  I remember one story in particular in which he nearly died from being poisoned; only surviving because of divine intervention.   

Look at the world around Conan.  The difference between life or death for most characters in his world is often one (maybe two) well placed attacks.  What's the probability of a 4E character having his skull split by an axe?  Likewise, injury and wounds (HP loss) matter in Conan.  Characters don't have the same effectiveness after some injury as they do when at full health.

I'd also say that Conan stories do not feature what D&D calls AC; to me, I'd say there are active defenses going on.  Things such as parrying, blocking, and dodging out of the way (again, in my opinion) are much better fits for the style of story than AC.  I feel that combat in Howard's stories -not just Conan, but Kull and Bran Mak Morn as well- is fluid and dynamic.  There are actions and reactions happening quite often.


----------



## Celestian (Jun 12, 2012)

Mallus said:


> It's the same in AD&D.
> 
> A standard ogre's maximum damage is 10. A dwarven fighter with exceptional STR and or weapon specialization from Unearthed Arcana can get well over 10 (16, I think: 8 max battle axe + 5 from a 18/91-99 STR + 3 from double-specialization).
> 
> ...




I always gave my ogres the bonuses from 18/00 (AD&D). Maybe I was in the minority? I seem to recall it being in modules that way as well (for some at least).

It just seemed a bit off. Give the fighter 18 strength and it will be even more skewed. 

The fight with the ogre seemed to be... non-threatening to us. In AD&D if a ogre got a good hit off at a level 1 character he could out right kill you. Specially non-fighters.


----------



## nogray (Jun 12, 2012)

Imaro said:


> So you're saying for the game to work correctly I need to purchase more books... and disregard the books I initially bought. That sucks.  To answer your question I was, until recently, using any monster in the online Adventure Tools... are they updated to the new specs?  If not I don't see why I would have to go out and buy more books to get the game to the corrected point for combats.




I happily use any of the monsters in the Adventure Tools. However, if it is something not in one of the Monster Vaults, MM3, or the Dark Sun Creature Catalog, I check the math before I print it, editing where needed. I also freely update elites and solos with more modern traits to better avoid stunlocks and whatnot.

The resource I use for checking the math is at Blog of Holding. (What I actually do is, at the bottom of my level notes for a given adventure, have the appropriate values pre-calculated and written in so I can just sub in appropriate values.) It also works great for winging monsters. I have DMed enough 4e that I can improvise traits and effects on powers well enough to keep things interesting.

I hope that helps, in some small way.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 12, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I'd argue that Conan's world doesn't use D&D style hitpoints.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Conan's world is more deadly than the typical D&D campaign as presented by today's version of the game.





Hussar said:


> I dunno.
> 
> How often does Conan die?





Johnny3D3D said:


> True, but Conan also has plot protection by virtue of being the main character of the book series.





Mercutio01 said:


> That's because Conan has script immunity. Ask many of his adventuring comrades the same question and you'll get a lot of "No answer. He's dead."



Given how often Conan (and the pulp sword and sorcery tradition more generally) is cited as the inspiration for D&D, it would be odd if D&D in fact couldn't do Conan. (That's not an argument, obviously. Just an observation.)

If I wanted to run something Conan-esque in 4e, I would overwhelmingly use minions. And I would be prepared to narrate mechanical hits as fictional misses. I started a thread about this a while ago. From "The Phoenix on the Sword":

The king took Ascalante's point in his left arm, and the outlaw barely saved his life by ducking and springing backward from the swinging ax. . . .

Ascalante leaped like a wolf, halted almost in midair with incredible quickness and fell prostrate to avoid the death which was hissing toward him. He frantically whirled his feet out of the way and rolled clear as Conan recovered from his missed blow and struck again. This time the ax sank inches deep into the polished floor close to Ascalante's revolving legs.​
Clearly when Conan is stabbed by Ascalante, he has (in D&D terms) been hit and suffered hit point loss (perhaps he's been bloodied). But what about when Ascalante ducks and springs backward, then falls prostrate, and then whirls his feet out of the way? To get Conanesque 4e, you have to narrate that as hit point loss. Hit points become almost pure "plot protection." (Except perhaps for giant slugs and the like.)

Most NPCs and monsters would be minions, though, and so have no hit points - reflecting the fact that Conan has a better than 50% chance to cleave their skulls on an attack!



Johnny3D3D said:


> Conan most certainly does get seriously hurt and/or injured, and he is on death's door in multiple stories.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'd also say that Conan stories do not feature what D&D calls AC; to me, I'd say there are active defenses going on.  Things such as parrying, blocking, and dodging out of the way (again, in my opinion) are much better fits for the style of story than AC.  I feel that combat in Howard's stories -not just Conan, but Kull and Bran Mak Morn as well- is fluid and dynamic.  There are actions and reactions happening quite often.



The dynamism and active defence I would do via liberal use of out-of-turn powers (like the duelist in Dark Sun, or the various ranger powers that allow a shift in response to being hit).

The permanent injury can't be done in by-the-book 4e. You would need to introduce conditions of some sort triggered by skill challenge failures, as a result of being dropped to 0 hp, etc.


----------



## jadrax (Jun 12, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Given how often Conan (and the pulp sword and sorcery tradition more generally) is cited as the inspiration for D&D, it would be odd if D&D in fact couldn't do Conan. (That's not an argument, obviously. Just an observation.)




Roleplaying Games cant do any books*, period.


*or TV series, or Films, or anything else that's not an RPG.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 12, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Most NPCs and monsters would be minions, though, and so have no hit points - reflecting the fact that Conan has a better than 50% chance to cleave their skulls on an attack!



I don't think people like to have the rules of fiction spelled out in this way. They want to believe that the fictional world might be real, to see it thru the eyes of its inhabitants.

To be an author is, in a way, to have fiction ruined for you because you can see all the techniques.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 12, 2012)

jadrax said:


> Roleplaying Games cant do any books*, period.
> 
> 
> *or TV series, or Films, or anything else that's not an RPG.



That strikes me as true in the same sense that film can't do books, because they are different communicaive media. True, but not necessarily that important in this context.

Bryan Singer's X-Men films (in my view, as a person with a near-complete collection of the Claremont-era X-Men) do a terrific job of capturing and conveying the feel and thematic content of the X-Men. John Boorman's Excalibur, in my view, does an excellent job of conveying the feel and thematic content of Arthurian romance.

An RPG should be able to capture and convey the spirit of Conan, or A Wizard of Earthsea, or LotR. I certainly think that 4e captures something of the heroic and mythic spirit of epics like the Iliad, or the more over-the-top Wuxia films. (Also the Marvel Universe approach to magic and cosmology, with its myriad planes and other-planer beinge enmeshed in the fate of the world.)


----------



## pemerton (Jun 12, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> I don't think people like to have the rules of fiction spelled out in this way. They want to believe that the fictional world might be real, to see it thru the eyes of its inhabitants.



No doubt you're right, at least for a good chunck of players. (I always find it odd that such players choose D&D, though, rather than games like Runequest that have mechanics that are more "transparent" in this respect.)

My feeling - and I guess it betrays my Forge-iness - is that that sort of approach makes it hard to ensure a satisfying game. Because if everyone is busy being "in" the fiction, no one is responsible for making sure that it's worth being in.

It's not as if REH or Tolkien or Mallory just let their characters lose in the fiction - they contrived interesting situations that would put those characters to the test. I like the same sort of RPG play - a GM taking responsibility for framing interesting scenes, the players taking responsiblity for building PCs who, played in those scenes, will lead to exciting and unexpected stuff happening. Ultimately the mechanics are tools for achieving this.



Doug McCrae said:


> To be an author is, in a way, to have fiction ruined for you because you can see all the techniques.



I don't write fiction, but I do write non-fiction. (I'm a humanities academic.) Maybe I just have a big ego! - but I can still be interested, even excited, by stuff I've written. The ideas and arguments intrigue, please, disappoint, sometimes even surprise me (the latter if it's been a while).

When it comes to GMing my game, it doesn't bother me that I've set up the situations deliberately to be interesting, and that the mechanics are designed to suppot this. Because the play that actually emerges from them is still engaging and often suprising. Like in my last session - the dwarf fighter-cleric was having his dwarven smiths reforge Whelm - a dwarven thrower warhammer, originally from White Plume Mountain - into Overwhelm - the same thing but as a morenkrad (the character is a two-hander specialist). I was adjudicating it as a complexity 1 (4 before 3) skill challenge. The fighter-cleric had succeeded at Dungeoneering (the closest in 4e to an engineering skill) and Diplomacy (to keep his dwarven artificers at the forge as the temperature and magical energies rise to unprecedented heights). The wizard had succeeded at Arcana (to keep the magical forces in check). But the fighter-cleric failed his Religion check - he was praying to Moradin to help with the process, but it wasn't enough. So he shoved his hands into the forge and held down the hammer with brute strength! (Successful Endurance against a Hard DC.) His hands were burned and scarred, but the dwarven smiths were finally able to grab the hammer head with their tongs, and then beat and pull it into its new shape.

The wizard then healed the dwarf PC with a Remove Affliction (using Fundamental Ice as the material component), and over the course of a few weeks the burns healed. (Had the Endurance check failed, things would have played out much the same, but I'd decided that the character would feel the pang of the burns again whenever he picked up Overwhelm.)

I've GMed a few item creation scenes over the years, in classic D&D, Rolemaster and 4e. While a relatively minor scene, this was probably the most intense I've GMed, and it certainly made the fiction - the dwarven artificers, the forge, the magic of the artefact, the prowess of a 16th level warpriest of Moradin - come to life.

It didn't hurt the experience that the rules (in this case, for skill challenges) have been deliberately designed to produce those outcomes. Because when play is actually going on, we're mostly not thinking at the meta-level - cetainly not the players, and not even me as GM, except when deciding the consequences for failing that Endurance check. We're thinking about the fiction, and what is happening. After all, it was my description of the situation, and the player "inhabiting" his PC and asking "What am I _not_? - an artificer" and "What _am _I? - the toughtest dwarf around", that led him to say "I want to stick my hands into the forge and grab Whelm. Can I make an Endurance check for that?"

I couldn't have run this little scene (maybe 15 minutes at the table) without mechanics that make improvisation and robust adjudication easy. That's not all of what I like about 4e, but it's a big part of it.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 12, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Given how often Conan (and the pulp sword and sorcery tradition more generally) is cited as the inspiration for D&D, it would be odd if D&D in fact couldn't do Conan. (That's not an argument, obviously. Just an observation.)
> 
> If I wanted to run something Conan-esque in 4e, I would overwhelmingly use minions. And I would be prepared to narrate mechanical hits as fictional misses. I started a thread about this a while ago. From "The Phoenix on the Sword":
> The king took Ascalante's point in his left arm, and the outlaw barely saved his life by ducking and springing backward from the swinging ax. . . .
> ...





Good advice.

Though, I believe in the other thread where you originally mentioned the scenario you quoted, I detailed how I'd be able to handle that with a different game.  For me personally, while D&D most certainly can portray that scene (and many others), I question whether or not it can do it well.  

The thought also strikes me that I'm not necessarily looking to play Conan when I mention him in these conversations.  I'll be quite blunt; Conan is one of my favorite heroes, and I love R. Howard.  (I'm also quite fond of Kull and Bran Mak Morn.)  However, one of my favorite things about reading Howard's stories is the way he conveys the world.  

You're completely right in the post where you say Howard framed interesting scenes.  Part of why his world is interesting to me is because of the language Howard uses to convey his vision as a writer to me -as the reader.  While there most certainly are fantastic and unrealistic things happening in the story, he finds a way to make me believe it.  I can feel as though I'm there, and the world outside of Conan within the stories is a big part of that.  

For what it's worth, the preview materials for 4th Edition gave me a similar feel.  _Worlds and Monsters_ had be really psyched for 4th Edition and what I thought it would be.  So psyched in fact that I bought into 4th Edition based on pure faith, and I continued to buy books up until around _Manual of The Planes._  I kept thinking 'well, it's a new system, so they might not have some of the things I want worked out yet.'  I thought that for a while, but the vision the previews gave me never seemed to make it into the final game.

The previous paragraph is something which makes me wary of D&D Durango.  I have high hopes for the game, but the designers have already said that some of the options I want won't be available until a long time after the game is released.  I'm holding the playtest material in my hand and I've used it.  I would say I enjoyed it, but the preview of 5E hasn't evoked the positive reaction for me that _Worlds and Monsters_ did.  I don't feel negative about it; the problem is that I don't really feel anything.  I engage in conversations about it, but the faith nor the excitement is there.  I'm starting to veer into a different topic, so I'll hit the brakes and steer back the other way for now.

To get back to where I was going with this post, I'll first say that I do not feel D&D does Conan as well as other games do.  I'll then say that the most fun I had with 4th Edition was when I ran a game where I completely embraced the over-the-top nature of it.  That seemed better suited to how the game was set up -even with the house rules I have.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 12, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I believe in the other thread where you originally mentioned the scenario you quoted, I detailed how I'd be able to handle that with a different game.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I do not feel D&D does Conan as well as other games do.



I think you're right - especially at name/paragon level I think D&D is more over-the-top than Conan.

And I'm sure there other stuff that's particular to your Conan experience, too, that D&D doesn't do as well as other systems.



Johnny3D3D said:


> _Worlds and Monsters_ had be really psyched for 4th Edition and what I thought it would be.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm holding the playtest material in my hand and I've used it.  I would say I enjoyed it, but the preview of 5E hasn't evoked the positive reaction for me that _Worlds and Monsters_ did.  I don't feel negative about it



I loved Worlds and Monsters too, but happily for me I felt that 4e delivered. A lot of people didn't like the 4e MM, but it really inspired me.

I must confess I do have a negative reaction to the playtest materials. The PCs don't especially inspire me (Forbidden Lore is the highlight, but nothing in the scenario calls out Forbidden Lore for the players to engage with). And the action resolution mechanics are underwhelming.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 13, 2012)

[MENTION=21169]Doug McCrae[/MENTION] - thanks for the XP comment. I wanted to add something to my session report that I think fits with what you were saying.

Namely - how did I know that the dwarf shoving his hands into the forge was a Hard Endurance check, rather than just outright folly, even suicide?

Unfortunately, the 4e rulebooks don't really answer this question. I answered it by drawing on advice in Robin Laws' revised HeroQuest rules - before setting a DC, you have to decide whether an action is possible, or not, based on the genre conventions in effect at the play table. So there is a type of social-contract-mediated, pre-mechanical stage to action resolution, before mechanics kick in. And that probably doesn't fit at all well with the "see the fiction through the eyes of its inhabitants" players.

What they would want is a set of rules that specify the heat of the forge, the dwarf's hit points/DR etc - whereas how I did it was to think "Well, this guy is a 16th level warpriest who, last week, defeated a phalanx of hobgoblin warriors singlehandedly - when he prays and shoves his hands into the forge, it will hurt him, but he _will_ be able to hold down Whelm." It was a pre-mechanical judgement call made by me as GM, drawing on the image of the character and his place in the world suggested by earlier events in the fiction, and I didn't feel I needed more mechanical detail to help me make it.

The player certainly bought into it. He even used Figther's Grit (an encounter utility power that let's him ignore a range of adverse conditions) before shoving his hands in - for that I let him get +2 to the Endurance check.

A common slogan/dichotomy used by the non-4e crowd is "story before rules", and they criticise 4e for going the other way. But I think that's too simplistic - it was the story that was driving my framing of the scene, my player's request to make an Endurance check, his use of Fighter's Grit to help, my adjudication of the outcome.

My view is that the issue is not about the priority of mechanics to story, but about the correspondence between (i) the actual mechanical processes and decision points, and (ii) causation within the fictional gameworld. (That's not a view I came up with via my own observations. It's just a restatement of the Forge definition of simulationism, and especially purist-for system simulationism. But I _think_ a lot of these debates bear it out.)


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 13, 2012)

pemerton said:


> @Doug McCrae - thanks for the XP comment. I wanted to add something to my session report that I think fits with what you were saying.
> 
> Namely - how did I know that the dwarf shoving his hands into the forge was a Hard Endurance check, rather than just outright folly, even suicide?




Because the player thought it was a reasonable if risky plan?  That says "Hard" to me.  If it had been outright folly I don't think the PC would have tried it...


----------



## pemerton (Jun 13, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Because the player thought it was a reasonable if risky plan?  That says "Hard" to me.



That's part of it, but I don't think it's all of it. My take, at least, is that the GM has a special responsibility to vet the players in this sort of stuff - that in a certain sense it wouldn't be fair to put _all_ the weight just on the players' shoulders, because then they would have to both (i) push their PCs to the limits and (ii) police those limits.

If you look at the GM's role in this sort of way, though, how do you avoid "mother may I" and outright adversarialism? For me, this is where there is a need for clear genre implications and limitations, which can help the GM make a decision that is as objective (or at least consensually intersubjective) as possible. 4e delivers those, I think - it strikes me as the clearest version of D&D in its genre, especially because it doesn't send mixed messages about gritty martial vs wahoo magic. And within the boundaries of genre/social contract, the action resolution rules need to be clear and robust, so the players _know_that they can push to the limit without being done over by GM fiat. 4e delivers these too.


----------

