Am I the only one who sees a problem with the Hit Points?

I'm looking around this forum and I see many salient and relevant critiques of the latest release of the playtest, but I haven't seen a single comment about the hit point shift. Am I the only one who doesn't like that hit points are mostly dependant on class and have little to do with a character's actual constitution? Am I the only one who noticed that the damage output has shifted up in the August playtest packet?

For example, the Rogue Class starts with a bonus 2d6 damage from Sneak Attack at level 1 compared with the former 1d6 at level 1. Another example: the Fighter Class starts with the ability to add 1d6 to every successful attack at level 1.

A Wizard with 13 Constitution starts with 5 hit points while a fighter with the same starts with 11 hit points. Is the point that Wizards are supposed to be half as difficult to tire/harm/etc. as Fighters and basic Constitution scores don't really matter?

This also propogates a game-play that requires a minimum of level disparity because a challenge to a level 10 character is likely going to steamroll a level 3 or possibly even level 7 character. Many people might say, "as it should be," but I've played other games free of that level disparity issue and I don't think that it is a necessary part of the Dungeons and Dragons experience. The point of level progression is to see character improvement, but that shouldn't be at the expense of game balance and I don't think that it has to be. Level progression already sees an increase in hit dice, which means that there are shorter periods of downtime as adventures continue and the "5-minute day" problem is lessened. If the point of the increase in hit points is to make it possible for higher level character to adventure longer before resting then the multiple hit dice already addresses part of that issue. Perhaps I just don't see the logic or fun in having the hit point grind.

And this is purely the result of adding cool damage features and a different method of hit point calculation. The first playtest packet didn't have this grind-a-thon mentality and I for one would like to see a return to the fun of the adventure rather than the grind of ever increasing hit point monsters with ever increasing damage-dealing to match. Should there be a difference between the strike or magic of a level 1 character and the strike or magic of a level 5 character? Absolutely, but I don't think that the difference should be one of pure mathematics. There are feats and specialties that could make for very interesting character progression independent of simply making class bonuses to hit.

This increasing damage/to-hit and hit points as levels increase indicates to me a trend toward the hit point grind-a-thon of previous editions. The grind-a-thon was a major part of why I stopped playing Dungeons and Dragons. To say that I dislike that would be a gross understatement of my opinion. I am much less excited now than after reading and playing the first packet because I see the return of that odious trend.
Actually, HP are talked about in numerous posts through here. And no one is in love with the new HP format. To have a Fighter start off with 12 HP and a lowly goblin hits at 1d6-1 means that if the DM gets in some great rolls, the fighter is going down in 3 hits. Not very appealing. I actually miss the minions from 4E. It was so cool to put like 8 of those things on the board along with 1 or 2 other monsters. Made the combat feel more epic.
Only complaint I have on HPs is the Wizard could stand to go to d6 instead of d4 but other than that it looks fine to me.

The first level Fighter is in real danger if facing 3 Goblins alone

I have no problem with that, in fact that is pretty much how it should be.

Damn sight better than people starting the game with 16 to 20 hps at first level

 
Only complaint I have on HPs is the Wizard could stand to go to d6 instead of d4 but other than that it looks fine to me.

The first level Fighter is in real danger if facing 3 Goblins alone

I have no problem with that, in fact that is pretty much how it should be.

Damn sight better than people starting the game with 16 to 20 hps at first level

 



I just made a Human fighter who took the Survivor speciality. Max roll'd and got a 21 HP two-hand fighter.

Is it just me, or does that seem a little much? 
Actually, HP are talked about in numerous posts through here. And no one is in love with the new HP format. To have a Fighter start off with 12 HP and a lowly goblin hits at 1d6-1 means that if the DM gets in some great rolls, the fighter is going down in 3 hits. Not very appealing. I actually miss the minions from 4E. It was so cool to put like 8 of those things on the board along with 1 or 2 other monsters. Made the combat feel more epic.


I read every post on the front page and missed it then.

I don't actually see the problem with starting out with 16-20 hit points if the higher end is not multiplicatively as high. It means that multiple levels can adventure together while power creep is kept to a minimum. I would like to see a model that used Con score as base hit points and gave a flat bonus based on level and Con modifier. Hit Dice are already random and adding complexity to the hit point totals just seems needlessly and excessively random. It doesn't make characters more interesting to have randomized hit points, random damage, and random healing.

Hit points don't define a character in any way other than how long they can last in a fight and adding a "Healing Surge" or something to fights so that hit points can be recovered in combat randomly would make it more interesting than not knowing if a 5th level fighter with Con 15 had 37 or 39 hit points.

I'll look for other threads discussing hit points though.
I've been too busy complaining about the overbearing level of boredom contained in the rules, but I heartily agree. HP way to low, should be in the 15-25 range.
...whatever
Actually, HP are talked about in numerous posts through here. And no one is in love with the new HP format. To have a Fighter start off with 12 HP and a lowly goblin hits at 1d6-1 means that if the DM gets in some great rolls, the fighter is going down in 3 hits. Not very appealing. I actually miss the minions from 4E. It was so cool to put like 8 of those things on the board along with 1 or 2 other monsters. Made the combat feel more epic.




speak for yourself

I am in love with the new HP format.
Only complaint I have on HPs is the Wizard could stand to go to d6 instead of d4 but other than that it looks fine to me.

The first level Fighter is in real danger if facing 3 Goblins alone

I have no problem with that, in fact that is pretty much how it should be.

Damn sight better than people starting the game with 16 to 20 hps at first level

 



This, exactly.  Any adventurer should be in danger when facing anything alone -- that's why you have a party!
also i'd like to point out that HP and Dmg in this edition is similer to HP and Dmg in 3.5, so i find it funny that 3.5 is one of the most highly acclaimed editions of any fantasy table top rpg while having this seemingly game breaking function.


3.x dealt with low HP just fine, i don't see why it's a problem now.

-edit-


i don't mean to start an eidition war on this, i'm only trying to illistrate my point.


but when i played 4th (by the way, i love ALL of these editions), i noticed the higher HP was really only in there to facilitate higher damage, but that it also made combat LOOOOOONg and for me, less exciting.


if they do ANYTHING, i'd rather them reduce damage output than increase HP.
i noticed the higher HP was really only in there to facilitate higher damage, but that it also made combat LOOOOOONg and for me, less exciting.


That's my point. Increasing the damage output to match the hit point mass is a bad solution to making levels matter. There are better solutions.
It wasn't a problem in 3E because everybody started play at 5th level...
...whatever
One way they can fix this is CON Stat plus max HD at first level. After that it's HD roll plus + CON bonus. Using the PC's CON stat instead of just the bonus creates nice range of HP and provides a safety net for the PC's progress through their first few levels. 

Regardless of what D&D Next (5e)'s final HP Generation mechanic is, that is how my group will be doing HP.
"We are men of action, lies do not become us" ~ D.P.R.
It wasn't a problem in 3E because everybody started play at 5th level...




thats funny, i didn't.
I think the first playtest had a smarter hp progression.  I don't recall seeing any complaints about it and plenty of total party kill threads and 'help, my wizard is too squishy' threads even with more hp.  Front loading hp keeps level 1 play interesting.  Tagging a Con bonus onto every level instead leads to a widening hp gap over 20 levels that becomes frustrating.  In 1e they realised this and capped con bonuses at levels 9-11 before moving on to low fixed hp each level.

Some people are so set against rolling for hp that I think the first playtest posted a problem in that a high con score never helped fighters earn more hp.  However, I think some may have overlooked that the Con bonus boosted hp restored through healing - possibly because low level PCs didn't have many hit dice to spend.  

I'm not sure what the right balance is but I've always preferred to roll and I have no problem if a wizard with Con18 gets 4hp every level because he's earned those hp by weakening his other saves.  Overall, i prefer the first playtest's system.
The ratio between monster damage and PC hit points appears relatively on par with 4th edition, post MM 1. I don't recall even some of the tougher characters taking more than around three hits before dire need of healing (as both DM and player). Looking at the actual monsters, they seem to have accounted for the lower PC hit points, and even what appears to be lower PC AC. It wont be until I can play with these numbers that I'll really be sure though.

As for increased PC damage, the change to the Rogue makes sense when considering action cost, playing with the previous playtest, I found trading an action, basicly a whole round for just a d6 damage (and thus losing the static bonus of another attack) at first level seemed underwhelming. 

Over all, damage increases seemed to have accompanied damage decreases, such as in the case of the fighter. And other areas, such as minor spells, seemed to have only recieved decreases.

I wont say our HP problems have been solved, especially having not playtested the second package, but I do see some consistant thinking in the changes, and I do prefer the smaller HP and damage numbers for easier, speedier math in game. That last point is especially true if damage and hit points will be one of the distinguishing factors between levels.
He who should not speak...
It wasn't a problem in 3E because everybody started play at 5th level...

This.  Or 3rd, at least.

Even if the fighter isn't fighting the goblins alone, if they win initiative and focus fire, he could go down easily.  Or, 5 goblins is an "average" encounter for 4 PCs.  Again, if they win initiative and focus fire, with a reasonable amount of luck they could take down 2 characters--probably not, but possibly, including the fighter, but easily the cleric and the rogue.

"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday Book  
The Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.

It wasn't a problem in 3E because everybody started play at 5th level...

This.  Or 3rd, at least.

Even if the fighter isn't fighting the goblins alone, if they win initiative and focus fire, he could go down easily.  Or, 5 goblins is an "average" encounter for 4 PCs.  Again, if they win initiative and focus fire, with a reasonable amount of luck they could take down 2 characters--probably not, but possibly, including the fighter, but easily the cleric and the rogue.




it's up to the DM to decide tactics, but it's generally known that FF tactics will always kill and generally suck.
I am in love with the new HP format.

And it's not really a new HP format.  It's a lot like the origianl 1E D&D format for HPs. (and back then you had to roll for HP at first level; nothing quite like starting off with 1HP as a fighter...)

Only complaint I have on HPs is the Wizard could stand to go to d6 instead of d4 but other than that it looks fine to me.

The first level Fighter is in real danger if facing 3 Goblins alone

I have no problem with that, in fact that is pretty much how it should be.

Damn sight better than people starting the game with 16 to 20 hps at first level

 



This, exactly.  Any adventurer should be in danger when facing anything alone -- that's why you have a party!




This is bad for the hobby as a whole. Sometimes you're lucky to get one other person to play with. The game should be playable solo.

It wasn't a problem in 3E because everybody started play at 5th level...

This.  Or 3rd, at least.

Even if the fighter isn't fighting the goblins alone, if they win initiative and focus fire, he could go down easily.  Or, 5 goblins is an "average" encounter for 4 PCs.  Again, if they win initiative and focus fire, with a reasonable amount of luck they could take down 2 characters--probably not, but possibly, including the fighter, but easily the cleric and the rogue.




it's up to the DM to decide tactics, but it's generally known that FF tactics will always kill and generally suck.

Which is exactly why it's so difficult to justify not using those tactics when the monsters have some intelligence, especially considering that the players are probably going to be exploiting focus fire constantly. And why it's useful for PC's to have control abilities that can prevent enemy focus fire, because that means the DM isn't forced to play monsters below their Int to kill from killing players constantly (unless you go for that kind of game).

Only complaint I have on HPs is the Wizard could stand to go to d6 instead of d4 but other than that it looks fine to me.

The first level Fighter is in real danger if facing 3 Goblins alone

I have no problem with that, in fact that is pretty much how it should be.

Damn sight better than people starting the game with 16 to 20 hps at first level

 



This, exactly.  Any adventurer should be in danger when facing anything alone -- that's why you have a party!




This is bad for the hobby as a whole. Sometimes you're lucky to get one other person to play with. The game should be playable solo.




Well then in that case you hire NPCs for protection

That's tedious, and doesn't really match a lot of the fantasy literature out there.


And realistically, the NPC is going to say "To hell with this, I'm not getting paid enough to be a meat shield"


That's tedious, and doesn't really match a lot of the fantasy literature out there.


And realistically, the NPC is going to say "To hell with this, I'm not getting paid enough to be a meat shield"



Well it doesn't necessarily have to be tedious, and as to the literature, I really can't think of any classic fantasy stories where someone was going solo that was entirely new to combat that didn't get whupped their first few times around the block, though maybe I just have a bad memory.  The last is a very good point though .  One could always fashion an npc party at low levels, but I suppose that could be too easily turned into a bad case of overpowered DMPCs.  Either way the best option seems to be varying the amounts of starting HP to accomodate for different playstyles.
This is bad for the hobby as a whole. Sometimes you're lucky to get one other person to play with. The game should be playable solo.

But what seperates games like D&D from the rest is that they are social games designed for a group of players.  To be frank, if you want a solo or 2-player game you may want to find a video game or something like Magic or the new Dungeon Command minis game.

This is bad for the hobby as a whole. Sometimes you're lucky to get one other person to play with. The game should be playable solo.

But what seperates games like D&D from the rest is that they are social games designed for a group of players.  To be frank, if you want a solo or 2-player game you may want to find a video game or something like Magic or the new Dungeon Command minis game.




or Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition.

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
or Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition.


Ooohhhhh, shiney! Me want...
or Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition.


Ooohhhhh, shiney! Me want...



I KNOW. I was running through with gog.com's version, but when I heard that the enhanced edition was coming out, I put that on pause. I checked out the site at the beginning of the week, and apparently, they're also working on BGII. I preordered it yesterday. 

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
This is bad for the hobby as a whole. Sometimes you're lucky to get one other person to play with. The game should be playable solo.

But what seperates games like D&D from the rest is that they are social games designed for a group of players.  To be frank, if you want a solo or 2-player game you may want to find a video game or something like Magic or the new Dungeon Command minis game.





1 player and 1 DM is all you need. You only need 2 people for social interaction.

One way they can fix this is CON Stat plus max HD at first level. After that it's HD roll plus + CON bonus. Using the PC's CON stat instead of just the bonus creates nice range of HP and provides a safety net for the PC's progress through their first few levels. 

Regardless of what D&D Next final HP Generation mechanic is, this is what my group will be doing.  


THIS.  I have to say, the starting HP being a little higher (AKA "Front Loading") was one of the big things both of my playtest groups liked/enjoyed.  NOW starting characters are weaker.  It was easy enough for clever & cunning monsters to TPK an adventuring party before, even easier now...  Also, the CON stat needs to be a factor to HP in Level advancement, even if they do it like this: score of 12 -14 = +1HP/LV 15 & above = +2.  There.  Not a huge bonus but enough to make the CON score matter other than for Hit Die Healing, Fortitude-Type saving throws (Like Poison), athletic endurance & some skills.  The CON Stat: an ability score that can benefit ANY character... "Not just for fighters anymore!"  (heheh- wink)

Edit: maybe just give all classes an extra 4HP & Max Hit Die at LV1; would be a moderate compromise and improve the survivability of the LV1 characters.  Just my 2CP
I think it's fine and adds some danger back to the game. In my PlayTest 1 my group got sucked into 3 encounters back-to-back, including the Ogre and triumphed without a death. They seemed almost invicible!

ACs for the heavier armours has increased and monster attack bonuses seem to have all dropped around 2 points so the frontliners are less likely to get hurt now.

The Wizard at the back does have a low HP score now but with the return of OA and signs of abilities to block movement or interpose he's easier to keep safe.

Monsters have also lost health so will die faster, giving them less potential damage output per fight (many lost AC too).

At most Wizards could use 1-2 more health to make L1 a bit less "binary"
Only complaint I have on HPs is the Wizard could stand to go to d6 instead of d4 but other than that it looks fine to me.

The first level Fighter is in real danger if facing 3 Goblins alone

I have no problem with that, in fact that is pretty much how it should be.

Damn sight better than people starting the game with 16 to 20 hps at first level

 



I just made a Human fighter who took the Survivor speciality. Max roll'd and got a 21 HP two-hand fighter.

Is it just me, or does that seem a little much? 



Yeah, the hp chart should look more like this:

fighter - con mod + 4
cleric - con mod + 3
rogue - con mod + 2
wizard - con mod + 1

That way the max hp you get to start out with is 9 for a fighter and 6 for a wizard. No more of this going toe to toe with monsters. Your meant to sneak in steal their treasure, ambush them one by one as they go off to relieve themselves at least until level 10 or so when you can maybe go toe to toe if you first set up an ambush and 5mwd the casters...

You are all weak sauce...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
This is bad for the hobby as a whole. Sometimes you're lucky to get one other person to play with. The game should be playable solo.

But what seperates games like D&D from the rest is that they are social games designed for a group of players.  To be frank, if you want a solo or 2-player game you may want to find a video game or something like Magic or the new Dungeon Command minis game.





1 player and 1 DM is all you need. You only need 2 people for social interaction.


Yes, 2 people is going to be the minimum (although rules have been created for solo play), but it's not going to be optimal. D&D is designed for a bigger group than that.  It's kind of like Monopoly; you can play it with 2 players if you really want, just don't expect it to be as much fun as if you were playing with 4 people.

I think it's fine and adds some danger back to the game.

I agree.  It's one of the nice things about making character cretion easier; your character dies and you can roll up a new one and get back in the game in half an hour or so.
Only complaint I have on HPs is the Wizard could stand to go to d6 instead of d4 but other than that it looks fine to me.

The first level Fighter is in real danger if facing 3 Goblins alone

I have no problem with that, in fact that is pretty much how it should be.

Damn sight better than people starting the game with 16 to 20 hps at first level

 



I just made a Human fighter who took the Survivor speciality. Max roll'd and got a 21 HP two-hand fighter.

Is it just me, or does that seem a little much? 



Yeah, the hp chart should look more like this:

fighter - con mod + 4
cleric - con mod + 3
rogue - con mod + 2
wizard - con mod + 1

That way the max hp you get to start out with is 9 for a fighter and 6 for a wizard. No more of this going toe to toe with monsters. Your meant to sneak in steal their treasure, ambush them one by one as they go off to relieve themselves at least until level 10 or so when you can maybe go toe to toe if you first set up an ambush and 5mwd the casters...

You are all weak sauce...



Because everyone just dreams of being a mook we need to make it even more obvious
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I liked the bigger HP starting pools in 4E althought I didn't like other things.
I never liked too small starting HP - they tend to let have players (expecially new ones) less fun when approaching the game at first levels.

Thus, when I see the low 2ND playtest pools, I went quite sad.

should they make an option module to increase starting HP ?
really, some DM d20 killer rolls may create some frustration to player (and tends to create the myth of "there's an owlbear behind the door")

ps. after a few fight we started with CON + full hit die, and players were bit more happy to resume gaming.
I'm really confused. Have some of you just never played 3.5 before? Because 3.5 (and 3e, and AD&D 2nd Edition, etc) had very similar HP at lvl 1 and very similar damage at lvl 1. In fact, it's *only* 4e that doesn't have this. A wizard was expected to have somewhere between 2 and 6 hp at lvl 1. A fighter, 5 to 9 was average (unless you gave them max HP at first lvl, which generally gave them 13 hp at most). And the damage dice from monsters have pretty much been the same. 1d6+1, 1d6, 1d6-1. Somewhere in there. Anything with a longsword had 1d8+/-1. Guess what? One stray hit could down (and in earlier editions, kill) a wizard. 3 hits were plenty to down a fighter. It's nothing new, so why is everyone up in arms about it?
I'm really confused. Have some of you just never played 3.5 before? Because 3.5 (and 3e, and AD&D 2nd Edition, etc) had very similar HP at lvl 1 and very similar damage at lvl 1. In fact, it's *only* 4e that doesn't have this. A wizard was expected to have somewhere between 2 and 6 hp at lvl 1. A fighter, 5 to 9 was average (unless you gave them max HP at first lvl, which generally gave them 13 hp at most). And the damage dice from monsters have pretty much been the same. 1d6+1, 1d6, 1d6-1. Somewhere in there. Anything with a longsword had 1d8+/-1. Guess what? One stray hit could down (and in earlier editions, kill) a wizard. 3 hits were plenty to down a fighter. It's nothing new, so why is everyone up in arms about it?

maybe someone just started playing at 4e     : ]
I'm really confused. Have some of you just never played 3.5 before? Because 3.5 (and 3e, and AD&D 2nd Edition, etc) had very similar HP at lvl 1 and very similar damage at lvl 1. In fact, it's *only* 4e that doesn't have this.

I agree.  I happen to like this throw-back to the days when first level characters were not considered to already be walking some wonderous path to an epic destiny of awesomeness.  Low level characters used to die... a lot. And often in amusing ways.  It's OK; it takes about half an hour to roll up a new character and get back into the game.  We used to play 2 characters each during low level adventures so you could continue the game if one of them died quickly.

I think it's fine and adds some danger back to the game.

I agree.  It's one of the nice things about making character cretion easier; your character dies and you can roll up a new one and get back in the game in half an hour or so.



What about the narrative effort to get the character back into the party? I mean, unless you're playing with the Gamers ("I see your party has no wizard." "You seem trustworthy. Will you join us?") I simply can't see how the ability to rapidly replace characters has any value.

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
I'm really confused. Have some of you just never played 3.5 before? Because 3.5 (and 3e, and AD&D 2nd Edition, etc) had very similar HP at lvl 1 and very similar damage at lvl 1. In fact, it's *only* 4e that doesn't have this.

I agree.  I happen to like this throw-back to the days when first level characters were not considered to already be walking some wonderous path to an epic destiny of awesomeness.  Low level characters used to die... a lot. And often in amusing ways.  It's OK; it takes about half an hour to roll up a new character and get back into the game.  We used to play 2 characters each during low level adventures so you could continue the game if one of them died quickly.




A lot of us do remember, and will never go back to it.  Not everyone likes Fantasy Vietnam.

-Polaris
8 Con wizards should be able to barely survive 1 crit.
Fighers should survive ~3 hits.

Assuming starting damage at 1d8+2 (golbin), that puts starting HP between 9 and 20.

Or con score + 1 hit die.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.