ratio level 1 hp to level 1 damage

In general I agree that first level hitpoints being lower in the second playtest is a semi-horrible idea.

With this system two out of three players took survivor and the third player watched two fights after being one-shot dropped in the first action.  Both times by someone weilding a hand crossbow.

Perhaps this also just stresses the absolute need for a healing cleric in the party since that's recoverable with a cleric.

But having to always have a cleric or to force everyone to take survivor limits the options a bit.  (it may help when taking survivor is not an every 2 levels toughness but when it is more open)

Now let's look at damage potential vs hp.

A fighter survivalist could have 19 hp  (22 with rolling)

A sneak attack from a katana (or halfling with sling/short sword) will do d8+4 + 2d6 (7-24) and could drop the toughest level 1 character in the game.

A fighter with a 2 handed weapon can do almost as much without the sneak 2d6 + 4 + d6 expertise.  7-22 will also drop the toughest character.

Any of the pregens can be dropped by:
eldritch blast of 3d6
sneak attack of d8 +4 + 2d6
THF fighter 2d6+4 + d6
THF sorcerer with 2d6 + 4 + 2 (dragon out of willpower claws)
searing light or inflict light wounds of 3d8

(most can even be dropped by the wizards burning hands 4d4 or shocking grasp d8+4)
because the idea is for players to not be undefeatable immortals at 1st level.
as a first level adventurer, you have only just mastered your craft and are just now venturing out into the wilds.
the idea is that as you gain experience through your battles and your travels, you develop yourself and your skills.
I see no problem with any of the problems the OP brings up. Being able to be killed by an attack that is designed to kill you is not a problem. 

Wanting a 1st level character to be superman is. 
Just finished a play test last night. One dwarf fighter and human cleric, we fought 4encounter, each had two gnolls making the first three fights "tough" for our level. Then the last fight was 4 gnolls. We moped the floor, not taking any damage untill the last fight. We stealth and got a surprise round in every fight except the last, so using tactics and your head matters, which is apps for the game. Inthe last fight, dwarf almost went down twice, but clerical healing kept me alive (I did have toughness for the dwarf but it didn't matter cause the clic was going right after me, so even if I went down without those extra HPs the cleric would have brought back right away, so it didn't really help much, tis time). 

After the game, cleric had used up her two spells, but still had one channel divinity left.  We did pretty awesome but we were lucky, getting crits and surprise a lot. If the earlyt three fights did not go so well we would have been in trouble for the last fight. Then again, this was abit above our challenge rating. The xp we got was 1800 each, which almost leveld us to level three. 

So, I would say its not so bad. You can die if your not careful, you have to think about what you are doing, and not just charge into rooms. If I had played the human rogue I made, we would have had different tactics. More hit and run, to lure them into a trap, things  like that. Also, it seems youwill level pretty fast, so you won't be this vulnerable for long. My dwarf now has 27 instead of 17 HPs and the cleric has 17 instead of 10 with an extra heal spell. So I think next session we should be good to go. If we were fighting more level appropriatemonsters such as kobolds and goblins, the risk of being killed would have been much lower as they only do about d6-1 damage instead of the gnolls 1d8+2/6. 

The original posts shows that a p v p would be like rocket tag, but that is not really in the spirit of the game. If players want p v p in their game that's fine, but p v p fights are going to new a lot different from fighting a band of kobolds by the nature of all the pc special abilities.
In general I agree that first level hitpoints being lower in the second playtest is a semi-horrible idea.

With this system two out of three players took survivor and the third player watched two fights after being one-shot dropped in the first action.  Both times by someone weilding a hand crossbow.

Perhaps this also just stresses the absolute need for a healing cleric in the party since that's recoverable with a cleric.

But having to always have a cleric or to force everyone to take survivor limits the options a bit.  (it may help when taking survivor is not an every 2 levels toughness but when it is more open)

Now let's look at damage potential vs hp.

A fighter survivalist could have 19 hp  (22 with rolling)

A sneak attack from a katana (or halfling with sling/short sword) will do d8+4 + 2d6 (7-24) and could drop the toughest level 1 character in the game.

A fighter with a 2 handed weapon can do almost as much without the sneak 2d6 + 4 + d6 expertise.  7-22 will also drop the toughest character.

Any of the pregens can be dropped by:
eldritch blast of 3d6
sneak attack of d8 +4 + 2d6
THF fighter 2d6+4 + d6
THF sorcerer with 2d6 + 4 + 2 (dragon out of willpower claws)
searing light or inflict light wounds of 3d8

(most can even be dropped by the wizards burning hands 4d4 or shocking grasp d8+4)

This idea is VERY insistant on being thrown around. One of the important considerations is that the enemies you are supposed to be fighting aren't built like you. They are built without the BAB and MAB that player characters get. They're far less accurate at the same level as a whole. Add to this that you will not see a level 1 warlock PC as a 'level 1' monster because they do far too much damage to fit in to that slot. They should most likely sit as a lvl 2 or higher monster regardless of level. Maybe just mark Player Character style NPCs/monsters as a level higher then they are for XP and what not.

The party is designed to fight groups of goblins and kobolds, not groups like themselves. 
because the idea is for players to not be undefeatable immortals at 1st level.
as a first level adventurer, you have only just mastered your craft and are just now venturing out into the wilds.
the idea is that as you gain experience through your battles and your travels, you develop yourself and your skills.



I see no problem with any of the problems the OP brings up. Being able to be killed by an attack that is designed to kill you is not a problem. 

Wanting a 1st level character to be superman is. 

The real starting level for 75+% of all 2e and 3e games was actually somewhere between 3rd and 6th level.  Very few people (pretty much just people like those that commented above) actually wanted to play at level 1 because of how obnoxiously swingy it was.  Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with danger--I want the game to be dangerous, but people should get at least one strike before they're out.

So, yeah, if they're going to keep the HP that low so a single attack can take you out, that's fine, but they need to somehow change the default assumption about starting level from 1st to at least 3rd. 

Every PC should be able to suvive 1 crit from an at-level monster.

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.

Every PC should be able to suvive 1 crit from an at-level monster.




As long as the crit dos not take the wizard to negative con score and some one can heal him or he passes three saves, he will live. Crit is pointless unless it is scary, and wizards have no business being in the front ranks, taking crits any way. In the play test I did the cleric did not get attacked once cause the fighter was always in front of her, and she just used radiant lance, or whatever it is. Working together and using tactics goes along way. (and a goblin crit would be 5 HPs by the way, do a wizard with +2 con would survive a crit from a goblin. Just not form something bigger and tougher) 
Wizards don't need to be in front to be hit. Even standing behind the fighter, they are the best target to shoot at (lowest AC by far). And if your a wizard, your forcing someone else to play a cleric, which shouldn't happen.

And crit's arn't scary. Goblins will do 8 damage, not 5.

It's not like i'm campaigning for 20 hits, just the ability to stay standing after 1.

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.

As the player of a 1st Level Wizard who was 2-shot under the negative threshold by a regular hit followed by a crit, both in the same round, I will say the cleric is irrelevant to the equation.  The Wizard hp are too low, end of story.  Asking for say, 5 more at 1st level for all classes isn't asking for a superhero either.  In fact, I see no one asking for a superhero.  What I see is that characters are glass cannons and monsters are all crosseyed.  The balance is off, and the gameplay proves it, and it needs to be adjusted.  When a warlock can do 3d6 damage every round but have under 10 hp, that's imbalance.  Bring damages down for players and monsters, bring attack up for monsters, and hp up for players, slight increase in hp for monsters too.  If the goal is one-shotting monsters, just bring back minions.  If the goal is one-shotting players at 1st level, no need for a fix.  Keep as is.
As the player of a 1st Level Wizard who was 2-shot under the negative threshold by a regular hit followed by a crit, both in the same round, I will say the cleric is irrelevant to the equation.  The Wizard hp are too low, end of story.  Asking for say, 5 more at 1st level for all classes isn't asking for a superhero either.  In fact, I see no one asking for a superhero.  What I see is that characters are glass cannons and monsters are all crosseyed.  The balance is off, and the gameplay proves it, and it needs to be adjusted.  When a warlock can do 3d6 damage every round but have under 10 hp, that's imbalance.  Bring damages down for players and monsters, bring attack up for monsters, and hp up for players, slight increase in hp for monsters too.  If the goal is one-shotting monsters, just bring back minions.  If the goal is one-shotting players at 1st level, no need for a fix.  Keep as is.

There is definitely a need for extra HPs for some campaigns, that's for sure...

But in your scenario, 5 HPs isn't going to cut it.

Wizards with 10 or 11 HPs will still be in danger after a hit + crit (average goblin still kills the wizard).

Wizards will still be inferior to other classes so Priority #1 for those DMs who prioritize killing the weak.

At level 3, Wizards will have 16 or 17.... Raging Orc rolls a Crit... still a 1 shot... regular orc rolls a hit followed by crit... still dead.

If you want Wizards to be able to survive hit + crit combos at-level, they will need AT LEAST +10 HPs and D6 (+4) per level.  Minimum.

By level 6, Wizards will need to be able to withstand an average of 29 Damage in a round (Bugbears).

If you are playing in a game where the DM justifies attacking your character over the rest of the party by telling you that you are the easiest to target or that you are the most dangerous in the group, you need to have a long talk with the guy. 

Having creatures with tiny brains knowing that the guy in the back wearing the dress is the big bad wizard is just wrong. Perhaps after that same wizard flattens a whole lot of them, they might come to the realization that the guy in the dress might be the guy to take out, but that would be after he did the damage not before. That kind of meta-game thinking on the part of the DM is the reason people don't want DM's in charge of their games.

I for one would be looking for another game where the guy behind the screen isn't such a jerk.

Who can have fun at the table when they know that one round into a fight he's going to be damn close to pushing up daisies.  

If any of you DMs who do this are reading these boards shame on you.
If you are playing in a game where the DM justifies attacking your character over the rest of the party by telling you that you are the easiest to target or that you are the most dangerous in the group, you need to have a long talk with the guy. 

Having creatures with tiny brains knowing that the guy in the back wearing the dress is the big bad wizard is just wrong. Perhaps after that same wizard flattens a whole lot of them, they might come to the realization that the guy in the dress might be the guy to take out, but that would be after he did the damage not before. That kind of meta-game thinking on the part of the DM is the reason people don't want DM's in charge of their games.

I for one would be looking for another game where the guy behind the screen isn't such a jerk.

Who can have fun at the table when they know that one round into a fight he's going to be damn close to pushing up daisies.  

If any of you DMs who do this are reading these boards shame on you.




THIS.... this is what I've been trying to explain, and was put out there concisely and elegantly, thank you.

That said I do have one particular race that is KNOWN for using such tactics, and they scare off entire villages.... Hobgoblins.  They are military all the way down to their children, and everything is about war and strategy. They frequently Focus Fire and frequently try to drop the clothies and holy symbols first. This is why I don't even use them in at level battles. Their tactics are too dangerous in my game world to consider them at-level there. Instead I give an xp bonus for the challenge of fighting a well trained military unit and living through it (even if they don't win). When you have a group that listens to the orders of 1 or 2 people at a time and flow like a properly trained military elite unit, guess what?  They drop people quickly. 
to me the minimum Hp a first level character should have in this playtest would be 8.
becouse the max damage of a non elite 1st level monster ion the beastery is 7

so in a 1V1 fight where no side is suprised the player will at leat get 1 action before hitting 0 HP.

so the con 10 wizard with 4 Hp comes up 4 hp short.

 
In my scenario, the wizards survives at least a hit or two *if* you mod the rest of the attack stats too.  Can't just add HP to fix it, have to adjust everything towards a midline, as I pictured it.  I don't mind wizards being weaker, but they lose fights to housecats again, which is nottasogud.

My ideal fix is that starting characters get Con stat in HP, and level with the traditional HD values.  Base around that, balance around that.  The low end scale as it exists is too constrained to be workable.  The range of damage expressions is too microscopic.  While I don't need a huge sack of hp, I think there's more room to play with powers that way.  Then monsters can be dangerous again with hitting more often for less damage per hit.  Single digit HP is too old school to start with, in my book.  AT least the way they have things scaled right now.

If you are playing in a game where the DM justifies attacking your character over the rest of the party by telling you that you are the easiest to target or that you are the most dangerous in the group, you need to have a long talk with the guy. 

Having creatures with tiny brains knowing that the guy in the back wearing the dress is the big bad wizard is just wrong. Perhaps after that same wizard flattens a whole lot of them, they might come to the realization that the guy in the dress might be the guy to take out, but that would be after he did the damage not before. That kind of meta-game thinking on the part of the DM is the reason people don't want DM's in charge of their games.

I for one would be looking for another game where the guy behind the screen isn't such a jerk.

Who can have fun at the table when they know that one round into a fight he's going to be damn close to pushing up daisies.  

If any of you DMs who do this are reading these boards shame on you.



THIS.... this is what I've been trying to explain, and was put out there concisely and elegantly, thank you.

That said I do have one particular race that is KNOWN for using such tactics, and they scare off entire villages.... Hobgoblins.  They are military all the way down to their children, and everything is about war and strategy. They frequently Focus Fire and frequently try to drop the clothies and holy symbols first. This is why I don't even use them in at level battles. Their tactics are too dangerous in my game world to consider them at-level there. Instead I give an xp bonus for the challenge of fighting a well trained military unit and living through it (even if they don't win). When you have a group that listens to the orders of 1 or 2 people at a time and flow like a properly trained military elite unit, guess what?  They drop people quickly. 



and on that, the wizard in the party got attacked by about 4 hobgoblins in a room in the caves of chaos. because he ran in and cast burning hands on the lot. so not only did they know he was able to do that, he also
killed 4 of them and knocked the rest down to bloodied



And on that, the wizard in the party got attacked by about 4 hobgoblins in a room in the caves of chaos, because he ran in and cast burning hands on the lot. So not only did they know he was able to do that, he also killed 4 of them and knocked the rest down to half of their hit points. 




And that's when you kill the wizard. He's fair game then. If he's unarmored and has 6 hit points why in the hells is he in front using a burning hands spell?

I really believe that a mage armor spell is needed. I can understand how some players want to get in on the fun when the fighting starts. I have a hard time understsnding why people insist on playing the hardest character in the game to keep alive, like they're Rambo.

What's worse is that they have the gall to complain like it's someone elses fault. I really don't have a lot of sympathy for that kind of insanity at the table.

@Tlantl, I am 100% with you on DMing style, but you have to let others play the way they see it... and according to at least a couple of DMs here, their players would be aghast to think that the DM wasn't trying his or her best to TPK them every encounter.  The DM's job, in some groups, is to do their best within an encounter to "win" it.  That's part of the fun and challenge.  As long as everyone is enjoying the sessions and campaigns, who are we to judge?

But, yeah, I don't play that way myself and I often try to offer different viewpoints, roleplay, and options to those who are struggling with too many deaths.

@edwin_su & Thraxiss: That's great, but it won't be enough... trust me.  Yes, the Wizard suddenly isn't getting 1-shot at level 1.  Great.  But not good enough.  First, Wizards aren't getting attacked once by DMs who consider them Priority #1... they are getting full formation alpha struck.  10 Kobolds who all recognize him for what he is, take turns until he's not just dying, but dead (can't let that Cleric get him back to do damage).  If he gets hit half the time for average damage, that's about 17 damage.  He needs to survive that.

Now if you are in a DM isn't trying to kill the mage campaign, then that odd shot that might knock down the mage at worst results in seeing the blessed cleric to revive him heroicly... it's a wonderful thing.

But, again, I think starting low and giving options to go higher is better... why?  Because if you are a DM that think PCs need to be stronger, you gift them the new HP rules and they rejoice... "We love the DM!  He's so nice!"  If you start HPs high and the DM goes, wow, they'll never even break a sweat or get near death, I need to go old school.... the players go, "what?!? you jerk! every time I even get close to dying or dying I am going to give you the evil eye and point to the core rules saying I should never have even been bloodied!"

Let tough combat DMs boost to keep players alive.  Let DMs who want players to have it easy give them a boost to make them happy.  Don't make the old school guys who know how to balance HPs and roleplay scenarios to challenge but not kill look like meanies for lowering HPs.

My 2 cents anyway... 
If you are playing in a game where the DM justifies attacking your character over the rest of the party by telling you that you are the easiest to target or that you are the most dangerous in the group, you need to have a long talk with the guy. 

Having creatures with tiny brains knowing that the guy in the back wearing the dress is the big bad wizard is just wrong. Perhaps after that same wizard flattens a whole lot of them, they might come to the realization that the guy in the dress might be the guy to take out, but that would be after he did the damage not before. That kind of meta-game thinking on the part of the DM is the reason people don't want DM's in charge of their games.

I for one would be looking for another game where the guy behind the screen isn't such a jerk.

Who can have fun at the table when they know that one round into a fight he's going to be damn close to pushing up daisies.  

If any of you DMs who do this are reading these boards shame on you.



THIS.... this is what I've been trying to explain, and was put out there concisely and elegantly, thank you.

That said I do have one particular race that is KNOWN for using such tactics, and they scare off entire villages.... Hobgoblins.  They are military all the way down to their children, and everything is about war and strategy. They frequently Focus Fire and frequently try to drop the clothies and holy symbols first. This is why I don't even use them in at level battles. Their tactics are too dangerous in my game world to consider them at-level there. Instead I give an xp bonus for the challenge of fighting a well trained military unit and living through it (even if they don't win). When you have a group that listens to the orders of 1 or 2 people at a time and flow like a properly trained military elite unit, guess what?  They drop people quickly. 



and on that, the wizard in the party got attacked by about 4 hobgoblins in a room in the caves of chaos. because he ran in and cast burning hands on the lot. so not only did they know he was able to do that, he also
killed 4 of them and knocked the rest down to bloodied




That's his own damned fault. A wizard should be far more intelligent than to rush in like that unless they have a quick escape prepared. This is reflected in the character's stats, even, by insisting that they have high int.


Let me 'fix' this, looking at it from my perspective.
 
If you are playing in a game where the DM justifies attacking your character over the rest of the party by telling you that you are the easiest to target or that you are the most dangerous in the group, you need to have a long talk with the guy.

LOL I'd say 'If you are playing in a game where the DM justifies NOT attacking your character over the rest of the party by telling you that you are the easiest to target or that you are the most dangerous in the group,he's attacking a stronger, tougher character and decreasing the chances the monster will survive the fight, you need to have a long talk with the guy. Undecided

Having creatures with tiny brains knowing that the guy in the back wearing the dress is the big bad wizard is just wrong. Perhaps after that same wizard flattens a whole lot of them, they might come to the realization that the guy in the dress might be the guy to take out, but that would be after he did the damage not before. That kind of meta-game thinking on the part of the DM is the reason people don't want DM's in charge of their games.

'Having creatures with tiny brains knowing that the guy in the back wearing the dress is the big bad wizard is the easiest target to hit and kill is just wrong100% rightPerhaps after that same wizard flattens a whole lot of them, they might come to the realization that the guy in the dress might be the guy to take out, but that would be after he did the damage not before. Being a caster in meaningless in targeting, it's all about increasing the monsters chance of making it out of the encounter alive. Thinking otherwise is a That kind of meta-game thinking on the part of the DM is the reason people don't want DM's in charge of their games

I for one would be looking for another game where the guy behind the screen isn't such a jerk.

Who can have fun at the table when they know that one round into a fight he's going to be damn close to pushing up daisies.  Who would want to play a game where the only reason I survive is because the DM goes out of his way to LET me live.

So what I'm hearing from Tlantl is 'If any of you DMs who do don't play my way I do and are reading these boards shame on you.'


Ok although I understand that there are two sides on this coin, I kind of lean towards Tlantl's approach.

Like, think about it.

The party enters a cave and the kobolds see in front of them:
A dwarf fighter with blood dripping from his axe.
A sun cleric radiating light from his shield.
Also they thought they saw a shadow darting behind some barrels.
And finally, a robe wearing-squishy elf, possibly not even carrying a weapon...

Hmmm...I know it is just my style, but from my viewpoint the current threat for them would possibly be the fighter or cleric.
We are talking instincts here not strategic thinking over a chess board!

Conversation between two kobold guards:
-The squishy elf IS easier to hit and kill! Target him!
-Until he shows some power- who cares??     Look at the bloodthirsty fighter charging our way!!! Mommy...
-But the squishy elf can be one shot and be over with!!
-Again who cares?? The dwarf has already killed half of our tribe and we are talking about the possibility that MAYBE the elf has an ace up his sleeve?

In the same logic, what if the robe wearing elf was a simple npc the players had to protect and actually just stood back and dodged every round out of sheer fear?
Does it still make sense to go after him first?


@edwin_su & Thraxiss: That's great, but it won't be enough... trust me.  Yes, the Wizard suddenly isn't getting 1-shot at level 1.  Great.  But not good enough.  First, Wizards aren't getting attacked once by DMs who consider them Priority #1... they are getting full formation alpha struck.  10 Kobolds who all recognize him for what he is, take turns until he's not just dying, but dead (can't let that Cleric get him back to do damage).  If he gets hit half the time for average damage, that's about 17 damage.  He needs to survive that.




I blame the focus fire alpha strike more so on cleric healing. I for one, think that when you get knocked out, you should be out of the combat, for exactly the reason you mention.

It's generally okay for a PC to drop, but it's not okay for the PC to die.

If dropped characters are still considered valid targets (because of combat healing), that's a problem if you ask me, because the optimal NPC tactic generally becomes to work at straight up killing off PCs. I think it's much better ot just set it up where a dropped PC can't be brought back to combat. You can heal him, but he won't regain consciousness until after a short rest. That way, there's no longer a strategic need to outright kill a PC and its tactically more efficient to choose another target.
I blame the focus fire alpha strike more so on cleric healing. I for one, think that when you get knocked out, you should be out of the combat, for exactly the reason you mention.

It's generally okay for a PC to drop, but it's not okay for the PC to die.

If dropped characters are still considered valid targets (because of combat healing), that's a problem if you ask me, because the optimal NPC tactic generally becomes to work at straight up killing off PCs. I think it's much better ot just set it up where a dropped PC can't be brought back to combat. You can heal him, but he won't regain consciousness until after a short rest. That way, there's no longer a strategic need to outright kill a PC and its tactically more efficient to choose another target.

You know, that's actually quite interesting.  I don't need it for my campaigns because I tend to leave the dying, well, dying, but I think it's an excellent suggestion and (optional) rule to use for DMs who believe that killing PCs is the only solution.
Why do people assume the wizard looks innocent?

If an axe has blood dripping from it, Why doesn't the wizard have lightning dripping from his spell book? If the cleric has a glowing shield, why wouldn't the wizard have glowing runes? And if the rogue is hiding in the shadows, why wouldn't otherworldly shadows play across the wizards face?

If the wizard wants to seem weak, then he should make a bluff check. And if the fighter want's to look threatening, then he should use an intimidate.

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.

Why do people assume the wizard looks innocent? If an axe has blood dripping from it, Why doesn't the wizard have lightning dripping from his spell book? If the cleric has a glowing shield, why wouldn't the wizard have glowing runes? And if the rogue is hiding in the shadows, why wouldn't otherworldly shadows play across the wizards face? If the wizard wants to seem weak, then he should make a bluff check. And if the fighter want's to look threatening, then he should use an intimidate.

heh.

You already lost me.  My clerics don't glow with a Holy Aura of Goodness.  My warriors are only as bloody as recent encounters account for.  And my Wizards don't sizzle with lightning.

You kind of contradict yourself... you say Axes have blood dripping from it, but for fighters to seem threatening, they have to intimidate... yet you point to dripping axes as a reason for wizards flashing with benign lightning and thus the reason they automatically look threatening.

Apparently, a blood dripping axe isn't enough for the fighter, but holding a spellbook makes the wizard look menacing.

It works for you, but I just don't employ the same techniques in my campaigns. 
Why do people assume the wizard looks innocent? If an axe has blood dripping from it, Why doesn't the wizard have lightning dripping from his spell book? If the cleric has a glowing shield, why wouldn't the wizard have glowing runes? And if the rogue is hiding in the shadows, why wouldn't otherworldly shadows play across the wizards face? If the wizard wants to seem weak, then he should make a bluff check. And if the fighter want's to look threatening, then he should use an intimidate.



If in my paradigm I assume the wizard looks inocent then you assume he looks guilty, hence the bluff check.
If the wizard does no spell whatsoever but actually holds back or dodges why need a bluff check?
To them he is potentially harmless.Why force a roll to bluff when his actions are purely innocent like?

Think of it this way:
What if he actually is not a wizard but rather a npc, a bookkeeper maybe holding a book.
Does he have to roll bluff to play it out as NOT being a wizard?


We are talking kobolt instincts here and whether it is a viable senario for kobold guards to aplha strike as their 1st target the robe wearing guy without them knowing his power potential!

PS: I respect the fact that everyone has his viewpoints, and I really like hearing them out. Constructive discussions is what these threads are all about.
Think of it this way:
What if he actually is not a wizard but rather a npc, a bookkeeper maybe holding a book.
Does he have to roll bluff to play it out as NOT being a wizard?

Or he can be an NPC smith holding an axe.
We are talking cobolt instincts here and whether it is a viable senario for kobold guards to aplha strike as their 1st target the robe wearing guy without them knowing his power potential!

They kill whoever looks easiest to kill.  They are not bold creatures.  They do not welcome a challenge.

Wolves do not find the elk with the biggest horns and attack it.  They attack the slowest and weakest.  Often it's the young or old who can't defend themeselves.

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.

So why is the wizard holding a book?

He doesn't need one to cast his spells. He needs it safe and secure for studying his spells out of, In fact if he doesn't plan on changing up his spells during an adventure he can leave it safe and sound in a chest in his room at the inn.

As far as I can see there are no arcane implements in the play test.

All I can really say is if you play a wizard in a game where you spend a lot of time dead, dying, or unconcious with out provoking these attacks then you're playing with a jerk. 
Wizards don't need to be in front to be hit. Even standing behind the fighter, they are the best target to shoot at (lowest AC by far). And if your a wizard, your forcing someone else to play a cleric, which shouldn't happen.

And crit's arn't scary. Goblins will do 8 damage, not 5.

It's not like i'm campaigning for 20 hits, just the ability to stay standing after 1.

Actually, having so low HPs is a very "2e style of play", when you're in low levels you're not fighting creatures that are going to attack the character way in the back because it has "the lowest AC", kobolds will simply charge at the biggest one and stay there. You'll not start fighting intelligent enemies until you hit higher levels (or are fighting a boss).
Think of it this way:
What if he actually is not a wizard but rather a npc, a bookkeeper maybe holding a book.
Does he have to roll bluff to play it out as NOT being a wizard?

Or he can be an NPC smith holding an axe.
We are talking cobolt instincts here and whether it is a viable senario for kobold guards to aplha strike as their 1st target the robe wearing guy without them knowing his power potential!

They kill whoever looks easiest to kill.  They are not bold creatures.  They do not welcome a challenge.

Wolves do not find the elk with the biggest horns and attack it.  They attack the slowest and weakest.  Often it's the young or old who can't defend themeselves.



Yes ofc he can be, and in my view he looks more of a threat than a non weapon wielding bookkeeper.

And yes targeting the weakest when going hunting is in fact a viable scenario, I like it.
The thing is, I am not talking about a kobold hunting party in my paradigm, I am talking about the pc party raiding the kobold camp in the cave.
There, if the fighter decapitates half of their family while the robe guy stands in the back dodging and keeping low, guess who they will focus on!

The hunting kobolds scenario has the kobolds attacking and ambushing with a sneaky plan, while my paradigm has them surprised and pissed off resulting in totally different reactions

And part of it still comes down to awareness for me.

Why are creatures in combat aware of everything else that's going on in combat?  Clever or not, kobolds, orcs, or goblins don't seem to miss a single detail in the chaos of combat.

Five people, two very visible, charge into a large chamber unexpectedly.  Screams and squeals, frantic movement, bad lighting, someone charging at me with an axe, man he's big! Grab my weapon, worry about survival... oh wait, what's that back there, 30 feet away, maybe half visible in those shadows?  Did I see that human grab a pinch of sand from a pouch?  Hey, behind me, two of my pals just fell asleep soon after.  Hm.  He's a wizard.  I've been trained to recognize this.  Not much armor on him, looks a bit soft under all that adventuring gear and cloak.  Wizards are always the weakest, I know this. Sure, he's much bigger than the halfing and more phyisically impossing that the elf, but... he's a wizard.  Now, how can a plan out a circuitous route towards him so I don't get attacked by anything on the way?

Wolves do not find the elk with the biggest horns and attack it.  They attack the slowest and weakest.  Often it's the young or old who can't defend themeselves.



What do the wolves do when a group of elk barge into their den and start slaughtering them?  Attack the one that came in first, probably.
And part of it still comes down to awareness for me.

Why are creatures in combat aware of everything else that's going on in combat?  Clever or not, kobolds, orcs, or goblins don't seem to miss a single detail in the chaos of combat.

Five people, two very visible, charge into a large chamber unexpectedly.  Screams and squeals, frantic movement, bad lighting, someone charging at me with an axe, man he's big! Grab my weapon, worry about survival... oh wait, what's that back there, 30 feet away, maybe half visible in those shadows?  Did I see that human grab a pinch of sand from a pouch?  Hey, behind me, two of my pals just fell asleep soon after.  Hm.  He's a wizard.  I've been trained to recognize this.  Not much armor on him, looks a bit soft under all that adventuring gear and cloak.  Wizards are always the weakest, I know this. Sure, he's much bigger than the halfing and more phyisically impossing that the elf, but... he's a wizard.  Now, how can a plan out a circuitous route towards him so I don't get attacked by anything on the way?



Seems legit!

Seems legit!

Tongue Out

Don't you have elk to slay or run away from or something? Surprised

And part of it still comes down to awareness for me.

Why are creatures in combat aware of everything else that's going on in combat?  Clever or not, kobolds, orcs, or goblins don't seem to miss a single detail in the chaos of combat.

Five people, two very visible, charge into a large chamber unexpectedly.  Screams and squeals, frantic movement, bad lighting, someone charging at me with an axe, man he's big! Grab my weapon, worry about survival... oh wait, what's that back there, 30 feet away, maybe half visible in those shadows?  Did I see that human grab a pinch of sand from a pouch?  Hey, behind me, two of my pals just fell asleep soon after.  Hm.  He's a wizard.  I've been trained to recognize this.  Not much armor on him, looks a bit soft under all that adventuring gear and cloak.  Wizards are always the weakest, I know this. Sure, he's much bigger than the halfing and more phyisically impossing that the elf, but... he's a wizard.  Now, how can a plan out a circuitous route towards him so I don't get attacked by anything on the way?



This I like!
Plus a good guitar solo on the backround
Equals memorable raid!
I've been struggling with the hit point at first level issue for the past week.   One moment I like giving more, another moment I like keeping hit points low.

The hit point issue is something that can be handled by each DM. I think the core has to keep the hit points low for PCs because it is always easier to add than take away. In addition, since the attack progression for monsters will be flatter than last edition, as the PCs gain in levels, monster attacks will not scale as wildly as in the past, so PCs will be safer, and they will be able to adventure more before taking the longer rest.

Also, with the advent of Combat Superiority, hit points should be kept lower because each fighter has the option, every round, to parry an attack that hits, and the protectors can parry an attack that hits an adjacent ally. In our playtest, this ability saved hit points very often.

DMs and players will have to adjust to lower PC hit points...WoTC will have to provide better monster estimates for xp/challenge level, and advice for running encounters. DMs should be wary of mobing PCs. Players should be encouraged to use ranged weapons and move to cover after attacking. Players should be encouraged to set up defensible positions to protect the softer targets. Players of fighters should roleplay in combat to try to draw enemy fire away from weaker targets. 

I do think that monsters should hit more often because the fighters (AC 16 and above) weren't really challenged very much in my playtest.   By adding +2 to all monsters, the monsters will hit 10% more, which may start to get through the heavily armored PCs.  I actually re-rolled attacks in the 6 encounters that I playtested on Saturday, and with a +2 for monster to hit scores, I was able to damage the AC 17 fighter, and the AC 15 fighter 1 more time each over the course of 6 encounters.   The rogue was also hit 1 time extra, and that knocked him to -2 hp, but he could be easily saved by the cleric, or another pc with a healing potion.   With the extra +10% for monsters to hit, by the end of the 6 encounters, every PC had to use his healing hit die.  The cleric had no more spells left, and he used his channel divinity power to heal, so he was out of that too.  I like those results.

         

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 



@edwin_su & Thraxiss: That's great, but it won't be enough... trust me.  Yes, the Wizard suddenly isn't getting 1-shot at level 1.  Great.  But not good enough.  First, Wizards aren't getting attacked once by DMs who consider them Priority #1... they are getting full formation alpha struck.  10 Kobolds who all recognize him for what he is, take turns until he's not just dying, but dead (can't let that Cleric get him back to do damage).  If he gets hit half the time for average damage, that's about 17 damage.  He needs to survive that.




I blame the focus fire alpha strike more so on cleric healing. I for one, think that when you get knocked out, you should be out of the combat, for exactly the reason you mention.

It's generally okay for a PC to drop, but it's not okay for the PC to die.

If dropped characters are still considered valid targets (because of combat healing), that's a problem if you ask me, because the optimal NPC tactic generally becomes to work at straight up killing off PCs. I think it's much better ot just set it up where a dropped PC can't be brought back to combat. You can heal him, but he won't regain consciousness until after a short rest. That way, there's no longer a strategic need to outright kill a PC and its tactically more efficient to choose another target.

For us, we don't attack people that are KO'd on the ground, but once heal and moving around they are free game even if they haven't taken an action/gotten up. And for us, the wizard never went down because the bad guys thought he was the biggest threat but because he was the easiest target (even in cover).

Unlike Pantelos who thinks like this ' There, if the fighter decapitates half of their family while the robe guy stands in the back dodging and keeping low, guess who they will focus on!' I look at it from a more primal pack mentality. You have a bunch of lions/wolves going after wildebeasts/elk and they are targeting the weakest one. Even if one gets attacked by the biggest bull the other in the pack are still going off the get the weakest target. Ganging up on the strongest foe is never a good idea unless you think you can take him out quick. Even dumb kobolds know shiney metal armor and shield harder to get through than fluffy robes and when dress wearing guy goes down, that's one less person to help tough shiney metal guy. It's also a smart more for anyone if a leadership role to do this also when they have a 'half dead and they run' rule. KOing the clothie quick means that you can lose 2 more of your troops before they run.

So why is the wizard holding a book?
He doesn't need one to cast his spells. He needs it safe and secure for studying his spells out of, In fact if he doesn't plan on changing up his spells during an adventure he can leave it safe and sound in a chest in his room at the inn.
As far as I can see there are no arcane implements in the play test.
All I can really say is if you play a wizard in a game where you spend a lot of time dead, dying, or unconcious with out provoking these attacks then you're playing with a jerk.

Or one that thinks monsters should use basic tactics and actually fight like they want to survive. You know, what you seem to think is being a jerk...
 Or one that thinks monsters should use basic tactics and actually fight like they want to survive. You know, what you seem to think is being a jerk...




So here's the thing. If you're home is being invaded by a mob swinging axes and your family and friends are beind murdered by some massive monster you are not going to say well at least we can take out the easy to hit nobody in the back. No what you are going to do is try to slow down the ax wielding crazy while the rest of your family and friends try to get away. 

You see survival isn't killing the least defended character in a group because then you are leaving yourself open to that single blow that is going to end your short but survival inspired attack on the wrong monster. When the wizard opens up with that burning hands or his sleep spell then maybe they might think about hacking into his unarmored self. (Probably to find to their dismay that he's not as easy to kill as they might have wanted to believe.)

Were I to attempt to play a wizzard in a game where the DM automatically attacks me first just because I'm the easiest to hit or have what appears to be the best chance to do serious harm before I actually do that then he's a jerk and I'm not playing in his game ever again. If the guy hates wizards that bad he should just ban the class and save everyone the hastle.

Koblods and goblins are near morons they can't figure out which shoe goes on which foot let alone determine that someone is a wizard, especiaally if they never saw one before. Playing monsters according to their intelligence, in this case, means they are ignorant and unsophisticated. They react by lashing out at those things that hurt them not some shadowy figure hiding behind two or three big ax swinging threats to their survival and that of their clan.

But I guess I'm wasting my time trying to get this point across. So I suggest you keep plaing with your jerk DM or continue to be that DM if you feel the need. 
My thought is each race has x hp just for being alive, then add hp for character class, then any toughness/survival type hp.... makes sense to anyone but me?  The hp based off of con stat? Used in some games but then if p layers use it them monsters use it too  what would be better system? Remember when you could have 1 hp if you rolled bad and had no con bonus? Max hp at 1st level is a good start.
So here's the thing. If you're home is being invaded by a mob swinging axes and your family and friends are beind murdered by some massive monster you are not going to say well at least we can take out the easy to hit nobody in the back.

I am going to have to side with Tlantl on this one, but that's because my DMing techniques are very similar to his.

In the end, it's a question of what a DM thinks equates to smart creature play.  Some DMs, from what I have seen, literally see no other avenue of smart, clever, or in-character play for monsters than "kill the weakest."  Some DMs consider roleplay, unpredictable actions, etc., is smart creature play.

So while you might think having them kill to protect is valid, I might think roleplaying orcs as hating dwarves, and someone else might have orcs rage making them swing-at-the-closest-in-blind-fury, for a person who's main qualifying question to any enemy action is "what will do the most DPS" (in other words, what can they hit easiest for the most damage), the only answer is attack the most vulnerable target.

A difference in style in all cases that is valid for that particular DM but sometimes hard for others to understand.
 Or one that thinks monsters should use basic tactics and actually fight like they want to survive. You know, what you seem to think is being a jerk...




So here's the thing. If you're home is being invaded by a mob swinging axes and your family and friends are beind murdered by some massive monster you are not going to say well at least we can take out the easy to hit nobody in the back. No what you are going to do is try to slow down the ax wielding crazy while the rest of your family and friends try to get away. 

You see survival isn't killing the least defended character in a group because then you are leaving yourself open to that single blow that is going to end your short but survival inspired attack on the wrong monster. When the wizard opens up with that burning hands or his sleep spell then maybe they might think about hacking into his unarmored self. (Probably to find to their dismay that he's not as easy to kill as they might have wanted to believe.)

Were I to attempt to play a wizzard in a game where the DM automatically attacks me first just because I'm the easiest to hit or have what appears to be the best chance to do serious harm before I actually do that then he's a jerk and I'm not playing in his game ever again. If the guy hates wizards that bad he should just ban the class and save everyone the hastle.

Koblods and goblins are near morons they can't figure out which shoe goes on which foot let alone determine that someone is a wizard, especiaally if they never saw one before. Playing monsters according to their intelligence, in this case, means they are ignorant and unsophisticated. They react by lashing out at those things that hurt them not some shadowy figure hiding behind two or three big ax swinging threats to their survival and that of their clan.

But I guess I'm wasting my time trying to get this point across. So I suggest you keep plaing with your jerk DM or continue to be that DM if you feel the need. 




This this this.... This is what I have tried to explain on a few of these threads.  If you have never been in combat or in a fight you have no idea what it's like. The term fog of war came around before it was used in video games. When in combat, you become somewhat blind to anything not directly related to the biggest threat and your quickest way out. Everything happens so fast, your adrenaline starts pumping, you get tunnel vision and can only see your IMMEDIATE surroundings unless you're lucky and see something out of the corner of your eye (I'd say about 10 to 15 feet or so in a melee fight).  You know this guy can kill the hell out of you and his blade is the ONLY threat in your world. You don't have time to think smart, you only have time to either try to get the hell out of Dodge, or hurt him just enough that you can get the hell out of Dodge. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is getting out of the damned thing alive. If you kill him, you can sort through the situation a bit better afterwards, assuming you live.

Whether sparring in 'realistic' sword games, or being in a gunfight, you pretty much default to reacting the same way instinctively, and that's what you should do. It's your body trying to save you by taking over your brain. It takes IMMENSE amounts of training to convince your body to even allow for other instincts, let alone allowing for tactical combat and a broad overview of the scenario. This is why leaders of battles don't stand right in the thick of the fight. They stand just a bit farther back so they can stay just seperated enough from the fray that they can survey the chaos and make enough sense of it to direct traffic. They train their troops to at least hear their voice in combat in order to give orders that will be more likely to get the WHOLE group out of trouble instead of just individuals.

Those leaders that *DO* wade directly in to combat are trained like monks to be able to control their faculties completely in combat. They have to live through crazy ass stuff to get to that point, AND be trained to do it. This is why wizards are supposed to be dangerous when grouped up... You don't have TIME to pay attention to the pansy in the rain coat until bat guano flies from his hands and all of you are on fire.