Reduce HP and damage scaling.

Bounded accuracy is an interesting concept, but it's only being used to part of it's potential.  Damage scaling is so high for martial classes that the limits on accuracy scaling are almost irrelevant.  Sure, a lower level character can hit a higher monster thanks to bounded accuracy, but if a high level PC is expected to deal 50+ damage on every melee attack a low level characters 10-15 damage is just going to feel meaningless.

Martial damage dice & martial damage bonus combine to just too much damage scaling.

Just to throw a potential fix out there, here is where I think things should go.

Martial damage dice become weapon damage dice.

Number of dice is cut dramatically down to 1/3.  Max is +2 dice at 11 for fighters.  Max of +1 dice for clerics.

Martial damage bonus cut to 1/7th.  +3 damage at 17 for fighters.

Drastic, but I think that is where things need to be.
I'm not sure why the low level characters 10-15 damage feeling meaningless is a problem.  It only feels meaningless against high level monsters, where it should feel meaningless, where in an unbounded accuracy sytem the low level character would never be able to hit anyway . . .

I'm just having trouble seeing what issue the damage scaling is having at the table?  Low level characters can't kill a 15th level monster?  High level characters can lop the head off an ogre in a single blow?  As I see it, these are both working as intended. 

If anything I'd rather see the MDB eliminated and replaced with even more MDD.  More dice! You can always take the average if you want, to amke it faster, but more dice allows for maximized manuever flexibility. 
I think that scaling attack and defense is much cleaner than scaling only damage and HP.  If a weak attack is going to deal trivial damage, then that just adds a lot of bookkeeping and it's still not really a threat.

On the plus side, it seems that they've heard the message that martial damage dice were a bit out of control in the last packet.  I fully suspect that the next version will halve it.

The metagame is not the game.

I don't think Con mod should affect HP per level. This would greatly help the HP inflation.

As for damage, I think scaling for weapon focuses characters should go 1[W] at 1st level, 2[W] at 4th, 3[W] at 8th, 4[W] at 12th, 5[W] at 16th, and 6[W] at 20th.

Non weapon focused classes 1/2 progression - 2[W] at 10, 3[W] at 20.

Maneuvers would trade 1[W] (or more) for their effect. For example the Bullrush maneuver might trade 1[W] damage for push 10ft. A 1st level fighter who wishes to Bullrush a target would only do Str mod damage.

Some maneuvers (like parry) would have to be slightly changed to be based on [W] mechanics.
I don't think Con mod should affect HP per level. This would greatly help the HP inflation.



So 18 con gives you 4 extra hp, period?  That sounds kind of weak.  I like the idea of limiting hit dice to 5 or 9 or 10, but limiting to 1 is going too far IMO.

As far as MDD, 6W would be even more damage than the current system.  I'm trying to reduce the scaling, not increase it :P 
I don't think Con mod should affect HP per level. This would greatly help the HP inflation.



So 18 con gives you 4 extra hp, period?  That sounds kind of weak.  I like the idea of limiting hit dice to 5 or 9 or 10, but limiting to 1 is going too far IMO.

As far as MDD, 6W would be even more damage than the current system.  I'm trying to reduce the scaling, not increase it :P 



18 Con would give you 18HP. At first level you should gain Con Score (not mod) HP added to your level 1 HD. (Bonus level 0 monsters/PCs could only have Con score HP.

Also 6[W] + 5 = 44 average damage for a d12 weapon. 1[W] + 6d6 + 25 = 52.5 average damage. So no 6W is about 20% less damage than the current system.
Im not alone. I endorse this thread top to bottom from the OP to Con hp.
Weapon damage requirement is based on how many HP you want the sum of the enemy's to have.

To me, a wizard's highest level damage spell should eliminate his portion of the HP of a average encounter's XP budget. A fighter should need about 3-4 hits to take out his portion of the average budget.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!



18 Con would give you 18HP. At first level you should gain Con Score (not mod) HP added to your level 1 HD. (Bonus level 0 monsters/PCs could only have Con score HP.

Also 6[W] + 5 = 44 average damage for a d12 weapon. 1[W] + 6d6 + 25 = 52.5 average damage. So no 6W is about 20% less damage than the current system.



Ah, so you are in favor of replaceing the dice + bonus with simply dice.  However, a 20% decrease is not very significant in this case, IMO.  Part of the reason I picked the numbers I did is because I was comparing to wizard spell damage.  For example, fireball does an average of 21 damage before save, and even meteor swarm does an average of 42 damage pre-saving throw.  44 damage for an at-will weapon attack is still too much IMO, when you compare it to the damage a wizard can only do once per day.

+2 or maybe +3 W dice at 20 max IMO, for fighting classes.

As far as HP/con, I don't agree with your idea simply because Con is already seen as a weaker ability score compared to, for instance, Dexterity.  I don't think Con needs to be weakened exactly, just hp levels in general should be toned down.  I also don't like the gameplay consequences of starting with Con hp, as it makes it very hard to die at level one.

I'd like to see a system where you get normal hp + con bonus for level 1-9, and set hp for each level after depending on class, like 4 for warriors 2 for wizards and 3 for others. 


18 Con would give you 18HP. At first level you should gain Con Score (not mod) HP added to your level 1 HD. (Bonus level 0 monsters/PCs could only have Con score HP.

Also 6[W] + 5 = 44 average damage for a d12 weapon. 1[W] + 6d6 + 25 = 52.5 average damage. So no 6W is about 20% less damage than the current system.



Ah, so you are in favor of replaceing the dice + bonus with simply dice.  However, a 20% decrease is not very significant in this case, IMO.  Part of the reason I picked the numbers I did is because I was comparing to wizard spell damage.  For example, fireball does an average of 21 damage before save, and even meteor swarm does an average of 42 damage pre-saving throw.  44 damage for an at-will weapon attack is still too much IMO, when you compare it to the damage a wizard can only do once per day.



I could see damage being slightly lower, 5[W] at 20 for instance, but I am ok with the fighter doing better single target damage than the wizard. In fact, I expect it. A wizards fireball is great against groups, but one on one the fighter should be king. A single fireball may hit 5+ monsters and that is where the wizard really shines.


As far as HP/con, I don't agree with your idea simply because Con is already seen as a weaker ability score compared to, for instance, Dexterity.  I don't think Con needs to be weakened exactly, just hp levels in general should be toned down.  I also don't like the gameplay consequences of starting with Con hp, as it makes it very hard to die at level one.

I'd like to see a system where you get normal hp + con bonus for level 1-9, and set hp for each level after depending on class, like 4 for warriors 2 for wizards and 3 for others. 



Con score HP at level 1 and having Heavy Armor be based of Con mod would ensure that Con remains useful.

Light Armor could be 11 + Dex mod AC
Heavy Armor could be 13 + Con mod AC
 
Constitution saves are one of the most called for saving throws in the game so Con will still be important for non heavy armor users. Also HD healing adds Con mod to each HD rolled so a high Con mod will be important for self healing throughout the day.
Constitution also adds hp to your healing and not only your hit points.  Removing it from one or the other makes sense as a simple way of controlling inflation and imbalance between characters.  At least if attached to healing, PCs won't feel as safe and secure with their higher hp pool.

It's tricky - keep weapon dice too low and your PCs won't feel like they're advancing at all.  Plus players will never spend damage dice for manoeuvres if they have too few to spare.  Moving to weapon dice will already give large weapon wielders less incentive to spend their dice for a side effect.  Will they consider it too complex if certain weapons grant certain bonuses to certain manouvres?
Damage scaling is supposedly intended to turn something that was once a solo into a minion, and without attack/defense scaling.
So that means something that took, say, 20 hits to kill at level 1 needs to take 1 hit to kill at some future level. Supposing that level is 20, leaving only a very narrow band of enemies that actually make the full transition, that means the PCs need to do about 20 times as much damage at level 20. 
Of course, DDN is tuned to a generally faster pace, so maybe 2 HTK is fine for a standard and 10 HTK is enough for a solo. Then PCs only need to do 10x damage at level 20.

This is just the bare minimum scaling to achieve their claimed goal of monsters moving from solo to minion over time. I don't think the current system even can get up to 10x damage. It's more like 5x damage. A 5 HTK monster isn't really a solo, more like an elite at best. So we're not really able to minionize solos currently.

En lieu of accuracy/defense scaling to make PCs better compared to lower level monsters, if we want to try to achieve the classic D&Dism that gaining +x levels is similarly dramatic at low and high levels, HP and damage really should be growing quadratically or faster. So maybe something like if going from level 1 to 10 gives 5x damage and 10x HP, going from level 11 to 20 gives 5x that damage and 10x that HP, or in other words level 20 PCs do 25x level 1 damage and have 100x level 1 HP. (Or probably they should be better synchronized, so both are x5/x25 or both are x10/x100.) As is, the later levels tend to be pretty minor scaling for all but the casters.     
Lower HD

If a giant isn't near 150 HP, the damage scaling doesn't need to be so high.

If the giants are ~100 HP, then a fighter's attack only has to be ~20 damage and the rogue's attack at ~35 damage.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!



I could see damage being slightly lower, 5[W] at 20 for instance, but I am ok with the fighter doing better single target damage than the wizard. In fact, I expect it. A wizards fireball is great against groups, but one on one the fighter should be king. A single fireball may hit 5+ monsters and that is where the wizard really shines.

Con score HP at level 1 and having Heavy Armor be based of Con mod would ensure that Con remains useful.

Light Armor could be 11 + Dex mod AC
Heavy Armor could be 13 + Con mod AC
 
Constitution saves are one of the most called for saving throws in the game so Con will still be important for non heavy armor users. Also HD healing adds Con mod to each HD rolled so a high Con mod will be important for self healing throughout the day.



I guess we just disagree here.  Part of my reasoning for this thread was all the posts about how 1st level characters were taking down multiple trolls with no problem, and mid level characters were killing dragons during the suprise round with no real fear of anything.  Damage is way out of control right now, and I don't think a 20% or 25% reduction is enough.  It needs to be cut in half or down to a third or less.  

Keep in mind too that your damage calculations are baseline.  A fighter can do more damage with higher strength, or with a haste spell, or with a magical weapon.  A wizard, on the other hand, doesn't scale.  His 9th slot spell does as much damage as it does and will never do more, there are no magic items that will increase it's damage.  I strongly feel that as a baseline the wizard's spells should typically do more damage than the fighters attacks.  The fighter has better armor, more hp, is not limited to x daily attacks, and ALSO does more damage per hit?  It seems a bit too much.  The wizard absolutely needs to deal more damage when using his highly limited number of daily spells, and in turn the fighter enjoys higher hp, better armor, damage scaling through magic items and buffs, and unlimited attacks.  Yes, the wizard has the advantage of AOE damage, but the fighter can use volley or whirlwind attack. The wizard's area spells can be tricky to use without hurting allies.

Ultimately, this isn't about wizard vs fighter damage, it's about turning down the damage scaling.  I think it's too high all around right now.  Even if you really feel that fighters should do more damage than wizards, I think fighter damage should still be dramaticallly toned down, but you can follow that up with toning down some wizard spell damage to keep wizards in their place beneath the fighter's boot, if that is what you feel is important.  

Really, I just think the game is broken when an average mid level party can take down a 150 hp dragon during a surprise round.



Also, your ideas for Con, I still don't like the low level implications.  My favorite part of the game is low levels, 1 especially, where the average character is running around with 6-8 hp and a single crit can spell doom.  To me, that part of the game is a ton of fun and very exciting, because things are balanced so delicately.  If you go with a flat "you get Con hp at 1" system, that goes out the window.  1st level characters are running around with 12-18 hp and it's nearly impossible for anything they face to hurt them in any meaningful way.  Adding a Con bonus to armor just feels like an odd way to rebalance it.  Why nerf it and then make it stronger?  Just leave it alone.

Reduce hit dice to 9, for level 10+ fighters gain 4 hp per level, rogues monks and clerics gain 3 hp, and wizards gain 2 hp.  Simple, done.  Over 20 levels this is a fairly significant nerf, characters will have 40-80 fewer hp at 20 with this system (depending on Con and class), I say try it and see and if it's not enough hit dice can be reduced even further.

I've had a lot of love for 2e's finite accuracy. Thac0 is a number between fixed boundaries (1-20), AC is a number between fixed boundaries (10 to -10). Saves are also a number between fixed boundaries (2-20)


The way the numbers are resolved is weird, but the notion that the game exists between those attack/defense ranges is nice. This bounded accuracy stuff is kind of the same but it's also trying to box bonuses to rolls in with the range which I'm not really that crazy about. I'd prefer to just have mods not stack very much and keep the finite ranges.



Also, your ideas for Con, I still don't like the low level implications.  My favorite part of the game is low levels, 1 especially, where the average character is running around with 6-8 hp and a single crit can spell doom.  To me, that part of the game is a ton of fun and very exciting, because things are balanced so delicately.  If you go with a flat "you get Con hp at 1" system, that goes out the window.  1st level characters are running around with 12-18 hp and it's nearly impossible for anything they face to hurt them in any meaningful way.  Adding a Con bonus to armor just feels like an odd way to rebalance it.  Why nerf it and then make it stronger?  Just leave it alone.





It would work with damage reduction and an increase in minimum damage.

People aren't factoring in melee/close versus ranged attacks. Melee characters often need to waste a round unable to attack in order to engage the next target. Meanwhile, the ranged attack rarely will miss a turn to attack except to disengage. A ranged attack (martial or magical) should do comparatively less damage than a melee/close attack. IMO, a Burning Hands cast as a 3rd level spell should do significant more damage than a fireball.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
PT1's HP system (CON + class) was a great idea.
It makes level one actually survivable, while preventing ridiculous disparity later when Mr. CON ends up with four or five times the HP of half the party.

Traditionally, a party's level 1 HP could be anywhere from 1 to 14.
With PT1's system, that range does expand to 4-20 (rolled, assuming a human at 20 CON) or 7-26 (static, assuming a human at 20 CON ), but there's no conmod x level compounding over the course of twenty levels.
I also would like to see (Con score + HD) hit points at 1st level. I'd also like for characters to gain a fixed number of hit points per level after that based on class (i.e. 2 for wizards, 3 for clerics/rogues, 4 for fighters). That keeps the hp inflation down to a much more sensible level. A 1st level fighter could have around 25 hp while a 20th level fighter could have around 60 hp.

That makes hp far more realistic too. Things like falling off a cliff or being dunked in lava are not trivial threats for a high level character, and things like alchemist's fire remain relevant at all levels of play rather than becoming insignificant.

Of course, this also means damage needs to scale much more slowly, too. But we already knew that.
HP is not a vacuum. If you lower/raise HP, you must do the same to damage or you get 4e style grindfests or 3e style rocket tag. HP and damage are proportional, that is why fighter got so many MDD this playtest.

How long do you want to fight a 100+ HP giant, people?

Personally Con Mod + Max HD at level 1 is fine. It keeps PCs in "2 long sword hits and you're dead" range. No need for Coup de Grace to kill someone.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

People aren't factoring in melee/close versus ranged attacks. Melee characters often need to waste a round unable to attack in order to engage the next target. Meanwhile, the ranged attack rarely will miss a turn to attack except to disengage. A ranged attack (martial or magical) should do comparatively less damage than a melee/close attack. IMO, a Burning Hands cast as a 3rd level spell should do significant more damage than a fireball.



You are acting like they are exclusive of one another.  Any fighter or rogue can make ranged & melee attacks.  For a dex based character, the ranged attack probably even does virtually the same damage as the melee.

Also, while it might be easier to use a Fireball at the start of combat due to it's range, once combat has began it's almost impossible to use without hitting a friendly in the blast (unless you are an evoker specialist).  Should Fireball be nerfed because it has good range making the first attack easier with it, or should it be buffed because it's area damage makes any attack after the first nearly impossible to make?  Or should we just leave it alone?

 Personally Con Mod + Max HD at level 1 is fine. It keeps PCs in "2 long sword hits and you're dead" range. No need for Coup de Grace to kill someone.



Agree!  Con score + HD roll for level 1 is just way too many HP.  Either you have to buff up the damage of all basic attacks and monsters, which just inflates the game needlessly, or if you don't it becomes very very hard to die.
People aren't factoring in melee/close versus ranged attacks. Melee characters often need to waste a round unable to attack in order to engage the next target. Meanwhile, the ranged attack rarely will miss a turn to attack except to disengage. A ranged attack (martial or magical) should do comparatively less damage than a melee/close attack. IMO, a Burning Hands cast as a 3rd level spell should do significant more damage than a fireball.



You are acting like they are exclusive of one another.  Any fighter or rogue can make ranged & melee attacks.  For a dex based character, the ranged attack probably even does virtually the same damage as the melee.

Also, while it might be easier to use a Fireball at the start of combat due to it's range, once combat has began it's almost impossible to use without hitting a friendly in the blast (unless you are an evoker specialist).  Should Fireball be nerfed because it has good range making the first attack easier with it, or should it be buffed because it's area damage makes any attack after the first nearly impossible to make?  Or should we just leave it alone?

Of course melee vs ranged aren't exclusive, but martial characters will usually focus on one or the other, except the Dex-focused builds. Casters have the added bonus of getting a variety of spells with different ranges with at no additional cost. As far as the "drawbacks" of fireball, I hardly think they warrant giving it the same damage ratio as a close attack like burning hands. I would organize the overall damage ratios in this order (best to worst): single target melee, single target ranged, area effect melee, multi-target melee, area effect ranged, multi-target ranged. I'm not suggesting the disparity be ridiculously huge between the best and worst, but it should be notable.

As far are HP goes, I'm thinking using Con score as starting HP makes a lot of sense, although I'm not a fan in general of having Con be the HP ability (since HP is abstract, and not just about physical endurance). If anything, my prefered formula would be: Max HD + [sum of ability mods]

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.

How long do you want to fight a 100+ HP giant, people?

To be honest the answer to that question depends on the role of that fight in the narrative. If it's a random encounter meant to disrupt a rest, then I want it to go on long enough to disrupt the rest, barring any eventualities like crits or creative solutions. If it's the warleader of a clan of ogres, then I want that fight to take a while.

The whole point is to have a menu of options where we can guage combat duration to suit the story you're trying to tell. Attempting to normalise combat duration by level, xp budget, challenge rating, or any other method undermines our ability to do that.


Saying that, I'd like to see things move around an average HP value per tier so I have some idea what to expect.

If you have 1st level wizards with 15 HP then you need goblins that swing for 8+ damage a hit and orcs who need 20 Str to balance out their 1d12 greataxe.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Bounded accuracy is an interesting concept, but it's only being used to part of it's potential.  Damage scaling is so high for martial classes that the limits on accuracy scaling are almost irrelevant.  Sure, a lower level character can hit a higher monster thanks to bounded accuracy, but if a high level PC is expected to deal 50+ damage on every melee attack a low level characters 10-15 damage is just going to feel meaningless.

Martial damage dice & martial damage bonus combine to just too much damage scaling.

Just to throw a potential fix out there, here is where I think things should go.

Martial damage dice become weapon damage dice.

Number of dice is cut dramatically down to 1/3.  Max is +2 dice at 11 for fighters.  Max of +1 dice for clerics.

Martial damage bonus cut to 1/7th.  +3 damage at 17 for fighters.

Drastic, but I think that is where things need to be.



I feel your pain. Damage/Hp inflation is absolutely a problem and one that is unnecessary. They can just as easily scale damage at a more modest pace. Yes we needs bounds on this too.

Martial Damage Bonus needs to go entirely and Martial Damage Dice needs a slower progression

Its a deal breaker for me, I'm just not interested in a D&D where characters are dealing rediculous amounts of damage at every turn and concequently giving monsters rediulous Hit Points
If you have 1st level wizards with 15 HP then you need goblins that swing for 8+ damage a hit and orcs who need 20 Str to balance out their 1d12 greataxe.



So lets say a shortsword wielding goblin does 1d6 + 2 damage. A wizard who has 15 HP will take about 3 hits to before he drops.

Now against a greataxe wielding Orc that does 1d10 + 2 damage the orc will only need about 2 hits on average to drop the wizard.

This sounds much better than a 6 HP wizard dropping 75% of the time when he is attacked by an Orc.

I never understood the mentality that having your character drop in a single hit at level 1 is ok but not ok by level 5. Why should HP scale exponentially faster than damage? That only serves to make fights take longer at higher levels (which happens anyway due to options glut).

P.S. with those numbers the fighter has about 22 HP and drops in 3 hits from the orc and 4 from the goblin.
It certainly begs the question why the "core" HP and damage isn't simplified to be similar to the board games. Characters have very few HPs, but every "hit" does 1 damage, with perhaps two handed weapons doing 2, and crits doing +1 damage. Start characters out with 3-5 HPs depending on class, and gain HPs at a slow pace (like even fighters only gaining every other level, rogues/clerics every 3rd, and wizards every 4, etc). The numbers are small, which is a much better "core" starting point that what was in the latest packet.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
It certainly begs the question why the "core" HP and damage isn't simplified to be similar to the board games. Characters have very few HPs, but every "hit" does 1 damage, with perhaps two handed weapons doing 2, and crits doing +1 damage.

Because it's just too damn obvious?

It certainly begs the question why the "core" HP and damage isn't simplified to be similar to the board games. Characters have very few HPs, but every "hit" does 1 damage, with perhaps two handed weapons doing 2, and crits doing +1 damage.

Because it's just too damn obvious?




not traditional.
  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."

 

It certainly begs the question why the "core" HP and damage isn't simplified to be similar to the board games. Characters have very few HPs, but every "hit" does 1 damage, with perhaps two handed weapons doing 2, and crits doing +1 damage.

Because it's just too damn obvious?




not traditional.

Well, yes.
If Mearls wants to maintain the illusion of DDN being vaguely compatible with "every edition all at once", then some semblance of "traditional" HP and damage needs to be there.

It certainly begs the question why the "core" HP and damage isn't simplified to be similar to the board games. Characters have very few HPs, but every "hit" does 1 damage, with perhaps two handed weapons doing 2, and crits doing +1 damage.

Because it's just too damn obvious?


not traditional.

And core has that requirement!? And what is traditional about HPs and damage, other then they must exist in some form?

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
@lawolf

Because a wizard is supposed to run from orcs while screaming "Help Help!" until the 5th level. :P

The other reason is that it harms inclusiveness. One of the issues with high starting HP is that it is hard to play new inexperienced adventurers. It is hard to say Jon is a new recruit if he can survive 8 swings at his face where 4 of them hit. You start at truly heroic and thus limit scope.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

@lawolf Because a wizard is supposed to run from orcs while screaming "Help Help!" until the 5th level. :P The other reason is that it harms inclusiveness. One of the issues with high starting HP is that it is hard to play new inexperienced adventurers. It is hard to say Jon is a new recruit if he can survive 8 swings at his face where 4 of them hit. You start at truly heroic and thus limit scope.



Well you have 4 Orcs vs a 4 person party. John the fighter decides to step up and try to protect the squishy wizard. Round 1 happens and 3 orcs go for John. Round 2 happens and the party has killed an Orc so now only 2 go for John. Round 3 happens and there is only 1 Orc left who attacks John. That is 6 attacks right there so if only half the attacks hit for 7.5 average damage John is out of HP and possibly lying on the ground bleeding out.

Using his 1 HD of healing he can get up enough HP so that 1 more swing from an Orc would knock him unconscious again. So "John the not so heroic" can deal with 1 fight a day against an equal number of Orcs. Remember John only survived 24 seconds of combat.

So John is by no means a veteran combatant. He lasted barely a half a minute against the Orcs. Even one on one vs an Orc John is by no means sure to win. Sounds pretty unheroic to me.  

P.S. The 4th orc seems to be missing from this scenario. Assume he is attacking other party members. If the 4 Orcs ganged up on John, john would be dead by round 2 most likely. If the 4 Orcs even looked at the wizard it would basically spell game over.

But if Jon uses Con score plus HD and has ~20HP, then Jon is ramming a dozen goblins without breaking a sweat or tanking 2-3 Orcs for 2 rounds while 50% of the party go all offense. Taking 2-3 Orcs is pretty big. Definitely not shiny recruit status.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

But if Jon uses Con score plus HD and has ~20HP, then Jon is ramming a dozen goblins without breaking a sweat or tanking 2-3 Orcs for 2 rounds while 50% of the party go all offense. Taking 2-3 Orcs is pretty big. Definitely not shiny recruit status.



Well it depends on a number of factors. Are HP a daily resource or an encounter one. IF they are a daily resource John can tank 2 Orcs for 3 rounds before he drops on average (so only 18 seconds), then he needs to rest a whole day to gain back his HP.

John is about as good as an Orc 1 v 1. In a 1 v 1 fight John will probably win, but it will be close. Against goblins John is about as good as 1.5 of them. So he could last about 3 rounds vs 3 goblins ganging up on him.

If you think lasting a whole 18 seconds before dropping against 2 Orcs or 3 Goblins makes you UBERPOWERFUL then maybe this is just a difference that can't be reconcilled between us. I think level 1 PCs should be more powerful than the grunt footsoldiers in LotR and most of them last more than 3 rounds vs the Orc grunts.
Monsters would get CON + HD, too.
Monsters would get CON + HD, too.



Yep. I was thinking Orcs are "level 1" monsters while Goblins are "level 0" monsters. So a Goblin with 10 Con has only 10 HP while a 13 Con d8 HD Orc Might have 17 HP.

I was also thinking that level 1 HP wouldn't start MAX and instead be rolled.

This means our Fighter with a decent con score (14) gets 15-24 HP. Our wizard with a 10 con score has 11-16 HP. Wizards gain 3.5 HP a level on average while fighters gain 5.5 a level. Basically the fighter will have about 50% more HP than the wizard throughout his adventuring career. The wizard can take 2-3 attacks from a level appropriate foe, while the fighter can take 3-4.

Much better than the 18 Con fighter with 4x the HP of the 12 con wizard.

P.S. with this math, monster damage should increase by about 1.5 points per "level" so that the average combat length remains the same (Instead of dragging on to dozens of rounds because HP inflated faster than damage). Coincidentally this is about the same as a damage increase of 1d6 every other so some monsters might gain their own MDD based on level.
I was also thinking that level 1 HP wouldn't start MAX and instead be rolled.

If you're getting your entire CON score, rolling becomes far less screwjobby at level 1.  I'd still rather take the static value.

Monsters would get CON + HD, too.



Yep. I was thinking Orcs are "level 1" monsters while Goblins are "level 0" monsters. So a Goblin with 10 Con has only 10 HP while a 12 Con d8 HD Orc Might have 17 HP.

I was also thinking that level 1 HP wouldn't start MAX and instead be rolled.



So then to compensate, level 1 spell and weapon damage gets buffed up so that an average attack can kill a goblin in one hit.  In the end, nothing is accomplished except the numbers on the sheet are bigger.  Why?


Re: above, an orc is *supposed* to be roughly equivilent to a level 1 fighter, maybe a bit weaker.  A level 1 shouldn't be able to fight 4 orcs and simply "tank" them for several rounds and expect to live, not without assistance anyway.  

A level 1 party is a very delicate thing, and needs to play very sneaky like if it wants to defeat equal numbers of equal level mobs.  Also, there is a reason kobolds and goblins exist- sometimes you need a monster weaker than an orc to offer a lesser challange to a low level party.

If you, as DM, want your party to start out a bit more heroic and able to take 3-4 hits without falling, there is a great solution already built into the game: have your party roll level 3 characters instead of starting at level 1.

Some of us like the knife's edge excitment of level 1, with hp low enough that two hits can spell doom even for a fighter. 
So then to compensate, level 1 spell and weapon damage gets buffed up so that an average attack can kill a goblin in one hit.

Why?

Wait? Regular goblins get 10HP?

You can't reliably OHKO a goblin with that much health.

Do not want.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!