|
11 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 11:09AM
#11
|
|
|
It wasn't a problem in 3E because everybody started play at 5th level...
...whatever
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 11:30AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2003
|
One way they can fix this is CON Stat plus max HD at first level. After that it's HD roll plus + CON bonus. Using the PC's CON stat instead of just the bonus creates nice range of HP and provides a safety net for the PC's progress through their first few levels.
Regardless of what D&D Next (5e)'s final HP Generation mechanic is, that is how my group will be doing HP.
"We are men of action, lies do not become us" ~ D.P.R.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 11:54AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2011
|
It wasn't a problem in 3E because everybody started play at 5th level...
thats funny, i didn't.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 11:54AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
I think the first playtest had a smarter hp progression. I don't recall seeing any complaints about it and plenty of total party kill threads and 'help, my wizard is too squishy' threads even with more hp. Front loading hp keeps level 1 play interesting. Tagging a Con bonus onto every level instead leads to a widening hp gap over 20 levels that becomes frustrating. In 1e they realised this and capped con bonuses at levels 9-11 before moving on to low fixed hp each level.
Some people are so set against rolling for hp that I think the first playtest posted a problem in that a high con score never helped fighters earn more hp. However, I think some may have overlooked that the Con bonus boosted hp restored through healing - possibly because low level PCs didn't have many hit dice to spend.
I'm not sure what the right balance is but I've always preferred to roll and I have no problem if a wizard with Con18 gets 4hp every level because he's earned those hp by weakening his other saves. Overall, i prefer the first playtest's system.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 12:07PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2001
|
The ratio between monster damage and PC hit points appears relatively on par with 4th edition, post MM 1. I don't recall even some of the tougher characters taking more than around three hits before dire need of healing (as both DM and player). Looking at the actual monsters, they seem to have accounted for the lower PC hit points, and even what appears to be lower PC AC. It wont be until I can play with these numbers that I'll really be sure though.
As for increased PC damage, the change to the Rogue makes sense when considering action cost, playing with the previous playtest, I found trading an action, basicly a whole round for just a d6 damage (and thus losing the static bonus of another attack) at first level seemed underwhelming.
Over all, damage increases seemed to have accompanied damage decreases, such as in the case of the fighter. And other areas, such as minor spells, seemed to have only recieved decreases.
I wont say our HP problems have been solved, especially having not playtested the second package, but I do see some consistant thinking in the changes, and I do prefer the smaller HP and damage numbers for easier, speedier math in game. That last point is especially true if damage and hit points will be one of the distinguishing factors between levels.
He who should not speak...
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 1:46PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2005
|
It wasn't a problem in 3E because everybody started play at 5th level...
This. Or 3rd, at least.
Even if the fighter isn't fighting the goblins alone, if they win initiative and focus fire, he could go down easily. Or, 5 goblins is an "average" encounter for 4 PCs. Again, if they win initiative and focus fire, with a reasonable amount of luck they could take down 2 characters--probably not, but possibly, including the fighter, but easily the cleric and the rogue.
"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday BookThe Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 1:50PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2011
|
It wasn't a problem in 3E because everybody started play at 5th level...
This. Or 3rd, at least.
Even if the fighter isn't fighting the goblins alone, if they win initiative and focus fire, he could go down easily. Or, 5 goblins is an "average" encounter for 4 PCs. Again, if they win initiative and focus fire, with a reasonable amount of luck they could take down 2 characters--probably not, but possibly, including the fighter, but easily the cleric and the rogue.
it's up to the DM to decide tactics, but it's generally known that FF tactics will always kill and generally suck.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 2:00PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2001
|
I am in love with the new HP format.
And it's not really a new HP format. It's a lot like the origianl 1E D&D format for HPs. (and back then you had to roll for HP at first level; nothing quite like starting off with 1HP as a fighter...)
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 2:43PM
#19
|
|
|
Only complaint I have on HPs is the Wizard could stand to go to d6 instead of d4 but other than that it looks fine to me.
The first level Fighter is in real danger if facing 3 Goblins alone
I have no problem with that, in fact that is pretty much how it should be.
Damn sight better than people starting the game with 16 to 20 hps at first level
This, exactly. Any adventurer should be in danger when facing anything alone -- that's why you have a party!
This is bad for the hobby as a whole. Sometimes you're lucky to get one other person to play with. The game should be playable solo.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 5:20PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jul 25, 2003
|
It wasn't a problem in 3E because everybody started play at 5th level...
This. Or 3rd, at least.
Even if the fighter isn't fighting the goblins alone, if they win initiative and focus fire, he could go down easily. Or, 5 goblins is an "average" encounter for 4 PCs. Again, if they win initiative and focus fire, with a reasonable amount of luck they could take down 2 characters--probably not, but possibly, including the fighter, but easily the cleric and the rogue.
it's up to the DM to decide tactics, but it's generally known that FF tactics will always kill and generally suck.
Which is exactly why it's so difficult to justify not using those tactics when the monsters have some intelligence, especially considering that the players are probably going to be exploiting focus fire constantly. And why it's useful for PC's to have control abilities that can prevent enemy focus fire, because that means the DM isn't forced to play monsters below their Int to kill from killing players constantly (unless you go for that kind of game).
|
|
|
