Community

Well when you look at the general back story's players give their characters as well as the backgrounds in next I rarely get the feeling that 1st level characters are fresh out of boot camp.

Can't most of this issue be addressed by simplifying the entire HP/damage/healing of core into static, low numbers? The group needs to ask itself, does class matter, and/or should abilities such as Con affect average number of hits? How many average hits will it take to reach the center of the level 1 wizard? Now, how many for the level 1 Fighter? Let's say the grittiest want wizards to die with a single hit, but fighters can take as much as 3, with clerics and rogues with 2. Hits do 1, crits do 2. Two handed weapons do +1 damage. If you want Con to affect hits, then I'd say a 16 Con nets a +1 HP, and an 20 nets a +2. 

With these numbers, a fighter might have as many as 5HP, taking 5 regular hits, 3 from a two handed attack/crit, or two crits with a two handed attack. The lowly wizard with no Con would still die from a single hit. Too fragile? Add +1 to everyone's HP.

Now we have a solid core to start with, and can start replacing the static numbers with die rolls as desired.

Note: Personally, I'd rather HP be strictly level based, regardless of class. Other factors such as AC already control how fragile a class/character is. It feels like a double penalty to have lower average AC AND lower average HP.

Feb 18, 2013 -- 10:26AM, Lord_Kyrion wrote:

A level 1 adventurer is a small step away from a commoner working the fields. I refuse to believe that they would get a big amount of hit points just through their initial training in a class when each subsequent level only grants the usual hit die.

The game isn't supposed to be a walk in the park. I'm more worried about new players getting bored with it because they can't immerse themselves in their character than I am of them getting frustrated and quitting, and it seems like the developers are ignoring that possibility. When there is a real danger to your character's life, you care more about them, you use better strategy in battle to avoid injury. Has there ever really been a complaint from new players that the game is too hard? Too hard to learn and play, sure, but too hard to succeed in? That's not the point of the game and they know it.

I agree with those who are saying starting level is the dial for starting difficulty, as well as what challenge rating of encounters the party faces. Game difficulty rests entirely with the DM, no matter what the system is.

You're working off false premises.  There is absolutely not one single reason why a player should have an easier time immersing themselves in a "fresh off the farm" hero that their more experienced buddies have told them will likely be dead by the end of the night than a "budding hercules" hero.  There is absolutely not one single reason why the budding hercules hero should find it easier to succeed without good strategy.  The difference between powerful and less powerful first level characters is not how easy it is to win, it's how powerful the challenges they face are and how likely they are to be killed by bad luck instead of bad decisions or intentional risk taking.  And there are very good reasons to believe that potential new players would find the game less boring and frustrating if they are taking on bigger challenges and losing characters only when dramatically appropriate.  Not all of them, so of course there should be a dial.  You are also free to argue not even most of them, and that therefore the default should be fresh off the farm.  What you are not free to do is conflate challenge and lethality, assume that you can't have one without the other, and imply that those of us who want reduced low-level lethality are wimps who can't handle a challenge.  That is false, insulting, and bad for the game's design (assuming the devs listen to you and your ilk, anyway).