Giving PC's 10 additional hit points at level 1

[Arael666]

How would that impact the game? My intention is making the PC's more durable at low levels without it having much impact later in the game. I think this could potentially save a few lives from lucky crits made by orcs with falcions (falciones?).

[Bobby Baratheon]

I think that would be appropriate, but I would give NPCs half that so the discrepancy isn't too noticeable. The biggest beneficiaries would be the arcane spellcasters, who wouldn't have to worry as much about getting murdered by housecats.

[awa]

yes level 1 pcs are a little squishy for my taste

on the idea of giving npc bonus hp i disagree slightly
Id say give important npc extra hp not regular run of the mill orcs, goblins, and bandits their is something satisfying about a good cleave that would be lost if everyone got extra hp

That said maybe give big hit die characters a little something extra to off set the fact that one of their advantages got diluted

[torrasque666]

Hell, Star Wars Saga gives em triple their maximized dice, and then adds CON. So a d10 class with 14 CON gets 32 HP. d8 would get 26, etc.

[Quertus]

Well, much the same as giving characters max HP at first level, or not letting then die immediately at 0 HP, or letting them level at about 100x the rate of a real classic dungeon crawl, this would instill in the players the idea that their characters are somehow special, intended to live, and not merely chaff to be thrown in an unending storm at the murderous world.

But, if that's your thing, I'd recommend giving them 10 extra negative HP instead. That way, you don't have to worry much about how this changes the behavior / performance of monsters and NPCs with class levels.

[AnimeTheCat]

I don't think that its a good idea to change any of the mechanics, personally. Casters should feel squishy and should have to rely on their fighter, paladin, monk, etc to take the heat from them so that they can cast their magic without threat. Also, while martial classes get armor, wizards get scrolls. Also, I feel like giving free HP defeats the purpose of the Toad familiar. On top of that, if the PCs are fighting a group of Orcs at 1st level, they may be in over their head. Orcs with the Warrior NPC class are still CR1/2 creatures, and multiples add up to higher encounter levels. I like to blend encounters so there is a mix of orc and goblin in a group. That mixes one CR1/2 or (if it's a "Boss") CR1 Orc (1st level warrior for CR 1/2, 1st level Fighter CR1) with much easier CR 1/3 enemies. Its enough to provide plenty of challenge, but gives the party a chance to do things without adding unnecessary change to the rules of the game and potentially creating issues for yourself in the future. One 1st level fighter orc and 4-5 1st level expert goblins will give a party of 4 1st lvl PCs plenty of challenge without burning them out, or killing any of them, especially if you're using the non-elite stat spread for monsters. Orcs will have an AC of around 13-14 and goblins will be around 15, but hit less frequently and for less damage. I don't feel that adding additional PC HP is necessary to make them feel more durable.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I intensely dislike this idea. If you want them to have more hp, give them maxed HD.

The warrior classes are supposed to have more health than the mage. As it typically works with rolled or average HD and the casters having higher Con because they need less other high ability scores, there's seldom much functional difference between them and fighters.

Also, make monk and ranger d10 and rogue d8 HD. Any splat book classes that serve similar roles and are in similar tiers also get a HD boost.

That's what I would do.

[Esprit15]

The issue is that a single Orc with no effort involved can easily take someone from full to unconscious in one swing at level one, without trying. A falchion will average 9 damage from your by-the-book orc. That one shots the wizard, sorcerer, and possibly the rogue, too. At max, it's 12 damage (before crits), which can easily take out the cleric, ranger, and monk, too. Only the fighter, paladin, and barbarian walk away from that, and only barely in the case of the fighter and paladin.

[Pex]

Why not start at a higher level? Third level is still low enough to get the newbie feel yet the PCs have durability and some oomph in class abilities.

[Arael666]

Well, much the same as giving characters max HP at first level, or not letting then die immediately at 0 HP, or letting them level at about 100x the rate of a real classic dungeon crawl, this would instill in the players the idea that their characters are somehow special, intended to live, and not merely chaff to be thrown in an unending storm at the murderous world.

But, if that's your thing, I'd recommend giving them 10 extra negative HP instead. That way, you don't have to worry much about how this changes the behavior / performance of monsters and NPCs with class levels.

The way I DM 20 negative would be the same as 10 negative. I tend to play my mobs to their actual inteligence, meaning a band of goblins would not imediately ignore you just because you're uncounscious, unless there's some advantage to it.


I don't think that its a good idea to change any of the mechanics, personally. Casters should feel squishy and should have to rely on their fighter, paladin, monk, etc to take the heat from them so that they can cast their magic without threat. Also, while martial classes get armor, wizards get scrolls. Also, I feel like giving free HP defeats the purpose of the Toad familiar. On top of that, if the PCs are fighting a group of Orcs at 1st level, they may be in over their head. Orcs with the Warrior NPC class are still CR1/2 creatures, and multiples add up to higher encounter levels. I like to blend encounters so there is a mix of orc and goblin in a group. That mixes one CR1/2 or (if it's a "Boss") CR1 Orc (1st level warrior for CR 1/2, 1st level Fighter CR1) with much easier CR 1/3 enemies. Its enough to provide plenty of challenge, but gives the party a chance to do things without adding unnecessary change to the rules of the game and potentially creating issues for yourself in the future. One 1st level fighter orc and 4-5 1st level expert goblins will give a party of 4 1st lvl PCs plenty of challenge without burning them out, or killing any of them, especially if you're using the non-elite stat spread for monsters. Orcs will have an AC of around 13-14 and goblins will be around 15, but hit less frequently and for less damage. I don't feel that adding additional PC HP is necessary to make them feel more durable.

The orcs we're just an example to ilustrate the discrepancy of damage output of mobs and PC's total HP by earlier levels. For example, 3 lucky shots from goblin with crossbows have a potential to bring a 1st level barbarian with 18 con to 4 hp, and thats not counting crits. Casters will still feel squishy with that rule I believe, it's just that that feeling will be mitigated a little on the first levels.


I intensely dislike this idea. If you want them to have more hp, give them maxed HD.

The warrior classes are supposed to have more health than the mage. As it typically works with rolled or average HD and the casters having higher Con because they need less other high ability scores, there's seldom much functional difference between them and fighters.

Also, make monk and ranger d10 and rogue d8 HD. Any splat book classes that serve similar roles and are in similar tiers also get a HD boost.

That's what I would do.

They have maxed HP at first levels, my tought was to make them more survivable at earlier levels without impacting too much later on. I don't think HP is that much of an issue after lvl 6, its the first levels I'm worried about, mainly 1-3.


The issue is that a single Orc with no effort involved can easily take someone from full to unconscious in one swing at level one, without trying. A falchion will average 9 damage from your by-the-book orc. That one shots the wizard, sorcerer, and possibly the rogue, too. At max, it's 12 damage (before crits), which can easily take out the cleric, ranger, and monk, too. Only the fighter, paladin, and barbarian walk away from that, and only barely in the case of the fighter and paladin.

That's exactly my point, I don't want to completely eliminate lucky shots from NPC's, I just want to make them less overwhelming to the PC's. Bringin the barbarian to 4 HP from 26 will add tension, drama and they will feel acomplished after winning the battle, but killing him with a single lucky hit by bringing him to -6 and making him useless for the rest of the battle (and possibly killing him) will just spoil all the fun.


Hell, Star Wars Saga gives em triple their maximized dice, and then adds CON. So a d10 class with 14 CON gets 32 HP. d8 would get 26, etc.

Thats actually very logical, a flat bonus would benefit low HD classes way more than a variable one. I'm gonna use that rule, thank you.

[Arael666]

Why not start at a higher level? Third level is still low enough to get the newbie feel yet the PCs have durability and some oomph in class abilities.

I'm going to run an updated and slightly modified verson of the sunless citadel, folowing with the rest of the chain modules, so the starting level is kinda non negotiable.

[Zanos]

Well, much the same as giving characters max HP at first level, or not letting then die immediately at 0 HP, or letting them level at about 100x the rate of a real classic dungeon crawl, this would instill in the players the idea that their characters are somehow special, intended to live, and not merely chaff to be thrown in an unending storm at the murderous world.
3.5 is set up with this as the default assumption. PC's have higher ability scores and wealth simply by virtue of being PCs. Hell, most people don't even have real classes, they're stuck with the NPC classes.


I intensely dislike this idea. If you want them to have more hp, give them maxed HD.

The warrior classes are supposed to have more health than the mage. As it typically works with rolled or average HD and the casters having higher Con because they need less other high ability scores, there's seldom much functional difference between them and fighters.
I've played with max HD at level 1 for so long that I'm not even sure if it's a real rule or not anymore. But having max HD at level 1 doesn't make a big dent in the lucky crits problem.

In my experience, CON is a stat everyone likes to keep high. I typically see 14 before racials on nearly every character, with martial types usually going to 16, unless they're doing something wacky with their mental stats.


I do find low level gameplay a little swingy. This can be mitigated by adding HP, but it's really dependent on how many players are in your group. If there's 6 people and one person drops to a lucky crit, it's bad, but not going to cause the whole encounter to fail. If there's 2 or 3 and one goes down to a lucky crit, that's probably a TPK. I would give people just double max HP at level one rather than adding a flat amount. So 14 con wizard gets (4+con)*2, where a fighter gets (10+con)*2.

Also consider running small creatures like kobolds and goblins at low levels. They're reduced base damages from their size and low strength scores make them opponents that are less likely to instagib characters while still being capable of providing a good challenge. By the book Orcs are on the stronger side of CR 1/2 creatures. The falchion is a brutal weapon. Consider giving them a club and a shield instead.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I intensely dislike this idea. If you want them to have more hp, give them maxed HD."Give them max HD at level 1, instead of giving them max HD at level 1 like RAW says to do." What? :smallconfused:

[Fizban]

I support that triple max idea from Star Wars. I also wanted to point out another problem with just expanding negative hit points: stabilizing isn't free (unless you land a 10% roll). Very few spells plus most of the party not having ranks in Heal plus DC15 Heal check (and 10 or less deals more damage) equals a good chance of dying just because you hit negatives at all.

[StreamOfTheSky]

"Give them max HD at level 1, instead of giving them max HD at level 1 like RAW says to do." What? :smallconfused:

Ok, wow. You're like the 3rd person saying this. I guess I need to clarify.

GIVE THEM MAX HP AT EVERY LEVEL

Better now?

[Deeds]

I think this could potentially save a few lives from lucky crits made by orcs with falcions (falciones?).
As DM, you have the option to not crit your players EVERY time. Also, adding 10 extra HP to help cushion your players seems fine until you put it into practice. Your players will realize they can tank any one hit and the session will feel video gamey.

[Efrate]

I ran sunless citadel a while back and though we lost a few people, it was new players and they were dumb, and it doesn't hurt that much. With a 4 man squad of monk, sorcerer (all dd spells), rogue, and bard we lost the rogue and sorcerer at the rat queen, and replaced with cleric and basically the same sorcerer just with a bit less xp (and sleep yaay).

In forge of fury (second adventure in the path) we lost sorcerer again and the cleric to the ogre with levels in warrior at level 3, mostly because his wolves never rolled less than a 18 on their trip attempts. Also one ogre crit dropped the cleric, but its supposed to. Have a ranger (pet dead already and unreplaced) and another blasty sorcerer (it what he wants to play so be it) in place of cleric and sorcerer, and replaced bard (left group) with a cleric who just casts the lvl 2 buffs (cats grace, etc) and then wades in to fight, and doesn't prep all healing spells(someone learned).

Heading into Speaker in dreams in a few days, and only 4 character deaths is not bad at all. Considering I am running core only with elite array stats and PHB 2 open as of lvl 6 so melees get some nice things. The sorcerer learned to position away from the front lines and not use his spear, and though we've had a few people drop into negatives, it was versus mindless undead mostly who if the blow doesn't kill them outright will attack something else. Mortality is a real danger, but its not too terrible.

You start off in sunless versus rats, a few skeletons if yer lucky, and eventually kobalds. If they are lvl 1-2 attacking all the kobalds they should die, at least versus the leader, but its pretty easy starting off. Don't pull punches, let it ride.

[Ashtagon]

If you don't like starting games at a level where PCs are squishy, don't. Start the game at level 2 or 3 instead.

[Seerow]

last low level game I ran, I had everyone start out with 5 NPC hitdice that got subsumed by regular class levels as they leveled up (with a general rule of thumb that anyone with PC class levels has at least 5 NPC levels, and any adult humanoid had at least 3 hit dice). It drained a little bit of the feeling of rapid progression at low levels (since HP and hit bonus gains were far more minimal for those first 5 levels), but also let us start at level 1 with the numbers appropriate to level 4-6 characters, and stay there for the whole early game. Since that 4-6 range is is where mechanics like HP and to-hit tend to work the best, I felt like it wound up working pretty well.



Ok, wow. You're like the 3rd person saying this. I guess I need to clarify.

GIVE THEM MAX HP AT EVERY LEVEL

Better now?

This clarification takes you from not understanding the rules, and pushes it into not understanding the problem the OP is trying to solve. Giving PCs max hp at every level provides increasing inflation the higher level you go, but does absolutely nothing to solve squishiness at level 1, which is what the OP was specifically targetting. You can disagree with the premise and say low level characters are fine, or being squishy is part of the fun... but saying "give more HP at higher levels" is a really bad answer to "how do I stop a level 1 character from being a smear the first time a CR1/2 mook looks at them funny?"

[Nightcanon]

Presumably, every orc, goblin and housecat these guys will meet will have 10 extra hp as well? It seems like a good idea to give PCs extra HP to help them survive, but unless you apply this to 1HD monsters too, it's a bit unbalanced. Why should a wizard have more HP than an orc when they start out?

[Quertus]

I'm going to run an updated and slightly modified verson of the sunless citadel, folowing with the rest of the chain modules, so the starting level is kinda non negotiable.

... Nothing keeps you from running a published adventure at a different level than it was intended for. I'm not familiar with that particular module, but I don't think I've ever seen a module where it would somehow violate the laws of physics to start the characters off at a different level.:smalltongue:

IMO, that sounds like the easiest solution to your dilemma.

[StreamOfTheSky]

This clarification takes you from not understanding the rules, and pushes it into not understanding the problem the OP is trying to solve. Giving PCs max hp at every level provides increasing inflation the higher level you go, but does absolutely nothing to solve squishiness at level 1, which is what the OP was specifically targetting. You can disagree with the premise and say low level characters are fine, or being squishy is part of the fun... but saying "give more HP at higher levels" is a really bad answer to "how do I stop a level 1 character from being a smear the first time a CR1/2 mook looks at them funny?"

1) The OP never said the problem was only level 1. A whole bunch of people eager to passive-aggressively insult me seemed to read it that way, but what he said was:


How would that impact the game? My intention is making the PC's more durable at low levels without it having much impact later in the game. I think this could potentially save a few lives from lucky crits made by orcs with falcions (falciones?).


Not just first level. Low levels. Plural. Characters don't suddenly become able to withstand a lucky crit at level 2, especially if they roll a 2 for hp on their hit die.

2) Max hit points does not provide "increasing inflation the higher level you go." By definition, it's the same rate of growth throughout, and that's if you never buy a +2/+4/+6 Con item or increase it naturally or by other means. Realistically, the share of your hp coming from HD will diminish as you level up, whether you use fixed HD (average, max, whatever) or rolled.

You're completely wrong on both points, so don't tell me I'm giving someone a bad answer.

As for first level, specifically, since you asked... My view is they'll always be squishy, you'd have to really inflate the hp to change that. Even the +10 hp won't save someone who's crit by a 2-handing orc with a x3 or x4 weapon, and if the orc's power attacking and/or raging, even the falchion could still kill in one hit. So I have never started a game at level 1, it's always been level 3 or higher (and I use at least 3/4 max HD beyond the maxed 1st HD, to make sure they have a decent total). If I really did want to start from level 1 sometime, I'd intentionally avoid using monsters that can do so much damage in one hit. CR 1 and under creatures have pretty ridiculous ranges of average damage between them.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Ok, wow. You're like the 3rd person saying this. I guess I need to clarify.

GIVE THEM MAX HP AT EVERY LEVEL

Better now?...And that helps with the OP's problem of being really fragile at level 1 how, exactly? PCs already get max hp at level 1, so this changes nothing whatsoever until the problem is no longer an actual problem, because adding +2 hp at level 2 and +4 hp at level 3 isn't going to do much of anything, and by the time the difference is notable, the problem wouldn't be a problem anymore anyway.

[Necrov]

I'm going to run an updated and slightly modified verson of the sunless citadel, folowing with the rest of the chain modules, so the starting level is kinda non negotiable.

First of all. This was my first ever 3.5 adventure, and I loved it. Sunless Citadel has a special place in my heart and can be reflavoured to fit into almost any grand campaign. Great choice of adventure.

Secondly, +10 HP at first level seems like a perfectly sensible house rule to me. It reduces the lethality probably so far as 1-5th level, and after that is just a nice small bonus that wont really interfere with much at all. It's all pretty proportionate, so there's not a lot to worry about.

Other people will tell you otherwise, but as a house rule, it's really not bad at all.

[Florian]

How would that impact the game? My intention is making the PC's more durable at low levels without it having much impact later in the game. I think this could potentially save a few lives from lucky crits made by orcs with falcions (falciones?).

Being extremely squishy at first level has an intense learning effect that will stay with the players that experienced this into the later levels.
It´s simply not a great idea to try to MMO-style "tank" that Orc with the falchion instead of having the wizard prepared Sleep for exactly that occasion, and so forth.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Being extremely squishy at first level has an intense learning effect that will stay with the players that experienced this into the later levels.
It´s simply not a great idea to try to MMO-style "tank" that Orc with the falchion instead of having the wizard prepared Sleep for exactly that occasion, and so forth.And all it does is make players waste time on a character sheet they'll have to discard PDQ in lieu of another one, or they'll suddenly find "my character's twin brother, who is exactly like him" so they can reuse the same build.

[Ashtagon]

And all it does is make players waste time on a character sheet they'll have to discard PDQ in lieu of another one, or they'll suddenly find "my character's twin brother, who is exactly like him" so they can reuse the same build.

At mid level (say, 5th upwards), I have a problem with Cloney Mac Clone-Face. At 1st level though? That just helps enhance the backstory for the 'brother'. And it still means the player ends up learning survival skills he wouldn't have if hit points grew on character sheets.

[Arael666]

... Nothing keeps you from running a published adventure at a different level than it was intended for. I'm not familiar with that particular module, but I don't think I've ever seen a module where it would somehow violate the laws of physics to start the characters off at a different level.:smalltongue:

IMO, that sounds like the easiest solution to your dilemma.

It's just that I intend to run all the modules in 1-20 campaign, that means if I start sunless by level 3-5 I would have to either modify all later modules, including sunless (wich sounds a lot of work than just updating it and chosing other prepared spells and feats for mobs) or skip an entire module (wich I don't want to do :smallfrown:).

On another topic, am I using the right word? modules are adventures published right?

[mauk2]

How would that impact the game? My intention is making the PC's more durable at low levels without it having much impact later in the game. I think this could potentially save a few lives from lucky crits made by orcs with falcions (falciones?).


In Epic Path (see sig) we give all PC's their Con stat (not mod, their full Con stat) as hitpoints at first level, on top of a maxed die roll.

To balance this out, we moved wizards and sorcerer's back down to D4's.

We find this works very well. Characters feel nice and 'adventurous' right from first level, no need to skip a few.

HOWEVER.

To address long-term survivability differences, we made a LOT more changes than just that.

We rebuilt and renumbered the encounter difficulties at every level. IE, we're writing our monsters on a totally different set of scaling formulas than any other D20 game I'm aware of. Making a change like this in a game without that degree of optimization might be less than good.

Your Mileage May Vary. :)

[AnimeTheCat]

Is running away and preparing appropriately not an approved form of dealing with a threat anymore?

Thing is, that Orc still needs to hit and the PCs should have a much better AC than the non-elite stat-spread orc with a falchion they're facing. At most they should be getting a +5 to hit (and that's if you don't use the one in the MMI). The starting package for a Dwarf Fighter in PHBI gives you scale mail (+4 AC) and A Heavy Shield (+2 AC). At a minimum, you will have a 16 AC. There is less than 50% chance that character will get hit by the orc. There is only a 15% chance that the Orc will crit. Everyone keeps talking about the "lucky hit" or the "chance crit" like its a guaranteed thing. 15% means that 3 times out of 20, you'll get crit. That's the nature of the beast and that's D&D. If you feel that your orcs are critting too much, try using different dice? There is just no reason to give the PCs an unnecessary power boost when they are already more powerful than NPCs. They are, by their very nature, more powerful already. Where's the fun in just smashing through everything?

Lets look at a different perspective. Orc and Kobolds both have light sensitivity as an exploitable weakness. Instead of giving the PCs a permanent health boost, throw a scroll of daylight or two their way. A 1st level cleric can use it as long as they decipher the scroll (simple read magic spell) and succeed on a DC6 Caster level check. This will Dazzle the orc, giving him an even lower chance to hit AND doesn't use up spells per day. All the Cleric has to do is roll 5 or better.

There is no reason to change the classes to make the more durable because there are ways for dealing with every situation. That way may be "run away, prepare, reengage" or Hide behind the tank and counterattack. Giving a wizard, already one of the most potent classes in the game, another power boost. No, they're not overbearingly powerful at first level, but getting to that high level is what will seem more rewarding when they're casting empowered delayed blast fireballs at everything while they're invisible and flying around. There would be no sense of achievement or fear if you make them all tanks and it takes meaning and purpose away from the classes that are already fighting to keep their heads up.

EDIT: I was AFB when I made the above comment but I would also like to add that the default orc warrior 1 has 5 HP. That's one magic missile, longsword attack, or (if the individual rolled decent stats) a single HIT from a greatsword (with a strength of 14 you will kill the orc if you hit it). Naturally you will have better stats and hopefully the spellcaster took Improved Initiative at first level. There is a pretty good chance the PCs will go first and with that on the table, most classes can 1-shot the orc. The NPC/opposition are already more fragile than the PCs, there's no reason to unnecessarily buff the PCs.

[mauk2]

Is running away and preparing appropriately not an approved form of dealing with a threat anymore?

Of course it is...if you like playing a cowardly sort of person. Strangely enough, running away is rarely perceived as heroic. If you happen to like that sort of thing, excellent for you! Con makes a perfectly viable dump stat, and allows you to buy up quite a few useful things.

Not everybody likes that sort of thing.


Thing is, that Orc still needs to hit and the PCs should have a much better AC than the non-elite stat-spread orc with a falchion they're facing. At most they should be getting a +5 to hit (and that's if you don't use the one in the MMI). The starting package for a Dwarf Fighter in PHBI gives you scale mail (+4 AC) and A Heavy Shield (+2 AC). At a minimum, you will have a 16 AC. There is less than 50% chance that character will get hit by the orc. There is only a 15% chance that the Orc will crit.

There is a fifteen percent chance the Orc will crit.. .Per Swing. But here's a fun fact: The GM gets as many Orcs as he wants. Eventually, one is very definitely going to land that crit.

Remember, the DM can tolerate any amount of bad luck. Player Characters only get one bite at it.

Sure, some people may like that kind of desperate 'survival horror' sort of game, but.... Not many.



Lets look at a different perspective. Orc and Kobolds both have light sensitivity as an exploitable weakness. Instead of giving the PCs a permanent health boost, throw a scroll of daylight or two their way. A 1st level cleric can use it as long as they decipher the scroll (simple read magic spell) and succeed on a DC6 Caster level check. This will Dazzle the orc, giving him an even lower chance to hit AND doesn't use up spells per day. All the Cleric has to do is roll 5 or better.

Uhm....

Yeah, this is such a 'lol-melee' sort of approach I'm not even sure how to address this notion. 'Improved survivability through GM fiat.'

Yes, that would certainly work.



There is no reason to change the classes to make the more durable because there are ways for dealing with every situation. That way may be "run away, prepare, reengage" or Hide behind the tank and counterattack.

Except the tank is also one unlucky roll away from instant death.

[AnimeTheCat]

Of course it is...if you like playing a cowardly sort of person. Strangely enough, running away is rarely perceived as heroic. If you happen to like that sort of thing, excellent for you! Con makes a perfectly viable dump stat, and allows you to buy up quite a few useful things.

Not everybody likes that sort of thing.

Running away and reengaging was a favored tactic by many great leaders such as Alexander the Great and Napoleon. Maybe its not "heroic" but its really smart and won them many fights. That doesn't make CON a dump stat for front line characters, or anybody for that matter. Health is health and you will always need it. I just strongly feel that you don't need 14+con mod as a first level wizard. that defeats the only possible balancing feature of an otherwise incredibly powerful class.


There is a fifteen percent chance the Orc will crit.. .Per Swing. But here's a fun fact: The GM gets as many Orcs as he wants. Eventually, one is very definitely going to land that crit.

Remember, the DM can tolerate any amount of bad luck. Player Characters only get one bite at it.

Sure, some people may like that kind of desperate 'survival horror' sort of game, but.... Not many.

OP said he was running an updated version of Sunless Citadel. Unless they replaced all the Goblins and Kobolds with Orcs, He shouldn't have too many making swings. And, since OP also said he's following the module, I'm pretty sure he's not editing the encounters too much. Level 1 characters are hardly in a "survival horror" game, you just have to play smart and pick your battles.


Uhm....

Yeah, this is such a 'lol-melee' sort of approach I'm not even sure how to address this notion. 'Improved survivability through GM fiat.'

Yes, that would certainly work.

You don't approve of "Improved survivability through GM fiat" but you approve changing fairly major mechanics of the game? Yeah, this is such a "lol-rules" approach I'm not even sure how to address this notion.


Except the tank is also one unlucky roll away from instant death.

And every enemy, with a simple 14 strength 1st level fighter wielding a greatsword, is a single hit, not a lucky roll or crit, from being dropped. The same orc would have to roll at least 6 damage on the damage dice to come close to dropping the fighter. And that's if they even hit in the first place and the fighter had no con modifier.

To round everything else off I'm gonna quote someone from earlier in the thread that solves ALL of this:


As DM, you have the option to not crit your players EVERY time.

[charcoalninja]

Just add your Con score to HP at 1st. 4e did this and made level 1 awesome.

[FocusWolf413]

I think the problem is assuming that everyone starts out at first level. If you make children first level, adolescents/young adults second level, and adults/people actually trained in a skill third level, you have something that you can actually work with.

Check out this essay:
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2

Edit: You need to remember that adventurers are exceptional people. They have better training and better base stats. Why start them at first level?

[killem2]

I suppose you can, but if the encounters are carefully crafted you should not see too many sudden kills.

[tiercel]

The "squishy" problem at level 1 seems overstated to me.

Yes, orcs, but orcs are the exception to the rule:

CR 1/2 Hobgoblin: +2 melee, d8+2/19-20
CR 1/3 Goblin: +2 melee, d6
CR 1 Wolf: +3 melee, d6+1 + trip
CR 1/3 Human Warrior Skeleton: +1 melee, d6+1/18-20
CR 1 Gnoll: +3 melee, d8+2/x3

Dangerous, sure, but we aren't playing Candy Land here, and none of these fairly common low-CR foes hit like an orc does.

In-combat healing is actually viable at level 1, and negative hit points are arguably MORE of a cushion against actual death at level 1 than at higher levels; PCs might drop, but are more likely to survive the experience (and maybe learn a thing or two about caution).

[Andezzar]

Is running away and preparing appropriately not an approved form of dealing with a threat anymore?The problem is that running away does not work (well). The Orc has a charge range of 60ft. A withdrawal (which would avoid an AoO) only gets the typical PC 60ft from the orc. So if the orc was adjacent to the PC he can still attack.

Should the PCs have the misfortune of running into an orc barbarian, withdrawal does not work at all.

Running away before the orc even closes, seems even less heroic.

[digiman619]

My only problem with this idea is, well, what happens when they hit second level? By definition, the only class that can possibly benefit from this is the Barbarian; Even if the wizard or rogue roll max HP, they're losing HP for the level up!

[Enguebert]

Well, adventure at level 1 is dangerous. Players have to learn to be cautious, use tactic and avoid fight/escape when it is dangerous

Now, when i am the DM :
1) At level 1, characters are full HP. I add the following rule : At level 2, you reroll until you have at least 50% of your dice (that means min 3 for a Wizard, 6 for a fighter).
And at level 3, you reroll if it is a 1. That means characters will always have decent hp, reducing (but not eliminating) the risk of lucky hit one-shotting
2) At level 1, i prefer to do small scenarios, with not a lot of fights. And in a fight, number of ennemies is lower that number of players. That way, if a player goes in negative, others can take care of ennemies and one can try to use Healing skill to stabilize the wounded
3) Change weapons so ennemies cannot one-shot the fighters : for the orc, don't use falchion or scimitar (large critical zone) but use instead mace or shortsword
4) Throw dices behind your screen. So if you score a critical, you can change it in a normal hit unless you know if will not drop the target (the kobold with a dagger can do a critical, the orc with falchion will not). You can say loud "20, let's see if it is a critical", so the player will be scared

My rule : don't let a lucky roll kill a player from full health to death unless he did something very stupid.

[Ortesk]

At first level just do con score + max HD. So fighter with 16 con has 26 health. Now, not so squishy. For the -10 thing, I always do -10+HD, so at level 20 it is -30 to die. When you get higher in level, taking someone from 40 to -10 in one hit isn't hard. Seems lousy they have the same floor as a first level mook, yet a grossly superior ceiling.

[Arael666]

Is running away and preparing appropriately not an approved form of dealing with a threat anymore?

Thing is, that Orc still needs to hit and the PCs should have a much better AC than the non-elite stat-spread orc with a falchion they're facing. At most they should be getting a +5 to hit (and that's if you don't use the one in the MMI). The starting package for a Dwarf Fighter in PHBI gives you scale mail (+4 AC) and A Heavy Shield (+2 AC). At a minimum, you will have a 16 AC. There is less than 50% chance that character will get hit by the orc. There is only a 15% chance that the Orc will crit. Everyone keeps talking about the "lucky hit" or the "chance crit" like its a guaranteed thing. 15% means that 3 times out of 20, you'll get crit. That's the nature of the beast and that's D&D. If you feel that your orcs are critting too much, try using different dice? There is just no reason to give the PCs an unnecessary power boost when they are already more powerful than NPCs. They are, by their very nature, more powerful already. Where's the fun in just smashing through everything?

Lets look at a different perspective. Orc and Kobolds both have light sensitivity as an exploitable weakness. Instead of giving the PCs a permanent health boost, throw a scroll of daylight or two their way. A 1st level cleric can use it as long as they decipher the scroll (simple read magic spell) and succeed on a DC6 Caster level check. This will Dazzle the orc, giving him an even lower chance to hit AND doesn't use up spells per day. All the Cleric has to do is roll 5 or better.

There is no reason to change the classes to make the more durable because there are ways for dealing with every situation. That way may be "run away, prepare, reengage" or Hide behind the tank and counterattack. Giving a wizard, already one of the most potent classes in the game, another power boost. No, they're not overbearingly powerful at first level, but getting to that high level is what will seem more rewarding when they're casting empowered delayed blast fireballs at everything while they're invisible and flying around. There would be no sense of achievement or fear if you make them all tanks and it takes meaning and purpose away from the classes that are already fighting to keep their heads up.

EDIT: I was AFB when I made the above comment but I would also like to add that the default orc warrior 1 has 5 HP. That's one magic missile, longsword attack, or (if the individual rolled decent stats) a single HIT from a greatsword (with a strength of 14 you will kill the orc if you hit it). Naturally you will have better stats and hopefully the spellcaster took Improved Initiative at first level. There is a pretty good chance the PCs will go first and with that on the table, most classes can 1-shot the orc. The NPC/opposition are already more fragile than the PCs, there's no reason to unnecessarily buff the PCs.

I always presume a better scenario that what you described (I tend to play with people who are top practical optmizers) and we're not assuming that it's a guaranteed thing, we're assuming it will eventually happen. We know the lucky crits have a low probability of happening, but when it does happen it's results are devastating. What I want to "fix" is not the probability of it happening (that is not the issue), the problem I want to fix is the "sure kill hit". By adding a litle more HP by the early levels we should reduce the probability of one hit kills till crits are not that life threatening, usually by lvl 6.

[Nightcanon]

The way I DM 20 negative would be the same as 10 negative. I tend to play my mobs to their actual inteligence, meaning a band of goblins would not imediately ignore you just because you're uncounscious, unless there's some advantage to it.

I disagree with this: PCs reduced to -1 HP or lower are unconscious, dying, and no longer an immediate threat. A small band of goblins (we're not talking a horde here if they are being used as a level-appropriate challenge for a first-level party) isn't going to waste time administering the coup de grace to downed PCs while there are other opponents up and threatening them.
Death at -20 HP has the benefit that it's harder for a critical to knock a PC straight through from full HP to dead without stopping in the negatives. If Orc warriors with falchions are a particular concern, arm them with javelins instead, or make them slavers more interested in taking their foes alive, or make it possible for the PCs to lure them into bright sunlight. This might be 'PC survival by nerfing the enemy through DM fiat' but so is stacking the odds for the PCs by giving them extra HP so that even the party wizard is guaranteed to have twice the HP of the average orc (of which they'll meet 2 in a level-appropriate encounter).

At first level just do con score + max HD. So fighter with 16 con has 26 health. Now, not so squishy.
Is the standard Orc warrior getting 20 HP from this deal, or does it only apply to PCs? If we're talking PC-only, I don't see how this is better than fudging the dice rolls so that first level PCs never take crits.

[AnimeTheCat]

The problem is that running away does not work (well). The Orc has a charge range of 60ft. A withdrawal (which would avoid an AoO) only gets the typical PC 60ft from the orc. So if the orc was adjacent to the PC he can still attack.

Should the PCs have the misfortune of running into an orc barbarian, withdrawal does not work at all.

Running away before the orc even closes, seems even less heroic.

The orc also needs line of sight and a clear path to charge that distance. They can't move to achieve this and charge in a single round. The module takes place in a castle of sorts that has been pulled in to the earth, that doesn't typically leave one far from any sort of hallway, door, pillar, or other obstacle to stand in the way of the charging orc.


always presume a better scenario that what you described (I tend to play with people who are top practical optmizers) and we're not assuming that it's a guaranteed thing, we're assuming it will eventually happen. We know the lucky crits have a low probability of happening, but when it does happen it's results are devastating. What I want to "fix" is not the probability of it happening (that is not the issue), the problem I want to fix is the "sure kill hit". By adding a litle more HP by the early levels we should reduce the probability of one hit kills till crits are not that life threatening, usually by lvl 6.

I understand what you're seeking to do, and I've wanted to the same in previous games that I've run. The problem I always ran in to was that the PCs wouldn't fear traps or anything of that nature because there was no real fear of that trap knocking them unconscious. They ceased fearing intelligent combat or weighing their odds. I highly doubt that the PCs are Supposed to try an fight a group of 5 orcs at level 1, but if they are supposed to they should get creative. Set up a hallway of traps to lure them in to so that when they charge they spring a tripwire trap and fall flat on their faces. No Craft (trapmaking), no problem! Craft can be made untrained. The PCs take their time and calculate the encounter the way they want to do it. Let the rogue do some sneaky scouting ahead before the rest of the party follows so you don't unintentionally set off anything. There is always a more effective way than "beat thing over the head till gold pops out" and giving 10 free HP at level 1 promotes "beating things over the head till gold pops out".

[Jay R]

When you change the rules to give your PCs more ability to survive through mechanics than other people's characters, you are telling your players that they aren't good enough to play the game other players play.


And all it does is make players waste time on a character sheet they'll have to discard PDQ in lieu of another one, or they'll suddenly find "my character's twin brother, who is exactly like him" so they can reuse the same build.

Actually, in my experience, many players actually learn from experiences, and have a betyter second build than their first one if the first one didn't work well.

Also, some people actually want to play different kinds of characters. My first PC was a Fighter, my second a Paladin, my next few (I forget the order) were 2 Magic-Users, 1 Cleric, and 3 Thieves, and a Bard.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Actually, in my experience, many players actually learn from experiences, and have a betyter second build than their first one if the first one didn't work well.Then it happens exactly as I said it did, and they wasted their time making that first character sheet.

[Jay R]

Then it happens exactly as I said it did, and they wasted their time making that first character sheet.

Only on the assumption that designing a character, playing D&D, and learning from that experience is "wasting time"

I didn't catch the first ball thrown to me. I didn't win my first fencing bout. I lost my first sword-and-shield bout. I lost many swimming races before I got good. I didn't win my first game of poker, or bridge, or Monopoly, or ...

Losing in those games is part of the process of learning to play well, is a valuable experience, and is fun. Why should losing in D&D not have the same value?


The problem is that running away does not work (well). The Orc has a charge range of 60ft. A withdrawal (which would avoid an AoO) only gets the typical PC 60ft from the orc. So if the orc was adjacent to the PC he can still attack.

Should the PCs have the misfortune of running into an orc barbarian, withdrawal does not work at all.

Your assumption is that the party has no stealth, no ability to keep guard, and no willingness to be careful. The time to avoid the orc is before he knows you're there.

Getting into melee range before deciding if you want to face him isn't "misfortune"; it's treating travel through a dangerous environment like it's a picnic.


Running away before the orc even closes, seems even less heroic.

I'm not sure what you think "heroic" means, but this isn't it.

Thorin and company ran from goblins. Peter, Susan, and Lucy ran from the White Witch and her wolves. Zorro ran from the Alcalde's soldiers. Han, Luke, Leia, and Chewbacca ran from the Death Star.

Virtually all true heroes face enemies with more power than they have. A great adventure story involved finding out the power involved, running, and making plans to take advantage of some sort of weakness you discover, or set-up you arrange, to eventually defeat them.

Because eventually finding a way to defeat enemies that you aren't strong enough to defeat in a simple encounter is in fact heroic, and makes the best stories.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Only on the assumption that designing a character, playing D&D, and learning from that experience is "wasting time"

I didn't catch the first ball thrown to me. I didn't win my first fencing bout. I lost my first sword-and-shield bout. I lost many swimming races before I got good. I didn't win my first game of poker, or bridge, or Monopoly, or ...

Losing in those games is part of the process of learning to play well, is a valuable experience, and is fun. Why should losing in D&D not have the same value?And those take all of a minute or less to get back into the game.

Coming up with and statting out a D&D character is a considerably larger investiture, both time-wise and emotionally -- at least, if you care at all about who and what you're playing. If that's not the case, then you might as well just reuse the same sheet -- just like I said.

So, yes, either you wasted your time making that first sheet, or you reuse it, both of which are problematic in their own ways.

[Florian]

Then it happens exactly as I said it did, and they wasted their time making that first character sheet.

Failure is the only way you really can learn. Better do that now with your first level character than find out that the same one bad rolls can happen to your character when you meet your first save or die and that will suck even more, if you´re not prepared for that to happen.

Playing the game itself is fun. Part of the fun is the danger that can happen to your character, you knowing that danger and surviving it.
Yes, that can be a bit of an acquired taste, but so is riding your bicycle without kids wheels on.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Failure is the only way you really can learn. Better do that now with your first level character than find out that the same one bad rolls can happen to your character when you meet your first save or die and that will suck even more, if you´re not prepared for that to happen.

Playing the game itself is fun. Part of the fun is the danger that can happen to your character, you knowing that danger and surviving it.
Yes, that can be a bit of an acquired taste, but so is riding your bicycle without kids wheels on.Tell me what you learn when your enemy rolls a nat 20. "Don't let him roll a critical hit when he makes an attack roll" makes about as much sense as the "lessons" those old '80s cartoons taught.

[AnimeTheCat]

Tell me what you learn when your enemy rolls a nat 20. "Don't let him roll a critical hit when he makes an attack roll" makes about as much sense as the "lessons" those old '80s cartoons taught.

Tell me what you learn when the rogue rolls poorly and triggers a trap with poison on it that slowly kills him? You learn that "bad rolls happen". In your example of the nat 20, you learn that "Good rolls happen for the enemy". What that taught me, by contrast, was to pick my fights.

Why in the name of all the D&D pantheons would I, as a level 1 wizard, want to pick a fist fight with an orc... coordinate with the fighter, get behind him, and cast magic freaking missile. Deal almost half his health, guaranteed, with a 25% chance to bring him to 0. That looks pretty good when you realize that the orc can't get to you with a charge and the fighter will get an AoO if he tries to close. You have now improved your survivability substantially, by simply being smart. If you chose to stand in the open and try casting summon monster which allowed the orc to charge you and got the 5% chance of critting you, you've learned that standing vulnerable out in the open may not be the best option for a wizard. You didn't learn from the Nat 20, you learned from the death and the events leading up to your death.

And let's face it, the numbers on a character sheet are very easy to get at level 1, its mostly going to be a 1, 2, 4, or 5 then you have to *GASP* simple math. If you're talking about character back story, that's something the DM and player work together on anyway. That doesn't necessarily have to be written in stone to play a character.

Most deaths in D&D can be prevented with a liberal application of "Think before you leap".

[Gallowglass]

How would that impact the game? My intention is making the PC's more durable at low levels without it having much impact later in the game. I think this could potentially save a few lives from lucky crits made by orcs with falcions (falciones?).

I'm going to ignore the many, many, heated posts between this question and now and just, you know, answer your question.

It would have a significant impact at 1st level. If you were playing a module or canned scenario, this would turn on "easy" mode for most encounters that were balanced to be challenging. If you were making up your own game, you would probably find yourself compensating by increasing the challenge and nullify the impact which would make the change irrelevant. Yes, they will survive the one lucky hit from Orc 1, but you put in 3 orcs instead of 1 to make it challenging and now they are dropping on round 5 of the combat instead of round 1.

The impact would diminish quickly and greatly at lower levels and be virtually gone by level 7-10.

If you are finding this problem to occur greatly in games you are playing/running, then go for it. Anything that makes the game more fun for you and your players is on the table. This is a change that will have very few "unforseen" consequences down the line. This change also, being a blanket +10 hp to everyone, doesn't interact badly with how people are building their characters by resulting in op-fu.

But, if you are finding this problem to occur greatly and often in games you are playing/running, you could also compensate by re-planning how you build challenges at low levels. I think there has been a lot of good ideas in this thread for you to mine.

[Andezzar]

Your assumption is that the party has no stealth, no ability to keep guard, and no willingness to be careful. The time to avoid the orc is before he knows you're there.that's not what I am assuming, I assumed that they had already engaged the orc and at least one character has already been hit and not killed.


Getting into melee range before deciding if you want to face him isn't "misfortune"; it's treating travel through a dangerous environment like it's a picnic.I totally agree. However an orc barbarian is pretty much indistinguishable from an orc warrior.


I'm not sure what you think "heroic" means, but this isn't it.

Thorin and company ran from goblins. Peter, Susan, and Lucy ran from the White Witch and her wolves. Zorro ran from the Alcalde's soldiers. Han, Luke, Leia, and Chewbacca ran from the Death Star.

Virtually all true heroes face enemies with more power than they have. A great adventure story involved finding out the power involved, running, and making plans to take advantage of some sort of weakness you discover, or set-up you arrange, to eventually defeat them.

Because eventually finding a way to defeat enemies that you aren't strong enough to defeat in a simple encounter is in fact heroic, and makes the best stories.I wasn't tlaking about being faced with a superior foe and retreating to find a better strategy, but simply running away because of an orc, that has not even made any move to engage the PCs. That indeed is not heroic.

BTW who are Peter, Susan and Lucy?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

BTW who are Peter, Susan and Lucy?The non-evil siblings from The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe.

[Arael666]

I'm going to ignore the many, many, heated posts between this question and now and just, you know, answer your question.

It would have a significant impact at 1st level. If you were playing a module or canned scenario, this would turn on "easy" mode for most encounters that were balanced to be challenging. If you were making up your own game, you would probably find yourself compensating by increasing the challenge and nullify the impact which would make the change irrelevant. Yes, they will survive the one lucky hit from Orc 1, but you put in 3 orcs instead of 1 to make it challenging and now they are dropping on round 5 of the combat instead of round 1.

The impact would diminish quickly and greatly at lower levels and be virtually gone by level 7-10.

If you are finding this problem to occur greatly in games you are playing/running, then go for it. Anything that makes the game more fun for you and your players is on the table. This is a change that will have very few "unforseen" consequences down the line. This change also, being a blanket +10 hp to everyone, doesn't interact badly with how people are building their characters by resulting in op-fu.

But, if you are finding this problem to occur greatly and often in games you are playing/running, you could also compensate by re-planning how you build challenges at low levels. I think there has been a lot of good ideas in this thread for you to mine.


From a few responses in this topic I think I should be a little more clear on the way I run things. By "updated" I mean that I'm updating all monsters from the 3.0 modules to 3.5 (just using the srd version of them, not actually aplying the conversion metod), and by "slightly modified" I mean that I'm taking an intelligent approache when selecting feats and equipment for npc's, and even specializing them. Since PC's get 2 flaws and 1 trait, my npc's tend to get at least one flaw too.

For example, PC's will encounter many phalanx goblins as enemies throughout the dungeon, and I've also created specialized ranged goblins to give support. I expect them to act accordingly once they understand what they are facing, either by memorizing spells to deal with them, by clever use of resources and terrain (the latter being quite easy if you take a look at the dungeon map) or by using game mechanics to their advantage (like bullrushing the phalanx and separating them to negate the +4 AC bonus). They are fully briefed out of character that I don't pull punches, that I play monsters to their inteligence and that I tend to optmize the encounters. I've also added a lot of information that the PC's can get in game from the townsfolk and from the kobolds so they may prepare themselves ingame.

That being said, I don't expect them to start doing that right from the start. Like many people said, I hope they'll learn from experience and that's why I'll have them fight increasing numbers of mobs untill they reach the "normal scouting party size" that will be the usual encounter in the dungeon (probably 2 or 3 encounters till that, maybe more if they are slow learners).

[AnimeTheCat]

BTW who are Peter, Susan and Lucy?

They're characters from the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.


that's not what I am assuming, I assumed that they had already engaged the orc and at least one character has already been hit and not killed.

And after reading your response about assuming that they've entered the encounter and someone has already been pretty substantially chunked you still have options.

1) Use the Withdraw full-round action to disengage and retreat behind a wall to prevent from being charged and break LoS from spell casters and ranged fighters.

2) Use the Total Defense standard action to increase your AC by 4 and take a 5 foot step to disengage from the orc, hoping that he will roll too low to hit.

3) Stand and fight? Maybe? have the fighter go on total defense and stay where he is, position the rogue behind the orc and get a sneak attack in (minimum 2 dmg assuming you have a 10 str).

everything is relative to the situation. If there are more enemies than there are PCs, maybe it would be wise to retreat to a 5-10 foot hallway and leave the tank up front doing everything he can to bolster his AC while the rogue, wizard, ranger, etc. throw things at the enemies from behind. That's what I've been trying to say the whole time is that there isn't really a need to buff the PCs because with a little teamwork and a bit of forethought a 4 player party can easily think a situation through. Say you don't do the stealthy scouting, that's fine:

"You walk in to a room and see an orc with a falchion strapped to his back and a band of 4 goblins with daggers on their hips accompanying him. They're sitting around a campfire eating their latest rat kill, the blood still fresh on their weapons. The orc glances up from his hunk of rat meat and spies the party. He immediately jumps up and starts shouting orders." You're at initiative now, the wizard got first place, rogue second, Goblins third, Cleric fourth, orc fifth, and sadly the BDF goes last. So the wizard takes up a defensive position behind the cleric and blasts one of the goblins with a magic missile spell knocking him out. Then the rogue delays his action to see where he can move to flank. the goblins fan out and take pot shots at the rogue and wizard, taking a minor concealment check to make sure they didn't miss (since he's hiding behind the cleric). The rogue takes a hit and is down 3HP. He's a little scared about that, admittedly. Next it's the cleric, he takes a 5 foot step over to the rogue and casts a cure light wounds to bring him back to full, all while still covering the wizard from charges from the orc. Now the orc goes and he charges the cleric (because rule number 1, kill the healer). He hits normally for a big 9 damage chunk off the cleric's HP. Now's the rogue's chance, he steps up to behind the orc, now flanking him, and hits him with his dagger for 3 damage (poor weapon damage rolls and SA rolls). The fighter now steps in and attacks the orc but misses. back to the top of initiative now with the rogue going taking his turn after the orc.

Is that the kind of situation you're talking about where there's already been some level of engagement but it's not looking too amazing for the PCs? The learning curve comes in here. seeing what risks are worth the reward vs he who turns and runs away, lives to fight another day.

[Gallowglass]

"You walk in to a room and see an orc with a falchion strapped to his back and a band of 4 goblins with daggers on their hips accompanying him. They're sitting around a campfire eating their latest rat kill, the blood still fresh on their weapons. The orc glances up from his hunk of rat meat and spies the party. He immediately jumps up and starts shouting orders." You're at initiative now, the wizard got first place, rogue second, Goblins third, Cleric fourth, orc fifth, and sadly the BDF goes last. So the wizard takes up a defensive position behind the cleric and blasts one of the goblins with a magic missile spell knocking him out. Then the rogue delays his action to see where he can move to flank. the goblins fan out and take pot shots at the rogue and wizard, taking a minor concealment check to make sure they didn't miss (since he's hiding behind the cleric). The rogue takes a hit and is down 3HP. He's a little scared about that, admittedly. Next it's the cleric, he takes a 5 foot step over to the rogue and casts a cure light wounds to bring him back to full, all while still covering the wizard from charges from the orc. Now the orc goes and he charges the cleric (because rule number 1, kill the healer). He hits normally for a big 9 damage chunk off the cleric's HP. Now's the rogue's chance, he steps up to behind the orc, now flanking him, and hits him with his dagger for 3 damage (poor weapon damage rolls and SA rolls). The fighter now steps in and attacks the orc but misses. back to the top of initiative now with the rogue going taking his turn after the orc.

Is that the kind of situation you're talking about where there's already been some level of engagement but it's not looking too amazing for the PCs? The learning curve comes in here. seeing what risks are worth the reward vs he who turns and runs away, lives to fight another day.

In all fairness (and I actually agree with your side of the discussion, the kind of situation he's talking about is:

"You walk in to a room and see an orc with a falchion strapped to his back and a band of 4 goblins with daggers on their hips accompanying him. They're sitting around a campfire eating their latest rat kill, the blood still fresh on their weapons. The orc glances up from his hunk of rat meat and spies the party. He immediately jumps up and starts shouting orders." You're at initiative now, the wizard got first place, rogue second, Goblins third, Cleric fourth, orc fifth, and sadly the BDF goes last. So the wizard takes up a defensive position behind the cleric and blasts one of the goblins with a magic missile spell knocking him out. Then the rogue delays his action to see where he can move to flank. the goblins fan out and take pot shots at the rogue and wizard, taking a minor concealment check to make sure they didn't miss (since he's hiding behind the cleric). The rogue takes a hit and is down 3HP. He's a little scared about that, admittedly. Next it's the cleric, he takes a 5 foot step over to the rogue and casts a cure light wounds to bring him back to full, all while still covering the wizard from charges from the orc. Now the orc goes and he charges the cleric (because rule number 1, kill the healer). He rolls a lucky natural 20 and confirms that crit, doing 18 points of damage and slaughtering the Cleric who is now deep in negative hit points!He hits normally for a big 9 damage chunk off the cleric's HP. Now's the rogue's chance, he steps up to behind the orc, now flanking him, and hits him with his dagger for 31 damage (poor weapon damage rolls and SA rolls). The fighter now steps in and attacks the orc but misses. back to the top of initiative now with the rogue going taking his turn after the orc and a dead PC

The entire point is, at first level, that one lucky hit can be devastating and, yeah, while most of the time it can be mitigated through better planning, it can't be eliminated. So the OP wants some kind of cushion to maybe mitigate it even further.

Now, to be persnickety, the way this encounter probably SHOULD have gone would be more like:

"You walk in to a room and see an orc with a falchion strapped to his back and a band of 4 goblins with daggers on their hips accompanying him. They're sitting around a campfire eating their latest rat kill, the blood still fresh on their weapons. The orc glances up from his hunk of rat meat and spies the party. He immediately jumps up and starts shouting orders." You're at initiative now, the wizard got first place, rogue second, Goblins third, Cleric fourth, orc fifth, and sadly the BDF goes last. So the wizard takes up a defensive position behind the cleric and throws a grease spell down between the party and the enemy so that none melee weapon brandishing enemies can charge them blasts one of the goblins with a magic missile spell knocking him out. Then the rogue uses a move action to draw a flask of oil from his belt pouch and tosses it into the campfire. The burst from the explosion does 1 point of damage to all of the enemy who are gathered around the fire. delays his action to see where he can move to flank. the goblins fan out and take pot shots at the rogue and wizard, throwing their daggers and leaving them now unarmed? taking a minor concealment check to make sure they didn't miss (since he's hiding behind the cleric). The rogue takes a hit and is down 3HP. He's a little scared about that, admittedly. Next it's the cleric, who levels his crossbow and takes a shot at the orc doing 4 points of damage he takes a 5 foot step over to the rogue and casts a cure light wounds to bring him back to full, all while still covering the wizard from charges from the orc. Now the orc goes and he charges the cleric (because rule number 1, kill the healer). He slips on the grease spell on his way there, does 1 point of damage and falls prone.He hits normally for a big 9 damage chunk off the cleric's HP. Now's the rogue's chance, he steps up to behind the orc, now flanking him, and hits him with his dagger for 31 damage (poor weapon damage rolls and SA rolls). The fighter now Hits the orc with his spear without stepping into the grease and hits him for 10 points of damage (thanks to the ac penalty for being prone in the grease) Killing him. steps in and attacks the orc but misses. back to the top of initiative now with the rogue going taking his turn after the orc and a dead Orc

[AnimeTheCat]

[QUOTE=Gallowglass;20720908]Entire post about the incredible fight.[QUOTE]

I like this so much lol. I guess I was trying to capture the scenario of new players encountering their first orc, so the wizard may not know how great of a spell grease is and wants to focus on killing things with magic which, at first level, isn't a particularly wizardy thing, admittedly, but that's a lot of new players.

As for misunderstanding the post about someone being hit but not dead, you're probably right that they're in negative and unconscious, as it does in fact drastically complicate things.

Edit: You know... this whole time I've been arguing only the point that it just takes a little more thought... I completely forgot that you still have to confirm the critical threat for it to deal double damage... though, on most weapons that is typically easier than getting the threat in the first place.

[DrMartin]

You can do that and it does have an impact at first level, and then tapers off quite quickly. If i want to give a really heroic vibe to my campaign, one of the few staple house rules I implement is giving a few bonus hp at first level. specifics varies, I think that 5 is already enough of a buffer, but it can be 10 like you proposed, or double the first hit die.

Another thing you can do to reduce low-level swinginess is lower the impact of criticals, for instance on a critical you roll multiple dice but you don't multiply the fixed bonus. So if your orc attacks for d6+4 he crits for just 2d6+4.
(The odd thing about this rule is that even uf it favors players more than npcs, as a given pc will be on the receiving end of way more criticals than any indivudal monster they may be facing, new players at my table faced with it complain about it or see it as a nerf. For the first few sessions anyway :smallbiggrin:)

[SangoProduction]

I'm going to ignore the many, many, heated posts between this question and now and just, you know, answer your question.


Such a breathe of fresh air.

[Ualaa]

With the Trailblazer rules, a character has their initial CON score (not mod) as a one-time bonus at level 1.

Our group ran one campaign, primarily Pathfinder rules, but with a number of the Trailblazer ideas.
I gave all of the NPCs their level 1 CON score as a bonus as well.
It didn't really make a massive impact on our game.

However, a squishy Wizard wouldn't necessarily be as squishy.
D6 hit dice, is 6 hit points.
Somewhere around 10 Con score, give or take.
That puts them in the 15-20 hit point range, typically.

A melee type might be:
D10 hit dice, for 10 hit points.
And somewhere around a 16 Con score, give or take.
That gives them a 20-25 hit point range, typically.

Melee is still ahead of a caster type.
But a caster will often survive the one lucky hit.

In our current Rappan Athuk game, without the Trailblazer modifications, one of our characters literally died in the opening round of the first combat, prior to getting their first turn.
The character in question was a Gestalt Monk|Cleric 1, so D8 (=8) hit points, plus a bit for Con mod.
With Trailblazer (or really any alternate system for extra starting hit points) and another ten hit points, they'd have possibly survived the fight.
Whether that's a good or bad thing, is for you to decide.

[DarkSoul]

You could give max for hit die plus a roll plus Con for level 1. It gives bonus hp without making everyone extremely tough at level 1.

Though I'm not fond of something like that in general. If you're going to play a wizard at level 1, find someone to hide behind.

[martixy]

I do like the idea.
If you look from the perspective of lucky crits, give them a crit's worth of bonus damage in HP. So something like 5 hp on average. If you want to be extra safe, someone already listed a few common <= CR 1 enemies, the most of which is d8+2, which has a max value of 10.
So yes, you're on good grounds.
Just pick between average safety and extra safety.

It is also a good idea from another perspective - if someone takes a level adjusted race, they'll really need a buff like this.

[Max Caysey]

How would that impact the game? My intention is making the PC's more durable at low levels without it having much impact later in the game. I think this could potentially save a few lives from lucky crits made by orcs with falcions (falciones?).

I usually allow my palyers, when DM'ing, to reroll a 1 the first three levels... Simply just to as you say "making the PC's more durable at low levels without it having much impact later in the game", for me and my players it have worked fine. Its nice both for me, that I can add a litle ekstra, to make the proverbial orc or goblin a little more interesting, without running a too high risk of TPK'ing them all the time... I would say though, that if they are super pro full optimizations, it might just make things worse, but then again, if they are super pro Tippy optimizars... the game is not really caring about HP anyways...

[RoboEmperor]

I'd suggest that you just give them an item that grants 10 temp hp once per day instead of giving a flat 10hp boost.

[Arael666]

I usually allow my palyers, when DM'ing, to reroll a 1 the first three levels... Simply just to as you say "making the PC's more durable at low levels without it having much impact later in the game", for me and my players it have worked fine. Its nice both for me, that I can add a litle ekstra, to make the proverbial orc or goblin a little more interesting, without running a too high risk of TPK'ing them all the time... I would say though, that if they are super pro full optimizations, it might just make things worse, but then again, if they are super pro Tippy optimizars... the game is not really caring about HP anyways...

I always see this coming up... are 1s really that frequent when rolling for HP? I can see how it would impact a PC for a whole level and all ( the psycological damage being the worst part), but ever since I've joined my secon campaign I just used average HP and I never rolled a single HD ever again. I really thought getting average was more common than rolling for HP, but It seems I'm mistaken to assume that.

[martixy]

Look at it from a maths perspective.

It is, on average, +0.5 HP.

So on average, among half(not even all of them!) of the people that use this rule, durability will have improved by 1 HP.
Realistically, it does very little.

Especially when YOU specifically roll a 2.

This is basically for sneaky DMs who want their players to think he's doing them a favor.

[Coidzor]

The way I DM 20 negative would be the same as 10 negative. I tend to play my mobs to their actual inteligence, meaning a band of goblins would not imediately ignore you just because you're uncounscious, unless there's some advantage to it.

Like, say, finishing off the rest of the PCs? Using the downed combatant as bait for the healers to spend actions trying to save a downed comrade instead of contributing to their side winning? :smalltongue:

[Arael666]

Like, say, finishing off the rest of the PCs? Using the downed combatant as bait for the healers to spend actions trying to save a downed comrade instead of contributing to their side winning? :smalltongue:

Spending a stardard action to stab a fallen opponent (killing them) and taking a move action to position yourself next to your ally is not only smart but it's also optimal. You've just eliminated the risk of that PC being healed and coming back to fight again.

[Coidzor]

Spending a stardard action to stab a fallen opponent (killing them) and taking a move action to position yourself next to your ally is not only smart but it's also optimal. You've just eliminated the risk of that PC being healed and coming back to fight again.

Unless you can charge another enemy, aiding one of your allies directly. Or there's a foe already next to you and the fallen one to attack. Or a healer you want to lure from the backline.

Et Cetera.

It's not always optimal to do so, and to pretend that's the case, let alone deliberately contrive to engineer situations where that's always the case, is just silly. Being married to this idea is just wanting to be a Killer DM for Killer DM's sake.

[Honest Tiefling]

Why not double up on that maximized hit die at first level? A wizard with 14 constitution will get 14 HP. The fighter with 14 constitution will get 22. That's in opposition to 8/12. There's still a bit of distinction to favor the mundanes, but that 6 extra HP might prevent the wizard from dying too soon.

[Endarire]

I recommend giving everything +5 to +10 HP upon gaining its first class level. Yes, NPCs too.

[Arael666]

Unless you can charge another enemy, aiding one of your allies directly. Or there's a foe already next to you and the fallen one to attack. Or a healer you want to lure from the backline.

Et Cetera.

It's not always optimal to do so, and to pretend that's the case, let alone deliberately contrive to engineer situations where that's always the case, is just silly. Being married to this idea is just wanting to be a Killer DM for Killer DM's sake.

Think about it this way, if you were facing another party and you just managed to drop their fighter, would you immediately get away from him and charge, lets say, the cleric, or you would spend a standard action making sure no one would be able to get him back on action?

[Zanos]

Think about it this way, if you were facing another party and you just managed to drop their fighter, would you immediately get away from him and charge, lets say, the cleric, or you would spend a standard action making sure no one would be able to get him back on action?
Considering that most combats only last 4-5 rounds, I'm not going to spend my action making sure an already neutralized threat doesn't get back up. It's a much more efficient use of my limited action to try to neutralize another threat. Especially if it's from damage, since healing is so weeny that he'll just go down in one hit again, and getting an enemy spellcaster to waste an action is good value. In most combats, there aren't people who could actually get a person up from negatives anyway.

The only time I would bother with this is if the enemy in question was high priority because they had seen something they shouldn't and I really need them to not get away, or had proved themselves to be resistant to staying down already.

It's the same principle of attacking enemies that aren't debuffed or controlled first. If i've got 3 orcs that are slowed and 2 that aren't, it's a much better use of my action to take out an orc that isn't slowed than one that is.

[Theobod]

Just skimmed this but one suggestion that minimises 1st lvl squishiness but has zero effect on the long term would be to start the PCs with the HP of a second or third lvl version of themselves and just not gaining HP at 2nd or 3rd lvl. End result is no change but can't be crit killed straight off by one lucky roll and maintains the HD divide from tanks through mages.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'm still quite in shock how many people in this thread are so eager to make the martials' even more ineffectual by diluting their high HD and giving a flat numerical or Con score bonus hp to everyone.


Just skimmed this but one suggestion that minimises 1st lvl squishiness but has zero effect on the long term would be to start the PCs with the HP of a second or third lvl version of themselves and just not gaining HP at 2nd or 3rd lvl. End result is no change but can't be crit killed straight off by one lucky roll and maintains the HD divide from tanks through mages.

Yes, I've seen this done in games before, it works fairly well other than people who aren't sure yet what classes they'll have at 2 and 3 (not everyone stays single class). You could just triple the HD of their first level class and adjust it at 2 and 3 if they multiclass, though that has the interesting quirk of them losing hp when they level up. :smallsmile:

Still infinitely better idea than +10 or +Con score or other "FU martials!" ideas.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I'm still quite in shock how many people in this thread are so eager to make the martials' even more ineffectual by diluting their high HD and giving a flat numerical or Con score bonus hp to everyone.Point of order: How long does it take most 1st level martials to run out of hp without access to someone else healing them? Because in my experience, that's about one fight + one round. Doubling their hp would lead to lasting almost three full fights, and it would allow the party's healers to make use of the party's resources more judiciously.

[Andezzar]

Point of order: How long does it take most 1st level martials to run out of hp without access to someone else healing them? Because in my experience, that's about one fight + one round. Doubling their hp would lead to lasting almost three full fights, and it would allow the party's healers to make use of the party's resources more judiciously.By killing the enemies before they kill them. I have very rarely seen in combat healing. Also it is usually a better choice for the cleric to do other things in combat rather than healing. After combat he can still spontaneously cast healing spells if necessary.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

By killing the enemies before they kill them. I have very rarely seen in combat healing. Also it is usually a better choice for the cleric to do other things in combat rather than healing. After combat he can still spontaneously cast healing spells if necessary....This doesn't even attempt to dispute anything I said. Are you disagreeing with me? The tone suggests it, but nothing you say here has anything to do with what I was saying.

[Andezzar]

I thought your question suggested that under normal rules the martials would need in combat healing. I countered that they won't need it, if they kill the opposition before they themselves run out of HP and clerics would do a much more to help them by buffing their allies and debuffing their enemies than by giving back d8+1 HP per standard action.

[Nifft]

What I did was:

- Racial bonus HP (e.g. humans get +8 HP just for being human; dwarves & half-orcs get +10 HP; elves get +6 HP; small races get +4 HP).
- Max HD at level 1.

... however I really like the 4e idea (get your Con score rather than bonus, plus a few HP for your class).

[DrMartin]

I'm still quite in shock how many people in this thread are so eager to make the martials' even more ineffectual by diluting their high HD and giving a flat numerical or Con score bonus hp to everyone.


every table has different experiences, but at the tables I've been attending martials are definitely not ineffectual at first and low levels. In my opinion the fact that they become such at higher levels is a different topic altogether.

[mauk2]

I'm still quite in shock how many people in this thread are so eager to make the martials' even more ineffectual by diluting their high HD and giving a flat numerical or Con score bonus hp to everyone.


Interesting.

I find that martials tend to have more hitpoints than other classes partially due to their larger dice, and much more due to their larger Con.

For example, moving up a Die size is equal to giving that class a free +2 Con.

D4 = 2.5/die
D6 = 3.5/die
D8 = 4.5/die
D10 =5.5/die.
etc.

The average is going up by +1 per die size.


So a D10 class effectively has a free +4 Con versus a D6 class. Numerically, it's identical, on-average.

By making it a die roll, the DM is allowed to 'fudge' the averages by allowing re-rolls.

I think a stronger way to differentiate marshalls vs spellies is to bake more advantages and goodies into armor and shields. (See sig for details, if you care.)

So, adding Con Stat to everyone at first level is indeed 'a rising tide lifts all boats' situation, but you drive home the durability advantage of martials via gear.

[Anlashok]

How is making it less likely for a level 1 fighter or rogue to instantly die in a melee engagement with standard orcs an "FU" to martials? Making them reasonably competent at their main job seems like the exact opposite. :smallconfused:

[Theobod]

I think it's mostly because by doing so in a universal way across the board you devalue the natural advantage in HP that martials have somewhat.

[Honest Tiefling]

Could also be the idea that very few people tend to make the martials with the idea of babysitting the mages during the lower levels. Maybe a lot of fighters aren't so worried about that advantage being taken away, especially if they have newer or less optimizing friends playing the mages? "Hey! You in the dress! Take it like a warrior, I got orcs to kill!"

[ericgrau]

Must start at level 1, don't want to screw with balance.

Ok, have the players make backup characters. That's the #1 thing.

You might also let them go deeper into the negatives. -15 isn't terrible for balance. Plus encourage at least half of them to either have divine magic or get ranks in heal. Even cross class ranks. It makes a big difference at level 1. They can always stop raising their ranks at higher levels.

You may let them retrain a feat each level. In particular toughness. So that way those that want extra hp have to pay for it a little in other ways.