That's totally not true. Babies just have a very limited power selection. Kinda like a 4e character.Psychic Robot wrote:because a baby can't do anything
At Wills: Cry, Squirm
Encounter: Suckle, Fill Diaper
Daily: Awaken Parents
![Tongue :p](./images/smilies/tongue1.gif)
Moderator: Moderators
That's totally not true. Babies just have a very limited power selection. Kinda like a 4e character.Psychic Robot wrote:because a baby can't do anything
Terrible, terrible idea.Krusk wrote: Don't do stupid stuff like "This is a brute template so it gets the exact same stats as every other level 4 brute, but also has the hit really hard power". Make up NPC classes that are just as involved and interesting as PC classes.
Crazy true.K wrote:A lot of problems could be solved by making starting races have two HD and then using the RAW.
DSMatticus wrote:Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. I am filled with an unfathomable hatred.
DSMatticus wrote:Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. I am filled with an unfathomable hatred.
A sling hit from a kobold deals 1d3-1 damage. A crit deals 2d3-2. A maxed crit from a kobold slinger does not drop a wizard with a +0 con mod. I have no idea what starting character is brought to -10 (or even -1) hp by 4 damage.deanruel87 wrote:You are underselling the issue sir. That kobold with a sling doesn't even need a 20 to kill first level characters depending on constitution modifiers. In fact even a basic sword hit, rolling well, can kill off most classes starting characters in the game.
'S what people have said since forever. Every new edition makes 1st level characters (even the 4th level ones in 4e) a lot stronger than the last. But then they make the basic monsters stronger to compensate, because Orcs and Goblins can't be in the game unless they're a threat to someone.Stubbazubba wrote:Whatever power level is called 'Level 1' should be higher than what D&D 3.5 starts you as, I agree.
Except that you are actually stronger compared to bullshit like cats and rats. The point is that the current level system doesn't have enough room at the bottom for kids and critters and such, so house cats wind up being disproportionately dangerous to peasants.tussock wrote:'S what people have said since forever. Every new edition makes 1st level characters (even the 4th level ones in 4e) a lot stronger than the last. But then they make the basic monsters stronger to compensate, because Orcs and Goblins can't be in the game unless they're a threat to someone.
So you're all stronger, only not actually.
You know parents of babies who get to sleep more than once a day?talozin wrote:Optimist.Josh_Kablack wrote: Daily: Awaken Parents
Sorry I wasn't specific enough for you; 1st-level characters should be more powerful than they currently are in 3.5 compared to everything else. One goblin shouldn't really be a serious threat to an adventurer, even a beginner, not without being at some disadvantage (surprised, trapped, etc.). Weak things like that should be attacking in groups and relying on traps and ambushes to win against a party of adventurers. Again, D&D PCs are not Hobbits of the Shire, they are professionals, even if they are beginners, they've developed a BAB and the skills of their trade somewhere, indicating that they have already left the part of their career where housecats can deal so much as a single HP.tussock wrote:'S what people have said since forever. Every new edition makes 1st level characters (even the 4th level ones in 4e) a lot stronger than the last. But then they make the basic monsters stronger to compensate, because Orcs and Goblins can't be in the game unless they're a threat to someone.
So you're all stronger, only not actually. I suppose in 100 years the Orcs will have 10 million hp and 500 AC, and take four rounds to kill with "1st level" characters. 23rd edition? I wonder how well it'll translate into the language of our Chinese-Brazilian overlords.
...They're not. Goblins get a +3 to-hit at range and +2 in melee, which means they're getting something like 35-40% odds of hitting the average level one adventurer on any given round (much lower for heavily armored classes). The way HP works at low level, a single crit from either weapon could take an adventurer out of the fight, but otherwise almost any adventurer is going to be able to tank one and maybe two hits from even the higher damage melee morningstar, which is 1d6. With an AC of 15, most adventurers are getting something like a 40-50% odds of hitting them (either because they're Fighters or because they only need to hit their touch AC of 12), and with 5 HP there's good odds they won't survive the first attack. A Fighter can chop them to pieces and is unlikely to even get hit in return, a Rogue can sneak attack them and almost certainly kill them in one blow and can probably chop them to pieces directly if that doesn't work, a Wizard can just use Color Spray.Stubbazubba wrote:One goblin shouldn't really be a serious threat to an adventurer, even a beginner, not without being at some disadvantage (surprised, trapped, etc.).
Like Chamomile said, they are. Even on your first adventure.Stubbazubba wrote:Sorry I wasn't specific enough for you; 1st-level characters should be more powerful than they currently are in 3.5 compared to everything else.
How's he hitting that well at level 1? Without Weapon Finesse, he'd use Str to hit. If those are ranged attacks and he's taking two, he'd have -2 to hit from Rapid Shot or TWF, or something. The best I see him getting is +4 Dex, +0 BAB, +1 Point Blank Shot, -2 Rapid Shot, for +3. And if he's using ranged attacks, he won't be able to reliably Sneak Attack past the first round.tussock wrote:Rog 1: 2 attacks at +4 for 2-12 damage, one kill per round, makes the fighter kill faster too. Can survive another two, plus one for the fighter.