Starting HP variants

Perhaps someone allready asked this question, but I can't find a thread about it.

In the alpha release there are several variants proposed for starting HP. I was wondering which ones you've tried and what you guys thought of them.

I'm partial towards the racial bonus to starting HP. I can see that it's a bit unbalanced but at the same time this is outweighed by ading more feeling for the racial differences, ading a bit of logic (in a way), and anyway, it won't realy matter by third level the way I see it.

Thoughts?

Perhaps someone allready asked this question, but I can't find a thread about it.

In the alpha release there are several variants proposed for starting HP. I was wondering which ones you've tried and what you guys thought of them.

I'm partial towards the racial bonus to starting HP. I can see that it's a bit unbalanced but at the same time this is outweighed by ading more feeling for the racial differences, ading a bit of logic (in a way), and anyway, it won't realy matter by third level the way I see it.

Thoughts?

I don't know if there is a thread, but I used the racial formula from pg 14. So far, it's worked out nicely for my players.

"Racial: Maximum hit points for 1st level plus your
Constitution modifier and any other bonuses. In addition,
you get a number of bonus hit points based on your race. The
frail races (elf, gnome, and halfling) receive 4 hit points. The
standard races (half-elf and human) receive 6 hit points. The
hardy races (dwarf and half-orc) receive 8 hit points."

We used the racial variant, with one exception; Gnomes were given 6 hp vice 4. The DM found it odd that a race with a bonus to CON would be considered "frail".

Racial hit points are fine and so is a flat starting bonus (though the racial variant is better), but I would like it to be accompanied by a compensating reduction of hit points at higher levels. Let's reduce all hit dice by one step! d4-d6-d8 hit dice for the win.

I don't think reducing hit die because a character got a couple extra hit points at first level is a good idea. In the long run, 4-6 hit points isn't going to matter much at all, especially considering how easy it is to pick up the Toughness feat.

We used the racial bonus. The vote on which one to use among the group was One for standard OGL, one for flat +4 bonus and 3 for racial. Adds a bit of flavour and seems to work out nicely at making 1st lvl characters more durable.

From what I've seen on the boards, here, I must be the only GM using the variant adding the character's constitution score. The PCs' starting hit points range between 18 and 25 hp. No one has complained about it (who would complain about more starting hit points?), but I've been having problems with the way all those additional hit points can affect combat early on.

My main dilemma is whether to give those hit points to NPCs, as well. If I don't give enemies the extra hit points, then the battle can tend to be very one-sided. If I do give the hit points to enemies, then combat takes longer at first level, especially nonlethal combat. I've been granting the additional hit points to NPCs to maintain balance, but I don't really like it.

I've been thinking that perhaps a compromise would work:
Half-Constitution: Maximum hit points for 1st level plus your Constitution modifier and any other bonuses. In addition, you get a number of bonus hit points equal to half your constitution score, rounded down.

This provides a slightly wider, but reasonable, range of possible bonuses keyed to the character's overall health, regardless of its race. Hardier races (those with bonuses) still get an extra hit point over other races, due to their +2 modifier, but sickly half-orc still doesn't get more hit points than a vigorous elf.

Neither. I did use another variant:

Normal HP (no full HD) and twice con mod at first level (Because that way, it doesn't matter what class your first level was)

I might change it to normal HP plus con mod per level, and add the con score at first level.

In the game I'm running, we used Max HD + Con score.

We are also using disabled at 25% of max hp, dying at 0 hp or less, and dead at -25% max hp.

We are also using a variant that gives PCs a minimum of 1/2 their hit die on each level (before adding Con modifier). So if a fighter rolls a 3, he gets 5 + Con modifier.

If we define the number of Effective Hit Points (ehp) to be the difference between max and disabled, then these combined variants yield expected values for the ehp's only slightly higher than standard 3.5 rules (and in fact the two converge at around 10th level).

However, in retrospect, the only thing I would change about the hp rules my group is using would be adding the Racial modifier to hp instead of adding the Con score.

I let my players choose between the five options. After 1st level, I let them choose between rolling for hit points the old-fashioned way, or taking max hp. Both of them chose the Constitution option and max hp.

In the game I play in, our DM just told everyone to go with the Constitution option at 1st level and max hp thereafter.

BTW, I would never go with the Racial option. It's racist man! Plus, it only covers the main races, not all the ones in the MM's, not to mention homebrew races.

We used the racial variant, with one exception; Gnomes were given 6 hp vice 4. The DM found it odd that a race with a bonus to CON would be considered "frail".

Yeah, the Petal has a +4 to CON, so the dwarf and half-orc better make way for Flower Power!

I haven't gotten to run much of anything with Pathfinder yet, but my personal preference is for max HD plus Constitution score. It gives starting PCs more hit points, which allows low level characters to actually confront a length of adventures without having to worry about one lucky attack dropping them. I don't feel as compelled to pull punches against low level characters to spare them from one or two lucky attacks. The few encounters in Hollow's Last Hope that I ran were much more fun for the PCs because of their extra HP, and I still felt like they were somewhat challenged. Especially since they lacked a cleric and thus couldn't reliably heal up.

Doing this lessens the need for a cleric or other healer in a party, which I like very much. I may consider going with the "roll your HD, add Constitution" idea proposed above, though. I hadn't considered it, but it does get rid of the extra incentive to take a high hit die class at first level (like Pathfinder's skill system removed the incentive to take a high skill point class at first level).

I haven't gotten to run much of anything with Pathfinder yet, but my personal preference is for max HD plus Constitution score. It gives starting PCs more hit points, which allows low level characters to actually confront a length of adventures without having to worry about one lucky attack dropping them. I don't feel as compelled to pull punches against low level characters to spare them from one or two lucky attacks. The few encounters in Hollow's Last Hope that I ran were much more fun for the PCs because of their extra HP, and I still felt like they were somewhat challenged. Especially since they lacked a cleric and thus couldn't reliably heal up.

To be honest, the HD+Con Score isn't a new mechanic. Several other games that were similar to DnD had examples of that mechanic. I'm a bit torn as to which method to use if any. Like one of the other posts mentioned, there is an issue with the old Monsters that needs to be sorted. Any method that's good for the players has to be good for the monsters. So in the HD+Con Score, the monsters should also get their con score added. Over all that's not that many HP for most creatures. Still it is an issue to be considered.

Personally, out of the methods suggested, I'm very likely to use either flat or none as it will make conversions a little more straight forward.

I haven't gotten to run much of anything with Pathfinder yet, but my personal preference is for max HD plus Constitution score. It gives starting PCs more hit points, which allows low level characters to actually confront a length of adventures without having to worry about one lucky attack dropping them. I don't feel as compelled to pull punches against low level characters to spare them from one or two lucky attacks. The few encounters in Hollow's Last Hope that I ran were much more fun for the PCs because of their extra HP, and I still felt like they were somewhat challenged. Especially since they lacked a cleric and thus couldn't reliably heal up.

I am using this method too. I decided to do it for two reasons. I have a player who is running a sorcerer and yet he likes to jump into melee. This makes his character a little more survivable at first level. I also had a player who has a tendency to die in everyone of my campaigns. When I was running a Scarred Lands campaign he actually died five times in three sessions. I'd like to see his character stick around until at least the end of our first adventure, since he is our only tracker.

I'm kinda curious if Monte's addition to the team will lead to a Health/Grace option for hit points. I'm rather fond of that idea.

One option would be to start with Con score (and Con mods / level) in actual physical 'Health' / hit points and class-based additions add 'grace points' that come back faster and represent fatigue and bumps and bruises, a la the abstract hp of 4E. Perhaps even the 'Bloodied' concept could be tweaked from 4E to apply to anyone who has run out of Grace points and is taking Health damage.

We used racial hit points and it seems to work quite well. I do think the HP creep has been a little excessive and I've also had trouble statting out NPCs. 1st level NPCs are seriously different in power levels if they are statted even with the racial method. Of course having combat that doesn't end in the first swing is kind of a nice change at 1st level.

I love the idea of reducing the hit dice of the PCs d4-d6-d8 and d10 for the barbarian. Between the favored class HP bonus, the increase in Rogue/ Wizard HD, and the increase in HP at first level my characters all stand to have significantly more HP than ever before... more than double at creation and for a wizard almost double the HP at each additional level (2.5 avg versus 4.5 avg).

I thought the system that used the constitution score was way too high... A human or half orc barbarian with an 20 CON gets 33 HP at first level?? Crazy.

Using Racial Option at the moment, though I am tempted to move gnomes to +6 as another poster mentions. Also, I like Monte's Health/Grace division and would be happy if that made it into the final version of the rules.

Marnak

We started out with the flat Hit Die +6 method, tried the Hit Die + racial modifier method for a while (I like that one the most), did a one shot with Hit Die + Con score instead of Con mod (seemed to be too much), and will be trying the hit die + double con mod method for Curse of the Crimson Throne with the beta rules, unless the beta already has a HP system settled on.

I think the easiest to work with was to simply extend the lower end of the scale - 0 to -10 was "unconscious" (will recover in time), -11 to -20 was "dying". A good critical hit, massive blow, or similar affront could still drop a character straight to "dying", but there was a pretty good chance of them winding up unconscious but stable at lower levels.

Our gaming group has been going with max HD + CON score at first level and max HD + CON modifier at 2nd and above.

This has worked out pretty well. The characters are able to take more punishment and have to rest less often. (This is also helped by the Channel Positive Energy from the cleric.)

In my current campaign, started before the announcement of PFRPG, I used the Con + max HD variant. I really liked how battles got a little bit longer on first levels, as I gave the CON Bonus to everything (And used undead with construct bonus HP). The soulknife got into negatives almost every fight, regardless. ;)

I like the racial bonus. I think that con bonus should provide some sort of benefit to stabilization checks.

I started off using standard full HP + CON Bonus + other bonuses. I had a problem with the wizard of a newbie player in the group getting himself reduced to 0 or below often. However, the fighter who took the Pathfinder version of toughness was never running out of HP.

Instead I've been using a rule that instead of being dead at -10, your dead at -CON score (not bonus, score) - Best Hit Die for a class you have. So the wizard who had 12 CON would be dead -18. The result is that he was going down just as often but the rest of the party didn't have to worry so much about him dying.

We use the the Racial mod. To me it makes since.

We've decided to go with the Constitution score method, but instead of adding maximum hit points to that, we roll the character's hit die.

Haven't tested this approach in game play yet (our game should hopefully start in the next few weeks), but I don't foresee any major difficulties. We used to play with vitality points, which also granted first level characters an important boost. And if the end result is that the low levels are a bit easier for players, I don't think it's the end of the world...

I'm currently in favor of "X + 1dX" at first level and "1dX" at every other level, plus Con-Mod for every level. Also, any roll that rolls less than half the maximum result, is still considered to be half the maximum result.

Maybe I'm alone, but I prefer the Flat system for hit points. The Standard system is (in my humble opinion) insufficient, the Double system is excessive and the Racial system may condition the race chosen for the character. A Flat system of +6 hit points at 1st level seems to me a moderate and balanced solution for the low level's durability problem.

Please, excuse my English. This is not my mother tongue.

I am considering using the Vitality and Wounds from Unearthed Arcana.

See Here

But that depends upon what the Beta version has as options.

I was thinking of yet a another permutation.
Racial HP + Max Class HP + half CON score = starting HP

Yes, a half-orc barbarian with 20 CON gets 30 HP, but an elf wizard with a con of 2 gets 9 HP. You can easily change out half CON for CON bonus, but I would not penalize a PC's starting HP for a negative CON modifier.

I use the racial HP set-up. I think one of the poster's comments on gnomes getting 6hp versus 4 hp is very valid and I will be modifying my game to reflect it.

As far as whether to give NPCs the same bonuses, kinda depends, I will let NPCs with Character classes the racial HPs, and the fodder with NPC classes won't gain them...this also makes those classes less attractive to Players, and allows me to have "minions".

Originally, I tried to use Vitality/Wounds, but some of my less experienced players became confused. That's when I started using Max HD + CON score. That was about three years ago, and it works really well. I'd really like to see it in Pathfinder. It will remain a house rule regardless. Regarding other variants, I'd favor a flat bonus over a varying racial bonus. Races get CON modifiers, which already affect hit points. Lower hit point races will become rarer as some players will be reluctant to take that hit(npi). More variations create more balance issues.

I prefer that a Player-Character's Hit Point total be equal to his score in Constitution at First Level, with no other modifiers. Starting when he reaches Second Level, roll for additional Hit Points normally by Hit Die and modify the result of that roll by his Constitution modifier.

I have had my players use the +Constitution score as a one-time bonus. As the DM I like it. I don't have to hold back on the NPCs tactics or viciousness. And if my players choose to not keep an eye on their hps, that's their fault.

I suggest not to introduce the vitality/wounds system. With this system, every single decent critical is a dying (or dead) PC.

I suggest to roll for HP at every level, including 1st (you no longer get the maximum score at 1st level), and gain a static flat bonus equal for every class at 1st level. Perhaps 10, but the DM could adjust it according to the power level of his campaign. This has the additional benefit of giving to a multiclass PC the same hit points amount regardless of the class progression.

(by the way, I'm a supporter of STATIC hit points at every level. Take the average hit dice score rouded up + CON modifier and that's all. I HATE HATE HATE those freakin' lucky players and their gnome wizard with more hit points than my poor half-orc barbarian. Horrible and unbalancing.)

PS. Look out... If the system increases PC's hit point too much, it also has to modify every single damaging spell in the game... Who the hell cares about a single magic missile at 1st level when 1st level WIZARDS have 25 hit points or more?

Ok, here are my thoughts (for what they're worth):

Standard: Has worked fine for me since 2nd Edition days. However, it doesn't meet the goal of making 1st level characters any more durable really.

Double: I think it favors the fighter-ish classes too much. That is to say, those who really have a problem with low hit points don't get much of a boost this way, and those who naturally have less problems get a bigger boost. It seems to work a bit counter to what is needed.

Racial: It seems logical enough on the surface, however, it has some major flaws. Firstly, elves are double punished. They already have a lower CON to represent frailty, why give them less bonus hit points as well? Are they really supposed to be THAT frail? Secondly, it also tends to aid those who need it the least again. That is, races that generally go for high hit point classes or have a CON bonus get the biggest bonus, and they are the ones who need the bonus the least in order to survive those low levels. Thirdly, what if someone is playing a non-standard race from the Monster Manual or some other third party product? Of course the DM can probably guess what is correct, but there would be no "canon" hps for all of those races...unless Paizo wants to go to the trouble of defining them for every race that could possibly be a PC.

Flat: I find this one to be the most fair. If the problem is that 1st level heroes (especially the "soft" ones) need a few more hit points at first level, then just give them some. But make it fair and equal across the board. This effectively gives the biggest boost to the ones who need help the most, but by no means diminishes the bonus that a higher CON or a high hit die class provides. I like this one.

Constitution: This is like 4th edition. So, WoTC thinks it's good. I personally think it makes constitution overly potent, and again favors those who don't need the boost as much. After all, when one character is a dwarven barbarian with a 16 CON, he already has 15 hps at first level, this would put him to 31! Whereas the poor elf wizard with a CON of 10 has his measly 6 hps become 16. Though the ratio remains about the same (the wizard has roughly 50%), the actual gap in hps jumps from 9 to 14.

Basically, I feel that the softer targets need help more than the already tough ones. And I feel that any method that rewards those who already have high hit points more than those who start with low hit points only exacerbates the problem. For example, take the elven wizard and dwarven fighter above as an example. Any threat the DM wishes to throw at the party must be a credible threat to each party member (unless the party enjoys having the wizard as the designated monster bait). Now, as the hp gap widens, things that provide a consistent level of threat to the dwarf provide an ever increasing threat to the wizard. This isn't as much of a problem for level based hit points as wizards have spells to even the odds, but at first level, there is no such thing. That's basically the angle I'm coming from. At any rate, I hope some of this is useful to someone. :)

Kayn

I like the constitution bonus, because it makes it even possible to play a CON 7 wizard at all. He will be frail, but still be playable with 11 HPs (+ max 4 per level). Of course the CON 20 Barbarian will have 37 HPs and that's a gap of 26 HPs at first level... But we are talking about two extremes here.

Now, who dared to play a CON 7 wizard in 3.5, with 2 HPs at first level? That's certain negative by any hit. No fun. Not for the player, not for the GM. All wizards I've seen had at least a 12 in CON. A class that is described as frail and weak in body? Metagaming against flair made necessary by the rules...

(The flat or racial boni work this way, too, but I like the in-game-logic behind this. And, as I wrote above, I use it on monsters, too. Just one look into stat's and you have the new HPs, and more durable opponents as well. Makes for longer and more interesting fights on lower levels, and is not really a big deal on higher ones. It nerves feats like cleave and great cleave a little bit, but I thought them to be overpowered against great numbers on low levels anyway. You know you're a capable fighter if you can great cleave through Goblins with 16 HPs each... ;) )

My thoughts on the design goal. I think that wizards and other characters should remain relatively fragile at lower levels. That is one of the balancing features of the DND system since first edition. However, I do agree that it would be nice if wizards and related characters were a tad more durable at early levels. It seems overly harsh to have them dropped (or killed) by a single crossbow bolt, so I prefer something that pushes wizard hit points up around the max. damage for a non-crit single hit. Thus, I think wizards should have somewhere between 10 hit points (low end) and 16 hit points (high end) at first level. Note that unusual characters (those with toughness feat or those with negative CON modifiers) would still exist outside of this range. This fits with either the flat + 6 system or the racial bonus system, both of which I think are fine. I still prefer the racial bonus system because I think it feels right flavor wise.

Marnak

We used a flat bonus of 6 hit points at first level... on top of maximum hp according to HD at level 1.
We figured that Con score bonus would be too much and adjustment by race would tend to make people play certain races over others...

My main issue with the racial one is that it penalizes characters who are playing against type. An elven fighter is down 4 hp on top of his CON penalty versus the half-orc fighter. I prefer the CON score approach because it means characters who invest in a higher CON (often casters, but not always) come out ahead, but it doesn't penalize characters who want to play the "softer" races as warriors.

I've been using Con score plus max HD at first level, and arcana evolved style dying and death. I've also been using reserve HP from Iron heroes since it came out. Been doing this in 3.5 for quite a while.
Just recently I started using BOXM health and grace, and it also has the same death and dying rules.
I prefer methods like these because the PCs can last a bit longer or you can throw bigger fights at them. Aside from that I'm also in agroup that rarely has a healer, more HP is vital for the group to survive.

All the variants of paizo try to mimic the 4e more hp at first level feel, but that remove the spirit of the first level.

I play tested a "more hp" at first level game and it did not feel right, players where too relax...

But i agree with comments on race hp vs class hp. I currently play a game where the hobbit druid have more hp than the human and the dwarf cleric (way more). The +2 constitution to dwarf may help, but doesnt prevent absurdities.

I created a "rank" system going from 1 to 7, where 1 is 1d4, 5 is 1d12, 6 is 2d6 and 7 is 3d4. Races give rank, from 1 (hobbit, elf), to 3 (dwarf), with human in the middle. Then, each class gives a rank from 0 (wizard) to 3 (barbarian).

So for instance, a hobbit mage would have... 1 + 0 rank = 1 = 1d4
A human druid would have 2 for hman +1 for druid for 1d8.

The problem with my system is the balance between race is broken (between classes its ok as i keep aprox. the same ratio between classes as in the basic rules). I had to give a extra edge to the hobbit (a extra point to AC). But its still more realist for me.

This system doesnt give more hp at first level (wich is the objective of paizo), but i dont want more hp, i want more impact from the race to the hp, although a extra rank can be given at first level.

We really like the increased HP at 1st level, as long as the monsters get it too. The PCs seem to expend more resources per encounter, but this seems to be offset by the increased power of the base classes.

My players refused to play level 1 characters in 3.5e, because of the level 1 attrition issue. Now they are just reaching level 2 and loving it.

We're using the Con score bonus method, but with average HD per level, no maximum HD at level 1.

I really don't like the maximum HD at level 1. It encourages multiclassers to take the class with the biggest HD at level 1. IMO, a Barbarian(1)/Sorc(1) should have the same HP as a Sorc(1)/Barbarian(1).

I like the Half-Constitution mentioned by some here.
But I think it should be rounded up. We have very few benefits from an even number. Just Feat pre-requisites.
I think it's more accurate than the racial, since your racial bonus to constitution is already included in your constitution. A gnome can be tough, though it's unlikely when compared to a Dwarf.

My group went with the racial bonus although we also agree that the gnome should be 6hp instead of 4, we ran with RAW though but Jason please make gnomes 6hp instead of 4.

We used the Racial benefit too, with the Stonechild getting 8 extra HP. Her player was very happy.

Although not by design, my group has played through many 1st-level adventures using the flat 6 bonus points. Since Pathfinder has already boosted hit die on a number of classes, I don't think the extra starting HPs are necessary---and, as other posters have noted, I felt they detracted from the traditional 1st-level feel and would not use them again.

Although not by design, my group has played through many 1st-level adventures using the flat 6 bonus points. Since Pathfinder has already boosted hit die on a number of classes, I don't think the extra starting HPs are necessary---and, as other posters have noted, I felt they detracted from the traditional 1st-level feel and would not use them again.

My game without a cleric had a character die, so I don't find them too overblown.

I recently made a few tests with some variants/house rules. It was just testing, but turned out pretty well.

Action Points
- 1/2 ECL (min 1)
- Roll Again take best result
- Stabilize
- Recover SP[ell] (amount = highest spell level [cost])
- Recover AP sleeping

Defense Bonus = ECL/2 (pcs only)

Money/2 (magic stuff is more scarce)

Scroll Prices/2

HP/2

Spells or effects damage/2 (not natural hazards)

It lent a more grittier feel, combat is more risky: a hit really hurts but it happens less often. Overall I liked it a lot.
P.S.: it was with mid level chars, so it's just an HP variant, not a "starting" one.

I really don't like the maximum HD at level 1. It encourages multiclassers to take the class with the biggest HD at level 1. IMO, a Barbarian(1)/Sorc(1) should have the same HP as a Sorc(1)/Barbarian(1).

There's only one way around that; a fixed number of hit points per HD regardless of level, whether it's a fraction or maximum. After some playtesting my group is going with max at every level (+/- Con modifier, of course) plus Con ability score with death occuring at negative hit points equal to your Con ability score plus ECL -1.

I've already run one playtest game up through 9th level, and I'm getting ready to start a second one (with more players). And with that experience, I've gotta say -

Double Max (plus Con mod) at first level is the only way to go.

Why? It gives mages 12 HP and Barbarians 24 HP (before con mod). That's a good spread - the Mages can survive on that, even with a negative con mod (for those people who like to play Raistlin-style mages) and Barbarians with a huge Con score aren't set insanely ahead of the curve. (Someone mentioned a 34 at first level? That's way too high!)

Cleric/Rogue types get 16 at first level, while fighters types get 20. Con plays in as it always had, via the con mod. It grants at LEAST the +6 HP of the "same" system, doesn't screw over any races (like the Elves), but doesn't double-reward the 20 Con Barbarians.

Also, it's simple. Easy to maintain. And easy to apply to NPCs and monsters - because, yeah, they need the extra HP. Does combat take longer at 1st level? Maybe a LITTLE. But that falls off by fourth level (combat speed remains more consistant through mid levels).

And, who ever said that 1st level PCs aren't scared... why should they be? They're PCs - they're supposed to be the best of the best, leaving behind thousands of Commoners and Experts to become the heroes. They shouldn't be quaking in their boots... at least until the double-max-at-first-level Dragon shows up.

Also, Double Max at first level allows DMs to take off the kid-gloves and not have to coddle PCs until they get some HP. I was dropping PCs to negatives just fine (and watching them stand back up again after the Cleric channeled some positive energy to them) with double max.

So, yes. Double max is the way to go. Not too little (like flat or racial) and not too much (like + full Con). Double Max is just right.

I like flat 10 + normal hp/level. It evens out multi-classing as well.