Lumpy's page

While that's certainly a move in favor of realism, it moves away from the kind of action/adventure/heroism that is meant to set the PCs apart in most campaigns.

Is that the assumption in most campaigns at 1st level? I always felt the game did a great job of modeling the rise of common men into legendary heroes. I didn't think they were supposed to start out legendary. YMMV.

Also, it makes it much more difficult on new players if their first combats are so lethal they have to start the (to them) long and frustrating path of making a new character all over again after one hit from a longbow.

This is definitely a concern. How do we (as PRPG critics or as DMs) balance the pain of character death versus the tedium of no-threat adventuring? Maybe it's not starting HP that's the problem, but CR/adventure design?

I agree that your way of looking at it makes sense; find an optimal range and design a system that meets it. What Paizo's doing is taking feedback from the community, which to a large part says starting HP is too low, and looking for an easy yet intuitive way to meet that need. I think they're doing a good job on that so far; my playtesting at least has been very positive.

Thank you for your kind words, and thank you especially for your thoughtful feedback. The more people thinking, testing and playing the PRPG, the better the end product will be.

Peace,

Lump

I think we're working this whole starting hit pints thing backwards. That is, instead of coming up with systems and seeing if they produce amounts of hit points we can live with at first level (pardon the pun), we should decide on an optimal range of hit points for a character at first level, and then choose a system that generates that optimal range.

I would suggest that at first level, normal weapons wielded by normal people should be life-threatening. A sword or a cross-bow bolt should have the potential of killing a first-level character. Getting stabbed with a dagger, maybe not quite the same potential. So for me, and for any players who agree with that idea, first level characters shouldn't have so few hit points that a normal dagger wielded by a normal person would usually kill them in one blow, nor should they have som many hit points that they can ignore the guardsman with the crossbow as a threat.

This suggests minimum starting hit point should be around 6 (one more than the d4+1 dagger would do on a good roll), and the maximum should be around 16 (maxed critical hit from a longsword or light crossbow). Any hit-point generation system that produces a range between 6 and 16 hp would work for me. No character should ever have less than 6 hp to start out with unless the player decides to do so (say by picking a Con less than 10), and no character should start with more than 16 hit points, except for the occasional barbarian.

Just food for thought,

Peace,

Lump

I like this idea too, but why D4 and not D8 (the standard hit die for a humanoid?

3.5 classes average 2.5 (d4), 3.5 (d6), 4.5 (d8), 5.5 (d10) or 6.5 (D12) hit points a level. Why not bump them all up to that 4.5 hp a level range, and give fighters, rangers and paladins one extra hp per level as a class feature, and barbarians 2 extra hit points per level as a class feature?

That would be a change that might strain, but would not break backwards compatability, and would also bring the PHB in line with the MM.

Two cents and all,

Lump

EDIT: for typo

I would suggest that a d6 doesn't go far enough. To me the goal should be to end teh reliance of wizards and sorcerors on toads, and a 1 hp increase per level is not going to do that.

I think hit points should be based on creature type. Elves, dwarves, half-orcs, half-elves, gnomes and halflings are all listed in the monster manual as humanoids, giving them 1d8 hit points per hit die. (the most glaring omission from the monster manual is humans) Why not apply that logic across the board?

You can give fighter types an additional +1 hp per HD as a class ability, and barbarians a +2 hp per HD to preserve the edge they already possess, and to preserve some backwards compatibility.

Lump

There are old fighters and there are bold fighters, but there are no old, bold fighters. Or to put it another way, at some point there should be diminishing returns to wading into the thick of combat sword-a-swinging. Maybe the answer lies not in making the fighter better at swinging that sword, but instead better at managing the combat, or choosing their battles. That is, give the fighter class more tactical advantages: movement options, ranged attacks, troops to command, etc.

I'm also not sure if it's a bad thing for people to multi-class out of (or into) fighter. Fighter-types need to learn new tricks as they go along in order to survive in a fantasy world: Conan becomes a thief and a pirate and a king; Fafhrd and the Mouse were fighter/thieves at least (and maybe bard/barbarians or sorceror/wizards to start), etc.

As an aside, it would also help if that shield or suit of armor were actually good for something.

Lump

Here's another option. Let each character have a free level in one of the five NPC classes appropriate to their concept. Doesn't change their ECL or CR or what have you, gives them a few more hp, a few more skill points, a couple more weapon proficiencies, maybe a feat. Increases survivability, and provides some character depth.

I'd ignore this level when calculating any level-dependent or HD-dependent benefits or effects. So a Rogue 1/Adept 1 would be considered a Rogue 1 for all future intents and purposes.

GM fiat would be required to encourage the occasional Peasant upbringing, but isn't that always the case?

Lump

Keep it simple.

There is no need to buff up first-level characters. If survivability is an issue, make the default starting point 3rd level. No new rules needed.

But,

Hit points should be based on race. Add a Human entry to the monster manual. Start all Humanoids at D8. Every level, give ‘em another d8. Dwarves are hearty? Give ‘em a bonus to Constitution. Barbarians are tough? Give ‘em a bonus to Constitution. Maybe all classes should offer ability bonuses (1st level only) as well. Studying as a wizard makes you smarter. Studying as a Bard makes you better at holding people’s attention. Studying as a Fighter makes you stronger, etc.

Something along the lines of:

Barbarian: +4 CON, +2 STR, -2 INT (for whatever part of Intelligence is book-learning)
Bard: +2 CHA, +2 DEX
Cleric: +2 WIS, +2 CHA
Druid: +2 WIS, +2 CHA
Fighter: +2 CON, +2 STR
Monk: +2 WIS, +2 DEX
Paladin: +2 CON, +2 CHA
Ranger: +2 CON, +2 WIS
Rogue: +2 DEX, +2 INT (for whatever part of Intelligence is street-smarts)
Sorcerer: +2 CHA, +2 DEX
Wizard: +2 INT, +2 DEX

Obviously, that’s just a quick stab, based on what needs to happen for hp averages to work out for the fighter-types, and also based on the attributes that in my experience people tend to make their second-best. Stats would be higher across the board, but that would allow for the implementation of other ideas: identical save progressions (or heck, just make them ability checks), max skill ranks equal to character level without a huge drop off early on, etc. No real need to re-stat old 3.5 materials as ability differences would be made up in skill ranks and different hit dice. If that’s too much of an increase for you, just knock off that second ability increase (or for barbarians, the third one).

Two cents and all.

Lump