Toadstool's page

jop, that mythic subforum thing was my misktake. If a mod reads this, please move this thread properly.

My one issue with the game is how Hit Points per Level are handled.
(I will assume that you get half of the hit die type as hit points per level, I know the average is 0,5 higher, however, I decide to ignore this to avoid confusion)

My problem is, that the hit dice of the first level are maxed out. This leads to imbalancing the game.
Let's say you want to play a Barbarian/Wizard. If you take the Barbarian at first level and the wizard at second level, you get 12+3=15 hitpoints. However if you take the Wirzard first, you get 6+6=12 Hitoints. This is a 3 hitpoint penalty just for choosing your first level "wrong".

There are a number of workarounds:
Highest hit die:
Once you choose a class with a higher hit die than you already have, you gain hitpoints equal to the difference. (Just as if you had taken that one at first level)
Disadvantage: Presige Classes like die d12-Dragon Disciple can't be taken at first level anyway.

Higher average hit points per level:
You don't get the higher Hit Points at first level, however each levels hit points are raised by a fix number (as if you had higher Constitution)
Disadvantage: Your Hit Points at first Level are either too low or the hit points at later levels are too high.

Constant Hitpoints at "Level 0":
Assume each charakcter starts with a fix number of Hitpoints (lets say 5) and then at each level (including the first) you add the average hit points.
Disadvantage: Depending on how you choose the number some character gain a minor advantage or disadvantage at first level. The Barbarian 5+6=11 woul loose 1 Hit Point, while the Wizard 5+3=8 Would gain two Hit Point, if you choose 5 hp for Level 0.

Let's get back on topic. I mentioned Magic just to show how far these things might go.
I have another thought on our subject.
If you take into consideration that this error exists since third edition D&D and how many players played D&D and overlooked it, you can ask the question, if the rule is of use at all.
In effect, to know an exact CC value is only important to see if you can wear an armor with your current strength, or what penalties this entails. I doubt anyone constantly updates his weight.
So if this table needs a makeover, you can ask yourself, if it wouln't be better to get completely rid of it and replace it with a new rule.

The best "weight" system I have ever encountered, was back in HeroQuest (that early 90s boardgame) where the only rule was printet on the harness-item-card "it is so have that you may move only with one die (instead of two)"

Now we could use this tought to create a new weight unit, lets call it a "dog" then do rough estimations how many dogs your pack might weight.
light armor? one dog.
medium armor? two dogs.
heavy armor? three dogs.
your backpack with all that stuff inside? one dog.

Then you just track how many dogs you have to lift and you may lift an number of dogs equal to your Strength modifier without penalies.
Lift one dog too much and it's medium load. Lift two too much and it's heavy load.

However this is just a brainstorming. My question to you is, what would you prefer:
a) correcting the table and keep it. (or keep the old one)
or b) find a more streamlined rule ?

There is a chance that my fomula is incorrect yes, strange then that is is correct for all other entries, isn't it. Instead of a simple formula like mine you would have to use some kind of absurd astronomical stunt to pull that number off. And I think it is far more likely the the guy who typed the table hit the wrong (adjacent) button than him beeing a mathematical genius that for some sadistic reason would make a formula that complex that you would have to conjurne the spirits of Gauss, Euler and Einstein to crack it.

The possibility that there is no fomula is not given, because the final row tells you that there is a formula.

That depends on how you see it,
the formula is almost given in the last entry +10 / x4. And in order to be a list that could be used for any n, there has to be a formula to exactly calculate the result.
The fact that there is a "wrong" entry makes calculating Str 30+ technically impossible. It is as if you say 7 + 1 = 9, the whole system of mathmatics would cruble if that was true.

To be honest, yes, who the hell tracks the CC with strength that high? And the mistake is so small that it's not even a 1% deviation.

If you ask me, the table needs a redo, since it wants to give us players relyable information on a rule, however it doesn't. There is simply no way to tell exactly what happens beyond Strength 29.
Maybe some of you have played Magic the Gathering. There is this tale of that tournament player who played a card, "Chaos Orb" in the finals. The card needed to be tossed in the air and would "destroy" any other card it lands on. The player then tore the Chaos Orb Card to pieces and scattered them over his enemie's cards.
By doing so, he went outside the rules... because he started with a valid deck, made a valid action resulting in an invalid deck. Evectively he lost while winning and won while losing, some sort of Schrödingers Cat kind of thing.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that that broken table as it is opens up a gap in the rules.

I just spottet an error in the carrying capacity table (Core Rules Page 171). To make a spreadsheet, I reversed engineered the formula, which turned out to be:
POWER(4,((Str/10)-1))*100
The result ist then rounded to get the maximum carrying capacity. (Light CC ends at 33% and Medium CC ends at 66%)
There are some inconsitencies in the method of rounding, but there are also three entries with different results:
The first two are at strength 1 and 2, but I believe it ist understandable to choose 10 and 20 here instead of just keeping 30 at Strength 1, 2 and 3.
However there is an error at Strength 27 (my lucky number by the way)
The value written in the book is 1040. However, it should have been 1050.
POWER(4,((27/10)-1))*100 = 1055,696... depending on wheter you round down or up, you would get 1050 or 1060. 1055 might be irregular but is still possible. However, you can't round to 1040.
If you then take into account, that the maximum medium CC is 66% of the heavy CC, you get the following results:
1040*66/100= 686.4
1050*66/100= 693
1055*66/100= 696.3
1060*66/100= 699.6
The value printed in the book here is 693, proving that 1050 would be correct and 1040 is - in fact - a typo.

I crosschecked with D&D 3.5 and the same mistake is present there.