I was thinking about this issue for a 3.5ish game and decided that using the 3.5 rules as written plus a "kicker" which was the same for all characters was best. That would ensure that everyone can survive one decent hit, reduce rather than increase the effect of Con, and narrow the too-wide gap between different classes (though getting rid of the d4 and possibly d12 as hit dice helps there too). These all seem like reasonable goals.
After thinking it through for a while, I ended up deciding the smallest number that would do the job was 8.
I think it should stay as a chart with a few options like is in alpha not a you have to use con sore or something now .
One way I've done this in the past that has worked well is to give 1/2 your maximum starting hp as a bonus at 1st level. So your 18 Con barbarian gets a whopping 8 bonus hp. You can combine this with giving maximum HP on the first HD.
So a barbarian would start with at least 18 hp before con.
Doing this, you'd get an hp spread as follows:
d6 HD = 9 hp before Con mod
d8 HD = 12 hp before Con mod
d10 HD = 15 hp before Con mod
d12 HD = 18 hp before Con mod
With a reasonable Con score, say 14, you can be pretty robust even if you play a frail class. It does tend to magnify the hp of the d10 and d12 characters, but all the classes with higher HD are supposed to be good combatants, so I like the dynamic of "I'm a barbarian with twice your HP... why don't you let ME take point?"
From our first playtesting session last Wednesday, we used the flat bonus (+6 hp). Everyone seemed happy with their hit points. In fact, the wizard was extatic. He actualy felt safe enough to do some risky stuff with those hit points. Talking to him afterwards, had we gone with the racial method (he was an elf), he'd have played much more conservatively or else played a half-elf instead. Those two hp were that big of a deal.
So, from my perspective, racial WILL actively discourage people playing elves or other "frail" races, and that's bad.
One way I've done this in the past that has worked well is to give 1/2 your maximum starting hp as a bonus at 1st level. So your 18 Con barbarian gets a whopping 8 bonus hp. You can combine this with giving maximum HP on the first HD.
So a barbarian would start with at least 18 hp before con.
Doing this, you'd get an hp spread as follows:
d6 HD = 9 hp before Con mod
d8 HD = 12 hp before Con mod
d10 HD = 15 hp before Con mod
d12 HD = 18 hp before Con modWith a reasonable Con score, say 14, you can be pretty robust even if you play a frail class. It does tend to magnify the hp of the d10 and d12 characters, but all the classes with higher HD are supposed to be good combatants, so I like the dynamic of "I'm a barbarian with twice your HP... why don't you let ME take point?"
I was for a long time planning to go with that for my next 3.5ish game, but now prefer the flat bonus I gave. It helps the lower-end classes who actually need it more, and gives less, rather than more, emphasis to the differences between classes. I don't think those differences should disappear entirely but I do think they contribute to making adventures hard to balance.
I'm going to be trying the racial hit points on Monday, it seems like a little detail that will make the adventuring day last a little longer.
1st level Kobold Barbarian with 20 HP coming up.
|
This may not be as popular, but how about leaving that list and basically explain how each reacts with the game.
"Standard allows for a less hearty group..." and so on.
While the racial option appeals to me (and further makes the races stand out), I have a knee-jerk reaction against high hit points at 1st level. We're already boosting the HD of 5 of the classes. So giving 1st level characters even more hp smells too 4e to me.
I agree that presenting the list of options is the best way to go. Let DMs/groups choose the method that works best. (We already have optional rules for ability score generation, for example.) This lets traditionalists be traditionalists, and lets others play around with how they see fit.
I am a fan of the racial hit point bonus. I always had a problem with the fact that the halfling beside me with the same con had just as many hitpoints as my character. I mean, he is like 1/5th my body mass, I know hitpoints are more dramatic than just meat on your bone, but come on! It hurts my favorite wee people but unfortunately it makes alot of sense. the Elves may have to be bumped up to 6 hitpoints, they already get a penalty to con (and the picture of the guy elf in the PDF has more than 4 -1 hitpoints, hes buff.)
I prefer giving 1st level characters more HP than what they have.
Take for example the first session of Age of Worms.
We entered the Whispering Cairn and were set upon by some wolves. Within 4 rounds 2 characters (a psion and a rogue) were bleeding to death. The cleric dragged our butts out and used up all his spells to heal us up. We went back to Diamond Lake for a couple of days to restore the rest of our HP.
That hardly sounds like the dramatic opening to a fantasy epic. It sounds more like the opening of a fantasy comedy.
When I mentioned to one of my players that Wizards get D6 hp, and bonus Hp based on Race, he was really happy.
"I won't die from getting a dagger thrown at me".
Sounds good to me. Anything that lets the PCs get to second level without negating challenges is good in my book.
I like the racial version for starting HP.
|
|
I prefer giving 1st level characters more HP than what they have.
Take for example the first session of Age of Worms.
We entered the Whispering Cairn and were set upon by some wolves. Within 4 rounds 2 characters were bleeding to death. The cleric dragged our butts out and used up all his spells to heal us up. We went back to Diamond Lake for a couple of days to restore the rest of our HP.
That hardly sounds like the dramatic opening to a fantasy epic. It sounds more like the opening of a fantasy comedy.
Our AP opened almost exactly the same way! Which is why I'm also a proponent of a starting hp-bump. Dying in the first encounter, or immediately having to return to town, is just not heroic or fun.
I like the idea of including a list of variant options, sure, but I think we're still going to need to offer some group feedback on what the "standard" PRPG hp method is going to be. As I've stated elsewhere, I personally like straight CON added to max hp. But really any bump beyond max HD would be nice.
The difference between first and second level characters in 3.5 is substantial. I have a new campaign going right now... at first level they were sneak attacked by two first-level thieves when they came through a darkness veiled door and 5 of 8 characters were knocked below zero from max. Luck had something to do with it, but lots of room for luck at low hit points. (The wizard saved their butts.) They literally had to stop the dungeon crawl, haul their comrades out, abandon the quest... it sucked for everyone, especially me because I had to throw my adventure away and start over.
Anyway, what I wanted to say is that some of these new suggested hit point rules look way too generous. Look what happened with these same characters a little later on at second level. (At second level, I let characters roll HP, but whatever they roll, if it is below average on the die they get the average number so their HP are always at least average). They just chewed through the following in a single encounter, with no magic items (Edit: reread this and realized they did each have a healing potion and used a couple), no rest, and a single vanilla war cleric: 19 zombies, 1 ghoul, 1 medium water elemental, 1 first level thief, one half-breed yuan-ti, one fourth-level half-orc fighter, 12 first-level warriors, 10 0-level slavers, and 2nd and 3rd level fighters. They are all standing, having taken the ship and released the slaves. Yikes! I have to throw the kitchen sink at these guys. (But yes, they were truly frightened, so I guess I did my job).
First level could be stronger, but we are talking only a few points would make the difference and preserve SOME sense that the characters can be challenges and perhaps even vulnerable. I like the flat system, but think even +6 hit points is too much.
I would say +3 is sufficient as a one-time first-level bonus to the standard rules.
Oh - and I also think there is enough spread between classes based on hit die and just the fact that the fighters have good CON... we don't need to add additional hit point spread between characters based on racial or strength bonus. So I would suggest that is built in already, we don't exacerbate it, and we stick to something more straightforward and fair.
Hmmm. And then there is the other approach... if you aren't happy with first-level durability, have everyone start their characters as second-level characters. :)
I've always done max hp at first level and above average for second and third. It has worked okay. I don't see the characters to be great heros at first. I think of them as more the adventurous/insane ones who head out into the wilderness to make their fortune or fight for a cause. For me, when they start their adventuring life I don't think they should be much more powerful than joe commoner.
From the list I think I will try Flat or Racial but with half the recommended hp bonuses. It won't be much, but I think it will help at first level.
|
I tested out using a flat 10 Hp last night in my group. They were not 1st level but 3rd level. So them getting the HP didn't really seem like it did a lot. I was wrong. The players decided to do things I haven't seen players do in a long time at lower levels. They attempted to do leaping charges and fall down holes to help their comrades. Though this sounds stupid, it's actually quite heroic in a sense. They were sacrificing themselves(their HP)to help save another. The threat of death still lingered because they still could be dropped to 0(Using the Death and Dying variant from UA).I think that 6 HP doesn't really cut the heroic adventurer aspect so a 10 was much more warranted. That and I am still using the original HD for the classes.
If Paizo is really looking for advice, I think SargonX pretty much nailed it above:
I agree that presenting the list of options is the best way to go. Let DMs/groups choose the method that works best. (We already have optional rules for ability score generation, for example.) This lets traditionalists be traditionalists, and lets others play around with how they see fit.
I am not going to be happy unless I retain some fragility at first level. I can see others on the forum aren't going to be happy unless they get +10 or more hit points first level. Others aren't going to be happy unless they are allowed to insert "reality" and bias for race, class, sex, ability score, etc.
The thing is, any of these systems are fine as long as they are happy.
So let them be happy... don't get in their way. Make the base "rules" easy to understand and somewhat "non-biased", and offer a pick list of variants or flavors that can appeal to the various types of players. Then get out of the way.
To tell you the truth, if I don't like what you do, I will make up different rules anyway. And if you REALLY have a strong thread of shoving stuff at me in your writings I don't like, that restricts me too badly from my style, I will just not bother with your stuff at all. So give me some room.
|
Contributor
|
I'm going to speak against leaving the option open in the final rules. If optional alternatives are listed somewhere, that's cool, but something must be used as the baseline system.
I'll live with whatever you guys go for, mostly because I doubt many people like my preference, which also might diverge too far from 3E. Just for fun I'll throw it out there anyways.
Persoanlly I feel that PCs are to fragile ar first, but that HPs scale up way too fast.
I'd like HP at 1st level to be Con score + a class modifier:
Wizards and Sorcerers +1
Rogues, Clerics and Bards +2
Fighters et al. +3
Barbarians +4
Then at each level PCs get their class modifier added.
Suddenly makes toughness a good feat.
The main problem is that damage creep would need to be scaled back at high level as well. Like all the d6/level damage spells would have to flat values rather than scaling up. Even then, the high level ones are crazy tough.
Like I said, prolly not a popular choice, and prolly to many other changes needed to make it work, but I like it.
But for goodness' sake do choose something as baseline.
As much as I like the idea of bonus HP at first level, I think at best it should remain as an option, and not a base part of the rules. It has always been a part of DnD that 1st level characters are fragile, for better or worse. If your goal is to preserve the old methodology, you would do best to leave such options in the realm of house rules.
Besides, lets say you give every character bonus HP based on race, does this mean that the monsters and NPCs also get this bonus? If the monsters and NPCs do, then you just broke your "keep it backwards compatible" tenant, as such a boost has large rippling implications. If not, then you need to shoehorn in some bogus explanation that only "heros" get this bonus, a line of reasoning that personally never sat well.
Allowing negative HP before death was the fix back in the day that allowed first level characters to survive. 1st level is supposed to be dangerous.
|
On our first playtest game, I decided to call a voting round... And every option got one vote, so I assume that, whatever the final decision is, there's going to be people who don't like it.
I'd prefer double HD at first level or a flat +10 hp bonus (because it's easier to calculate when "converting" NPCs and creatures), but frankly, whichever will do.
We played our first session using the Constitution version (I applied it to the monsters as well). After playing a second and much less combat intensive session, the opinion of our group was that the racial variant would probably be the best alternative. It gives enough hit points out that the group wouldn't have to flee/heal after every encounter, but also allowed them the opportunity to actually be able to take wimpy monsters down in a single hit.
|
I'd think that keeping the default of rolling the hit die plus con bonus at first level would be for the best as long a they include an extensive sidebar or even a small subsection on these other options with some discussion on their most probable effect on the game.
Up until now, the ability to be molded to different playing styles has been one of D&D's greatest strengths. I'd hope that would be even more true of Pathfinder. That would seen the be the way to go since the bulk of Pathfinder players will come from groups playing styles that WotC no longer wishes to support.
A lot of these ideas I've seen before. Taking max at first level and using the entire Con ability score as a kicker have been used since the seventies.
For my playtest, if I ever get it going, I'll be using roll the first hit die and add any Con bonus plus use your highest abilty core as a kicker. Should make for a survivable bunch ;).
Sam
|
|
Level one PCs SHOULD be fragile at first level. They are starting their adventuring career and are no better than a level one NPC class person. I dont see the need to change it, otherwise its gonna look like the 4e example with the 30 hp goblins and uber level one PC hit points.
I forget if it was first or second edition D&D but they had a special chart for youth hit points which was a d8 to add to hit points. I liked that back then. Not all people are created equally and grew up the same as a child/youth. A person who is playing a fighter could have rolled a 2 on that d8 to represent that he had a sickly childhood but decided to work and train to be a fighter(who will get 10+con under the current rules).
But what the hell do I know? :)
We play with Con-score + roll of the HD at 1st character level for HP since 2-1/2 years now. So far it has worked out well - the high casuality ratings of 1st through 3rd level characters are somewhat reduced without affecting balance overly. My players liked the rule.
As for Option racial HP option of the Pathfinder game:
normal rules assume when you have a class level, your class' HD replaces your racial Hd if you are a 1HD creature. So, why not add racial HD (1d8 for humanoids) and class HD to determine total HP? Max or roll (your choice)
|
If any were going to be chosen over standard +con bonus (my favorite) I would have to say that racial is the second best choice.
However, I think the very best option is to present the standard as standard for maximum backwards compatibility and then give options in a sidebar with explanations of how each affects the game.
Just my 2 pinch. :)
I favor racial other wise we'll be seeing lots of Barb - 1, Wizard - 1 halflings with more hit points than the Half Orc F-2.
1. Let 1st level PCs survive (longer). It's okay if the
Wiz goes down on a crit of a greatsword, but dying
(less than -9 hp) from full health with one hit should
be very rare.
We die at -CON-score HP
2. No fixed hp at 1st level. Each 1st level Ftr with Con 16
starts with 13 hp? Boring. Some randomness should be present.
Yep, as mentioned above, we do the CON-score + HD-roll at 1st level
3. Race should make a difference. The more the better.
Fixed or random? If random, a possiblity is a creature type's HD, so there is no need to assign every player race an individual number as it is done in fixed. If creature type HD are used, modify the roll by constitution-modifier?
Missed that bit. Is it in the alpha-rules?
Haven't seen it. It's one of our houserules. You could even add character level to account for more powerful monster's damage at higher levels and I think this would not change the "death-rate" too drastically.
Maybe... 4 -> d4, 6 -> d8, 8 -> d12 and I'd add Con mod in this case.
Would be a bonus racial HD at 1st level with Con mod as normal
for HD then.
So, when you take CON into account, there is no need to differentiate between frail and robust races as suggested in PRPG, because frail races (usually) have a -2 CON ability score adjustment which already accounts for this and then you can use the creature type HD.
We voted for the next campaign to use Con SCORE + Max HD for 1st level (no Con bonus), and then roll + con bonus for each new level.
I've only played with these guys for a year, and they have been doing max HP at each level, but with the new rule are willing to induce some randomness.
I have give it quite a bit of thought I am going to be converting to pathfinder (obv.) but my party (I am the DM) has just reached third level last week.
Now here is the thing, we used to have a joke "why is the wizard here, rule for first level wizards: Stay home and lock the door"
So this is it my DM who is not currently at my town at the moment we have had long discussions about what level to start at and he refuses to have level one parties they must be at least and it takes quite a bit for him to get to this level two he prefers level four.
Why hit points.
So I think having your +1 to favoured class from race and maxed hit dice plus constution is the way to go.
He is my reasoning, you have fiense fighters like swashbulckers, or two handed builds and you have strength fighters (generally barbarins but still) but you don't have endurance fighters.
And it's not as if as icon they don't exist.
It makes a whole new way to run a melee fighter (doesn't accually have to be fighter but still)
Also you can have wizards whom don't have to assign one of there higher stats to constution.
lets admit it, 17 hit points for a wizard is amazing compared to what it is now (10 con, 6 wiz 1 favoured)
As a DM these alows me to have a first level party go against accual challange rating one creatures, well you could at the moment just so long as you sent them one at a time with 3 rounds before the next one
(ok I exgerate but still)
I just think that is the best option but its only my way of thinking
My current preference:
max HD + CON + racial at first level (Racial +2,4, or 6)
-and using the new class upgraded HD
Also- death at -CON
The few extra rounds for companions to save you should give plenty of survivability.
After considering all of the potential options, my preference for starting hit points is a variation of the racial bonus. I think the 4/6/8 spread is a little too generous for the frail/standard/hardy races. Essentially, a dwarven wizard can get more hit points for his race than his class and that seems...well, a little odd.
My suggestion would be to cut the racial bonus in half. Make it 2/3/4. The reason I like this is that it provides for less variation between the races. Does a dwarf on average really have 4 more hit points than an elf just because of his racial bonus? I think that's too wide a gap.
Secondly, after you combine the class hit die, Con bonus, and then add on the 4/6/8 racial bonus, the overall hit points for a 1st level PC seem a little too generous to me. By cutting it back to 2/3/4, you offset that effect a little better, I think. Meanwhile, in the end, that extra 2/3/4 hit points based on your race still makes a 1st level PC more capable of surviving, especially if he or she is also getting extra hit points from favored class, Con bonuses, and the newly improved Toughness feat.
Just my two-cents,
--Neil
Seeing what 4e was doing to hit points was one of the first reasons why I was put off it.
I really hope that Pathfinder doesn't go down the same road.
If 1st level PCs are supposed to start off just a cut above the average commoner how can they have all these extra hit points?
I'd argue that PCs are supposed to be vulnerable at 1st level - at the perhaps extreme end of this vulnerability curve, look at what happened to a generation of 1st level Greyhawk PCs confronted with a certain sphere of annihilation...
My point is that whereas bringing wizards and sorcerers up to d6 HD and having death occur at negative CON score would make it a little harder for PCs to die, 1st level PCs shouldn't be able to take that many risks.
Yes, maybe there's a place for racial adjustment of +1 or -1hp per level but shifting a 1st level fighter from having say 13hp to 29 is way too much like 4e.
I have to disagree with the earlier comment that first level player characters should not be any better than a first level NPC class.
This statement may have been accurate under 2nd edition but it is not in 3.5. By fact of including the NPC classes at all it clearly sends the message that player character classes (both actual PC and PC) are head and shoulders above the average person. Most soldiers and nco's are warriors not fighters. Most noble are arsitocrats not fighters or such. Most villages rely upon adepts not wizards and clerics for their magic. Most woodsmen and most theives guild members are experts not rogues or rangers.
This being said, I personally like a slight boost to starting character's hitpoints. I do not think that it should be more than 6 points from whatever source not counting Con bonuses. And this extra bonus should only be applied to those with Player Characters and important NPCs.
D&D and thus Pathfinder is a game of heroics. That is the core of it to me. And being cut down by some runt of a goblin who just got a lucky hit and damage role is not heroic. Player characters are heroes. The people in a village that everyone looks to for things the local miltia cannot handle.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
For me, the key issue here is that the Pathfinder RPG should feel like 3.5+, not 4 or something different again. It should be easy to pick up existing 3.5 material and convert it to the Pathfinder RPG.
Changing starting hp from standard is a poor idea, it will create too many imbalances w.r.t. existing 3.5 materials including published adventures. I'd certainly hate to run a 1st level game where PC's have 20+ hp and my orcs still only have about 5 - the fresh-faced adventurer idea is then gone, and I for one love DMing as well as playing from 1st level as it is now - it's exciting, the PC's fall down a bit sometimes, but don't really ever die unless the whole group is especially stupid. And giving the standard orc 20 hp isn't a great idea either - the whole balance of monsters will be destroyed, and again, I can't then easily pick up existing 3.5 books and use them without a significant conversion hurdle.
One other key thing to do would be adopt the 4.0 idea of critical hits - max damage - this will also help the unexpected critical hit from killing a PC.
I apply the hit point bonus to all creatures. So far we've tried the Con score + max starting hp and the racial HP variants and so far the racial bonus (4,6, or 8) seems the easiest to implement and most fun. Plus in terms of backwards compatibilty its the easiest to implement.