In our playtest we started off with the Constitution choice, but the group found this was a bit much. And after building a number of test characters for each class (dwarven fighter, human cleric, halfling rogue, elven wizard), I found that either the Double or the Flat seemed to give the best level of extra durability. Though the Flat needed to be increased to +8 to be effective.
Standard, gave no durability.
Constitution, gave too much. It is much like giving each character a flat rate of +10 plus considerably more ontop of that.
Double, gave a moderate amount which also reflected their class choice more. This is my prefered choice.
Racial, I found did not give enough durability to the majority of the characters, and I also beleive that this adds a complexity to 1st level creation that doesn't need to be there.
Flat, gave about as much durability as Racial overall, which as I stated wasn't quite enough. By increasing it to +8 instead the overall durability was much better.
If its backwards compatibility you worry about then higher durability would be easily achieved through either the Double or Flat as well. They require the least readjusting even in creatures.
In the case of flat you simply add the flat-rate to all N/PCs and tada the durability has been raised.
Double is only slightly more complicated but not much, you merely have to know what their starting HD was. But since its either going to be a d6, d8, or d10 this makes it easy to determine. Especially based on BAB.
Quick note from rolling up characters for playtest.
re: Starting HPs and the Toughness Feat.
It isn't a concern if one of the non-standard methods is used, but if Pathfinder uses the standard method [max HP+CON mod] for starting HPs, they should lower the HP gained from the Toughness Feat.
Gaining 4HP at first level makes a character class have the same starting HPs as a character class two dice-types higher them theirs. In other words a wizard with toughness has the same starting HPs as a fighter without it, a cleric or rogue has the same starting HPs as a barbarian, etc. And if the weaker class is a racial favorite, then they will have more starting HPs than a class two "degrees tougher" than them. The elf wizard will have more starting HPs than an elf fighter and a halfling rogue will have more starting Hps than a halfling barbarian.
It looks like their is a good chance that the starting HP method will change, and this makes this point moot, if not our group felt Toughness was a little too good.
In my playtest group the players really enjoyed the racial modifier to hit points. I had two kobolds (frail), a half-elf (normal) and an elan (normal). The players were stoked at having the extra 4-6 hp, it meant that the adventuring day could last longer and I could throw encounters at them that were a little tougher than standard without worrying about 1 hit TKOs. The characters were still intimidated by the higher level monsters, but rather than running away like nancy boys, they instead stood their ground and fought.
(1st level pcs vs velociraptor = 2 characters in negative hp,
1st level pcs vs CR 4 green dragon (2nd encounter for the day = 1 character in negative hp, and 1 character with 2 hit points left)
There's still the idea of danger for the characters but sudden death is not as likely.
Peace.
So if there's a vote, I vote Racial, if thats the official option then make sure you put the bonus HP in the racial traits at the beginning of the book (that way players can weigh it as an option in character choice).
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I like the racial version for starting HP.
I gave my group (which I DM) the choice to vote. Being a group that prefer RP more to combat, they unanimously decided the Racial Variant was the one they would use. When I asked the group I am in as a player, which is combat heavy, they either wanted Double or Constitution Variant at first lvl.
I myself like the Racial one the most.
Votes from people I play with:
Double - 2
Constitution - 3
Racial - 6 (myself included)
No one liked the Standard or Flat options.
I would have to say the most effective system my group have used is max+con. Every level I have players roll 3 take the highest for HP. Though I think racial bonus at first level would be nice too. Flat rate hp is also poular among groups for quick leveling.
Id suggest something like this:
1st level Human Fighter 10(max base) + 2 (con 15) +4 (human racial bonus) =16 and a smart human fighter would take toughness upping it to 19.
This model doesnt really rebuild HP but adds alittle survivability. Lets look at a 5th level character.
5th level Human Fighter 10+9+10+5+7(roll three take the highest kept him at or above 50% hp per level) +10 (con still 15) +13 (racial 6 and toughness) = 64 hp
This doesnt seem too bad, with minimal consideration for hp a fighter can get plenty. And if they min/max im sure we could see 5th level characters in the 80s but this would come at the cost of other stats.
The [CON Score + max HP] method of starting HPs suffers, to a lesser extent, from the INT ability score increase-skill points problem.
Just a small addition problem, but I predict it would be a common mistake when statting up creatures/characters higher than 3rd level.
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.
I agree 100% - keep it as it is, and people can house-rule if they want, or just start PC's at 1st level. Anything else starts to put things out of whack and/or start to be like 4.0.
People using Age of Worms as an example of an un-fun beginning for a campaign need to realise that this is not (or should not) be a standard campaign opening - two wolves is a nasty, nasty thing to spring on four 1st level PC's as their first ever encounter. I loved DMing age of worms, but my group entered the whispering cairn at 3rd level and I only boosted the challenges up a little here and there...
INTRODUCTION: The target of this post and its surgeons is to give a first feedback of the trials and the comments of my RPG (players and GM) community about the Paizo project “PRPG”.
Just because it can make sense (or not) for the reader, here are our “stats”. We are about 30 French guys & girls:
- 5 of us are 43 and more and play since 1980
- 12 of us are 28 an more and play since 1990
- 11 of us are from 13 to 20 and play since 2003 - 2006
Everybody played at least 30 times in D&D 3.5 rules and we are 6 to DMing it currently. Also most of us have played a lot of different RPG games from Runequest / ODD / Call of Chtulu to WoW & Warhammer.
On each feedback we will try to focus on a very small window of the trial / comments. Always, the revision of the rules set will be stated plus some relevant mention to chapters, ands so on. We also will verbatim Jason most meaningful sentences in regard of the trial and discussion done. We will not try to argue for or against. I will harshly give the score as: YES – NO – BOF (a French term expressing lack of interest or enthusiasm). Then, when useful and available, an alternative proposal discussed in between us and seeming interesting will be reported.
I don’t know if our efforts will last for a long time and if I will be able to post regularly and about the whole think… But at least we will try to pay our coin to this great challenge of Paizo.
Starting Hit Points in ALPHA rev 1.1
Action = read the first pages of the rules and start generating characters of any race at level 1
”I wanted to make sure that it stayed true to the original vision of the game… I wanted to ensure that any conversion work would be minimal.”
- Standard = YES
- Double = NO
- Racial = BOF
- Flat = NO
- Constitution = NO
For the Racial proposal, the discussion was strong but the flaw is about the heavy boost proposed and the original taste of the game to preserve. At the end we will be very much pleased if the bonuses are:
- 0 for frail
- 1 for standard
- 2 for hearty
races. Also these racial bonuses have to be included in the racial section (its common sense but …)
Be creative
We tried the alternative starting hit points with new characters. The standard hit points are the most preferred in our group. We have never had problems in the past, and when making our characters using the other methods proposed, we felt that the characters became too durable compared to other monsters such as orcs or even the ogre. I think the survivability of 1st level character is fine where it currently is and perfectly illustrates the frailty and inexperience of the newbie adventurer. If it is percieved as an issue that needs adjustment for pathfinder, it is a minor one compared to the other issues of 3.5.
If Paizo felt a fix was needed, then I would rather they solve the problem by not tinkering with starting hit points, but by making the jump from 1st level to 2nd level quicker by modifying the experience point table. In other words, the less time you spend being first level, the less of a chance you have of dying from that "one lucky hit" as some put it, or the less number of trips back to town after one encounter.
Adding a 0 level to all critters, while not changing high level all that much, it completely changes the complextion of low level play. The survivability of everything goes up and makes a lot of things at low level less useful. some things that come to mind.... Magic Missile, the lowly dagger, even the short sword. I can see a lot more use of heavy damage weapons and the save or die spells getting used even more.
Every group but one I've played with dating back to AD&D has used the death at -CON rule, and I highly suggest it. Those extra HP can really help protect PCs from sudden death from a single attack. It doesn't do a lot to address the "comical" actics of 1st level PCs who can't stay on their feet through a single fight though.
Some folks I know like to play weird races from time to time, so I was wondering how non-core races would fit into the racial bonus. It struck me that just using a base HP bonus of 6 and adding or subtracting your racial bonuses to Str and Con would give the same results for everybody but the gnomes. With a +2 Con and a -2 Str they'd even out.
This might be more work than it is worth, but at least it would be consistent. I would use stuff like this only for PCs though. Honestly the flat bonus might be best since it is easiest, but I thought I'd throw this idea into a post just for the heck of it.
Another vote for the racial hp bonus...
It makes the races more distinctive and emphatizes the differences between, for example, an agile, slender elf warrior and a squat, sturdy, "tankish" dwarf fighter, while giving that small hp boost at first level...
Also, with it and the race re-vamps, more non-barbarian half-orcs could suddenly start appearing in the gaming table, which is good for variety and the breaking of stereotypes.
Another vote for the racial hp bonus...It makes the races more distinctive and emphatizes the differences between, for example, an agile, slender elf warrior and a squat, sturdy, "tankish" dwarf fighter, while giving that small hp boost at first level...
Also, with it and the race re-vamps, more non-barbarian half-orcs could suddenly start appearing in the gaming table, which is good for variety and the breaking of stereotypes.
My only concerns with the racial hit points is that:
1) We already reward one of the hardy classes (Dwarves) with a constitution bonus for being "tough", and then give them more hit points as a starting bonus for being "hearty".
2) We punish elves for being "frail" with their starting hit points and they already get punished for being "frail" with a con minus.
3)We reward Gnomes with a bonus to constitution for being "surprisingly hardy" then give them less starting pints for being "frail".
I am not a fan of rewarding classes twice for the same thing, but i don't know what I would do to fix it. Maybe class Elves and Dwarves as "Standard" would even it out, and then the "frail" bonus would be a size thing.
Does anyone else agree or do you think I am being too anal?
Well, it's true... dwarves would be specially resilient, with "hearty" hp bonus and +2 Con, but that's what they are known for, and imho elves really fit being among the "frail" races. In this way, dwarves are not just hearty, are the heartiest among the hearty races, just like gnomes would be the heartier among the "frail" races.
I really don't think that giving a lesser bonus is a punishment... After all, you're still giving a bonus, albeit a lesser one. And 4 to 8 hp are a huge difference at 1st level, but not that great in the long run...
I like the racial bonus for the flair and added flavour it adds to the different races, I think it's a nice touch.
|
I playtested the racial option with my group last night (although I originally offered the flat bonus, the players wanted the racial bonuses instead). We had two elves, one human, one half-elf, and one dwarf. Everyone was first level. One elf was a cleric with average Con, so they got 8+4+0=12 hit points to start. The other elf was a wizard with 9 Con, 6+4-1+1=10 hit points, with the favored class bonus hit point. Having 10 hit points as opposed to 3 or 4 made the PC feel a lot safer, but not enough to radically change tactics beyond common sense (stand behind the fighters most of the time). This worked out well for everyone.
During the adventure, my (the DM's) dice rolls were particularly low most of the time, so I had a hard time telling if the encounters were decently challenging. The final encounter, however, made a pretty good case for the new system. The human fighter became grappled by a crocodile. She managed to keep her footing to resist being dragged into water, but the damage from the bite was quickly adding up. On the third round of struggling, the battle was decided, and the fighter had one hit point remaining. The player was ecstatic, declaring it the first time a 1st level PC of his survived a module.
Three rounds with a crocodile is a lot to ask of any 1st level character, but honestly I think the racial option is great. If all the options are left to the GM, that's fine with me too.
I and my group are also pleased by racial HP. But as stated in my above post we don’t understand why a frail race is entitled a racial bonus to HP. So we voted for a 0 for the frail race.
In the other hand, giving a +8 for the Half-Orc will definitely create some heavy differences in HP at low level.
Eventually we prefer to have some spices for the races but only a few because a too spicy meal will just become very unpleasant for many people. To make it short, a lot of rules and options mixed together are good only if the cook is done by a chief (read it as by a very good balance of one DM, his players and one Rules set).
And if you are not sure to be a chief – which is the case at least of me – then you are better to just add very little quantities of your spices to flavour the things rather than to spoil them.
Therefore we ended with 1 and 2 HP for standard and hearty races. It spices the character but without the danger of an unexpected disgusting reaction when mixed with other options and rules points.
Ok, if the aim is to give a big HP boost to everything our comments are just useless. But, if we are trying to improve a flavour for the future gourmets then they could make sense.
I’m French, so please forgive me for the cooking lesson. I like also the clichés and this one was a way too appealing for me to resist the temptation. ;-)
Be creative (in your kitchen too !)
