|
I have to agree that the 3.5 hit die shud stay mostly because it show the lifestyle the class has.
Example: The Wizard spends most if not all his time in study, to train his mind. While his friend The Fighter spends most if not all of his time training his body to take more physical punishment.
Plus the classes that do get a HD bump get the boon of more Hit points, while the other classes get the same'ol same'ol
|
I think that the bump the are using balances out pretty well and still shows the different specialties of the classes, having it based off BaB is very good for that, the less combative the class the less HP it gets.
As far as the stepping up of hit points, I don't think its going to make a huge difference in the long run, especially if done across the board, and can actually be really useful at the beginning when players are a lot more prone to dying due to bad luck rather then bad planning. Its nice having a first level character who takes a crit when at full HP and it just puts him unconscious(still scary) without just insta-killing him with no chance of recovery.
Low levels are when these things are really noticable. The increase in a HD size only ends up amounting to about 1hp per level(average). Having an extra HP or two at level one is awesome, but at level five, even having the five extra isn't so noticeable.
-Tarlane
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
"Rationalizing" the hit die by tying it to BAB is fine — if it's actually being rationalized (that is, no Barbarian exception). Otherwise, leave it as in 3.5. And first level hp should be one full hit die, nothing more. First level is supposed to be dangerous.
Why does every edition increase hit points? Hit points are fine as is, please do not increase them. Allowing the options in the alpha booklet will be fine. As long as they are options and not the default. I like the way those are laid out. Let each individual DM choose between whichever option he likes and since they are in the core book, players will have no reason to b@&&@. If I have to houserule the "standard" method, players will whine. If I can point to an option in the book, people will tend to go with the flow.
I can say we are using hit point method one, exp chart 2, feat progression 3, for example.
I do agree with this. Why change? Survivability is an inherent challenge at first level. Let's keep it this way. Max HP/dice + CON bonus + any other bonus. I like the rationalization HD/BAB though. Does that mean that rangers get their D10 back ? They really need it because fighters are MEAN with the new rules.
Bran
|
|
This is something I've been working on for new characters and it might fit the bill.
every character gets one full Racial Hitdie + CON mod. Do not count Racial penalties or Bonuses, they are already figured into the Racial Hitdie. The first level of a class grants that class' hitdie as it does every level thereafter(roll for first level).
The basic idea is that Medium-sized humanoids get 8 hitpoints to start, modified by race. Small ones get 5, again modified by race. Large would get 10. You then add the CON mod in like you would every level, positive or negative. The tentative listing I have for racial hitpoints is as follows.
Human: 8
Elf: 6
Errant(Half-Elf): 7(they have no penalty, but are between Human and Elf)
Dwarf: 9 or 10(I'm kinda on the fence with them; Medium, verging on Small, but exceptionally hardy)
Half-Giant: 11(Bonus to CON and STR, with size verging on Large)
Gnome: 7(Small, but hardy folk)
Halfling: 5(No CON penalty/bonus)
This way, what race they are as a little bit more impact as to how survivable they are in the beginning, with the training they undergo as they level influencing their survivability later on it their lives.
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
I guess I don't see the problem. It actually makes more sense for me to see a character with 20 hit points go to 26 in a level, rather than a character with 6 hit points suddenly double and then triple his total over the next couple of levels. It makes the gain per level seem more reasonable. The difference seems less of a quantum leap and more like natural growth and development. Plus with bigger up front hit points you can now track damage that's significant but not life threatening. Twisting an ankle or stepping on a broken bottle don't send you 1/8 of the way toward dead. I can live with that.
You could do convoluted character generation to try and emulate this, starting characters at higher level or giving them transparent commoner levels, or whatever...but I boggle a bit at the idea of gunking up chargen with a bunch of extra complexity when the simple fix is just to pad the front end hit points a bit. The complexity of making higher level characters isn't unmanagable, but the idea that I could never just make a first level character again would be a bit of a headache when there could be another better option.
I for one would be a fan of giving characters even more of their hit points up front and increase it even more slowly than what's happening. I am so not a fan of high level characters with so many hit points that they can wade into fireballs or get bitten in half by dragons and still be fine. I really try to make the damage reasonable in my games at home--people get hit points by race and that's it unless you raise your constitution or get the toughness feat. You could be a 12th level fighter and still only have 8 hp unless you devote feats and ability score increases to fixing it. Now I understand how hardcore this is, and not for everybody. So yeah, I'd be fine with giving characters maybe 30 hit points up front, and then a point or two bump based on class each level. That way there's still a big difference in hit points between a first and 20th level character (a combat character could still expect to hit epic with about 70 hp) but both of them seem to fit nicely into the killable human range. It's way more than I would ever want my PC's to have, but it's a big step down on the crazy meter from how it is now.
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?
I like this idea, Lumpy. It is akin to the various '0-level' approaches I've seen. Various ideas for addinng a little variance to the classes, without subtracting from the classes by saddling it with an extra level.
Or perhaps offer each character a choice between:
1) Additional hit-points (free toughness perhaps)
2) Additional skill-points (I believe there is a feat for this as well)
3) One Proficiency..
etc.
Basically, force the player to /choose/: A little more survivable? Or little more skilled? etc.
Any time the player chooses between things, the character becomes more unique. Explaining in-character why the character is that way, or chose that way further defines the character.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding hit points in general:
I, too, oppose larger hit dice for any of the classes. If anything, I'd favor some form of slowing gain rate of hit points.
The primary thing that increased hit dice does, or rules such as 'you're still alive at negative con, or a negative number ==HP': Draaaaaags out combat. Especially at those levels where you 'dink the enemy to death'.
Sure! Characters at the early levels are fragile, especially wizards. This means they have to pick and choose their fights and confrontations. This means a wizard has to play smart or pay the price.
I've played many wizards over the years. Sometimes I've been lucky (am now, in fact) and have a high constitution, sometimes not. Sometimes the high constitution made me overconfident: Florian nearly got himself killed a few weeks ago b/c he thought he could go toe-to-toe with the guys "Come on, I have a quarterstaff"...if his friends hadn't stepped in, the next session would have been a funeral service...
Toughness can help offset that first level, if you really need the extra hit points. I've found though that as long as you play with a little sense of tactic and good cooperation from your party, you'll stay alive. Sometimes you can really shoot yourself in the foot: I've charged into things I shouldn't...and lost a character!
The point of the game is risk. If you raise the HP to the point the risk is "slim", then your character becomes boring...because he can survive anything (sadly, I've watched bad movies like this, too).
Get out there and take some risks! Do it enough times, you'll know the tricks of survival, and won't need those extra hit points!
|
|
All Lumpy and I are suggesting(each of us in our own different ways) are essentially backgrounds for the characters. When you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. A character had to be something before he became an adventurer.
Lumpy's method uses the NPC class to establish a history, mine basicly adds hitpoints based on their creature type(and is more closely tied to my campaign world). It doesn't change the risk to slim, it merely alters the perception of the characters.
A Blacksmith-turn-wandering warrior is more interesting to me than just a simple sellsword.
|
I tend to agree with the idea of balancing HD with BaB. I think that makes logical sense. As well as letting players get a "bonus" with their constitution. I don't like letting players feel invulnerable, but at the same time i don't like random twisted ankles to kill my 1st lvl party either.
On a different note. What do you think of negative hit points? Do you think a change should be made? I tend to agree with the idea they are using for 4th edition and how they handle negative HP. Not sure i like the chance to stand up with 1/4 HP again, but i do like the chance/tension it lends to the system.
For those of you who haven't seen it. Here is the link to how WotC is changing negative HP: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080201a
I'm interested in your thoughts.