Starting Hit Points

[Nervous Jester]

Russell Jones wrote:

I sometimes fudge the number when it comes to monster or NPC HP, especially if it's the BBEG; I often use HP to mark the end of the encounter, not necessarily the death of the enemy. For instance, in Nic Logue's 'Chimes at Midnight'...

** spoiler omitted **

That may not work for your group, but I enjoy the extra flexibility and my players never notice.

I apologize if it comes across as threadjack, but that story strikes a pretty strong chord given a post I made yesterday. That's a cool scene, and what if that was exactly how the rules worked? What if all characters had limited actions below 0 hit points?

It would have a similar effect to more starting HPs, creating a "buffer zone" for low level characters, but without altering hit point totals and with little impact on the threatening feel of low level opponents.

If interested in the details, the post is here...

Extending the Disabled status

As I said, the synchronicity of the story just struck me, and sorry again if too far out of field.

[Lumpy]

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

[Russell Jones]

Lumpy wrote:

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.

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. 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.

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.

[Arlith Waywatcher lll]

Threeblood wrote:

I think the options should stay just as they are Options.

Exactly, though there is nothing stopping us from having it like that no matter what Pazio decides.

[Lumpy]

Russell Jones wrote:

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.

Russell Jones wrote:

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?

Russell Jones wrote:

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

[Kelvin273]

I haven't read this whole thread, but it seems like a lot of people are really into racial hit point bonuses. I think this particular approach is a bad idea. Sure, it looks good from a flavor perspective, but it has problems mechanically. It only works if the races are balanced such that the "frail" races get more/better features to offset the disadvantage. As it is, the system just rewards dwarves, who already have a pretty nice bag of goodies, with the best bonus.

I much prefer the flat +6. It makes 1st-level characters a little tougher without going overboard (like the double HD or Con score options) or being unfair to certain characters (like the racial option).

[Archon of Light]

Judging by the majority of response given thus far, I have a feeling that these options will be left simply as that: Options. That will likely appease the many different perspectives and styles, which is more likely the goal of Paizo's design team rather than deciding what's good for us. That said, I've already stated my preference for which system I would most likely use regardless of any other possible suggestions and propositions. But I am still baffled by remarks like these:

Kelvin273 wrote:

I haven't read this whole thread, but it seems like a lot of people are really into racial hit point bonuses. I think this particular approach is a bad idea. Sure, it looks good from a flavor perspective, but it has problems mechanically.

I am on the edge of my seat, waiting to hear how the difference of two(2) hit points has ruined the integrity of this delicately balanced game. Two hit points for the span of a character's career is not a deal-breaker in my book. Two.

Kelvin273 wrote:

It only works if the races are balanced such that the "frail" races get more/better features to offset the disadvantage.

Yes, they're terribly underpowered with their +1 AC bonus for size, making them harder to hit. Oh, that's right! Elves aren't considered small, so they don't get that. But they do recieve a +2 Dexterity bonus, which roughly translates to a +1 AC bonus under most normal circumstances. Granted, they lose it if they're flat-footed or wearing particularly bulky armors, but it still improves their aim whenever they're using any type of bow (which, by the way, they have free proficiency with regardless of their chosen class). I'm not sure what more you need to compensate for because of the loss of two extra hit points (and let's remember these are extra hit points, not the standard max they will get anyway... and while we're remembering things, Paizo did up the base hit dice for wizards, sorcerers, and rogues to give those classes another edge!).

Kelvin273 wrote:

As it is, the system just rewards dwarves, who already have a pretty nice bag of goodies, with the best bonus.

What about half-orcs? They get the same bonus, too. Except without the nice bag of goodies. So either nobody thinks its unfair for half-orcs to get them, who really are the underpowered of all the races as far as packaged benefits are concerned, or nobody cares about them. I just thought that was curious.

Kelvin273 wrote:

I much prefer the flat +6. It makes 1st-level characters a little tougher without going overboard (like the double HD or Con score options) or being unfair to certain characters (like the racial option).

I think Racial is a variant of the Flat option. Either one of them works fine for me, really, and I think they are the most favored of all. Personally, it doesn't bother me that anyone would favor Flat over Racial just as a matter of preference. That's all that really needs to be said. I can respect that. But there's nothing even remotely unfair, unbalanced, broken, or unplayable about two extra hit points. None. It's simply a matter of preference, and let's leave it at that.

But for myself, I would choose Racial because, balanced or not, it just makes more sense to me. And it is NOT such an upsetting factor that one race might have two more extra hit points than any other. My guess is that the most vocal opponents of the Racial option are the players who have a particular fondness or preference for playing the 'frail' races and feel they are somehow being cheated of those two extra hit points.

So once again, my vote is leave these purely optional, but the preferred choice at my gaming table will be Racial. Just stop trying to sell the 'unfair' angle on it because there really isn't one. It's fine to just not like it. Really. ;)

[Ghenesh]

I have played with extra hit points for a year now, two DnD 3.5 campaigns. The first one is a very high level campaign (practically epic) with 6 players using characters with levels from 17th to 22nd, I implemented my hit points houserules a year ago when they were in the range of 14th to 18th levels and went practically unnoticed. The second campaign was with other players and started at 3rd level, in this one the extra HP was something really important, combats lasted longer (monsters also had extra hp), traps weren't save or die situations, and players felt that their characters were a lot more heroic. This also makes the world more consistent, no more 1st level commoners with 4hp dying when bit by a dog.

In short, I have tested the flat bonus to HP and it really works fine, along with other houserules. The houserules were this:

Extra hit points:
* All characters, NPCs and monsters has 10 extra hit points, for every size category above medium they add 2 hit points to this bonus, for every size category below medium rest 2 hit points to this bonus. If the creature changes its size category by any effect, this extra hit points changes as well accordingly.

No more rolling the hit points
* All classes and racial hit dice now give a number of hit points equal to half the maximum number attainable when rolling the indicated Hit Die for that class level or racial hit die. This replaces rolling the Hit Die.

The no more hit die rolling helped to make characters, NPCs and to advance monsters faster.

[Bill Dunn]

I'm not particularly keen on racial hit points. As someone has pointed out, why give out another incentive to play a dwarf?

I also don't prefer adding Con to starting hit points. We don't need another reason for Con to be a necessary stat for all classes.

Frankly, I'd rather see double the hit points based on the die type at first level, then add Con bonus, or add a flat amount like 6 or 10.

I'd make that amount only available to heroic classes - call it the hero bonus if you will - and only character with heroic classes get it (which could include NPCs). I don't see any value to adding it to monsters, nor do I see the inconsistency in denying it as significant.

[JHegner]

Sorry for the length.

Having played with all manner of starting hit point (and other methods of prolonging character life at low level) I feel that my view on the various suggestions might be of some use.

Firstly, I can't remember the last time I played a game with random HP at first level. I think it was a common house rule in 2nd ED to max out first level HP and 3.0/3.5 carried that legacy on. Max HP at first level is expected now-a-days and I think the power level of an EL1 fight expects this.

Second, ability score generation has a large impact on starting HP. Do you roll 3d6 in order, allow stat moving, points, stat blocks, 2:1 conversions? This will impact, more than anything, whether your wizard starts with 2 HP, and takes the Toughness feat, or ends up with a perfectly explainable Con 14 (because the cost is just right at 6 points).

Third, Armor/DR optional rules. We've played with this a lot recently, modified rules from Unearthed Arcana, and it works out pretty well in good stat games. The fighter in banded mail rushes into goblins who strike for 1d4 damage and 75% of the time the DR 3 of his armor deflects the hit. Meanwhile the mage stays back because his robes do nothing to help him. This benefit of small Damage Reduction is very nice at low level and helps keep characters alive without turning wizards into battle ragers. It does, however, heavily penalize characters that can't inflict at least 5 damage minimum per attack, making them feel somewhat worthless in a fight against Lord Evil in his full plate mail.

Fourth, the proposed Paizo choices and some insight into why I think the reactions on the forums are what they are.

Flat +6 HP. This is probably the least invasive of the suggested methods since it is flat across the board and doesn't allow for too much munchkin antics. You could also alter this rule to just say, "All 1st level adventurers get the Toughness feat, twice." They're heroes, and they're tough.

Racial HP bonus. This method suggests that now you should consider looking at the heartier races first when creating a character class of any type. Sure, there is only a difference of 4 HP total between a halfling and a half-orc, but what I have divulged as the true issue behind this method for many people is that (and this heavily depends on how ability scores are generated) their original character concept is suddenly put into question when they don't try to build the character as a tough race first. Whether this is munchkin syndrome or pressure from their gaming group to "not make a gimped character" is probably only the tip of the iceberg, the result is that it starts to muck up the works when the race also has a big say in how survivable your character is.

Example: The party needs a cleric, because nobody wants to be the band-aid machine. I decide that I want to make an elven cleric who can use her longsword and shield, or longbow and naturally high dexterity, to help fight in combat as a secondary tank or archer (so I can conserve spells for healing).
-My elf's average con of 10 plus d8 hit dice and + 4 for frail race nets me a respectable 12 total hit points. (8 + 0 con + 4 = 12)
-Unfortunately this pales in comparison to the dwarven rogue in the group who, with a modest 14 con, d8 hit dice and +8 for hardy race, nets a total of 18 hit points. (8 + 2 con + 8 = 18)
-This is further criticised by the fact that the human sorcerer in the group with an average con of 12, d6 hit dice and +6 for standard race, nets her a total of 13 hit points. (6 + 1 con + 6 = 13)
-The human fighter enjoys Con 14, d10 hit dice and +6 hp for standard race, netting 18 HP, just like the dwarf rogue. (10 + 2 con + 6 = 18)
-My cleric, suddenly, has the lowest HP in the group, and she's supposed to be the second line fighter

Basically the racial choices (along with new HD for classes), even when not fully exploited, buck all kinds of pre-established norms for D&D parties by putting the starting hit points rather drastically out of whack.

This same party without racial hit points (or new class HD) would enjoy a tough dwarf rogue on par with the elven cleric, rather than a wall of meat who rivals the main fighter.

This, to me, is the core of the resistance to the racial HP adjustment suggestion.

Add Con Score to HP. I think most people have hit this one on the head and realized that with a point system or stat blocks that the first level characters end up being extremely beefy. This works well if your idea of a good first level encounter is 4 orcs with Falchions. Ironically, this system does work out rather uniquely if you follow the ancient methods and roll your statistics in order on 3d6. The halfling rogue with Con 5 is now viable, and Sir Loin the fighter, with his con of 15 is a total beef cake. I'm not really a fan of this method because I like to put the fear of gods into my players at level 1, but with the good old 3d6 this method is not a bad idea in my eyes if you still want that epic story feel at level 1.

Double HD. This method seems good for a epic hack and slash campaign. D&D definitely has its problems throwing numerous goblins at low level parties to achieve that Lord of the Rings hack-through-Moria feeling and this does well to resolve it without making them second guess their race or ability score placement. For a normal D&D game though, I think this is way too many HP. Magic Missile should be a viable spell for the 1st level evil wizard encounter in the first adventure.

Following are some of my own suggestions.

No Criticals at 1st level. As the DM you have the ability to do whatever you want, including cheat. The biggest let down for a first level party is having an orc with a falchion run up and crit the fighter in the first round of combat and inflict 12-24 damage. If you are starting a new campaign and the players have spent a lot of time on their characters and are into the game, nothing will kick their legs out from under them faster than a "lucky" dice roll ending one of their lives. Keep the danger in the game with normal nickle and dime hits, just get rid of the game ending critical hits. But above all, do not tell them you are doing this. It is perfectly believable for the DM to not score any crits in a session or two after all, and you want them to respect and fear your monsters.

Morale. Monsters have nothing to really live for except to do bad things. The town guard, while statistically could probably hold their own against goblins, have a reason to live beyond fighting. So when the going gets tough and an even number of goblins are facing down the town guard, the guard will probably adopt the better part of valour and let some heroes do the dying. Morale, in my opinion, is the biggest part of a low level game making sense, and it cuts both ways.

If you want to throw a dozen goblins at the party for their first fight, go right ahead, but when the PCs chop down a quarter of the goblins and are still fighting, the goblins might realize that they are fighting something tougher than normal town guards and high tail it. This keeps elements of danger, heroism, and most of all, makes your party feel like a pack of bad-asses when they do what nobody else could.

The same goes for larger monsters like bugbears. Sure, they could probably kill a PC or 2 in a 1st level party, but that party can also seriously threaten his life. Just because he has 16 hit points doesn't mean he's going to stick around and fight after half of them are gone.

[Fortenbras]

My vote goes for the max hit points and adding the con score...gives even the lowly 8 con person a fighting chance but gives fighter types a bit extra as their con will be higher anyhow so it keeps balace.

I don't care for the racial bounus....not all dwarves are created equal for example....why does a wussy 8 con dwarf wizzy (clearly he spent no time working his body) get 6 bonus hp when a elf who got out and jogged once and a while gets lower?

[Raymond Gellner]

I am in favor of the starting hit points being:
racial + max class + constitution modifier

[anthony Valente]

I still like the standard starting HPs. Want more? Just take Toughness. Heck, it's only 1st level.

You may be special at 1st level, but you're certainly no hero. See that guy over there? (points a 9th level paladin), now he's a hero :)

[see]

If a critical hit from a dagger wielded by a normal human can't kill a character, he's already well past the realm of normal mortal. With max HP for the first die, every barbarian with a Con of at least 4 is already extraordinarily resistant to injury, as is every fighter, ranger, and paladin with a Con of at least 8, and every cleric, druid, bard, monk, and rogue of Con 12.

Further HP inflation is undesirable. If you don't like characters to ever be human-scale, you can just not start characters at first level.

[Hastur]

I couldn't agree more with the last two posters - 1st level isn't meant to be a big-shot hero yet, you should be better than average joe, but not so much so that a few average joes don't stand a chance against you. The idea of a 1st level character with 20+ hp just sends shivers down my spine - pity those poor monsters with their puny hp that get killed with one blow but need to hit the PC's a number of times to bring them down...

As has been said many times before, if you want to start a game with more heroic characters, just start the PC's at level 2, or even level 3...

[Hastur]

Oh yes... the other observation, having read above a bit more, is that critical hits do tend to kill PC's too much, as there's not a lot players can do except go for (expensive) anti-crit gear, or be very very cautious, or just cross their fingers and wait for the inevitable to kill their PC at some stage.

One thing I do love about 4th edition is the change to critical hits - max damage (with extra base dice for some weapons) keeps crits int eh game but makes thema lot less devastating in their impact. I've tried something similar in my Age of Worms campaign, but my method was a pain to actually calculate. A variant of the 4th edition rule would be perfect for 3.5... Make a x2 crit do max damage, and x3 does max + extra base weapon damage (no Str, magic, etc), a x4 crit does max dmg + 2x base damage dice for the weapon.

Toning down critical hits would reduce the "random death" factor, which I feel is far superior an option, over increasing base hit points. Especially over all levels (more hp at 1st level becomes pretty useless at mid to high levels, and strains credibility at low levels i.e. how did you become so much tougher than any other low-experience person / creature?)

[Bill Dunn]

Hastur wrote:

One thing I do love about 4th edition is the change to critical hits - max damage (with extra base dice for some weapons) keeps crits int eh game but makes thema lot less devastating in their impact. I've tried something similar in my Age of Worms campaign, but my method was a pain to actually calculate. A variant of the 4th edition rule would be perfect for 3.5... Make a x2 crit do max damage, and x3 does max + extra base weapon damage (no Str, magic, etc), a x4 crit does max dmg + 2x base damage dice for the weapon.

Toning down critical hits would reduce the "random death" factor, which I feel is far superior an option, over increasing base hit points. Especially over all levels (more hp at 1st level becomes pretty useless at mid to high levels, and strains credibility at low levels i.e. how did you become so much tougher than any other low-experience person / creature?)

I could get behind that. The crits get really nasty with high damage bonuses. I had a frost giant with a greataxe successfully crit a PC last week for 68 points of damage in one blow.

The one drawback I see is how it could widen the gap between high level fighters and wizards or rogues. A fighter geared up for a high damage bonus can really ramp up the crits by half-way decent feat and weapon selections. The fighter in the campaign I run, now at 12th level, makes a lot of her bread and butter off a high attack rate (3/round) and improved crit with a long sword. Against opponents without really high armor classes, she's getting crits every other round on the average. Any changes to the game that reduce that without also reducing hit points across the board could significantly hurt that.

[Kelvin273]

Since the boards ate my last attempt to reply to this thread a couple weeks ago, I'll start with some points in reply to LanternArchon:

1. Most of these methods (with the possible exception of Con Score and Double Max for fighter/barbarian types) have only a minor impact over 20 levels of a character's career. This is all about what they do to characters at 1st level.

2. The difference between a frail race and a hardy race is four hit points, not two. This is important because the elf and dwarf both have good packages of racial features, but a dwarf starts off with more hp. If the differences in hp were balanced against racial feature packages, I'd have no problem with this option, but it's problematic when it's just tacked onto the system without this kind of long-term view.

3. Of course nobody cares if half-orcs get more starting hit points than other races. Half-orcs don't get nearly the quality of racial features the dwarf gets (though the Pathfinder half-orc is a slight improvement over the 3.5 version). If the net result of using racial hit points was that half-orcs gained ground on the other races, it would be a good thing. Unfortunately, the real beneficiaries of this system as it stands are dwarves, a race that already has a lot going for it (see above).

Now for some additional points:

Adding to the point somebody made above, making race a factor in low-level survivability is a bad idea. One of the problems with 3.x D&D is that the strategy for picking class levels differs depending on whether your character starts at 1st or higher level. Making the strategic consequences of picking your race depend on starting level is another step in that wrong direction.

In response to Hastur: Even without critical hits, low-level mortality is a problem. When you consider that most class' base starting hit die is equal to or less than the maximum damage a sword can do in a game that assumes the PCs complete at least four encounters per day, this becomes obvious.

[KnightErrantJR]

I'm still thinking that extra hit points at first level need to be an optional rule, otherwise you screw with pre existing 1st level adventures. Yes, low level is a pain, but its part of D&D. I really don't want to see low level characters going too far the opposite direction and walking through the first few levels either.

[anthony Valente]

KnightErrantJR wrote:

I'm still thinking that extra hit points at first level need to be an optional rule, otherwise you screw with pre existing 1st level adventures. Yes, low level is a pain, but its part of D&D. I really don't want to see low level characters going too far the opposite direction and walking through the first few levels either.

Yes. This is one of those areas where listing extra hit points as an option at 1st level would be a welcome solution. I think the majority of us... or myself at least... would not want Pathfinder to be filled with all sorts of optional rules, but they would make perfect sense in a few key areas in the game (like 4 skill pts/level instead of 2), with this being one of them.

The current standard should remain so, (and is personally what I like best), but I can certainly see where other groups would want to start with more hps at first. Personally, I recommend just starting the game at a higher level... you get more hps, more powers, more abilities.... things that many are suggesting that you should get right off the bat.

Personally, I like the frailty of 1st level as do my players. It makes the achievements of higher levels that much sweeter. If your 1st level character dies? Just roll up another. Again I say, "Heck, it's only 1st level!" A couple of my players have even made backup level 1 characters just in case... though that was a long time ago... they are currently 15 & 16.

[David Jackson 60]

I have created a summary document expressing my thoughts on the issue. SUMMARY DOCUMENT