|
Why do Barbarians get to be the exception to this new HD system? If it's that important to make them HP beefier, there's other ways to keep that extra HP per level without breaking rules.
Keep in mind that the difference between an HD of 10 or 12 is 1 hp per level on average. This can be accomplished by...
A) A class ability that adds +2 to Constitution. This is normally reserved for Monster classes, but not unheard of.
or my favorite,
B) Give them the toughness feat at first level. By giving them Toughness for free, even at 20th level they'd only be 2 hp beefier on average than under the current system. For a character that can top 200 hp at that point, there's no way to argue that that 2 hp is a broken system. so it's not broken, doesn't really alter the statistics on the character sheet, and doesn't have to be yet another exception to the rules.
I like this idea with one exception. Under the current rules you can get a D12 HD and still take Toughness therefore making an even beefier barbarian.
Your option eliminates that.
Solution: Give them something equivalent to Toughness at 1st lvl. Basically Toughness with a different name. That way they still have the option of taking Toughness later.
Please no exception to the BAB-HD rule! Give him a d10!
|
I just checked my copy and the Alpha1.1 does not have that line either. You could just change the feat, I dont think that would cause any problems. If someone really wanted to, they could waste ever single one of their feats to get beacoup HP. If you wanted a limit you could cap it at taking it once per Con bonus.
+1. Give em d10 and toughness for free once (at least).
Also you could allow a caveat to let them take Toughness again even though they get it as a class feature.
Or give them a d10 with a class ability that grants +1 hp per level. This averages out to 6.5 hp per level (which is the average of the d12) and keeps them in line with the Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger.
Of course this also means they will always get at least 2 hp per level (where as they could rolled a one with just the d12).
I like thd D12 for hp. It is the simplest. Why come up with an extra class ability or free feat that essentially accomplishes the same exact thing? I just don't see this as a problem and attention should be focused elsewhere. I would not want to see all these changes to the barbarian just to make it follow the relationship between hit dice and BAB. I like it when a rule or ability just feels right... and is not made simply to comply within a rigid rule system which cannot be broken.
Really, if it must be done that the barbarian needs to have a class ability to give him hit points equivalent of the net result of rolling d12 per level, why not just state that the barbarian's class ability when determining hit points is that he gets to role d12 instead of d10?
I hope also that when Paizo gets to actually writing these books, they don't go into devoting pages of space explaining such things as the relationship between hit dice and BAB, much like 4E is doing (controller, striker, defender, etc. come to mind).
I like d12, because when else do you use a d12. Plus, changing it would be pointless if you replaced it with something more wordy, like granting Toughness for free.
Please no exception to the BAB-HD rule! Give him a d10!
"...but this one goes up to eleven."
(O.K., twelve. But seriously, barbarians are so awesome they can break a game designer's guidelines just by flexing their biceps.)
Not to be snide, but there are already two threads discussing this. With topics ranging from give them d10, give them d12, give them d10 plus toughness, don't give them toughness give the a class feature etc.
Fizz
If toughness were cumulative, I'd agree with the d10, since that way, you'd have no special rule.
But unless they change toughness, they'd have to put in extra words either explaining a new ability (barbarian toughness: The barbarian gets +2 hp at 1st level and +1 hp every level thereafter) or say that he gets toughness and can, as a special rule, take normal toughness again.
Please no exception to the BAB-HD rule! Give him a d10!"...but this one goes up to eleven."
(O.K., twelve. But seriously, barbarians are so awesome they can break a game designer's guidelines just by flexing their biceps.)
If they were more many, than Chuck Norris would take levels.
Hm... they could invent a funny rule: "Barbarian Berzerkerness: A barbarian gets to use a d12 whenever he would use a d10." Weapons, HP, whatever.
I went through looking to see if it was being discussed, and didn't find one. Oops.Not to be snide, but there are already two threads discussing this. With topics ranging from give them d10, give them d12, give them d10 plus toughness, don't give them toughness give the a class feature etc.
Fizz
No problem I was an stanch defender of d12. The old threads are in the Alpha 1 area. I think a big idea was giving them toughness becomes a problem of an easy qualifier for PrC which could lead to more one level barbarian dips.
Fizz
Please no exception to the BAB-HD rule! Give him a d10!
Sorry but linking BAB with base attack is STUPID. One can be very good at hitting something, but not very tough them selves. They are trying to over simplify things by making this MEANINGLESS connection between HD and BAB.
+1. Give em d10 and toughness for free once (at least).
If your going to do this, then just make it a class ability, not a feat, so it would defiantly stack.
I honestly can't believe this is even under discussion. Who cares if it breaks a "rule"? Is there a problem with barbarians having d12 hit dice, other than it doesn't fit into someones neat and tidy concept of a rule? There was a problem with wizards and sorcerers having d4 hit dice (or at least a perceived one), and so they raised them to d6.
Is there a problem with d12 for barbarians?
Not everything has to fit into a neat little simple concept, there is room for outliers and exceptions.
I honestly can't believe this is even under discussion. Who cares if it breaks a "rule"? Is there a problem with barbarians having d12 hit dice, other than it doesn't fit into someones neat and tidy concept of a rule? There was a problem with wizards and sorcerers having d4 hit dice (or at least a perceived one), and so they raised them to d6.
Is there a problem with d12 for barbarians?
Not everything has to fit into a neat little simple concept, there is room for outliers and exceptions.
Tell me about it, this is soo entirely silly!
Just for fun, let's give barbarians 2d6 HP per level.
I like that idea better. And the fighter 2D5s (2D10/2).
|
|
I honestly can't believe this is even under discussion.
Not everything has to fit into a neat little simple concept, there is room for outliers and exceptions.
Frankly, it's no skin off my back if it stays or goes. I brought it up because the explanation for changing the wizard/sorcerer HP was to make this connection. They could just as easily have said "there's a lot of players out there tired of spending an hour making a character only to have it killed in a bar fight by a lucky throw"
Yes, I can agree that there is room for flexibility. Do I think it's the most important topic we can be talking about right now? No. It's something I was thinking, so I put it out there. Couple responses, it's over, it can now go away.
The best solution would be:
1) Give the Barbarian a d10
2) Give him Toughness at 1st level (as a bonus feat)
3) Make Toughness stackable
Barbarians should probably retain their d12 HD. Yes, it breaks the pattern of the new standardized rule and I will be the first to say that standardization does have its benefits, but it must be done within limits. Exceptions to standardization, as long as there are not too many, give the ruleset a certain charming quaintness - but the emphasis needs to be on the 'not too many'. I was just rereading my 2E AD&D books over the past couple of days and realized that although convoluted compared to 3.X edition, the rules have a certain charm of their own (though the lack of standardization was too large in this case). A tiny speck of arbitrary exceptions can make a ruleset more interesting and unique, without too much of a negative impact on its overall integrity.
Let's keep the d12 for the Barbarian.
(Note: I must say that I would fear the impact of stackable Toughness on hit point inflation.)
|
|
(Note: I must say that I would fear the impact of stackable Toughness on hit point inflation.)
I thought about that, and finally came to the conclusion that the only class that could make that truly busted is the fighter (due to excessive feats)
But in the end, how interesting is it to play a character whose only existance is to soak up damage?
I could be wrong, but I don't think it would cause too much of a problem in a *normal* D&D group. I'm sure there's powermonkeys out there that would find a way to make us regret it.
I am just thinking... Why not combine GOOD BAB with D12 and not with D10?
I would still give the Barb. toughness for free, but with all classes got higher HD why not the fighter?
Not all classes got a higher HD.
Arcanists got the d6 because, frankly, they needed it badly.
Rogues and Bards got the d8 which I approve of, since I never quite got why clerics should be more resilient.
And Rangers got the d10 back, and I think that's okay, too. It's not like they ever dominated.
Clerics, Druids, Monks (possibly), Fighters, Paladins and Barbarians still got their old HD. And that's half the classes.
I don't think that warriors should all get d12, and neither do I think that they'd need it.
I think this BAB-HD tailoring restricts more than it's giving.
It might be a good tool or guideline for the game designers, but as soon as you think about Prestige Classes, it will get in the way.
So instead of mentioning it in the rules as a fixed one, just delete this paragraph (or was it a sidebar?), and use it as a guideline behind the scene.
I think this BAB-HD tailoring restricts more than it's giving.
It might be a good tool or guideline for the game designers, but as soon as you think about Prestige Classes, it will get in the way.
So instead of mentioning it in the rules as a fixed one, just delete this paragraph (or was it a sidebar?), and use it as a guideline behind the scene.
I like the fact that they elucidate their design thinking in the Alpha releases in sidebars and in the text. But don't worry - that kind of elucidation is unlikely to make it into the final product - it is useful now that we are playtesting it, but there will be less need for it once the product is fully finished.