You know what I hate? I hate that, in 3.5, a rogue2/fighter2 has different stats than a fighter2/rogue2.
Specifically, like 24 more skill points but 2 less hitpoints. Man that used to drive me up a wall, especially when one class has the same skills but more hitpoints (like a wizard/fighter; first level should be fighter), or more of both (barbarian/fighter; first level should be barbarian).
It's just so cheesy. And if you start wizard then pick up a rogue level it's a tiny, nagging penalty that's going to be with you for the rest of the game.
We've done away with the x4 skillpoints shenanigans, which was half the problem, but because we still maximize hitpoints it's still better for multiclassed characterst to start with warrior-type levels.
Can we perhaps just roll (or take average) normally at first level, with some other factor (static bonus, race-based bonus, there were plenty of suggestions in that sidebar) making up the difference?
Elite characters cheat - by re-rolling any natural 1 for rolling hit points or ability scores.
Thats really similar to how the campaign I play in works. We could reroll any 1 once while rolling ability scores. We went even higher with the HP thing, saying you always get upper half HP (that barbarian just roll a 3? np, he gets a minimum of 7!) and it works out great. Characters are more durable, and the reroll on stats would improve your total ability mod by maybe +2.
As for always rolling first level, I could see that working only with some sort of flat bonus, as you mentioned. But does 4 HP at fourth level (as the fighter2/rouge2) really screw up your plans that much?
But does 4 HP at fourth level (as the fighter2/rouge2) really screw up your plans that much?
Yea, it does.
This is what I call a "hard imbalance". Essentially, one option is better than another, with all other elements being exactly equally. It doesn't matter how big the bonus/penalty is, in most cases I consider hard imbalance unacceptable.
It's irritated by what a metagame choice that decision is (taking fighter then rogue rather than rogue then fighter is just.. cheesy).
It's not that it greatly affects play, it's more the principle of the thing. I understand that not everyone feels the same way.
Can we perhaps just roll (or take average) normally at first level, with some other factor (static bonus, race-based bonus, there were plenty of suggestions in that sidebar) making up the difference?
Well it's not that significant an advantage. The biggest spread would be:
Barbarian 2/ Sorcerer 2: (12+6.5)+(3.5+3.5)=25.5 HPSorcerer 2/ Barbarian 2: (6+3.5)+(6.5+6.5)=22.5 HP
So worst case is 3 HP difference and that is a pretty rare spread. Most class combos the spread is going to be 1 HP at 4th level.
I like your idea but it really isn't that big of an issue.
I completely disagree with both the idea and the assessment.
Maximizing or otherwise granting bonus HP at first level is about first level survivability. If your rogue fighter ends up with a few less hit points, that's just too bad. Those who play first level need those maxed hp.
Now, if you need some houserules to help you out (I certainly don't find this enough of an issue to make it worth an official fix), there are plenty.
1. Static hp. Go 4e style, or do 3e style with all max hp, not just first level.
2. Retroactive boost. If you multiclass into an advantageous HD, you can replace your max 1st level hp with max hp from the new class, and roll hit points from your old one. So if you are a fighter and multiclass into barbarian at 5th level, you normally have 10 + 3d10 + 1d12 + 5Con hp. With this rule, you get 12 + 4d10 + 5Con instead.
I find it hard to believe this is actually coming up as a discussion. I do agree the different benefits of a starting character class is annoying but there should be some bonus's to starting as a particular character class.
As noted by HYDRO the issue with taking Rogue levels later on and massive skill point bonus's has been dealt with but the fact that a fighter gains 6hp's on a mage and now 2hp's on a cleric and Rogues seems pretty ridiculous.
The issue that I find difficult to live with is that any character who takes a fighter level suddenly is trained in every single weapon know to man( something that should probably take years) and every suite of armour known( likewise, years of training required).
I agree: The order in which you took your levels shouldn't matter to HP.
So right now I've done away with max HP, but grant them twice Con mod at first level.
An alternative would be giving them a one-time bonus equal to their con score (in addition to con score each level, including first).
Or just let them roll the old fashioned way, with any die rolls under half re-rolled. Roll that 3 on your d10, roll again until you get 6+. Then add your Con bonus (if any). No one hp wonders that way, but still a spread of hp. After that (2nd level +) they get what they get. That's my game anyway. And yes, some PCs die, and others live. I hate to say this, but 3E PCs are far more survivable than any other version of the game (except 4E I suppose). No pun intended, but sometimes you have to take your chances. Get lucky. And play smart, if you want to live.
I find it hard to believe this is actually coming up as a discussion. I do agree the different benefits of a starting character class is annoying but there should be some bonus's to starting as a particular character class.
As noted by HYDRO the issue with taking Rogue levels later on and massive skill point bonus's has been dealt with but the fact that a fighter gains 6hp's on a mage and now 2hp's on a cleric and Rogues seems pretty ridiculous.
The issue that I find difficult to live with is that any character who takes a fighter level suddenly is trained in every single weapon know to man( something that should probably take years) and every suite of armour known( likewise, years of training required).
You know, that's actually a very good point. I'm highly tempted to do away with the fighter class altogether, considering how often it's abused in my games as a feat-repository. The 2-level fighter dip is so common that it's almost a cliche, and yes, the rogues in 3.5 always took it AFTER getting their giant skill-point dump. Unless you're playing in a group where people have low point buys and no splat books at all, there's always going to be some metagaming in pursuit of the most effective character. My wife fought that impulse for the longest time, and she's had consistently mediocre character who, while good in concept and worthy of playing, were rendered pointless by the wizard with the carefully-chosen spells, the multiclass tank who is nigh-unhittable and doles out so much damage that she can craft items during combat instead of participating. This is the sad truth of the game... as long as there are options, people will always look for the one that gives them the best advantage. Lines have to be drawn by the DM, I think, but carefully. Attempting to circumvent metagaming by altering the game, either as designer or as DM, carries the same risks as trying to legislate thought and emotion. Anything more than gentle nudging or helpful guidelines and players revolt. And that's when the templates start getting added to monsters.
If you start as a wizard and roll HP randomly, you won't live long enough to pick up a rogue level.
...unless you use one of the bonus HP methods listed in the Pathfinder sidebar, like "Racial", "Flat" or "Constitution".
|
...unless you use one of the bonus HP methods listed in the Pathfinder sidebar, like "Racial", "Flat" or "Constitution".
And that's why those exist, for this very reason.
Though I think that people are looking at this from the wrong angle. It's not a penalty for starting with "the wrong class," it's a reward for being willing to start with a lower Hit Die. Having played BECMI D&D, where starting hit points were random and you died at 0hp, starting with maximum hit points at first level as a standard rule is one of the best advances to come out of thirty years of playtest and design. If you're going to use hit points at all, maximum starting hit points is a matter of survivability. I'm not saying anything against the other methods, but I think they should be left as options, not the base rules.
Jeremy Puckett
...the fact that a fighter gains 6hp's on a mage and now 2hp's on a cleric and Rogues seems pretty ridiculous.
6HP? 2HP? are we talking about single class characters or multi class here? The 6HP number does not belong in this discussion at all since PRPG dropped d4 HD. If we are still talking about multi class characters your math is also off and only marginally significant at 2nd level and less significant at every additional level.
The issue that I find difficult to live with is that any character who takes a fighter level suddenly is trained in every single weapon know to man( something that should probably take years) and every suite of armour known( likewise, years of training required).
This is tough to believe but someone suddenly being able to put a room full of people to sleep on command is Ok? In D&D you have to swallow a half dozen impossibilities before breakfast or you go nuts.
In my game, I had the players roll every HD, including first. It's worked out fine thus far. The (really only slightly) lower number of "consequence-less" hits a PC can take makes them think more carefully before they act. In my experience this results in fewer heroes abusing their nearly immortal status. Of course, being a first level character is tough with 3 hp, but you must consider, they actually have 13 hp. I think that raising the difficulty level of the early levels slightly (though they really don't REQUIRE it) makes for parties that respect their status as heroes slightly more.
If you start as a wizard and roll HP randomly, you won't live long enough to pick up a rogue level.
And a fighter who rolls a 1 for 1st level hp? How did he ever survive fighter school?
Really, we need max hp at 1st level, if not higher. It's hard enough to design adventures that dont already kill at least one PC without pulling every punch when making 1st or 2nd level games.
And as far as gaining new abilities as they multiclass, it was always wonky if you just say 'ding! I'm a mage now!' I think that's the DM's responsibility to judge what is and what is not appropriate.
AND I thought one of the key factors of 3E was that there was a lot more versatility in character than in 4E? Your first level choice was IMPORTANT and it DID matter if you were a fighter 2/rogue 2, or a rogue 2/ fighter 2. Part of the flavor of the game was what levels you take and when you take them, right?
I don't think that "First-level characters need all the HP they can get" is a valid arguement in favor of maximizing HP. There are other (better) ways to boost HP at first level; especially since it's usually the mage (and not the barbarian) who really needs the boost.
Everyone will not always have a high Constitution score.No, but it does make CON dispreportionately important at 1st level (when compared to how important it is later on).
More importantly- and this is what I really don't like- it makes it so that a 1st level fighter and a 1st level wizard with the same CON score have the same HP.
I suggest a flat bonus of +10 hp at 1st level for all classes. And everybody roll their hit dice also at first level (+con modifier). Certainly, this implies:
-More hit points... so low level damage spells are heavyly nerfed.
-We could implement better rules for negative hp, 0 hp and similòar conditions, more similar to 4 ed.
-multiclass characters will have the same hp amount regardless of level advancement. No more "better rogue 1 fighter 1 or fighter 1 rogue 1"?
I prefer leaving things as they are.
Multiclassing has its penalties, and this is one of them. If you want a big HD up front, then take a class with big HD up front. You make a choice to take something else, to get some other benefit, and then gripe later on that you don't get /every/ benefit. This isn't Gestalt. It's Multiclassing. To get the carrot you want, you pass up some other carrots. That's how it works.
Multiclassing isn't about getting every benefit of every class you take. It's about getting some benefits, while also having some drawbacks.
-S
|
This is exactly why I already posted the suggestion that hit points are rolled normally but that PC's get a flat 10 hp bonus to enhance survivability.
Of course it only matters to those of us that like multiclass characters and who might want to start out with sub-optimal class sequence choices to fit personal story development preferences.
Judging by the lack of responce to my posts and yours I guess that not many people play like this.
Role playing or powergaming? I guess powergamers actually rule.Realising that powergamers would hate having their carefully considered advantages neutralised, I sweetened the deal by letting on about the other half of our advancement house rule. Elite characers cheat!!!
PC's are elite characters.
Elite characters cheat - by re-rolling any natural 1 for rolling hit points or ability scores.
Ironically, your suggestion sounds more like a powergamer idea than how things are done now. If roleplaying was really your focus, the mechanical concerns would not bother you (or the OP) enough to even have this discussion. Arguing about 2hp over the life of a character? Only a powergamer would care, imo.
There is no problem here, nor is there an imbalance. If you chose rouge before fighter, yes you get less starting HP, but the skill points allow you to be effective at many more skills right out of the gate. So really, its a simple trade. If you care about HP most, grab fighter. If skills are your bag, go rouge first and bump combat ability next.
I always multiclass. always. I have never seen this as a complaint at any of the tables i have ran games at or, played in. I love playing multiclass mages, and you know what? I always take mage 1st. go figure.
|
I totally don't have this problem in My game, but I have players that are interested in ROLEplaying, and go for feats and such that are "cool" and based on what's going on in the game. When someone (fighter/Sorcerer or rogue/Sorcerer or cleric or Barbarian or Wizard-Transmuter) roll 1 on their HP... oops... apparantly they haven't been doing enough pushups.
~DW
Usually for HP I max a 1st level and then I have my players roll but take nothing under half the d#. So a fighter at 2nd level would roll a d10 and nothing under 5 is exceptable(10 in half is 5).
But perhaps to maybe a more gradual elevation in skill points in HP is in order so its not just super leap alll of a sudden?
Example 1st level rogue going into fighter in 3.5 would get d6 for 1st level hp and then get d8 for fighter.
d6
d8- the middle
d10
The rogue wouldn't get a d10 for fighter hp unless he stuck with it for another consectutive level. This same rule could be applied for characters taking a level in a hp die lower class such a fighter to wizard. D10 for the fighter, and a d6 for the wizard.
If the same thing is done for skill points then maybe cross-classing i general can find a middle ground where character are more blended
So then whose volunteering to play the wizard with 1hp? I hope in the course of adventuring he doesn't slip and fall taking 1D6 damage. It'd be a shame to die on a failed dex check before making it to the first encounter.