Class Hit Dice

[Marty1000]

One of the current problems that I have with PF (and 4E) is the increase in hit die size for the arcane spell casting classes (Wizard and Sorceror) from a d4 to d6 and the skill classes (Rogue and Bard) from d6 to d8. (I think the Ranger's increase to d10 from d8 is OK).

The increase in hit dice for these classes marks a significant power creep and increase in general toughness relative to the martial classes. Wizards, sorcerers, now have on average (barring Con bonuses) only 2 hp less per level than a fighter and onlu 1 hp less per level for rogues and bards. Characters of these classes have less need now for the martial classes to absorb the damage "up front". The hit points are too close to those of the fighters and paladins. A gap that I believe should not have been closed. I think this is one cause underlying the perception (and I think reality) that Fighters and Paladins are underpowered.

I recommend that Wizards and Sorcerers be returned to d4 hit dice and that Rogues and Bards be returned to d6. This will force players of these class types to take more care and rely on their martial class party members and it will improve the perceived physical toughness of the fighters and pallys and remind the arcane and skill types that they need help. This won't necessarily help with perceived imbalance in relative power at high levels but I think that this is a good choice to help improve general game balance between the classes.

Thanks for reading.

PS my apologies if there are other threads discussing this point. I searched 3 times (different ways) and did not find anything discussing this topic.

[Archade]

As well, keep in mind with favored class entering into the picture, all classes have the opportunity to gain +1 hit point per level, making the gap relatively smaller given the higher average hit points.

[Selgard]

What you say is true if everyone has 10 con. In real play however the general HP gap is still kept- the squishes are just a smidge less squishy.

And as someone who plays squishies- that's a good thing.

The 1.5 HP boost (on average) doesn't really move the ball that much. squishies still need the melee to protect them, it just helps to keep a 1 shot death from happening, especially at lower levels. Its one thing to be protected, its another to be impaled with a javelin at level 1 or 2 and die /due to no fault of your own/.

As to the issue of power creep: that is the intention. Paizo is raising the bar on the core classes in order to help make up the balance on the creep that's been done with the 3.5 splatbook fest.

I'm hopeful that the monsters will get similar "boosts" when we get that far into the rules.

-S

[KaeYoss]

I like the changes:

d4 was just brutal, a bit of extra staying power was okay.

And I never got why rogues are frailer than clerics. If anything, I'd have given clerics and druids the d6s. They're full-time spellcasters, after all.

[Arakhor]

I wouldn't give clerics heavy armour either, but that's neither here nor there.

Monte Cook talked about how having d4 HD characters in a party with d10s or d12s requires you to think overly about campaign design or simply that barbarian with a great axe. Giving the "squishies" an extra hit point per level is an excellent idea and much better for not splitting the party into "get into combat" and "stay far, far away".

I have a couple of sneak-attack/TWF rogues; of course, to use it effectively, they need to get into close combat and instantly turn into squishy bags if the monster stops focussing on the fighter-type. An extra hp per level for them also works wonders.

[Marty1000]

Taking in your various comments leads me to this next suggestion.

I believe that the distinction in PF and (4E) between the hit points of the "martial defenders" (Paladins and Fighters) has been blurred with the increase in hit points in the non-martial classes. Relatively speaking the fighters and pallys are not as "tough" relative to these other classes. I know that hit points can be defined many different ways but ultimately they can be defined as how tough, resilient, etc. the character is. I would propose then that the hit dice of fighters and paladins in PF be increased to d12 and barbarians receive d12+2 hp per level. Ranger stays at d10 and all other PF classes remain with their hit dice as listed in the Beta.

I still prefer 3/3.5 class hit dice but this suggestion achieves the necessary distinction between fighters/pallys and the other classes. It is also consistent with the apparently intentional powercreep as discussed in one of the posts above.

Best regards to all.

[KaeYoss]

Marty1000 wrote:

I believe that the distinction in PF and (4E) between the hit points of the "martial defenders" (Paladins and Fighters)

Paladins are divine, not martial.

Marty1000 wrote:

I would propose then that the hit dice of fighters and paladins in PF be increased to d12 and barbarians receive d12+2 hp per level.

d12+2 would be the equivalent of a d16.

Marty1000 wrote:

Ranger stays at d10

Why would the ranger be weaker? Why have another exception to the new rule that BAB and HD are linked?

Anyway, fighters' and paladins' toughness might not be so different from rogues' and arcanists' any more, but priests didn't get any boost. Should they get one as well, so they're better off than rogues again?

No, I think the current system is quite alright. They're still tougher, and in addition are better at hitting things, and better at avoiding being hit, since they can use all types of armour, which rogues and arcanists can't.

And especially the fighter gets extra bonuses above and beyond what they used to get, in attack, damage, and, most importantly, AC.

A Pathfinder fighter's AC can be quite scary, with a mithral full plate that grants +17 (8 for the armour, +5 enhancements, +4 weapon training) and they can still put up to +7 Dex into it. Sure, not every fighter will have such a high dexterity, but something along those lines sure is possible (and if not, you can get stoneplate, whose AC is better by one and whose max dex is one lower.)

No rogue can hope to compete with that - you just can't hope to get a high enough dexterity to offset the heavy armour and class bonus to AC, so the fighter still has the better staying power compared to the rogue, and even against the priests (who didn't get better HD), they're better than before!

[SagaWeaver]

Marty1000 wrote:

I would propose then that the hit dice of fighters and paladins in PF be increased to d12 and barbarians receive d12+2 hp per level. Ranger stays at d10 and all other PF classes remain with their hit dice as listed in the Beta.

Paladin and Fighter are front line, yet so is the TWF Ranger and he has alot less armor than the Paladin or Fighter.

Keeping with the way its organized with BAB works, keeps all in line.

One of the ways HP's was explained in old is that you know how to turn just at the right moment to be able to make a deep wound a wound. Along this line of thinking is not a Wizard/Sorcer able to learn how to move so as not take as much damage. These are all Adventurers, not your lay person who goes does his job all day and then home for family and dinner. They practice as well to stay out of harms way. They do more in there specific fields so this shows there intensity on training. D6 for light , D8 for some martial , D10 for Martial and D12 for Martial and Instinct.

---SagaWeaver

[Xaaon of Xen'Drik]

I love having HD and BAB linked...it makes conversion of PrCs so much easier...and it actually made sense.

Anyone remember the 1e monks with d4 HD???

[Arakhor]

Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:

I love having HD and BAB linked...it makes conversion of PrCs so much easier...and it actually made sense.

Anyone remember the 1e monks with d4 HD???

Let's not forget the rangers with 2d4 HD!

[hogarth]

Arakhor wrote:

Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:

I love having HD and BAB linked...it makes conversion of PrCs so much easier...and it actually made sense.

Anyone remember the 1e monks with d4 HD???

Let's not forget the rangers with 2d4 HD!

Obviously you've forgotten already -- monks started with 2d4 (+1d4 after), rangers started with 2d8 (+1d8 after).

[Marty1000]

hogarth wrote:

Arakhor wrote:

Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:

I love having HD and BAB linked...it makes conversion of PrCs so much easier...and it actually made sense.

Anyone remember the 1e monks with d4 HD???

Let's not forget the rangers with 2d4 HD!

Obviously you've forgotten already -- monks started with 2d4 (+1d4 after), rangers started with 2d8 (+1d8 after).

Actually harkening back to 1e/2e and the ranger with 2d8 at first and 1d8 per level up to 10th, +2 hp per level above 10th. was part of my reasoning behind keeping the Ranger at a lower hit die than the fighters and paladins (d10 per level up to 9th and 3 hp per level after that). So rangers having lower hit points/hit dice than fighters and paladins has historical context within DnD.

It has been discussed at length in many other threads (class tier discussion) that pretty much demonstrate that Fighters and Paladins are the two weakest classes in Dnd 3/3.5,PF. Hit points is part of this equation.

Also I dispute that Paladins are a strict "divine" class. They are a blend of divine and martial powers. Right now, they have very few martial powers beyond a good BAB and access to weapons/armor. They should be better than that, before using their few spells. I am reserving my ideas for the paladin design thread when it opens.

[toyrobots]

I have just played through the first two levels in my beta campaign.

I really enjoy being able to throw challenges at the party without crushing them every time. Even the fighter-types benefit, because they can now be adequately challenged without the wizard going down every time.(Even though I have taken him down once. I'm no softie)

The new HD scheme, the 1st level HP options, and the extra HP from favored classes have made the early levels fun to play.

[Arakhor]

hogarth wrote:

Obviously you've forgotten already -- monks started with 2d4 (+1d4 after), rangers started with 2d8 (+1d8 after).

Would you believe that the 4 was a typo and I meant to put an 8? I didn't think so :)

[BloodBought]

As a suggestion for the OP about making the distinction more apparent in his games, I offer him this idea from the Iron Heroes system. Convert all HD to instead be a d4+x value (this value based on what the original HD was in the first place) So as a result, the different HD would translate as follows:

D6 = 1D4+2
D8 = 1D4+4
D10 = 1D4+6
D12 = 1D4+8

I've used this system in my 3.5 D&D games in the past to provide more distinction between the classes in terms of HP (and to prevent a Wizard or Sorc with lucky rolls to actually manage to have more HP total than a Barbarian with VERY unlucky rolls.

I don't actually think that this should necessarily become part of the PFRPG, mostly because of the fact that it could create some additional confusion when it comes to creature types and monstrous PCs, but I think it works fairly well if you're just trying to illustrate the gap between the types of PCs.