I really like how Pathfinder has tied a class' HD to their Attack progression type. Of course, Barbarians are the exception to this. I'd like to suggest changing them to d10's as well, and instead give them a class feature such as "Hardiness", which would give them +2 Hit Points per level. The advantages of this would be:
- Keeps the HD per Attack progression standardized
- Gives the Barbarian a fixed bonus to HP, which is useful to a less armored warrior type. (Helps to absorb the blow from those poor souls that roll a '1' ).
|
I really like how Pathfinder has tied a class' HD to their Attack progression type. Of course, Barbarians are the exception to this. I'd like to suggest changing them to d10's as well, and instead give them a class feature such as "Hardiness", which would give them +2 Hit Points per level. The advantages of this would be:
- Keeps the HD per Attack progression standardized
- Gives the Barbarian a fixed bonus to HP, which is useful to a less armored warrior type. (Helps to absorb the blow from those poor souls that roll a '1' ).
Interesting idea, I'm curious, how many people roll HD vs avg. In the before time (back before university) I always rolled, but years later and different group of people almost all the people I meet these days use AVGs, ditto for stats, points vs dice. So in our group a class gets its full die at level one, and then 3/4 from that point on. So this system would see my barb get
12 + 9.5/level vs 12 + 9/level
Hmmm extra .5, is 9.5 over the career. I'll take it :P
I really like how Pathfinder has tied a class' HD to their Attack progression type. Of course, Barbarians are the exception to this. I'd like to suggest changing them to d10's as well, and instead give them a class feature such as "Hardiness", which would give them +2 Hit Points per level. The advantages of this would be:Interesting idea, I'm curious, how many people roll HD vs avg. ... So in our group a class gets its full die at level one, and then 3/4 from that point on. So this system would see my barb get
12 + 9.5/level vs 12 + 9/level
Hmmm extra .5, is 9.5 over the career. I'll take it :P
+2 hp per level is inappropriate - that is the same as a d14 essentially (every +1 is worth an extra 2 on the "d" - for instance a d6 does one more point of damage than d4).
To be equivalent it would be +1 hp per level (and the 3/4 average for your group would be 8.5).
I'm in the camp of leaving the barbarian at d12 hit die. Also, I favor giving the barbarian some of his 1E/Unearthed Arcana roots, ie, give them bonuses to climbing, jumping, survival, even maybe give them some level of spell resistance. At the same time give them some limitation on magic item usage, stemming from barbarians fear or disdain for magic. I'm not sure how that would be represented but just an idea.
I really like how Pathfinder has tied a class' HD to their Attack progression type. Of course, Barbarians are the exception to this. I'd like to suggest changing them to d10's as well, and instead give them a class feature such as "Hardiness", which would give them +2 Hit Points per level. The advantages of this would be:
- Keeps the HD per Attack progression standardized
- Gives the Barbarian a fixed bonus to HP, which is useful to a less armored warrior type. (Helps to absorb the blow from those poor souls that roll a '1' ).
I like this idea as well. Lower the d12 to a d10 so that the HD is in line with BAB progression.
If a flat +2 per level is too much as some have stated due to the law of averages and all that, just make it a flat amount that scales with level. Say +5 at first level and an additional kicker every five levels to 20.
Either keep it at +5 every five or make it scale so that at level 20 you have a total of +30 hit points from all levels. Works out to 1.5 HP per level for the average role of a d2.
Another thought is to lower the hit die to D10 and give the Barbarian the thoughness feat for free. 3 hit points at first level and then +1 per level after that.
I really like how Pathfinder has tied a class' HD to their Attack progression type.
Blech. Not me. Not by a long shot. For some reason I like arcane spellcasters with crap for hit points. I like rogues to have a little more than arcane spellcasters, but less than clerics. I like clerics having a bit more than rogues and a bit less than fighters. I like fighters having a bit more than clerics, but less than barbarians. You get my point. Oh, that and because, to me, class hit dice are sacred cows. A wizard (or magic-user) has *always* had d4 hit points. A fighter has *always* had d10 hit points. I'm a cranky, crotchety old dude who just doesn't feel the hit die bumps in PF is needed. However, its easily enough fixed, which is what I have already done, so I won't complain overly much.
I play a pretty much core only game and have spent the last 5 years getting a 20th paladin - 1-2 games per month doing a 3/3.5 Night Below Campaign.
We always found barbarians (and fighters in general) to be the most powerful classes - and the most enjoyable for active players. This is because they are always in the thick of it.
From review of the boards it seems that Pathfinder may be leading to buffing up all weaker classes, to try to match some of the splat book prestige classes. Please don't do this. Please just _try_ to balence the core clases.
Further, as an old player of a 17 year, 1e campaign, I have always felt rangers are nerfed - and silly as they became Drizzt's. In 3 to 3.5 they said they would improve them and then went and reduced there hp's to d8 - incredible.
Based on my experience may I suggest:
1) Barbarians go to d10
2) Rangers and Rogues go to d12.
Both these classes need some help (from my experience in a core game) and this will go some way into doing this.
Sean
Based on my experience may I suggest:
2) Rangers and Rogues go to d12.
Ok, now you're on crack.
Sorry, but rogues with d12 hit points?
Don't do crack, alcohol is my drug of choice :)
Are rogues and rangers weaker in your experience? (lets try to evade opinions :)
Are Barbarians overly powerful?
A barbarian doesn't have (significantly) thicker skin than a rogue nor is he from a high grav world causing him to have denser bones or flesh - see 3/3.5e hp definition.
HP used to be a measure of a characters ability to dodge and evade blows/attacks. When a heavily wounded fighter (one on low hps) was viewed he would be covered in lots of nicks, cuts and bruises (or just plain exhausted). When he goes from positive to negative hp, he just fails to make that last dodge and gets skewered, falling unconsious.
Anyway, on the premise that hps are a majority/partial measure of ability to evade damage I would suggest Rogues would have more hit points. I feel they are one of the more 'dodgy' classes in the PHB. Rangers could be viewd as similar - in 1e they used to get 2d8 hp at first level...
The extra hp would give rogues and rangers a little more ability to mix it in combat (they generally have poor AC).
Sean
Don't do crack, alcohol is my drug of choice :)
Yeah, crack kills.
Are rogues and rangers weaker in your experience? (lets try to evade opinions :)
Are Barbarians overly powerful?
A barbarian doesn't have (significantly) thicker skin than a rogue nor is he from a high grav world causing him to have denser bones or flesh - see 3/3.5e hp definition.
HP used to be a measure of a characters ability to dodge and evade blows/attacks. When a heavily wounded fighter (one on low hps) was viewed he would be covered in lots of nicks, cuts and bruises (or just plain exhausted). When he goes from positive to negative hp, he just fails to make that last dodge and gets skewered, falling unconsious.
Anyway, on the premise that hps are a majority/partial measure of ability to evade damage I would suggest Rogues would have more hit points. I feel they are one of the more 'dodgy' classes in the PHB. Rangers could be viewd as similar - in 1e they used to get 2d8 hp at first level...
The extra hp would give rogues and rangers a little more ability to mix it in combat (they generally have poor AC).
I get all of that, but rogues also get evasion and uncanny dodge and usually have high dex, not to mention they usually aren't in the thick of combat so they are generally quite good at avoiding damage in the first place. If you want to take away all of the class features that make a rogue different from a fighter and which help him avoid damage, then sure, give him d10 hp, because then he basically will be a fighter. However, its the rogues "schtick" to *avoid* damage, not soak it up like a barbarian. And YES I get that hp are abstract, but if you want to follow that to its logical conclusion then give all classes the same number of hit points and then differentiate them some other way, but thats not likely to happen so instead we have different tiers of hp generally tied to their "roles". Rogues are not intented or expected to stand toe-to-toe with the same foes that the fighter is so he gets less hp.
|
I really like how Pathfinder has tied a class' HD to their Attack progression type.Blech. Not me. Not by a long shot. For some reason I like arcane spellcasters with crap for hit points. I like rogues to have a little more than arcane spellcasters, but less than clerics. I like clerics having a bit more than rogues and a bit less than fighters. I like fighters having a bit more than clerics, but less than barbarians. You get my point. Oh, that and because, to me, class hit dice are sacred cows.
I completely agree.
My humble suggestion, if we want to see the BaB and Hit Points grow in same ratio.
Mage, Sorceres BaB 1/2, d4
Rogue, Monk, Cleric, Bard, Druid BaB 3/4, d8
Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin BaB 1, d12
Simple isnt! Still I dont understand why do we want to follow such rule.
If we think more about it, why are hit points the only thing we roll when advancing characters? Pathfinder is a chance to make changes. Why couldnt we have fixed hitpoints per class level? Or we could add more rolling, like spellcasters rolling how many spells do they actually learn (and so on). Now only martial characters can get serious disadvantages by bad rolling.
I really like how Pathfinder has tied a class' HD to their Attack progression type.Blech. Not me. Not by a long shot. For some reason I like arcane spellcasters with crap for hit points. I like rogues to have a little more than arcane spellcasters, but less than clerics. I like clerics having a bit more than rogues and a bit less than fighters. I like fighters having a bit more than clerics, but less than barbarians. You get my point. Oh, that and because, to me, class hit dice are sacred cows. A wizard (or magic-user) has *always* had d4 hit points. A fighter has *always* had d10 hit points. I'm a cranky, crotchety old dude who just doesn't feel the hit die bumps in PF is needed. However, its easily enough fixed, which is what I have already done, so I won't complain overly much.
I also favor leaving spellcasters at d4, but rogues NEED that extra hp boost. With flanking, etc, they work best in melee, but can get slaughtered with a full attack, and they don't have many defense options. Spellcasters, on the other hand, got so much love its a wonder they don't have "sparkles" as a class feature. With a few exceptions, I always thought that the multi-classing system for casters was the most balanced. You want those fancy abilities, but is it worth crippling your spell progression? I like the sorcerer bloodlines and wizard school benefits, because they make it much easier to find that "extra" thing your caster can do, but it's either that or d6 hd for me. Or, what if you could give up your bloodline, etc, to get d6 hd? In essence, you sacrifice your arcane power for the ability to survive.
Another thought is to lower the hit die to D10 and give the Barbarian the thoughness feat for free. 3 hit points at first level and then +1 per level after that.
This was the best idea in the thread. (Though it's 4HP at 1st level - 3 base + 1 HD.) The downside is that you can't take Toughness to improve it further (would anyone care?); the upside is that you qualify for feats with Toughness as a prereq, of which there are a few in 3.5 splatbooks and I would hope Paizo tosses us some more.
My humble suggestion, if we want to see the BaB and Hit Points grow in same ratio.
Mage, Sorceres BaB 1/2, d4
Fine.
Rogue, Monk, Cleric, Bard, Druid BaB 3/4, d8
Blech. Double blech. Rogues get less hit points than Clerics because clerics are supposed to be better combatants. The more we talk about standardizing things and simplifying things the less distinct and interesting each class becomes and then we end up in 4E land, where every class looks and feels the same. I *LIKE* all my classes to be different and do not want this standardization of HD tied to BAB progression. This is something that is not needed and further skews upwards hit points for classes that have always been weaker. Did I say blech?
Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin BaB 1, d12
Again, blech. Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers should have less hit points than Barbarians. Just leave this alone, please.
Why couldnt we have fixed hitpoints per class level?
AAUGGHHH!!!! NO!!! One more step in the 4E-ization of my beloved 3.5. I do *not* want fixed HP.
Or we could add more rolling, like spellcasters rolling how many spells do they actually learn (and so on). Now only martial characters can get serious disadvantages by bad rolling.
Or... we could leave everything alone because it's fine as it is.
I also favor leaving spellcasters at d4, but rogues NEED that extra hp boost. With flanking, etc, they work best in melee, but can get slaughtered with a full attack, and they don't have many defense options.
A smart rogue does the old "stick-and-move" deal and/or makes sure he attacks when others are flanking the big bad guy so the big bad guy has to make a choice who to attack, either the annoying rogue who just stuck him in the kidney for 62 points of damage, or the beefy barbarian thats about to rage full attack on him next, or the fighter who is just salivating and waiting for his turn to full attack.
I like the sorcerer bloodlines and wizard school benefits, because they make it much easier to find that "extra" thing your caster can do, but it's either that or d6 hd for me. Or, what if you could give up your bloodline, etc, to get d6 hd? In essence, you sacrifice your arcane power for the ability to survive.
That might be decent.
Another thought is to lower the hit die to D10 and give the Barbarian the toughness feat for free. 3 hit points at first level and then +1 per level after that.
If the barbarian HAD to be reduced to d10 hit points then I'd ask that this be the replacement.
I also favor leaving spellcasters at d4, but rogues NEED that extra hp boost. With flanking, etc, they work best in melee, but can get slaughtered with a full attack, and they don't have many defense options.A smart rogue does the old "stick-and-move" deal and/or makes sure he attacks when others are flanking the big bad guy so the big bad guy has to make a choice who to attack, either the annoying rogue who just stuck him in the kidney for 62 points of damage, or the beefy barbarian thats about to rage full attack on him next, or the fighter who is just salivating and waiting for his turn to full attack.
The way it always worked in my games was this: First, BBEG stops two-weapon using barbarian with wall of stone, hold person, something like that. Next, fighter and rogue close to melee. Fighter uses improved combat expertise to tank, loses any ability to hit BBEG. Rogue flanks with tank, sneak attacks for lots. Ranger shoots bow for lots. Next, BBEG ignores useless tank and takes on either ranger or rogue, usually rogue because ranger is out of range. Rogue either dies or runs. At this point, the barbarian has usually gotten past whatever obstacle there was and engages BBEG in full-attack fight. If the barbarian didn't kill it, then the ranger pinging away would, just as the rogue got healed back up to take part in the fight. End result: Rogue did damage but still felt useless. Admittedly, that may have had a lot to do with the chosen tactics of the party, but I still favor a little combat boost. Clerics get better HD than rogues, wear heavy armor, but almost always end up supporting the melee fighters from a distance.
One of the points of Pathfinder was to make it so that you don't have to take a PrC or multiclass to have an effective character. The HD boost for rogues really helps with that in my experience.
This goes against "Keeping it Simple" and grants a more complicated problem. It also causes conversion problem as well... as there are other classes and PrCs that have D12 hit dice.
If it isn't broke don't fix it. It is fine the way it is, and I am sorry, but your being way too anal-retentive about these rules.
Also, what about 1 level dipping?