Does anyone else believe that the hit dice mods were not needed for chars such as the wizard?
I've been using the beta rules for a few months and the existing d4 based hit points have been fine for our wizard. I never really had an issue with them dying off at low levels either because they were always protected by the meleers like an artillery piece would be protected.
I plan on keeping the old hit dice for each of the classes - which is the only rule that I havent really liked out of the whole beta book.
I like the new HD well, I mean no one but the sickly and a child should have a d4 really, so I am good with it, why should my wizard have less then a commoner?
Does anyone else believe that the hit dice mods were not needed for chars such as the wizard?
I've been using the beta rules for a few months and the existing d4 based hit points have been fine for our wizard. I never really had an issue with them dying off at low levels either because they were always protected by the meleers like an artillery piece would be protected.
I plan on keeping the old hit dice for each of the classes - which is the only rule that I havent really liked out of the whole beta book.
actually look at it closer. The HD gets better, but you dont get a new one every level, like before.
a 1st level 3.5 wizard gets d4, a 1st level pathfinder wizard gets 1d6, looks like more, right?
But...
a 5th level 3.5 wizard gets 5d4, and a 5th level pathinder wizard gets 2d6.
So the difference is 2 more (possible) HPs at 1st level and 8 less (possible) HPs at 5th.
A 20th level 3.5 wizard had 20d4 (or 80 max) a 20th level pathfinder wizard has 10d6 (or 60 max).
Over all, wizards got a HP nerf.
But it does sit better with me that a 1st level commoner and 1st level wizard have same base hps.
Does anyone else believe that the hit dice mods were not needed for chars such as the wizard?
I've been using the beta rules for a few months and the existing d4 based hit points have been fine for our wizard. I never really had an issue with them dying off at low levels either because they were always protected by the meleers like an artillery piece would be protected.
I plan on keeping the old hit dice for each of the classes - which is the only rule that I havent really liked out of the whole beta book.
actually look at it closer. The HD gets better, but you dont get a new one every level, like before.
a 1st level 3.5 wizard gets d4, a 1st level pathfinder wizard gets 1d6, looks like more, right?
But...
a 5th level 3.5 wizard gets 5d4, and a 5th level pathinder wizard gets 2d6.
So the difference is 2 more (possible) HPs at 1st level and 8 less (possible) HPs at 5th.A 20th level 3.5 wizard had 20d4 (or 80 max) a 20th level pathfinder wizard has 10d6 (or 60 max).
Over all, wizards got a HP nerf.
But it does sit better with me that a 1st level commoner and 1st level wizard have same base hps.
What??!!
not get a hd every level?
Is this right?
I will have to check when I get home.
ummm they get 1 HD per level...so 1d6 at first....20 d6 at 20th
all classes get 1 HD per level
a 1st level 3.5 wizard gets d4, a 1st level pathfinder wizard gets 1d6, looks like more, right?
But...
a 5th level 3.5 wizard gets 5d4, and a 5th level pathinder wizard gets 2d6.
So the difference is 2 more (possible) HPs at 1st level and 8 less (possible) HPs at 5th.A 20th level 3.5 wizard had 20d4 (or 80 max) a 20th level pathfinder wizard has 10d6 (or 60 max).
Over all, wizards got a HP nerf.
How do you get this weird idea that wizards get hit dice only every second level? Where is that supposed to come from?
|
How do you get this weird idea that wizards get hit dice only every second level? Where is that supposed to come from?a 1st level 3.5 wizard gets d4, a 1st level pathfinder wizard gets 1d6, looks like more, right?
But...
a 5th level 3.5 wizard gets 5d4, and a 5th level pathinder wizard gets 2d6.
So the difference is 2 more (possible) HPs at 1st level and 8 less (possible) HPs at 5th.A 20th level 3.5 wizard had 20d4 (or 80 max) a 20th level pathfinder wizard has 10d6 (or 60 max).
Over all, wizards got a HP nerf.
Taking the "HD is linked to BAB" comments a wee bit too literally?
Taking the "HD is linked to BAB" comments a wee bit too literally?a 1st level 3.5 wizard gets d4, a 1st level pathfinder wizard gets 1d6, looks like more, right?
Yes I guess I misunderstood the BAB = HD
Does anyone else believe that the hit dice mods were not needed for chars such as the wizard?
I've been using the beta rules for a few months and the existing d4 based hit points have been fine for our wizard. I never really had an issue with them dying off at low levels either because they were always protected by the meleers like an artillery piece would be protected.
I plan on keeping the old hit dice for each of the classes - which is the only rule that I havent really liked out of the whole beta book.
I am with you. I positively hate the hit dice increases, but luckily it is a change that is easily removable and that's precisely what I have done in my games and will continue to do.
Does anyone else believe that the hit dice mods were not needed for chars such as the wizard?
I've been using the beta rules for a few months and the existing d4 based hit points have been fine for our wizard. I never really had an issue with them dying off at low levels either because they were always protected by the meleers like an artillery piece would be protected.
I plan on keeping the old hit dice for each of the classes - which is the only rule that I havent really liked out of the whole beta book.
I like the increase in HD. I hated the D4 for hp and I'm glad they got rid of it. I'm purely going from an I hate the D4 point of view though and anything that makes the D4 used less is good in my book.
Does anyone else believe that the hit dice mods were not needed for chars such as the wizard?
That's the first thing I house-ruled out of my current PF campaign. Personally, I prefer wizards and sorcerers (d4) to have less hit points than rogues (d6) who have less than clerics (d8) who have less than fighters (d10) who have less than barbarians (d12). That just makes sense to me and I prefer things that way. Easily enough house-ruled, though I'd prefer it not be changed in the first place.
On a random, off the top of my head side note, there is a lot of push to increase the damage spells do because hit points have creeped up over the years. Wouldn't it be easier just to undo the hit point creep? Just say that every class maxes at 10 HD and then after that they just get their con mod + a certain number per level, as it was done in 1E. I recognize there would be a lot of changes as a result of that, but is it more than changing every damage dealing spell to do more damage?
Just a random thought!
In 1e ya didn't get Con mod after name level, which positively stunk.
If you do go with lesser hit points after some level, you'd probably need to make it Con bonus/2 or something. Round up on odd levels, down on even.
Eh.. I always hated the d4 hit points for wizards/sorcerers. Any class that can be brought to unconsciousness by a housecat is just pitiful. Really we are just talking about what, an average of 1 extra hp per level anyways???
I will say that we have stuck with the old standard of max hp plus CON mod for 1st level. We felt that the additional HP options in the Beta provided too many hit points for 1st level otherwise.
|
heh - possible house/optional rule based on the comments above. All classes get a d10 HD. But you only get a new HD when your BAB goes up. Has anyone ever tried something like this? It seems like it would work out close to the same math-wise in the long run but would favor commoners and wizards at the low levels.
I know that one of the designers of 3.0 said that they felt the d4 was a terrible HD, and that no adventurer should have it (it would only be for commoners). However, it was kept because it was a legacy item from prior editions, not really for any balance reason.
I'm fine with it being gone. It's not a terrible increase in HP, and survivability is a priority for me in my games. Death from a lucky hit just takes a bit of the fun out of it.
|
|
I like the increase in HD. I hated the D4 for hp and I'm glad they got rid of it. I'm purely going from an I hate the D4 point of view though and anything that makes the D4 used less is good in my book.Does anyone else believe that the hit dice mods were not needed for chars such as the wizard?
I've been using the beta rules for a few months and the existing d4 based hit points have been fine for our wizard. I never really had an issue with them dying off at low levels either because they were always protected by the meleers like an artillery piece would be protected.
I plan on keeping the old hit dice for each of the classes - which is the only rule that I havent really liked out of the whole beta book.
ditto! I absolutely hated d4 hit die. lucky shots make for long wait while the dead wizard creates a new character, cuz his 4 hit points got hit by a goblin with a short sword.
I loved the d4's, but I'm not too sad to see the wiz hp go up slightly. They still rarely have a Con score to speak of, and end up with low hp still. Monster damage has gone up immensely since 1st edition. Not to say it was a *required* change, but I'm not unhappy with it.
My largest annoyance with the HD is that Cleric = Thief. But I can live with it.
The change in the type of HD is not that serious. With massive melee damage, the d4 and d6 hit dice is a bit low. Raising them seems to be an equal change with two handed weapons causing 1,5*str. mod. damage.
I don't like the more HP at 1st level rules, they make daggers (and magic missile :)) silly.
What I do use in my D&D3rd ed. for HP in higher levels, is the following:
Every class has a base HD of D4. This is the random part of the hit die for every level. Additionaly, all classes get a fixed amount of HP at every level. Classes with good BAB get +6, classes with average BAB get +4 and classes with poor BAB get +2. The barbarian get another +2 HP every level as a class bonus. Every character adds her Con. mod. to her HPs every level to.
Let's see some examples:
Cwell, the Fine reaches 2nd level as a Bard. He gets d4 HP for gaining a level and the player rolls a 3. Cwell gains +4 HP for getting a new level in a class with average BAB. Unfortunatelly, he has no Con. mod. to add, so he end up with gaining (3+4) 7 HPs after level up.
Rupert reaches 2nd level as a Fighter. He also gets d4 HP for gaining a level, resulting in 2 on the roll. For the level up in a class with good BAB, he gets +6 HPs. Ruperts Con. mod. is +2, resulting (2+6+2) 10 HPs after level up. If he would be a barbarian, he would also get +2 as a class bonus resulting in 12 HP at level up.
The idea behind my changes is the fact that players always whine about low HP rolls. No one would ever like to roll a 2 or 3 for a character who does a lot of melee. The barbarians d12 for HP rolls is only a slight chance to have a bit more HP than other melee warriors who wear better armour than they. With the changes, there will be no bad, low rolls for any characters.
The system is a bit changed in the case of non-player characters. Common npcs (with npc classes)and not-that-important monsters use the old hit dice. They deserve no more, but some of them are promising enough after having a lots of HPs due to good rolls. Important monsters' HD is converted as the players HD, just as npcs with player classes. The most important npcs ("bosses", if you like) gain maximum HP on all HD.
What do you think about this method?
It is a good method, and it probably works better than my current HD method - roll your HD, and if it's below the median score, you get that instead (so if you roll a 1, 2, or 3 on a d8, you get a 4, guaranteed). Yours would probably be a better fix.
|
I don't like any of the HD changes, honestly. Wizard and Rogues in particular. I honestly don't see why a Wizard, who is traditionally locking themselves away in towers and schools most of their young life should be tougher to kill than most commoners who have to work hard their entire life. Even a merchant has to transport their goods, and while that might be traditionally linked towards the Strength stat, Con and endurance would also be needed.
I am partial, however, to less "heroic" games where the players have to work for what they achieve rather than being born bad*sses, so that's where this comes from.
I don't think d6 HP instead of d4 (or d8 instead of d6) would make any character more badass. In a system, where anybody with an above average Strength (14) can deal 5-15 damage with a two-handed sword, this slight difference doesn't make anyone more tougher at first level. You will see the difference after a few levels, but damage is also getting bigger: imagine a 4th level fighter as the bodyguard of a priest, enhanced with Bull's Strength either from potion or spell. With the same Strength score, he can do 10-20 on a hit! Even if you use my method for HP rolling (mentioned above), this can lover the HP of anyone with poor BAB under 0 at 3rd level.
I also run low-powered games, but I think the HP change is a nice cut to make the game more standardized.
|
|
Does anyone else believe that the hit dice mods were not needed for chars such as the wizard?
I've been using the beta rules for a few months and the existing d4 based hit points have been fine for our wizard. I never really had an issue with them dying off at low levels either because they were always protected by the meleers like an artillery piece would be protected.
I plan on keeping the old hit dice for each of the classes - which is the only rule that I havent really liked out of the whole beta book.
I also intend on keeping the d4 for wizards and sorcerers. It is consistent with the image of the wizard as having sacrificed his health for forbidden arcane knowledge. The lower hp at higher levels also gives the wizard a weakness he must deal with, even at high levels.
I do intend on using the d8 for rogues and bards. Commoners and experts will get the d6.
|
I loved the d4's, but I'm not too sad to see the wiz hp go up slightly. They still rarely have a Con score to speak of, and end up with low hp still. Monster damage has gone up immensely since 1st edition. Not to say it was a *required* change, but I'm not unhappy with it.
My largest annoyance with the HD is that Cleric = Thief. But I can live with it.
I like the sorcerer boost to D6 but I feel like the wizard should stay D4, unfortunately I don't see that happening even though the two class' backgrounds seem to warrant a difference (natural gift of magic, as opposed to a lifetime spent studying books). I like the cleric = rogue HD change though. I feel like they are separated by armor. A heavily armored cleric(plate and shield) compared to a rogue(light armor and dex) is gonna be tougher to hit so even though they have the same HP, a cleric isn't getting wailed as much and losing his hps as quickly as a rogue and a rogue can actually maybe take a hit in combat.
|
|
So far, there is less and less to keep Rogues from just stealing the show. They now have all the tools they need to be better in combat than all other classes at their best, and very few if any real weaknesses as a class. Even lower A.C. is pretty easy to bypass, and really just does not count as a weakness.
Wizards, having low H.P. is the trade off they make for being able to toss fireball and zip around the sky.
I think rogues were made to do tons of damage when rarely-useable Backstab from AD&D was changed to the often-useable Sneak Attack in D&D. Even the name change from Thief to Rogue indicates that they are not ment to steal things anymore, but to be light-armored, cunning warriors. Someone must have thought that there is no game value in a class that can't kill effectively...
So, if you want something similar to the Thief class in AD&D, don't look at the Rogue - create a new class.
For the light armoured, sneaky fighter who can disable traps, look at the Rogue!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I like the HD change myself.
1) Low level survivability. That dagger may still kill sammy sorerer or wally wizard (2d4 before strength on a crit) but it isn't an instant death sentence.
2) Consistancy. The cloistered cleric has a d6, and poor BAB. Now the wizard and sorcerer match. That the CC is still a better class is besides the point.
3) Flexability The rogue and bard both get a boost that allows them to dabble in the front lines for a round or two and not spend every round 'I'm singing and hiding' and "I'm maneuvering for that perfect sneak attack'
d)Midlevel survivability. Yes, a wizard should never get caught in a fireball/lightning bolt/cone of cold/energy cone. It happens. with d6 HD vs d6 damage dice, he's likely to live through the mistake. Once.
V) Ease of design. With BAB tied to HD, it makes niche classes easier to design for. 'Gish' classes, Psychic Warrior/Soul Knife/Bard(Yes, the bard now counts)/and my arcane legionary all fit in that niche. Paladin/Ranger/Hexblade all fit in the same niche. (full BAB, d10 HD, half caster, special effects)
6) Ease of conversion. Green Ronin's gish class is now even easier to convert, for example.
7) Still room for exceptions. The Barbarian is one direction, good BAB, d12 HP. My spellstalker might be another. I'm not sure if he should 'upgrade' to d8 or if that's going to make the class too good.
|
|
That is not a very good analogy or comparison, though. It is partially true, but AD&D is a completely different game than 3.0+. While the Thief could not deal the massive amounts of damage as often, the nature of combat in the older games made the damage they did deal, and it is not all that difficult to accomplish less of "Every Single Hit" thing and more of a Big finisher. They had many good reasons not to just wade into a melee, where as with the later books keep getting rid of many of the weaknesses and logic that set them apart from the more melee classes. Rogues are already way to good. They need to lose some things, not gain even more.
Seriously, if you want to stay consistant with the HD = BA, drp the Rogues Base attack to that of a Wizard. Make the Rogues have to earn their Sneak Attack, rather than just hand it to them. Drop their skill points, so they actually have to choose between really, really good skills.
Does anyone else believe that the hit dice mods were not needed for chars such as the wizard?
I've been using the beta rules for a few months and the existing d4 based hit points have been fine for our wizard. I never really had an issue with them dying off at low levels either because they were always protected by the meleers like an artillery piece would be protected.
I plan on keeping the old hit dice for each of the classes - which is the only rule that I havent really liked out of the whole beta book.
I like the increase in survivability, myself. I also think it's only a minor increase, not a game-breaking one. I don't think there are many players saying "I wouldn't play a wizard/sorcerer before, because they only got d4 for hit dice, but now that they have d6 for hit dice, they're worth playing!"
I think it should be said that some folk like the low-survivability factor at low-levels. In fact, one PBP I play with only play 1st level games. At the end of the day, if you don't want to face death after a single blow or so, don't play first level. Theres no point in adding other levels if gameplay stays exactly the same
The most annoying in the rogue is it's huge damage with Sneak Attack and the fact that rogues can Sneak Attack very easily by flanking. This makes dead meat of anyone who is not immune to Sneak Attacks. In the system that I use now, Sneak Attack is limited to 5d6 at 9th level and there is no flanking. The rogue must make up the opportunity for her Sneak Attack. I allow her to use the ability when she wins initiative over the foes or when she starts from a hiding position, but she most work for other opportunities or must see the chance - like in the case when the party's wizard blinded a foe with Color Spray.
I think making Sneak Attack more difficult to do would turn the rogue back on the thieves' way.
Hm, I think I'm getting off topic? Where can we continue this conversation?
I honestly don't see why a Wizard, who is traditionally locking themselves away in towers and schools most of their young life should be tougher to kill than most commoners who have to work hard their entire life.
You see this has not been true since 3.0
All it takes to be a first level wizard it seems is a week , a spellbook and a level...the week is optional
Why should they be weaker just because they are wizards...if it was hard to become one sure the d4 might be justifiable but any one with an Int of 11 and a new level can be one
So the wizard spends all his young life becoming one is a joke, the ages should be redone or multi-classing into wizards limited
I honestly don't see why a Wizard, who is traditionally locking themselves away in towers and schools most of their young life should be tougher to kill than most commoners who have to work hard their entire life.You see this has not been true since 3.0
All it takes to be a first level wizard it seems is a week , a spellbook and a level...the week is optional
Why should they be weaker just because they are wizards...if it was hard to become one sure the d4 might be justifiable but any one with an Int of 11 and a new level can be one
So the wizard spends all his young life becoming one is a joke, the ages should be redone or multi-classing into wizards limited
Well, I think becoming a wizard depends on the DM. I wouldn't let any character becoming a wizard by leveling up. Maybe after a level up and 8-10 years of studying...
|
|
The most annoying in the rogue is it's huge damage with Sneak Attack and the fact that rogues can Sneak Attack very easily by flanking. This makes dead meat of anyone who is not immune to Sneak Attacks. In the system that I use now, Sneak Attack is limited to 5d6 at 9th level and there is no flanking. The rogue must make up the opportunity for her Sneak Attack.
How about +1d6/ 4 (or even 5) Rogue Levels? And 1 per round sneak attack? I don't know if I would mind everything else about the Rogue if this where the case.
Well, I think becoming a wizard depends on the DM. I wouldn't let any character becoming a wizard by leveling up. Maybe after a level up and 8-10 years of studying...
I am the same way but, many groups play by RAW, and RAW says you can do this. So Raw should not punish wizards for being wizards by stapping them with a d4 when even commoners get a d6
Well after a couple handfulls of posts, it looks like half the people like the changes and half don't. Maybe we need a d5?
to be honest i think those that do not really are in the minority. This has been covered many, many times
HD changes are fine. We had no problem with it in our 1-16 level campaign
|
|
I don't universally dislike it. For Ranger it was a good return from the 3.5 change that I never liked. Bards also needed something, though they could probably go with more. Sorcerers also need something to get them away from Wizards. It is Wizards and Rogue that it really irks me. Both already have way to much, and taking away their need to not be in melee does not make them "cooler", it makes everyone else worse.
to be honest i think those that do not really are in the minority. This has been covered many, many times
Really? I did a couple of searches before posting and could not find anything. Anyone got a forum link to where wizard hit point changes have been discussed?
I hate the hit dice increases with a passion and especially the change for the wizard. The average hit point boost is 40% for a class that most certainly was not one of the weaker classes in 3.5E (and got lots of other goodies in Pathfinder RPG too). Just as bad is the fact that the higher hit die is poorly targeted if the aim is to improve low level survivability, since the extra hit points accrue over a spread of many levels - bonus starting hit points (flat or racial) would have been a far better choice to deal with this issue. Luckily, this is something that is easy to houserule, because there is no way these hit dice increases will make it to my game.
I gotta vote against the change for wizards and rogues. d4 and d6, respectively, were appropriate, I thought.
The wizard spends much time hunched over tomes and inhaling questionable fumes as they learn their trade. This takes a toll on one's overall physical health (and probably mental health, as well).
The Rogue (still the Thief, in my opinion), spends much of his time avoiding real work, always looking for the easy way out. This does nothing to build his constitution or health.
But that's just my point of view.
I think rogues and wizards could have stayed with their old hit dice, although the change doesn't bother me too much. Of the two I feel more strongly about the wizard. In my head I see them as the weakest in terms of hit points. And it would complete the bookends - a d4 and a d12.
to be honest i think those that do not really are in the minority. This has been covered many, many timesReally? I did a couple of searches before posting and could not find anything. Anyone got a forum link to where wizard hit point changes have been discussed?
Haven't searched, but I recall at lest 5 or 6 from the alpha 1 look though the old alpha 1 archives.
And really the bump is not huge, it means little at high level where most things can tear though the extra hp very easy. However it does mean your more likely to make it to 5th level as you can survive the cat attack long enough to kill it.
2nd point commoner have a d6. Unless you have a very low con score a wizard's HD should not be any less. The ideal of them pineing life away to become a wizard is gone, the rules just do not support that at all.
|
The only concern I've seen so far at my table is that the hp range between traditional second line characters (wizards, bards, rogues) and front line characters (fighters, rangers, etc.) has narrowed considerably. Traditionally, this gulf has been larger.
Honestly, it's really odd to have a 6th level wizard and a 6th level fighter to be a mere 15 points difference in hp, and that's with both characters have good CON (+2)and rolling well.
Not sure if it's a problem, but it feels well, wrong. Shouldn't the front line guys have a boatload of hp, and the blasting guy have significantly fewer? It's just weird.