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 don't see why a wizard is assumed to have traded health for forbidden knowledge. I see it as a good for character creation where one can say their 8 constitution is because of the trade off but I don't think every Wizard should be forced into that stereo type.
I think that's part of the parting of ways. The 3.5 rogue is in many respects just not the 1e/2e thief (although you can still make him that way).
The Rogue (still the Thief, in my opinion)...
Hmmm that never occurred to me. I used to like the special theiving skills roll table that the Thief had, but how would you say the 3.5 Rogue is different? 'Seems like you can do all the same stuff.
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.
I agree. While I am all for the vast majority of the PF changes, I just don't see this one as necessary, nor had I heard anyone, especially not my players, calling for it. I too prefer using all dice, d4 on the low end to d12 on the high end. Its sort of a sacred cow for me. Wizards have d4 hp, rogues d6, etc, that does not *need* to change. Heck we're already complaining about wizard damage spells not being able to keep up with hit point creep over the years, why add one more thing creeping peoples hit points up?
It feels wrong until you have a situation where an attacking creature breaks past the front line and into the secondaries. This is less likely in a dungeon environment give the confined spaces, but above ground with some maneuvering room it can easily happen.
During a short playtest doing the opening combat in RotRL, I played the goblins moderately smart (Int 10 and wis 9 does not make them stupid). After the party wizard torched a few with a burning hands the goblin dog rider broke combat from the barbarian and went after the lady burning all his mates up. If it hadn't been for the increased HD, extra starting HP (6), and a +1 mod con score I would have had to really pull his attacks to avoid killing the 1st level wizard outright... that or continued to play the goblins dumb. It was really nice to see the players immediately alter position to screen better, which they wouldn't have done if the Wizard had dropped. From that experience I agree with Matthew. The increased HD does an important thing for the game, it lets these classes (wizards/sorcerers) survive one serious mistake in combat.
|
Hmmm that never occurred to me. I used to like the special theiving skills roll table that the Thief had, but how would you say the 3.5 Rogue is different? 'Seems like you can do all the same stuff.
The focus, I would say, is more 'general skillmonkey' than 'thief'; you can, of course, construct a thief out of it. Also, sneak attack is a lot better than backstab was, for my money, particularly given how tough many DMs were on achieving the required circumstances to effect a backstab, so that the rogue is a better combatant now, too. Weapon Finesse (now allowable at +0 BAB in PFRPG) is also handy for turning the Rogue's main stat into a melee asset over and above the bonus to AC.
|
It feels wrong until you have a situation where an attacking creature breaks past the front line and into the secondaries. This is less likely in a dungeon environment give the confined spaces, but above ground with some maneuvering room it can easily happen.
During a short playtest doing the opening combat in RotRL, I played the goblins moderately smart (Int 10 and wis 9 does not make them stupid). After the party wizard torched a few with a burning hands the goblin dog rider broke combat from the barbarian and went after the lady burning all his mates up. If it hadn't been for the increased HD, extra starting HP (6), and a +1 mod con score I would have had to really pull his attacks to avoid killing the 1st level wizard outright... that or continued to play the goblins dumb. It was really nice to see the players immediately alter position to screen better, which they wouldn't have done if the Wizard had dropped. From that experience I agree with Matthew. The increased HD does an important thing for the game, it lets these classes (wizards/sorcerers) survive one serious mistake in combat.
I agree at 1st level, the extra hp do help the wizard survive a sword hit. The part that feels wrong is that this doesn't change as levels increase - the 6th level version of the same wizard will probably be unconcerned about a rogue slipping past the fighter and hitting him for 25 points of damage with a sneak attack. This did happen in my campaign, and the wizard was completely unconcerned. "I can take at least one more hit like that before I'm worried".
It just feels off.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I'm pretty happy with the changes in my playtest, currently up to level 6. The wizard and rogue still get nervous in tough fights, but they aren't complete creampuffs. I feel like it's necessary to not have the wizards in the party die from the fallot of what it takes to scuff the fighters.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Let's model a fighter (d10) against a wizard (d6). In the Beta playtest, a character in her favored class gains either an extra skill point or hit point per level. Let's assume that the fighter, starved for skill points, elected to gain an extra one per level; while the wizard takes an extra hit point.
At first level:
Fighter: 10 hp
Wizard: 7 hp = 70% of the fighter
At seventh level:
Fighter: 10 + 6d10 averages to 43
Wizard: 7 +6d6 + 6 averages to 34 = 79% of the fighter's total
If both characters gain, say, 2 hit points per level from a high Constitution score:
At seventh level:
Fighter: 10 + 6d10 + 14 averages to 57
Wizard: 7 + 6d6 + 6 + 14 averages to 48 = 84% of the fighter's total
And of course, there are optional rules for giving beginning characters a bucketload of extra hit points based on their race or Constitution. Those bring the wizard's hit point percentage even higher.
CHIS...you show the issue to be the fighters lack of skill points not the wizards d6
to level the playing field lets say both too the extra 1 hp
At first level:
Fighter: 11 hp
Wizard: 7 hp = 70% of the fighter
At seventh level:
Fighter: 10 + 6d10 averages to 49
Wizard: 7 +6d6 + 6 averages to 34
If both characters gain, say, 2 hit points per level from a high Constitution score:
At seventh level:
Fighter: 10 + 6d10 + 6 + 14 averages to 62
Wizard: 7 + 6d6 + 6 + 14 averages to 48
You can make a test to show the average if both are not using the same stuff. If one is using the extra HP the other build should as well
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
CHRIS...you show the issue to be the fighter's lack of skill points not the wizard's d6.To level the playing field, let's say both take the extra 1 hp
You can't make a test to show the average if both are not using the same stuff. If one is using the extra HP the other build should as well.
Actually, seeker, I'm very strongly in favor of the fighter retaining 2 + Int mod skill points. Acording to Jason, that's a given, and that's fine with me.
Allowing a character to take an additional skill point when gaining a level in a favored class is a fine way to acocmodate people who want to get more skills as fighters.
And I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the smart decision for fighters (who have plenty of hit points) is to buy skill points while extra hit points are more valuable for wizards (who have high Int and therefore plenty of skills).
Have you ever played with a character who turned down the skill points when he was gaining a level as a favored-class fighter?
Have you ever played with a character who turned down the skill points when he was gaining a level as a favored-class fighter?
FWIW, I'd do it in a heartbeat (depending on the character). I've picked bonus hit points over bonus skills for a cleric, for instance.
Have you ever played with a character who turned down the skill points when he was gaining a level as a favored-class fighter?
Yes, but I never play a fighter if the DM uses 2 skill per level. That simple, its an over harsh rule that should have been fixed in 3.5
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I never play a fighter if the DM uses 2 skill per level. It's an overly harsh rule that should have been fixed in 3.5
(laugh) Well, I certainly can't speak to the design intentions of the guys who wrote the 3.5 rules, or of the Pathfinder design team, but I can tell you why I like the 2 + Int bonus rule.
Gaining a level as a fighter usually means a bonus feat, good BAB progression, good hit points. In my campaigns, many characters decide to multi-class and "take a level or two" as a fighter. It boils down to weapons training and boot camp, for people who think they need some basic practice with swinging steel.
If you want more skills, go take a level as a ranger or rogue. That's not what fighter training is about.
But, you know, I'm not king of the world. It sounds like you've got a house rule about fighters and skill points, and that's fine.
But the game, as written in various editions, starves career fighters on skill points, and an extra skill point per level is simply more valuable to a fighter than an extra hit point. Hit points? The fighter already has plenty of them.
ya see I do not like class dipping for skills. Allowing more skill say 4 min . What that does is allow the fighters and other skill starved classes more room to build the pc they want to play without maxing out int or dipping 1 level or ranger or rogue just to get skills.
The skill system now is worse then 3.x ever was for anyone with less then 4 skills
I know its a personal thing but I will never play a class thats crippled for skill points.
The fighters feats are no excuses to gimp him like that. The barbarian did not get gimped so why should the fighter?
I know we are off the rails here but yeah lack of skills for many classes IS an issue. It's houseruled in almost every game i know of one way of another. I bet you know of at lest one game that has added more skills.
If something is housed ruled by most groups or is seen or debated as an issue over and over and over...then it needs looked at hard.
|
I know what you mean. I like to play the Cleric or Paladin generally. In highly social games, particularly for the Cleric, it just feels that I do not have the needed skill to do what I need to do. In 3.5, Clerics got 2+Int, but it is pretty much a given that Know Arcana and Religion, Spellcraft, Concentration, Diplomacy, and maybe Heal are absolutely required skills. In order to do this, one needs to be a human with Int of 16+. Toss in the "extra skills many Domains grant, and you get a lot of "I can't actually do my job here". Sense Motive and Gather Information, didn't even enter the picture.
ya see I do not like class dipping for skills. Allowing more skill say 4 min .
You know, I always thought that if you have to dip into any other class to make another class actually work, then it is game mechanically flawed. Not if you have a concept on character or fighting style, that is another thing.
|
|
I'd like if classes offered specific skills. The skills that are basically required are automatically given, minus one or two. After that, you simply get your Int bonus in other skills to choose as class skills. This is based off my own rules, so some skills don't apply in PF.
For example
Monk (+1)
Acrobatics, Athletics, Awarness, Concentration, Craft, Heal, Intimidate, Knowledge Psionics OR Religion, Sense Motive, and Sneak
Besides the Bolded Skills at max ranks, the Monk can also pick any other one skills (+1), and their Int Mod from the above skills to be at Max ranks.
It gets a bit odd with multiclassing, though.
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.
Rogues in 3.5(and Pathfinder) are not just the Thief of old. They certainly have some skills very similar to a Thief, but they are just as skilled with a weapon as a Cleric(the priest-soldiers of the gods or philosophies). Rogues in 3.x+(and many other games) aren't thieves, think of them more as special ops.
They handle things like traps, can spot ambushes, scout, report numbers back to the group and use various magical trinkets restricted to magic users. In a one on one straight up fight, they might not be the greatest combatant in the world, but when working with deception(stealth, bluff, hidden weapons, poison etc), magical tricks(invisibility, blink, etc), allies(flanking), and/or the environment(stealth, concealed position), they are a terrifying force on the battlefield.
The fact that all the pathetic, coward Thieves of past editions got changed to Rogue is a bit of a mistake. Unless the character was somewhat skilled in actual combat, they should have been moved to the expert class with thief skills as their chosen class skills and a special expert trap-finding class feature(if appropriate).
This thread is going in many strange directions ... so I'll add a comment to the original line. I use 3.5 with my groups, but I give all players max HPs at first level. From then on you get what you roll with a wish of good luck.
I did give my group a happy surprise along the path by letting them use Constitution based Harrow points to reroll their HP rise at that point. Ultimately it should be a DM call based upon what balances your system of play/challenge the best.
-Rose
I've been giving chars max hp at levels 1 and 2 for years. This combined with the classic hd is still my standard. 'No problems in 27 years of playing.
I'm torn. The gamer in me wants "adventurers" to be able to take on the horrors that lurk and possibly survive. The simulationist in me wants the average donkey-pulling, wood chopping commoner to be more dangerous in melee than the average aprentice wizard without spells.
I currently use a "Con Mod Reroll Buffer" house rule. If your HD roll is equal or below your Con Mod, reroll. This does mean wizards with con of 16+ get auto-max D4s, but for me the goal of the house rule was insuring the 16+ con was not mathematically capable of ending up with less HP on level up than the con 12 wizard.
Granted, this system is across the board, which means monsters get it. Which means most monsters that have con of 24 or higher often have max hp. Which often helps rebalance challenges against powerful PCs due to splatbooks.
Still, the version posted on page 1 intrigues me, and would serve the same purpose.
Oh, tangent comment: Regarding sneak attack, I have toyed with allowing the Dodge feat to also cause the foe designated via the feat to be denied the ability to make sneak attacks based on flanking (and only those based on flanking). Not sure, but it definitely revalues a crappy feat.
Oh, tangent comment: Regarding sneak attack, I have toyed with allowing the Dodge feat to also cause the foe designated via the feat to be denied the ability to make sneak attacks based on flanking (and only those based on flanking). Not sure, but it definitely revalues a crappy feat.
I'm not so sure it's a crappy feat. It leads to some powerful feats ... as one of my players uses his movement, sneak attack, spring attack movement combined with hiding in plain sight to go back into the shadows. Remember that Dodge bonuses stack as well ... I don't dare give him an ability to avoid other flanking specialists ... at least not until he naturally gains Improved Uncanny Dodge.
I'm not so sure it's a crappy feat. It leads to some powerful feats ... as one of my players uses his movement, sneak attack, spring attack movement combined with hiding in plain sight to go back into the shadows. Remember that Dodge bonuses stack as well ... I don't dare give him an ability to avoid other flanking specialists ... at least not until he naturally gains Improved Uncanny Dodge.
No offense, that's a very weak argument.
You can argue that it's "OK" that Dodge is weak because it's follow-on Feats are great, but saying it's NOT weak because of the follow on Feats is not dealing with the issue. If there's a Feat "You wink in a unusual manner. No game-mechanical effect", it does not suddenly become a great feat because it leads to another Feat that allows you to insta-kill anything you look at, no save, no limit on creatures/round. The original Wink Feat is not a great Feat because it leads to something, it is a crappy Feat that leads to a great Feat. Whether or not we have crappy Feats leading to great ones, or aim for all Feats (of similar pre-Reqs) be in the same "ball-park" is a valid question, but obfuscating that distinction doesn't really lead anywhere productive, as far as I can tell.About the proposed change to Dodge, though I do appreciate the flavor/outcome in a certain way (and agree Dodge is somewhat underpowered in Beta), I don't think giving Dodge an extra usage that only applies to Sneak Attack is the way to go... If I wanted to implement a similar feature, I might consider increasing the AC bonus FOR ALL PRECISION BASED DAMAGE, i.e. Critical Confirmation as well as Sneak Attack. If a flanking Rogue hits your 'normal' AC but not the "Crit Dodging AC", they would apply normal weapon damage, but not Sneak Attack damage. I just feel that turning it into an anti-Rogue Feat is not the way to go - Broadening it against Precision Damage, but not outright negating Sneak Attack seems like a better approach. No other Tier 1 (zero pre-Req) Feat outright negates core Class Features.
To the original topic, I'm also in the camp that the HD changes were not really needed, at least to the degree we see in Beta (I'd be OK with Sorcerors getting d6, distinguishing them from the more booking Wizards who gain Spell Levels earlier) Unfortunately, I'm not that optimistic that this will be seeing any changes in the final. An easy house-rule to implement, though... /shrug