Were the beta rules for starting HP rolled-back to the 3.5 version? I've canvassed the index, chapters 1,2,3 & 12, and I can't find anything pertaining to what a character's starting HP at first level should be.
I would have sworn that I saw a thread about this on here earlier, but with the search function disabled I've not been able to locate it.
I think there was no real common consensus on which way worked best and the designers decided that any variation from 3.5 would best be left for GMs to houserule as they saw fit.
I think there was no real common consensus on which way worked best and the designers decided that any variation from 3.5 would best be left for GMs to houserule as they saw fit.
But this was one of the biggest problems with starting out.
Your mages still die to a strong breeze.And a 'warrior' will be smashed by one good roll.
This is even if they plan well.
This one of the things I was most looking forward to however there is nothing on it which is a little disappointing.
If nothing else I would like to know there thoughts on starting hit points.
Agreed. At least they kept the part where you don't die until you reach minus your Con.
I'm not finding any starting hit point rules either. The sidebar that was in beta doesn't seem to be in the final product. I'm inferring you get a HD(rolled) plus your CON bonus, but I've not found anything explicit (from p30 Advancing Your Character and p15 Constitution). Depending on your favored class (p31) and your choice, you might get another hit point as well.
ok then, my First House Rule: starting racial hit points
Thanks for the pointer to that section.
As a nit-pick, I would have repeated those rules in the Generating a Character Section (p14-15) or somewhere in the Classes chapter.
Stardust, thanks for the tip there. The glossary is about the last place I'd have thought to look for something like that. I agree with mikem91 that it needs to be in a location that actually pertains to character generation.
|
Another question I have is the ability increase. In Alpha it mentioned +1 to two stats at the indicated levels. In beta there was no mention as to what the ability increase is (just +1 to one stat or two or what). And now with the final product that is also not included that I have seen.
Anyone have any thoughts on this or maybe found the rule where I didn't?
Probably another idea floated to see how it would go over then shot down as deviating too far from backwards compatibility.
|
The process of advancing a character works in much the same way as generating a character, except that your ability scores, race, and previous choices concerning class, skills, and feats cannot be changed. Adding a level generally gives you new abilities, additional skill points to spend, more hit points, and possibly an ability score increase or additional feat (see Table 3-1).
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game pg 30.
Not sure if this is what you were looking for.
Small problem for me, as my method wasn't one of the choices, anyway.
I don't like standard, because that way, it still makes a difference which class you start with, which is something I don't like. Fighter10/Rogue10 should have one way to determine HD, and not two depending on which class came first.
I don't like Racial, because I feel that the races that get more HP from that are already on the strong side.
So what I do is this: You get normal HP for 1st level, but you also gain an extra virtual humanoid HD. Virtual here means you only get the HP (1d8 + con), nothing else (like level or saves or anything). Maybe I'll change the +con part.
This also works with my fixed HP rule, which gives rounded-up average instead of rolling.
Here is my problem with hit points starting as just maxed.
If the party encounters anything that is wielding something that is remotely more leathal than a soggy loaf of bread they have to start think is it worth going into this combat.
And that doesn't fit the flavour of new adventures there all young dumb and full of bravdo.
They rush into situations, they have a lack of thought in regards to what could happen.
After they discover that things could have turned very south for them very quickly.
But that is the flavour side.
Here is the crunchy munchy side.
Orc.
Standered bad guy.
If you have bought any of the models you know s/he come in a varity of flavours and anyone outside the game goes ok you fought some orcs cool there the ugly strong things right?
Battle Axe and Plus two strength bonus.
Not talking about the whole X3 critical which spells doom to a PC.
Just the 1D12+2 for damage.
Fighter with a con bonus of two.
12.
The orc on a hit must roll ten or above to one hit the [u]fighter[/u]
I know you could say that you should have them fighting kobolds or goblins and all of that but look at the CR of an orc.
1/2.
This is why I was so intersted in the rules presented in the beta.
Were fantastic.
A good friend of mine refuses to play first level games as a game master.
The reason he tells me is because the PC are so squishy that anything that is weild something more leathal than soggy loaf of bread the party must seriously consider if there going to take it on.
Yes I stole his comment.
But he is right.
However the new rules that were presented in beta were fantastic.
I tried using just Constitution plus hit dice as one of the first ideas.
No not con bonus just con.
They were unstopable machines of death that neather man nor beast could harm.
I dropped that.
However then another of the ideas was racial.
Dwarves and Half orcs are big and strong and are used to taking a wooping so they get title stout (or something I can't rememeber of the top of my head)
Human and Half Elves not as used to it but they can take one they were given the title sturdy (or somehting else)
Elves, Gnomes and Halfings given the title frail.
What this did mechanicly was this
Stout +8 to starting hit points.
Steady +6
Frail +4
We have been using it ever since.
I know people say oh just house rule it.
Which I am.
But perhaps they are missing my point.
Why did you guys step away from it?
It makes sense to me full of flavour general and you can play an elven mage with a minus to con and your not going to be picked up by a strong breeze and killed by that.
Sure your not going to be looking for combat but seven is alot more than three.
Anyway I would be great if there was some big Q and A which answer all of this nit picky questions.
|
|
Another question I have is the ability increase. In Alpha it mentioned +1 to two stats at the indicated levels. In beta there was no mention as to what the ability increase is (just +1 to one stat or two or what). And now with the final product that is also not included that I have seen.
Anyone have any thoughts on this or maybe found the rule where I didn't?
It is on the table on page 30 Table 3-1 Looks like +1 only.
Yeah, this was very disappointing. There was a lot of interesting character creation stuff that just vanished from the beta to the full release. But mostly, I ONCE AGAIN feel cheated and let down by a product I looked forward to for ages.
Man, I hate being a gamer anymore. I haven't gotten a product that wasn't chock-full-o-blunders since D&D 2nd Edition Revised.
So, in this thread, we have discovered that there ARE NO RULES LISTED IN THE BOOKS that state how to determine starting hit points or ability score increases (unless you count an offhand remark in the glossary that only makes sense to seasoned gamers). So if this book were purchased by a first time player, they would, literally, have no reference for this information.
Wow.
And it's not like it's an understandable oversight. The rules were in the beta version. So what happened?
So, since some of us paid good money for a product and received only part of it, could someone who helped write and develop this system please post here and tell us what the rules are? We can figure it out, but that's really not the point.
First the evil empire gives us 4th Ed. and now this. I give up.
So if this book were purchased by a first time player, they would, literally, have no reference for this information.
While your post may be a bit overdramatic, your sentiment in the part I quoted is quite correct. Over the last year or so I have seen numerous posts by brand new players who are quite unfamiliar with 3x and 4e D&D, they try to figure out the Pathfinder rules and are stymied by HP, BAB, saves, etc.
Many of the basic concepts, the building blocks upon which all other game mechanics are constructed, are just not explained anywhere. Sure, there may be a definition here and there, but there isn't a clear and explicit mechanical explanation of how to derive these values and get them onto your character sheet and put them to use.
I ascribe it to a set of rules written by mechanical experts, every one of whom could recite all the missing "building block" rules in their sleep with one hand tied behind their back. They know the rules so well, so fundamentally, that they never noticed the lack of such basic information.
It's really easy to do.
To put it another way: If Pathfinder came with a blurb "D&D 3.5 Players Handbook required for play" then we wouldn't need any of these rules in the Pathfinder book. Players would get that info from the PHB and assume the Pathfinder rules are built upon those "building block" game concepts.
And they would be absolutely correct.
However, no such blurb exists, nor (I believe) was one intended, which means the Core rulebook really needs all this stuff included.
A tragic oversight that limits, or at least complicates, access by new players.
I hope it gets addressed very soon, and maybe even a new version of the Core rules (not 2.0, but 1.0 Revised) would definitely be in order.
I agree with DM_Blake; and even an experienced player will sometimes have to look up a definition. Having to track it down in the 3.5 core books when it should have been in the PF core books is a bit annoying (like burrow; nothing in PF explains what it is).
Part of it may be the condensing of two books with 320 pages each into one book with 570 pages. The extra 70 pages did have to include some information, after all.
It may be exactly what DM_Blake indicates though; being too familiar with a system can easily blind you to what is necessary for someone who is not equally familiar with the system. I know that from personal experience.
The system is still awesome though :)
While your post may be a bit overdramatic
I don't deny it. It was over-dramatic. It's just that this keeps happening to pen-and-paper RPGs and I'm getting really fed up.
Did you see what White Wolf did to BESM? Have you perused the 4th Edition core books? You have to buy three of them just to play the CORE CLASSES from 3rd Edition. And then there's Guardians of Order, the most brilliant and innovative RPG publisher since TSR's golden age, going out of business.
Anyway, after switching my campaign setting over to Pathfinder Beta as soon as I discovered it, it was very disappointing to find another sub-standard product in my hands on release day.
Here is the crunchy munchy side.Orc.
Standered bad guy.
If you have bought any of the models you know s/he come in a varity of flavours and anyone outside the game goes ok you fought some orcs cool there the ugly strong things right?
Battle Axe and Plus two strength bonus.
Not talking about the whole X3 critical which spells doom to a PC.
Just the 1D12+2 for damage.
Fighter with a con bonus of two.
12.The orc on a hit must roll ten or above to one hit the [u]fighter[/u]
I know you could say that you should have them fighting kobolds or goblins and all of that but look at the CR of an orc.
1/2.
That's some bad crunchyness. A 1st level fighter with a standard array should have at least a scale mail (+5 AC), above average dex (+1 AC), and a heavy shield against dangerous opponents (+2 AC). He should have 12-13 hit points if offensively built and 15-16 hit points if built as a tank.
An orc wielding a battleaxe normally has +4 attack bonus, but call it a rebuilt orc with WF (Battleaxe) instead of (falchion). If wielded two-handedly, in melee it'll do 1d8+4 damage (average 8,5). He'll require a 13 to hit, thereby dealing an average of 1.7 damage per turn. Of course, he can have a lucky roll, but there's still no risk of sinking the fighter on the first hit unless he makes a critical hit. Even if he makes a critical, 3d8+12 is an average damage of 25,5 and while that puts the fighter down it isn't enough to kill him outright.
Meanwhile, the fighter has an attack bonus of +3 (str) +1 (bab) +1 (WF) = +5, and deals maybe 1d8+3 or something like that. It deals an average of 4.5 damage per turn against the orc's 13 AC, thereby nearly sinking an orc per turn (and most certainly by two turns).
I agree that PC's can be a little to vulnerable against some enemies at low levels, just wanted to point out that the crunch isn't as bad as you made it sound.
--------
I'm basically giving a bonus equal to Constitution score, but I've got a somewhat more advanced system.
I give them the constitution score as "life points", which are different from hit points. In my games, hit points represent tiredness, minor bruises, and just pure luck - it's an abstract way of saying "you didn't get seriously wounded". When you're out of them, you get seriously wounded if you take damage to your life points. It's less abstract, since life points don't increase, so you can say that a broken rib is always a 2 point life point loss, while a broken hip is a 3 or 4 point.
And, when you've taken damage to your life points, your considered disabled.
If you want a simplified version of this, you could simply alter the base rules by this:
- All creatures gain their Con scores as bonus hit points.
- When your hit points are less than your Con score, you are disabled.
While your post may be a bit overdramaticI don't deny it. It was over-dramatic. It's just that this keeps happening to pen-and-paper RPGs and I'm getting really fed up.
Did you see what White Wolf did to BESM? Have you perused the 4th Edition core books? You have to buy three of them just to play the CORE CLASSES from 3rd Edition. And then there's Guardians of Order, the most brilliant and innovative RPG publisher since TSR's golden age, going out of business.
Anyway, after switching my campaign setting over to Pathfinder Beta as soon as I discovered it, it was very disappointing to find another sub-standard product in my hands on release day.
...
This makes me wonder if gamers are too spoon fed these days.
|
|
Here is the crunchy munchy side.Orc.
Standered bad guy.
If you have bought any of the models you know s/he come in a varity of flavours and anyone outside the game goes ok you fought some orcs cool there the ugly strong things right?
Battle Axe and Plus two strength bonus.
Not talking about the whole X3 critical which spells doom to a PC.
Just the 1D12+2 for damage.
Fighter with a con bonus of two.
12.The orc on a hit must roll ten or above to one hit the [u]fighter[/u]
I know you could say that you should have them fighting kobolds or goblins and all of that but look at the CR of an orc.
1/2.
That's some bad crunchyness. A 1st level fighter with a standard array should have at least a scale mail (+5 AC), above average dex (+1 AC), and a heavy shield against dangerous opponents (+2 AC). He should have 12-13 hit points if offensively built and 15-16 hit points if built as a tank.
An orc wielding a battleaxe normally has +4 attack bonus, but call it a rebuilt orc with WF (Battleaxe) instead of (falchion). If wielded two-handedly, in melee it'll do 1d8+4 damage (average 8,5). He'll require a 13 to hit, thereby dealing an average of 1.7 damage per turn. Of course, he can have a lucky roll, but there's still no risk of sinking the fighter on the first hit unless he makes a critical hit. Even if he makes a critical, 3d8+12 is an average damage of 25,5 and while that puts the fighter down it isn't enough to kill him outright.
Meanwhile, the fighter has an attack bonus of +3 (str) +1 (bab) +1 (WF) = +5, and deals maybe 1d8+3 or something like that. It deals an average of 4.5 damage per turn against the orc's 13 AC, thereby nearly sinking an orc per turn (and most certainly by two turns).
I agree that PC's can be a little to vulnerable against some enemies at low levels, just wanted to point out that the crunch isn't as bad as you made it sound.
--------
I'm basically giving a bonus equal to Constitution score, but I've got a somewhat more advanced...
The other thing is that CR's are built for a party of 4. So (1) orc would have a CR of 1/2 against a party of 4.
So a single 1st level fighter has, by himself, an APL of 1/2 (APL of 1 -1 for less then 3 characters). So, from the view of that single fighter, that fight should be average to challenging.
People have a tenancy to try to balance off of 1 and 1 fights, but if you do that, you need to adjust the APL and CR to match.
|
|
Yeah, this was very disappointing. There was a lot of interesting character creation stuff that just vanished from the beta to the full release. But mostly, I ONCE AGAIN feel cheated and let down by a product I looked forward to for ages.
Man, I hate being a gamer anymore. I haven't gotten a product that wasn't chock-full-o-blunders since D&D 2nd Edition Revised.
So, in this thread, we have discovered that there ARE NO RULES LISTED IN THE BOOKS that state how to determine starting hit points or ability score increases (unless you count an offhand remark in the glossary that only makes sense to seasoned gamers). So if this book were purchased by a first time player, they would, literally, have no reference for this information.
Wow.
And it's not like it's an understandable oversight. The rules were in the beta version. So what happened?
So, since some of us paid good money for a product and received only part of it, could someone who helped write and develop this system please post here and tell us what the rules are? We can figure it out, but that's really not the point.
First the evil empire gives us 4th Ed. and now this. I give up.
I have yet to have a good DM who does not take the time to read through as much of the book as they can (especially the Glossary and status effects and such) before they run their game. That plus the fact that part of the DM's job is to train new players on how to play....
The current game that I am in has 2 players who have not played D&D since 2nd edition and yet they had no problems creating their own characters without help using the core book.
So, in this thread, we have discovered that there ARE NO RULES LISTED IN THE BOOKS that state how to determine starting hit points or ability score increases (unless you count an offhand remark in the glossary that only makes sense to seasoned gamers). So if this book were purchased by a first time player, they would, literally, have no reference for this information.
Hit points and starting hit points are covered on page 12 of the CRB. It states that you get max hit points for your Hit Die if your first Hit Die is in a PC Class. Your starting Hit Die are rolled for Racial HD or an NPC Class.
On page 30, while explaining character advancement, the book indicates that as a character gains levels it acquires feats and ability score increases, at which point it directs the reader to the table on the same page. Ability score increases happen on every level divisible by 4.
I will admit that they were unclear anywhere in the book as to how much of an increase is appropriate at those levels. Nowhere does it state that it is a +1 increase to an ability score of your choice (except in the description for animal companions, but that's not a great place for it). Beyond that, though, the information is there.
+1 Dirlaise
You can find 99% of what you all were asking, if you just read through the getting started chapter and referencing the index at the same time.
As for the Ability Score bump, I found it on page 450, under creating NPCs, it states every four levels you gain a +1 to one ability score. I must admit, that is a pretty bad place for it to be mentioned, but it is mentioned.
Read the book.
No, seriously, READ the book.
I know its big, its alot, its over 500 pages. Some sections you might want to read over more than once.
But really, read the book.
|
|
Read the book.
No, seriously, READ the book.
I know its big, its alot, its over 500 pages. Some sections you might want to read over more than once.
But really, read the book.
Yup.
While I do agree that some things are semi-mis-placed, all the information is still there somewhere. It's hard to re-see this all from a new players prospective: I can almost recite any given chapter's contents on command (3/day and all that, of course :P); however, I'm sure that our PFRPG Initiates will get the hang of it after a bit of study :)
While your post may be a bit overdramatic, your sentiment in the part I quoted is quite correct. Over the last year or so I have seen numerous posts by brand new players who are quite unfamiliar with 3x and 4e D&D, they try to figure out the Pathfinder rules and are stymied by HP, BAB, saves, etc.So if this book were purchased by a first time player, they would, literally, have no reference for this information.
On page 11 is a list of Common Terms that includes HP (including starting hit points, BAB, saving throws, and a lot more). The character creation rules don't point to this page, but it is right in the front in Chapter 1.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I agree with Lyrax. Every edition, from 2nd to 3rd to 3.5, and especially to Pathfinder, has removed 1st-Level PCs further and further from the standard pool of humanity, often under the mantra "they're the heroes; they're supposed to be set apart".
Well, Frodo and Samwise were the heroes, too, and they didn't have more skill ranks, greater attributes, more hit points, and kewler gear than their hobbit peers. Taran, the hero of the Pryddain Chronicles, is an assistant pig-keeper.
My response has been steady: "if you don't want your wizard to start with 1d4 hit points, then go ahead and begin the campaign at a higher level."
--+--+--
On the subject of "all the material is in the books, somewhere," I think the defenders aren't appreciating the frustration of being unable to find a critical rule, running a live game, let alone trying to find a series of tucked-away rules.
I've been lucky: I've got a solid 3.5 rules background, and I learned to run Pathfinder through a lot of play-by-post GMing, which allowed me to read through the Core Rulebook over and over again, and use the "search" features of the online srd's.
This is a record of my experiences with that, trying to learn GURPS 4th Edition. Some of the comments, especially the guy who insisted that "everything's in there, somewhere" were enough to get me to put my GURPS books back on the shelf. I've never felt the urge to revisit that system.
Regarding increasing ability scores at every level divisible by 4, it's right there on page 30 (of the most recent printing, at least). It reads,
Adding a level generally gives you new abilities, additional skill points to spend, more hit points, possibly a permanent +1 increase to one ability score of your choice, or an additional feat (see Table 3-1)
Table 3-1, on the same page, clearly shows that ability scores are increased every 4 levels.