The .pdf states:
To determine a creature’s hit points, roll the dice indicated
by its Hit Dice. A creature gains maximum hit points if its
first Hit Die roll is for a character class level. Creatures
whose first Hit Die comes from an NPC class or from his
race roll their first Hit Die normally.
Does that mean that at 1st level only we are EXPECTED to get full HP and not roll? Or, does it mean that PCs get full HP at every level and don't have to roll for HP at every level up?
erian_7's super awesome .xls Character Sheet seems to suggest the latter (as it automatically grants you full HP per Hit Die based on your levels. I'm just trying to see if that interpretation is correct.
|
Why changes to character hit points from 3.5?
I just got the Pathfinder RPG book and was reviewing many of the changes, most of which are awesome, really working out some glitches for me. Why changes to the hit dice of certain starting characters? Rogues went from d6 to d8. Monks went from d6 to d8. Sorcerers and wizards went from d4 to d6. Was that necessary? I understand characters should be balanced so anyone may wish to play any character (instead of avoiding one or two for being too weak) and keeping other characters from being over powered, especially at low levels. However, the concept for years, has been that the focus of those characters were in other areas (spells or stealth) and less on melee accounting for lower hit points and necessitating the need for parties to work together at all levels for all to survive. (One of the downfalls of 4th Edition is that all characters are so well balanced as to be equal in every way and eliminating the need for a balanced party). Could you just as easily run the game with dice as per 3.5? Considering of course starting out at max points at first level and at least an average of the dice at every other level? I have a hard time with a scholar/bookworm magic user starting out with potentially 6 hitpoints, plus up to 4 hit points for Constitution for a total of 10 hitpoints, the same as a strong athletic fighter who has spent years in the training field, working out, and training with weapons to have the hardiness and reflexes that make for a high hit point total.
Thoughts? Am I missing something here?
Daarnsk
Why changes to character hit points from 3.5?
Less risk of a one-hit PC death at 1st level. HP and HD are incredibly gamist anyway -- they don't represent anything specific -- so it shouldn't strain belief to give PCs a few more. If you don't like it you could always nerf 'em back down to the way they were.
What I'm amazed at is that PF still has HD at all, rather than hp per level. I guess it's that whole backwards compatibility push, but still.
4 hit points for constitution? Sheesh, that's one hell of a tough mage, and I'd say he'd earned those hps. Even fighters rarely have a constitution score that high at 1st lvl.
For example, my fighter had 17hp for 1st lvl(10+3 Toughness+3 Con +
1 Favored class)
Why changes to character hit points from 3.5?
I just got the Pathfinder RPG book and was reviewing many of the changes, most of which are awesome, really working out some glitches for me. Why changes to the hit dice of certain starting characters? Rogues went from d6 to d8. Monks went from d6 to d8. Sorcerers and wizards went from d4 to d6. Was that necessary? I understand characters should be balanced so anyone may wish to play any character (instead of avoiding one or two for being too weak) and keeping other characters from being over powered, especially at low levels. However, the concept for years, has been that the focus of those characters were in other areas (spells or stealth) and less on melee accounting for lower hit points and necessitating the need for parties to work together at all levels for all to survive. (One of the downfalls of 4th Edition is that all characters are so well balanced as to be equal in every way and eliminating the need for a balanced party). Could you just as easily run the game with dice as per 3.5? Considering of course starting out at max points at first level and at least an average of the dice at every other level? I have a hard time with a scholar/bookworm magic user starting out with potentially 6 hitpoints, plus up to 4 hit points for Constitution for a total of 10 hitpoints, the same as a strong athletic fighter who has spent years in the training field, working out, and training with weapons to have the hardiness and reflexes that make for a high hit point total.
Thoughts? Am I missing something here?
Daarnsk
The tough fighter still has more HP, and that difference scales over time. The change was made because 4hp is not enough at 1st level. You could very easily die from a single hit, this does not make for a fun game, and it means that a dm had to strongly consider ever trying to hit the first level wizard because it could very well kill him. This has been alieviated somewhat. As for the d8, that is pretty simple. Rogues and monks are supposed to be in combat. They need to be up in the thick of things. A d6 is not adequate for that especially at low levels. In terms of running it at 3.5 hp, I wouldnt recommend that, as there are many other factors that were balanced against that HD increase. The idea is to bring the classes closer together in terms of power, hp is a generic part of every class that always varied far to much for game balance's sake.
And as far as a book worm being as tough as a fighter type, consider the fact that the bookworm wizard is still the hero of a story. Think of how many tough shots or scrapes or near misses the hero of a typical fantasy novel, or movie takes. Its usually quite a bit, whether or not he is the big tough guy, or a tiny weakling. In addition, remember hit points dont only represent injury. In fact actual physical injury doesnt really happen in game terms untill your last few hitpoints. The rest represents being worn down either physically or mentally.
Why changes to character hit points from 3.5?
I just got the Pathfinder RPG book and was reviewing many of the changes, most of which are awesome, really working out some glitches for me. Why changes to the hit dice of certain starting characters? Rogues went from d6 to d8. Monks went from d6 to d8. Sorcerers and wizards went from d4 to d6. Was that necessary? I understand characters should be balanced so anyone may wish to play any character (instead of avoiding one or two for being too weak) and keeping other characters from being over powered, especially at low levels. However, the concept for years, has been that the focus of those characters were in other areas (spells or stealth) and less on melee accounting for lower hit points and necessitating the need for parties to work together at all levels for all to survive.
No matter how much a wizard or rogue tries to stay out of of the line of fire, they're going to be attacked. Having an average of 1 HP more per level simply allows them a slightly better chance to survive when enemy archers single out the mage or he gets caught in a fireball (monsters have spells too). I think it was a good change. Besides, a wizard will still have far fewer HP on average than a fighter. He'll also typically have a much lower AC and his attack bonus is crap. The small increase in HP is not going to encourage wizards to get into the thick of things.
(One of the downfalls of 4th Edition is that all characters are so well balanced as to be equal in every way and eliminating the need for a balanced party). Could you just as easily run the game with dice as per 3.5? Considering of course starting out at max points at first level and at least an average of the dice at every other level? I have a hard time with a scholar/bookworm magic user starting out with potentially 6 hitpoints, plus up to 4 hit points for Constitution for a total of 10 hitpoints, the same as a strong athletic fighter who has spent years in the training field, working out, and training with weapons to have the hardiness and reflexes that make for a high hit point total.
Thoughts? Am I missing something here?
Daarnsk
The rule for having max HP at 1st level was also in 3.5. It's nothing new. And a Wizard with +4 HP from Con is one hell of a tough wizard, certainly not the norm. A fighter with the same Con would have 14 HP, so I don't see the issue here. If someone has 18 Con, then they obviously have spent years working out to become that healthy and resilient. Nothing says that a wizard has to be a frail librarian.
|
Seconding this.
If you are a plate-wearing fighter, most of the attacks that 'miss' you actually hit, they just bounce off your armor without doing anything to you.
Likewise, if you have a hundred+ hit points, and you get 'hit' with a crossbow bolt for 20 damage, you didn't actually get 'hit', you 'dodged at the very last second', and you don't know how many more of those close calls you can avoid before you get one through your throat.
so actually most 'misses' are actually 'hits that don't hurt you' and most 'hits' are 'misses that almost hit you'. Confusing, ain't it?
Think of it this way: a 'miss' is an attack that you know wont hurt you, so you can let it glance off your shield or armor. A 'hit' is something that will kill you if you don't dodge it, so you spend a lot of effort, twisting and turning, to get out off the way or turn it into just a scratch, and there's a limit to how much you can do that before you're just too tired.
erian_7's super awesome .xls Character Sheet seems to suggest the latter (as it automatically grants you full HP per Hit Die based on your levels. I'm just trying to see if that interpretation is correct.
Just a note--my character sheet allows you the option of max HP at every level, but you can also set it as follows:
1: Max HP at 1st lvl, 1/2 +1 thereafter
2: Max HP at 1st & 2nd lvl, 75% thereafter
3: Max HP at all levels
4: Custom/Rolled (enter per level)
This is on the Character Options tab, in the HP Option field.
Why changes to the hit dice of certain starting characters?
For standardisation (weak/medium/strong), and for most of these classes, I think it was necessary, or at least very welcome.
I understand characters should be balanced
Do you think those changes makes arcanists, bards, rogues and rangers too strong?
However, the concept for years, has been that the focus of those characters were in other areas (spells or stealth) and less on melee accounting for lower hit points and necessitating the need for parties to work together at all levels for all to survive.
I never got the rogue HP, compared to clerics. They are more physically fit, they focus completely on physical abilities, while clerics kneel around begging for divine magic.
And you still need to work together to achieve their goals. You can give wizards a d20 for HP and they're still lost without the rest of the party.
Could you just as easily run the game with dice as per 3.5? Considering of course starting out at max points at first level and at least an average of the dice at every other level?
Standard is rull HP at 1st level, roll for everything else. If you want to use something else, like use average, use 3/4, reroll 1s, use full every level, roll twice and take the better, let players hit a dart board for HP, and so on, it still works.
I have a hard time with a scholar/bookworm magic user starting out with potentially 6 hitpoints, plus up to 4 hit points for Constitution for a total of 10 hitpoints
First of all: If you have con 18 as an arcanist, you deserve tons of HP. I mean, unless you have rolled really great ability scores or have a very high budget purchase system, your Int/Cha score (whatever you need for spellcasting) will suffer from it. So you can withstand lots of punishment? Wohoo. Your colleagues just blast enemies to cinders before they can do something, or use one of their many, many spells to protect themselves.
Second: Your hyperbole is pitiful. It's 6 HP from the d6, plus 5 from con (18 base +2 from being a dwarf, gnome, human, half-elf or half-orc), plus 3 from Toughness, for a total of 14.
the same as a strong athletic fighter who has spent years in the training field, working out, and training with weapons to have the hardiness and reflexes that make for a high hit point total.
Why is that strong, athletic fighter, who spend years pushing rocks up a hill, and so on, so frail? I mean, I'd have guessed he'd have more than Con 11, so he'd get bonus HP for high con, too.
I'd say melee fighters usually have a minimum of Con 14, giving them 12 HP to start with - and that's something they'd use anyway. So they can see your 10 and raise. And still be typical, powerful fighters.
|
|
"Do you think those changes makes arcanists, bards, rogues and rangers too strong?"
No, I just feel their strength lies in other areas. Magic Users, in AD&D were focused entirely on their magic spells, giving everything in life, including physical agility for the power that one day (at 11th level and above, say, would make them the strongest members of the group. Who could argue the 18th level arch-mage could take any other class, if he could set the environment to his liking? Being weak at 1st level, made his spells most useful, when called upon while regulating him to stand behind the tanks in fights. (Pretty realistic, I think). And a good GM should write the story so every character has a moment to shine no matter what his/her talents/powers are.
I do understand the need for balance, especially at high levels, when all should be strong, but the party compliments each other. The spells of the mage and cleric augment the others when the need exists, the way the rogues trap-defeating abilities circumvent possible deaths for the rest of the party. A balanced party with each member excelling in his/her chosen area (and surely spending years focusing on just those items) beats out a party of balanced individuals, anyday.
Which is exactly what happened in 4th edition. Not only is it an unrealistic "video game" on table-top format, but all the characters are the same. It is metagamed, so even if powers are called different things, they are the same. A first level wizard can stand nearly toe-to-toe with a first level fighter, with ease.
Plus, 4th edition gives an unreal amount of hit points to characters and monsters at first level. Some feel this adds survivability to characters, but since the monsters get the same, it just makes 1st level battles take the same time high level battles take in 3.5 or any other edition and makes the whole concept unweildy and video-game like.
I do agree with max hit points at 1st level, and tend to use an average at every other level, as well as a liberal point buy system for abilities, etc. Dice rolling should be for encounters, all characters should have an even chance at the start of the game, in their chosen vocations, and it should all take a back-seat to role-playing. With good role-players, it is possible to role-play nearly any encounter with characters of any power, and never worry about game mechanics or lining up feats to have the toughest character or whatever. All that numbers stuff can really take from the game, if you let it.
"I never got the rogue HP, compared to clerics. They are more physically fit, they focus completely on physical abilities, while clerics kneel around begging for divine magic."
Not so, Kaeyoss. The clerics of D&D are not the weak temple priests, but more knights of their own accord, trained in battle. These battle clerics train in the wear of armor and use of weapons, perhaps giving up divine power (who knows?) for survivability in places their temple brethren dare never tread. While not as proficient as fighter-types or the knights they rode with, they surely had more hit points than skill-based characters (practicing picking locks and pockets in secret lairs) or arcanists (who spend countless years in dark towers studying musty tomes.
My games do tend to rely more on realism than perhaps the games of others. So perhaps my view is skewed. My world tends to be low in quanity of magic while high in value and magic is a strong ally for those few who possess it and must sacrifice much to have it.
I never got the rogue HP, compared to clerics. They are more physically fit, they focus completely on physical abilities, while clerics kneel around begging for divine magic.
But game clerics aren't cloistered prayer-mouthers. They are their deity's muscle in the game world. Warrior-priests.
EDIT : ninjaed by Daarnsk
But game clerics aren't cloistered prayer-mouthers. They are their deity's muscle in the game world. Warrior-priests.+1
Who (in 3.p) don't get their 1st level Character Level feat (because it is spent on Heavy armour Proficiency.)
Why waste the first level feat on it? It's not like you're going to get heavy armor before level 3 in all likelihood anyways. Might as well start with something useful, like selective channeling, or toughness... maybe even improved initiative.
Though truth be told I'm tired of all the crying about the cleric losing heavy armor. I might shed a tear when he gains armor spell failure, goes down to a d6 hit dice, only has one good save, and loses the medium BAB.
Until then they can do most everything the wizard can do, only with better base stats (and can do the rest of what the wizard can do depending on their domain choices).
|
|
"Until then they can do most everything the wizard can do, only with better base stats (and can do the rest of what the wizard can do depending on their domain choices).
I have to disagree there. While fourth edition defines roles as "leader", "artillery", or "skirmisher" or whatever, that just confuses the issue.
There are only really four roles, "fighter", tank, "magic-user", offensive spells, combat buffs, and some support spells (knock), "thief", skill based support, and scouting/sneak, and "cleric", healing and support spells. Some classes or feat groups can form crossovers (ranger - fighter/thief, paladin - fighter/cleric, etc), which are best used in large parties, each group should have at least one of the four main roles. Those roles should remain separate so all roles depend on other roles to form a balanced party.
(4th Edition fighters can heal themselves, so no need for a healer, so cleric are not healers, so what is the point of having more than one class?)
The game was designed so a party of different individuals from different walks of life could come together and quest successfully, if role-played properly, which is what its all about anyway, right?
Daarnsk, I'm not saying they have to, I'm saying they can. They have blasting spells, protection spells, general use spells, etc all.
If the wizard can do it, the cleric can replicate it at similar level. In addition to that they also get healing magic (something wizard's don't get directly) and armor, 2 good saves, better hit dice and a better BAB.
The cleric isn't really different then the wizard... simply better.