I don't care for a lot of things about 4th edition D&D, but they did one thing that I absolutely love and will be implementing as a house rule for all the Pathfinder games that I run. At 1st level, your hitpoints in 4th ed aren't so low that an orc with a lucky hit can drop you in one swing. Everyone starts out with enough initial hitpoints to -survive-... even casters. My idea could work one of two ways...
One: You roll your starting hitpoints as normal and then tack on an additional -permanent- 20 hp.
Or
Two: You roll your hitpoints normally and then add on an additional 20 temporary hp that you essentially "grow out of" as you level and reach that level of hitpoints normally.
I hate playing 1st level characters... I absolutely abhor it. Think about this... when you level up from level 1 to 2, your hitpoints roughly -double- on average assuming an above average roll, or actually double if your DM allows 2nd level hp at max (Many do as I've seen). From 1st to 2nd level, your hp can double... at no other point will one level ever double your hp. What this says to me is that 1st level characters are -way- too fragile. So even your 1st level Barbarian with the 18 Con can take what... maybe 2-3 solid hits before he goes down from even CR baddies? Call me crazy, but I like the idea of surviving my first encounters to -reach- level 2. With the extra 20 hp, I'd be far more willing to play 1st level characters, personally.
What do the rest of you think?
|
I'm on my first character ever for Pathfinder in Society play, and while it was scary to have only 8 HP for those first few encounters, I didn't mind it so much. It reminded me of the fragility of life and makes me have to work all the more efficiently with my team, to ensure I don't get into the fray by myself.
As for the 20 HP, it seems a bit high for 1st level to me. 5-7 HP as a buffer, I could see as manageable and a little more fair to the GM. I'd feel too much would throw off all their charts, depending on how much he or she is going off the books. But that's merely conjecture as I've not GM'ed this system. Of course, this is posted in the homebrew forum, so take my thoughts as you will.
|
I've been pondering the effects of extending the staggered condition to more than 'at 0'. It would be similar to giving everyone the Diehard feat, allowing them to continue acting even after hitting zero, at the risk of killing themselves outright. It does not solve the problem of a stupendous crit putting someone straight to negative Con, but I like to have 1st level characters frail. If I want to avoid OHKO at the start of the campaign I start them at 2nd or 3rd level.
As for your rule, 20 does sound like too much. I would say +Con score (which I think is 4E's rule) because that rewards a high Con. Maybe too much since you already get the bonus HP per HD.
I used the Flat 6 method during the Beta (when my current campaign began). Basically, all PCs start with +6 hp.
It works really well, and is pretty minimally invasive.
|
|
I think Chris Mortika has a very simple suggestion. If you don’t like 1st level, start at 3rd level.
Dark Lord I happen to disagree with you. I don’t think first level characters are too fragile. I understand the frustration of loosing a first level character to a lucky shot, where the human bandit rolls a 20 and confirms the critical shot with his long bow, or that proverbial orc confirms a critical with a great axe.
But if you boost your hit points by 10 or 20 at first level, you remove something. You remove risk. And by removing risk, you have nothing to lose. I always have a feeling of accomplishment when I have gotten a character to 2nd and third level. If you boost the hit points, you aren’t accomplishing anything by getting to 2nd level, because you are removing the risk of losing your character.
Anyways those are my two cents for what they are worth. We can all play this game the way we choose.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I like to start at 2nd level with 0 xp (so, the PCs need a lot of xp to reach 3rd level). It gives the party a little more hp to work with and makes them able to adventure for a little while longer.
1st level is almost too weak. Far too many Paizo adventurers for 1st level characters have challenges that rely on the enemies being injured/incapacitated/stupid in order to not kill the PCs.
|
Back in 2ed days we allowed multiple HD rolls for hp. At 1st level, a PC got to roll three times and take the best. Then twice at 2nd level, and after that just once. This increased the average by 1 or 2 hp at most.
I can see giving a 1st level PC two HD at first level, then no HD increase at 2nd level as a house rule.
But I also agree that low hp make for a great incentive to learn teamwork with the rest of your party. The fighter and barbarian can shine by soaking up the hits that would've killed members of the other classes, which exactly what they do at higher levels.
My only issue with low hp at the early levels is that situational damage doesn't scale. Falling damage, environmental damage, acid damage, and so on. And in PF, bleeding damage can be downright lethal for a 1st level PC.
I like to start at 2nd level with 0 xp (so, the PCs need a lot of xp to reach 3rd level). It gives the party a little more hp to work with and makes them able to adventure for a little while longer.
I also like starting at level 2 because it allows people to play a multiclass character (like a AD&D-style fighter/magic-user) right from the get-go.
In my games we always started 1st level with maximum possible hit points then rolled after that when leveling.
I think I like playing 1st level more than 10th. I enjoy the challenge, when I can suddenly crush the monsters I lose interest.
Thanks for the responses! Yeah, I was thinking 20 extra points may be too much (maybe 10 instead?) but it seems like in 4th edition everyone starts with at least 30 hit points. Is this a flaw in 4th ed? If it's not a flaw, why couldn't it work for Pathfinder?
I do like the idea of starting with 2nd or 3rd level hit points and just not gaining any new hp until 3rd or 4th level.
|
(One note: You are SUPPOSED to max first level HD. Those who aren't are house-ruling.)
I have to agree that I really don't think there's a problem with first level HP, you'd supposed to suck. Adventurers at first level are all potential, no skill. Most die there. That's just how it goes. As a GM it's your job to either find a way to make this introductory period fun, or skip to a level you find more fun.
No matter what level you are there is a *chance* of instant unforgiving death. Even at 20th when you have 248 HP you can be crit by that scythe wielding fighter that has 34 strength and is power attacking for 10d4 + 245* or more damage and drop instantly. Even without the critical, a full attack from that guy will still drop most characters. It happens, and it happens to remind players that they are still mortal; Especially when faced with an equally or more powerful opponent.
Surviving situations that make you piss yourself is what makes the game fun. At low levels you can't get resurrected after that one lucky strike, but that just makes survival that much more awesome. Truthfully it really isn't that hard to survive if you act as a team and use a little ingenuity.
If my players were really having trouble early on I might go with Dork Lord's second suggestion (right above this post) and just let them have 2nd level HP and not give them more HP for 2nd level, but this would be a last resort IMO and would not have considered it unless suggested to me.
* 20th level fighter gets a boost in critical multiplier for x5. The immense strength is based on the assumption that they likely have a +1-2 CR from some template to make them a challenge for a 20th level party, but is possible without that. The scythe damage would be +5 (enhancement) + 4 (weapon training) + 18 (strength * 1.5) + 18 (power attack) + 4(weapon specialization). This is 2d4 + 49 damage, which after an x5 crit becomes 10d4 + 245. It gets worse if the fighter had all the burst properties for another 4d10 + 1d6 of each of three elements (58 average after crit). That's a damage range of 270 - 423.
|
|
The Pathfinder Beta had some good alternative 1st level rules:
1: Racial Bonus (+8 Hp for Half-Orc and Dwarf, +6 for Human, Half-Elf and Gnome, +4 for Halfling and Elf).
2: 1st Level was Constitution SCORE + Max HD (so a wizard with Con 11 would have 17 hp).
3: Double 1st HD.
I've used both the first and the second one, and my players quite liked being able to be a bit risky at first level. YMMV.
|
|
I'd have to say with I agree with those saying its good the way it is. I ran a game recently and a random encounter nearly took out our fighter and paladin. The players walked in cocky thinking of we'll mow down anything in our path.. and that wasn't the case. Now they plan out as much as they can and don't blindly walk into things.
I think the 30+ starting hp for level one is crazy. 4th edition is geared too much for this sort of thing. It's supposed to be a challange. It's supposed to require thought.
I used the following system the last time my group was at 1st: double max hit die + constitution modifier. Thus a fighter with a con of 15 would start with 22 hit points. The system worked out well with the party able to muster on through more encounters before resting.
|
|
I used the Flat 6 method during the Beta (when my current campaign began). Basically, all PCs start with +6 hp.
It works really well, and is pretty minimally invasive.
this
i used it in the beta, i use it now, and i haven't looked back.
So a level 1 wizard with a Con of 12 would start out with 13 hp.
To answer the question of "Why:"
Because instantanious death doesn't make you scared or worried or frightened for your character, nor does it make you consider different tactics. It's just sorta annoying. "Hey, bad luck happened and now i make a new character. Awesome." You can't decide on new tactics after you've lost. You can't think of new ways of handling a situation when a single bad roll can end your entire career.
...Near death on the other hand is much more exciting. Characters can't run away from an encounter gone terribly wrong if they die in one hit. Smack a character down to a third of his life in one hit, however, and they head for the hills! The party messes up and everyone dies. That's just a terrible occasion that makes people bored. The party messes up and oh god we all have just a sliver of life left! Cheese it! The orc crits and bam, man down. Nothing that could've been done about it. Orc crits and the fighter is just barely hanging on? Now the fight becomes awesome.
Epic battles aren't ones where people drop like flies. Epic battles are ones where the party is near death, on the ropes, the big epic fight can go either way...and they squeeze through a win at the end.
Epic battles aren't ones where people drop like flies. Epic battles are ones where the party is near death, on the ropes, the big epic fight can go either way...and they squeeze through a win at the end.
This +1
To answer the question of "Why:"
Because instantanious death doesn't make you scared or worried or frightened for your character, nor does it make you consider different tactics. It's just sorta annoying. "Hey, bad luck happened and now i make a new character. Awesome." You can't decide on new tactics after you've lost. You can't think of new ways of handling a situation when a single bad roll can end your entire career.
...Near death on the other hand is much more exciting. Characters can't run away from an encounter gone terribly wrong if they die in one hit. Smack a character down to a third of his life in one hit, however, and they head for the hills! The party messes up and everyone dies. That's just a terrible occasion that makes people bored. The party messes up and oh god we all have just a sliver of life left! Cheese it! The orc crits and bam, man down. Nothing that could've been done about it. Orc crits and the fighter is just barely hanging on? Now the fight becomes awesome.
Epic battles aren't ones where people drop like flies. Epic battles are ones where the party is near death, on the ropes, the big epic fight can go either way...and they squeeze through a win at the end.
And this is why I hate wizards. Darn squishies always end up decorating the dungeon walls. Whether at level 1 or level 20 they always seem to go from full to -10 in six seconds.
The Pathfinder Beta had some good alternative 1st level rules:
1: Racial Bonus (+8 Hp for Half-Orc and Dwarf, +6 for Human, Half-Elf and Gnome, +4 for Halfling and Elf).
2: 1st Level was Constitution SCORE + Max HD (so a wizard with Con 11 would have 17 hp).
3: Double 1st HD.
I've used both the first and the second one, and my players quite liked being able to be a bit risky at first level. YMMV.
^^ This. My group universally decided on option #2 and we've used it ever since, regardless of who's DMing. It's certainly still possible to outright kill a first level character with a really lucky greatsword swing, but not terribly likely. Where in 3.5, a fighter with a greatsword would have to roll really bad damage to not at least incapacitate a wizard in one swing.
|
|
Thanks for the responses! Yeah, I was thinking 20 extra points may be too much (maybe 10 instead?) but it seems like in 4th edition everyone starts with at least 30 hit points.
My favorite option here would be to have it based on Constitution.
At 1st level, you gain bonus hit points equal to your Con *score,* at 2nd + levels, you only gain bonus hit points equal to your Con *modifier.*
A 1st level Fighter with a 15 Con would start with 10 hit points for his class and 15 hit points for his Con. At 2nd level, he'd roll 1d10 and add +2 for his Con modifier.
A 1st level Wizard with a 12 Con would start with 6 hit points for class and 12 hit points for Con, for a nice 18 hit points. At 2nd level, he's back to rolling 1d6+1.
Edit: So, yeah, what DM-aka-Dudemeister already said. :)
My way: 1st HD only gives regular HD, not full HD. You also get one virtual d8 for free (virtual means you do not count as one level higher for anything. You only get some bonus HP as if you had an extra HD. Con and toughness do apply on this one).
Makes characters tougher, but not too tough.
|
|
lets all not forget the dms part in this equation. just becasue an enemy could kill a pc doesn't mean he has to. in my group when i dm, if the players are openly communicating with each other about levels of health (ie im hurt, bloodied, ect) then i will pull punches and leave them at 1 or -1 or whatever instead of outright killing him. ive only had one char death as dm and that was because the player didnt tell the others that his ninja was seriously injured (5hp) so when a bbg walked up and hit him for 25 damage, there was no way i could pull that punch and not kill him.
for something like this i prefer the method of starting hitpoits being con score + full HD at level 1. Then hp is normal from 2 onward. It means the pcs can take a hit or two without going down, and ofcourse it means the tough guys are still tougher then the not tough guys since its still based on con.
The Pathfinder Beta had some good alternative 1st level rules:
1: Racial Bonus (+8 Hp for Half-Orc and Dwarf, +6 for Human, Half-Elf and Gnome, +4 for Halfling and Elf).
2: 1st Level was Constitution SCORE + Max HD (so a wizard with Con 11 would have 17 hp).
3: Double 1st HD.
I've used both the first and the second one, and my players quite liked being able to be a bit risky at first level. YMMV.
The second option has been what I've been doing for 1st level for YEARS(PF stole my idea!! *sniff*)
My group uses a few 4e rules we liked, and it works wonderfully yes we use the bonus HP at level 1, as well as 1/4 of max hp as a negative number before your dead, so it does prevent dieing so easy, and doesn't stop dieing over all. Helps in early levels BUT doesn't do as much by level 5-10 the bonus got is a moot point.
I never found anything wrong with 4e as a gaming system it works fine... just not very D&D is all.
lets all not forget the dms part in this equation. just becasue an enemy could kill a pc doesn't mean he has to. in my group when i dm, if the players are openly communicating with each other about levels of health (ie im hurt, bloodied, ect) then i will pull punches and leave them at 1 or -1 or whatever instead of outright killing him. ive only had one char death as dm and that was because the player didnt tell the others that his ninja was seriously injured (5hp) so when a bbg walked up and hit him for 25 damage, there was no way i could pull that punch and not kill him.
I think the problem comes from level 1 where you don't actually reach a level of health, you just exist in a binary state of "not injured" and "dead"
The problem with HP in early levels is that it's possible to have few enough to the point where the number really just doesn't matter - one hit is going to do you in.
I always thought d20 Star Wars had a good idea in that hp are all temporary hp that regenerate quickly, and you have a number of lethal-damage hp equal to your Con score...
Maybe you could do the reverse: give every character a pool of temporary hit points that naturally regenerate at a rate of 1/hour.
Makes the goblins tougher, too.
But personally, I like a system in which at least SOME characters can be killed by a single sword blow ;)
I decided to playtest the HP variant "double max HD at 1st level" and so far it's worked out nicely, although it has dramatically changed the balance of the game (at 1st level).
I DMed this weekend and it turned the scenario I was running into a pushover, even after I used the PF version of several monsters (as opposed to the weaker 3.5 version).
My feeling is that this change becomes less noticable at later levels and that 1st level characters can be given challenges almost like 2nd level characters.
Anyone with more experience can chime in.
I might also try the "Flat 6 method during the Beta", where all PCs start with +6 hp. This way, no classes become favorites at level 1. In addition, it doesn't feel excessive like +10 hp did for the fighter class.
My way: 1st HD only gives regular HD, not full HD. You also get one virtual d8 for free (virtual means you do not count as one level higher for anything. You only get some bonus HP as if you had an extra HD. Con and toughness do apply on this one).
Makes characters tougher, but not too tough.
similar to KaeYoss, though I add a virtual d6 + con (and toughness)
(and 2 +int skillpoints without class skills).kinda reflects on the concept of 0-level characters, not using the redundant commoner class either.
I tend to give both the d6 + class HD full for PCs, I use the same rule for NPCs without racial HD, but only get full if the npc has pc class levels.
I also like the fact that 1st level characters are fragile (though note that 1st level characters get max hit points for their first class HD in Pathfinder). There is something more thrilling about the real risk and that sense of real accomplishment when your character makes it past the level where basically they are not much stronger than the average town guard or orc. You feel more like you are really earning the status of hero instead of having it handed to you.
Still, as GM, I don't want to see good characters die unecessaril (badly thought out ones I mercilessly target for bad fortune - well nah not really but I think about it). Anyway, what I did in my campaign was allow characters to have non-lethal practice bouts between themselves and NPCs (at this point they were all working as part of the Guard or as adjuncts to the Guard). I also did more heavy intrigue and social interactions that garnered roleplaying XP as opposed to killing things XP. They did get in a scrape or two - but always in the proximity of those who could bail them out if necessary without it feeling like a Deus Ex Machina on my part. So for instance they had to fight against a nina incursion in the palace but if things went south I could have easily sent in clerics and paladins from the other wing of the palace to save them at the last moment.
Bottom line - in my game as GM they don't get house rule cushions to survive which will make them feel less like they earned their levels from raw recruits up. But I finesse the plot to make sure they don't get in too much after their heads. And in the end if a lucky die roll (on my part) means a critical hit will unfairly take a character down then I will just cheat a bit and apply that roll to something else and reroll. That's the GM's perogative so that dice don't overrule character development and story. That doesn't mean characters have not died in my game. They do. And I've told them that if a character dies through their own stupidity or because it would be good for the story, then the character will die.
I think the rules are fine as they are (not that I am against anyone else's houserules - play the way you want), but I do think it is also the GM's responsibility to tailor encounters and the players responsibility to make good choices and not get cocky.
One last thing - I've noticed that in Conan stories that whenever he is beaten in a fight he is just knocked out and imprisoned or enslaved. In Tolkien, whenever the hobbits get in over their heads an NPC shows up to save them (Gandalf, the giant eagles, Tom Bombadil, Aragorn, and so on and on and on). No reason a GM can't use tricks like this as well if it looks like PC's are going to die and that would ruin a story or a brilliant character.
Our group doesn't have a system to boost HP at first level, but at each new level they get the low average of the HD if the rolled result is less than that value. (e.g. a cleric will never get a result below 4 when rolling for HP at a new level)
There are ways, if expensive at times, to bring dead characters back. Unless you rule that death is permanent of course.
Our group doesn't have a system to boost HP at first level, but at each new level they get the low average of the HD if the rolled result is less than that value. (e.g. a cleric will never get a result below 4 when rolling for HP at a new level)
There are ways, if expensive at times, to bring dead characters back. Unless you rule that death is permanent of course.
The main problem is that at low levels, resurrection is far to costly to be a viable option for the PCs barring DM fiat. The only real option is to create a new character, which takes away from game time. Not fun imo.
I think it's fine the way it is. 1st level PCs are not equipped to be in epic battles.
If you think 1st level is too fragile, start at level 2. If you aren't comfortable with an orc killing a PC in one hit, don't throw an orc at a level one PC. Or simply change the orc's weaponry to something other than a falchion that does less damage. Goblins and kobolds have a hard time killing even level 1 PCs as it is.
The main problem is that at low levels, resurrection is far to costly to be a viable option for the PCs barring DM fiat. The only real option is to create a new character, which takes away from game time. Not fun imo.Our group doesn't have a system to boost HP at first level, but at each new level they get the low average of the HD if the rolled result is less than that value. (e.g. a cleric will never get a result below 4 when rolling for HP at a new level)
There are ways, if expensive at times, to bring dead characters back. Unless you rule that death is permanent of course.
That's true, but I'm sure the PCs could negotiate a deal with a cleric or a druid to either reduce the cost, make it a loan or agree to perform one or more tasks in return for the services. (Of course there won't always be viable to have a cleric or druid nearby)
It's also a question of tactics I believe. A player with low HP such as a wizard without any constitution bonus should be very careful not to be in the front line.
The main problem is that at low levels, resurrection is far to costly to be a viable option for the PCs barring DM fiat. The only real option is to create a new character, which takes away from game time. Not fun imo.Our group doesn't have a system to boost HP at first level, but at each new level they get the low average of the HD if the rolled result is less than that value. (e.g. a cleric will never get a result below 4 when rolling for HP at a new level)
There are ways, if expensive at times, to bring dead characters back. Unless you rule that death is permanent of course.
That's true, but I'm sure the PCs could negotiate a deal with a cleric or a druid to either reduce the cost, make it a loan or agree to perform one or more tasks in return for the services. (Of course there won't always be viable to have a cleric or druid nearby)
It's also a question of tactics I believe. A player with low HP such as a wizard without any constitution bonus should be very careful not to be in the front line.
I love the idea of a cleric to a Neutral deity or perhaps to trade and commerce, giving resurrections to upstart adventurers and charging interest enough that it makes it financially viable. It can be a whole sub - plot with the characters being given a year to pay back or high level cleric comes calling.
On the original note: IF I add Hit points at first, I too like it to be CON score based. My groups also usually give the low half minimum on all Hit Die rolls. (3 for d6, 4 for d8, 5 for d10 and 6 for d12) So if a barbarian rolls a 1,2,3,4,5 or 6, they get 6.
I use the Con score at level 1 method for a kingmaker campaign I run, It works great, but I do give monsters the same hp boost, otherwise you see them doing too little damage at level 1-3.
|
|
I start almost all of my campaigns at 3rd level. That way, the PCs are significantly tougher than the average footsoldier, but the game's CR and "Blast" spell math isn't derailed by characters having more HP than they're supposed to. It has the added benefit of allowing PCs to be more customized and unique when the come into play. My group likes this rule so much, several of my players are nigh-unto-mutinous when I suggest that they start at 1st level.
I use the Racial bonuses from Beta [detailed above] and have found them just about right.
[Edit]I give the monsters Racial hit points too.
|
Speaking from experience at having lower level characters with boosted hit points, you can't just give them a huge pile because they don't have the resources to recover from the damage their going to take.
You can't make a radical change like that to the game without also looking at healing and how characters are supposed to react when they take a few hits. There are only so many healing spells and effects a group of 1st level characters have access to.
Giving them anything over probably 8 is just going to tax the divine spell casters more then they already are in most parties.
Perhaps instead of running them through encounters like 10th level characters they'd be better served actually acting as if they were 1st level scrubs and handle challenges more geared towards exploration, investigation, problem solving and social interactions.
When I first started playing 1E, The DM used arduwin Hit Points (I don't know if I'm spelling that right), and it was a flat +21 HP at first level.