2nd you stop seeing players worry so much about putting there 1st or 2nd best roll to the score. Even by cutting the bonus in half its still a very important stat.
Funny, I don't think I have ever had Con as my 1st or 2nd highest stat, and only occasionally my 3rd highest, but your house rule would have me placing a much higher priority on it. Not just for the additional HP at 1st level, but also for the FORT save modifier, since things that target FORT usually do HP damage (as opposed to WILL, which is usually some other effect).
As far as the rule itself goes, I think this could work, although keep in mind that it alters the power ballance a little...
Damage Reduction would become more important, and so would abilities like Evasion and Improved Evasion.
Also, lower level damage spells would become more effective (I don't think this is a bad thing), while higher level damage spells would likely result in overkill.
Another thing to consider is what happens when a character takes Con damage. How many HP do they lose? Is it 1/2 their level per 2 points of con, or do they also lose the initial bonus from their 1st character level as well?
Finally, it tips the scales in favor of the PCs, since from your example it appears that you are not giving the monsters their straight CON score in HP bonus for their 1st HD. What about NPCs with class levels? Are they also denied the bonus to HP at 1st level? If you do give them the extra HP from their straight CON, a CR1/2 dwarf fighter 1 would be a bigger threat than a CR 1/2 Hobgoblin with no class levels, because the dwarf will have around 25 HP, but the Hobgoblin will have 5 HP (odd # of HD means no Con bonus).
Still, I don't think its too radical, but it does cause a lot of unintended side effects that have to be considered.
In my experience you need those hitpoints at higher levels, dont really see a reason to cut it. At low levels I give everyone a 0-level d6 HD which I allow players to max and some skillpoints, just like a 1st level commoner would.
Level still determines maximum number of skill ranks, this allows for some sensible continuity from common beginnings till they get actual class levels and makes them a bit buffer and more versatile at low level.
Ofcourse in my case it means they get even more hitpoints at high level, but they need it then really
I love e6... I miss it.
Cranewings.. I'm curious the E6 PF variant. Where did you locate that, on these boards?
If so >.> Woot. I and two other guys (aside from the original creator of E6 and his volunteers) converted / created that.
I love e6... I miss it.
Cranewings.. I'm curious the E6 PF variant. Where did you locate that, on these boards?
If so >.> Woot. I and two other guys (aside from the original creator of E6 and his volunteers) converted / created that.
Here is the link to one other E6 thread with discussion. In it I link your thread from earlier.
Also, for the lazy, a link to your thread that really opened my eyes towards E6.
Greg
In my experience you need those hitpoints at higher levels
Same here. Especially in Pathfinder, where things have been stepped up.
So 100 hp for a 10th-level fighter is much? Put a fire giant in front of him and see what happens.
Those bastards do 3d6+15 (25.5 on average) per hit, and get three attacks. If they feel cocky, they subtract 3 from their attack rolls to get another +9 to damage. Add in the occasional crit (us GMs are lucky bastards, after all) and that giant could reduce that fighter to mince meat in 1-2 rounds. And even otherwise, 3 rounds are not that outlandish.
And that's for a single fire giant, CR10, i.e. a regular fight. Try for two of them for a more dangerous fight, or 3 for the upper reach of what is supposed to be possible (albeit dangerous). Enter that fight with only 50 hp and you won't get out alive.
Same for monsters. In my experience, Pathfinder warrior types can deal tons of damage.
At low levels I give everyone a 0-level d6 HD which I allow players to max and some skillpoints, just like a 1st level commoner would.
I do something similar: Instead of getting full HP for any HD, you gain a virtual d8 on 1st-level. Since nobody rolls his HD (we use average rounded up), things like "I rolled like crap, damn" never come up. It's a nice little buffer on the early levels.
You don't get anything else out of that virtual HD (hence, it's just a virtual one), just more HP. No higher skill limit, no higher effective level for magic (active of passive), no nothing.
I use that extra 0-level HD, but it doesnt increase max skill rank, otherwise it is an extra level of commoner, minus the weapon proficiency and class skills, though you can have those too for a trait.
just gives a few extra skill points to round out some background of a character and a few hit points to make them a bit more resilient.
I use that extra 0-level HD, but it doesnt increase max skill rank, otherwise it is an extra level of commoner, minus the weapon proficiency and class skills, though you can have those too for a trait.
just gives a few extra skill points to round out some background of a character and a few hit points to make them a bit more resilient.
I like this idea. Rolemaster (a skill-based fantasy roleplaying game made by Iron Crown Enterprises) has/had an adolescent level, which serves a similar purpose. I mean, people wern't born as wizards and paladins, right? So what were they before they learned to kill things?
I wouldn't limit it to commoner, however. Why not aristocrat (if a PC wanted to be a noble born), or expert (if the PC wanted to be the son or daughter of a blacksmith)? For playbalance, perhaps grant the commoner PCs an extra trait of feat, or charge the non-commoners a trait or feat.
As for the original issue, I'll admit I mis-read what you wrote. I thought you said the characters got their ENTIRE Con at 1st level. However, I still think what I said applies, as the CR 1/2 Dwarf fighter would have around 12 HP (1/2 HD + Con of 14), as opposed to the Hobgoblin's 5 HP. I also still think that your system COULD work, as long as you were careful.
I use that extra 0-level HD, but it doesnt increase max skill rank, otherwise it is an extra level of commoner, minus the weapon proficiency and class skills, though you can have those too for a trait.
just gives a few extra skill points to round out some background of a character and a few hit points to make them a bit more resilient.
I like this idea. Rolemaster (a skill-based fantasy roleplaying game made by Iron Crown Enterprises) has/had an adolescent level, which serves a similar purpose. I mean, people wern't born as wizards and paladins, right? So what were they before they learned to kill things?
I wouldn't limit it to commoner, however. Why not aristocrat (if a PC wanted to be a noble born), or expert (if the PC wanted to be the son or daughter of a blacksmith)? For playbalance, perhaps grant the commoner PCs an extra trait of feat, or charge the non-commoners a trait or feat.
I do not use expert or aristocrat because I actually use those as NPC levels, in my campaign there will never be something like a 6th level commoner. That one level serves as some sort of racial HD which all humanoids without racial HD start with. Also I do not want to give them any free save bonus, or weapon / armor proficiency, or cheat the rogue by introducing free skills for everyone by taking an expert level.
As for Jason where are you coming from with a dwarven fighter 1st lvl vs a hobgoblin with no levels. The Bestiary has the hobgoblin as a 1st levl fighter with 11 HPs and thats only giving him...
I guess I still didn't understand. I was using this statement from you in my calculations:
With the bestiary its easy to to cut the + whatever in half(say a 10d10+90 to a 10d10+45) if you want to.
It seemed that you were unilatterally applying the "quick" house mod. to all bestiary critters. I guess the "rebuild HP because they have class levels" method would make these two roughly equal, but it just seems like extra work. What are you doing with the other CR 1/2 critters (Giant Centepede, Zombie, etc.) that don't have class levels. Wouldn't they be "cheated" out of extra HP?
My point is, while I don't think your method is badwrongfun, doesn't it create a power difference at low levels between the "haves" (with classes) and the "have nots" (without classes), even at the same CR? If that is not the case, then I guess I just don't get what you are saying.
E6 is a different beast than a game designed to potentially run to level 20, and many of us don't run it. I think you are looking for a lower survival rate by lowering hp, while most of us look to boost survival, which causes another disconnect. This rule may be better examined by someone(s) that also believes less hp is better.