| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a game. The whole point of every game is to have fun. Imo rule 0 is there to let the GM customize his game. To tell stories that are different then the base game. To give a different experience than the cookie cutter game. To make it more fun. And if it doesn't, don't play.As for rule 0 in old school games... we didn't need it. Nobody needed to give us permission to make changes. We just did. You had to. Looking at my original copies, I doubt all three booklets would make a chapter by word count in a "modern" rpg. Homebrewing and improvisation were requirements.
Yeah no offense, I had a gm like you once. He sent my gf home on the edge of tears 3 nights in a row. He decided we were playing a very divine based game and her character fell in the evil god's domain.
"wouldn't it be oh so cool if the evil god could mind control you with no save at any time for 80% of each session?"
No that isn't. Thats just a dick move. If you're playing as a gm where you're only considering rule of cool as it applies to your own fun, then you sir are my definition of a bad gm.
Well, there's your problem. Someone sent your girlfriend home on the edge of crying 3 nights in a row. News for you; it wasn't me. I've never sent anyone home crying. Or close to it. Ever. I would never take control a player's Character's mind. I have never had a player quit my game because he couldn't deal with me / my game. And I ran my first game in 1974. That's a lot of players over the years in a half dozen different states playing under every edition of D&D and, now, PF. A GM doesn't run a game for just his own fun. Or he would't be running one. So, make more assumptions. Feel free. I'll try not to make any assumptions about you in the meantime.
Well I played Basic D&D back in the day around 1981 and I did roll 1 HP for a high strength fighter. He had to run around with a bow until second level where he rolled and 8! I had 9 HPs at 2nd level! I never had so much fun outsmarting monsters and surviving until 2nd level. I got killed the very next adventure at 2nd level.
That was the old days.
Now the rules say you get Max at 1st level. I am an Old School Dogmatist but a rule is a rule.
The first paragraph is quite true and I agree completely. Rolling at first level is just old school. I had my share of low HP characters.
Can't say I like the "rule is a rule". The game was always built on house rules.
I do like the max HP at first level rule. It doesn't break anything and means you're a lot less likely to die right out of the box.
Heh, as much of an old grognard as I am, I have no problem whatsoever with the "full HP on first level dice" rule. I wish we had done that back when I rolled up my first 1 HP wizard...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A fighter who rolls a 1 for HP should be fine with enough paper towels anyway.
A fighter who rolls a 1 for HP should be fine with enough paper towels anyway.
I'm going to have add that to my characters Backpack now.
|
Wow, some of this was spot on. We already did our first session actually, and I started at level 1 with about 50g less than the 'average' starting wealth it suggests, in our second fight he said that the house we were in was 'cramped' and so I couldn't effectively swing my weapon and it forced me to draw a smaller weapon that did less damage, and as soon as the fight was over I promptly walked over a trap that did 2d6 damage (all this was at level 1 with my half-normal health).I have a strong hunch given this houserule that you can expect a game with extremely below expected wealth, and a generally adversarial DM-player relationship. If you have a spellbook, expect him to steal it. If you rely on swords and armor to fight, expect them to get broken or to never find a good set. Expect traps to be totally random and unfair and way overpowered compared to your level.
But was the game fun? A GM who messes up the rules a little bit but provides a fun game, that's worth putting up with.
Cramped conditions for fighting with big weapons are a trope, and personally, I think not a bad one. If you're a half-orc with two-handed greatsword fighting in a dwarven mine with dwarf-sized ceilings.. yeah, that's going to be rough. If you're playing a serious warrior type character, don't put all your eggs into one basket weapons-wise. Seriously, make sure you have at least one small weapon you can use well, because you can't use big weapons in a grapple anyway, and grappling monsters aren't all that rare. The drawback for big weapons happens to be that you can't always use them. Smaller weapons do less damage but are more reliable.
Traps.. a 2d6 damage trap is actually quite within CR1 ranges. The thing with traps is to not trigger them (Perception) or not fall/get hit (usually Reflex save). You shouldn't complain too much about the damage from the trap, but if he doesn't give you a chance to avoid it, that's something to talk about.
Incidentally, there's a big difference between "old school" handling of traps and the PF way; PF uses lots of Perception and Disable Device skill checks, whereas in old school players had to ask clever questions, remember to bring along 10ft poles and so on. It can be a good idea to have a talk with the GM about how he feels traps should be GMed, to make sure you're on the same page.
For the record I use a mix of Old school traps and typical PF traps.
There is the "simple" it's trapped or locked.
Then there are the "Room is trapped" Puzzles.
If a rogue can't defeat the trap mechanically, the group can still work together the defeat the trap if they know it's there. that's where rope and poles and clever questions come in.
I don't believe every Machiavellian mechanism should be able to be defeated with the flick of a wrist and 6 seconds of concentration. So if a DC is high and is failed, it's not necessarily "to the blender with you!"
I also allow RP to add to the rogues disable skill even more so than a simple aid another +2.
IF the can work together, "stand over there and push in that stone with the pole when i say now" I let the rogue get another roll with a bonus... etc etc.... some times a complicated trap RP can take longer than a big fight...
But then again that's my idea of a fun.
I don't think making you roll hit points for first level is necessarily a bad idea. We did it all the time in 1e and 2e and generally had more PCs survive than not. But it's certainly not as charitable to 1st level characters as giving full hit points. Max hit points at first level tends to give the PCs a little more freedom to take risks and, as adventurers, a certain amount of risk is the name of the game.
Pathfinder does specify max hp at first level, but Rule Zero of All RPGs is that house rulings always trump anything in the rulebooks.
That said, I've played my share of one- or two-hp weaklings, and there's really nothing wrong with playing that way. A little risk of PC death focuses the attention wonderfully and can be a perfectly healthy part of your game. You just have to adapt a little more to circumstances and not just hurl yourself into the meat grinder without a plan. Play it smart and you'll probably be fine.
If you are really that worried about it, you can always invest points in Constitution for extra hp. But really, the absolute worst case scenario is that you lose a first-level character and roll up a better one.
Heh, as much of an old grognard as I am, I have no problem whatsoever with the "full HP on first level dice" rule. I wish we had done that back when I rolled up my first 1 HP wizard...
To be fair, there isn't much difference between 1 and 4 hp. Either way, a crappy dagger could take you out in one shot.
|
Personally I give max hp at 1st level as the rules say and then let players roll for their additional levels but with half the dice rolled being the minimum (if they roll less, just take the average as their roll). It's amazing how much fun it can suck out of leveling when someone rolls a one and a consistent string of bad luck can cripple a character if they're built to get stuck into melee but have terrible hp. It hasn't caused any problems by ensuring people have at least average hp and in fact has made the players a little more willing to take chances in fights now they all have decent hp and no-one is risking instant death simply due to poor rolling, which has led to more fun, exciting and memorable moments in battles, so everyone's a winner :)
That said, I've played my share of one- or two-hp weaklings, and there's really nothing wrong with playing that way. A little risk of PC death focuses the attention wonderfully and can be a perfectly healthy part of your game. You just have to adapt a little more to circumstances and not just hurl yourself into the meat grinder without a plan. Play it smart and you'll probably be fine.
There is with the way damage in Pathfinder has been boosted.
When a lowly CR 1/3 skeleton can deal 2d4+4 damage on a full attack at level 1, having 2 HP isn't really an option.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problem with a full hp at 1st level rule. But do we really need to tar and feather some dude just because he thinks it might be more exciting to roll for hp at 1st?
After all there was a far longer period of time when the default was to roll than there has been when you don't roll.
Heh, as much of an old grognard as I am, I have no problem whatsoever with the "full HP on first level dice" rule. I wish we had done that back when I rolled up my first 1 HP wizard...To be fair, there isn't much difference between 1 and 4 hp. Either way, a crappy dagger could take you out in one shot.
I'd say there is a decent difference between having 1 and 4 hp for a level 1 character; 1 means any damage will at least drop you to 0, while at 4 you might not be after one hit so you can back that ass up and maybe color spray if you're a wizard.
Heh, as much of an old grognard as I am, I have no problem whatsoever with the "full HP on first level dice" rule. I wish we had done that back when I rolled up my first 1 HP wizard...To be fair, there isn't much difference between 1 and 4 hp. Either way, a crappy dagger could take you out in one shot.
Yes, for a wizard, this rule is fairly inconsequential. For a fighter, the difference between a 1 and 10 is HUUUUUUGE.
The max hp at 1st level is there to ensure a fighter can actually do his job and hold the front line. This houserule is much harsher on high HD melee classes than it is on casters.
I don't like rolled HD at all and always offer good fixed HD as an option (usually 3/4 max, first maxed as usual, though I'm also not opposed to just outright max on all HD). But not even allowing it at 1st level is especially cruel.
Apologies if this has already been suggested, perhaps you could play a scarred witch doctor, pump CON and take toughness for good measure. Then you should still have a solid base character, with (most likely) plenty of hit points.
As for whether it's a bad idea or not, while it does kind of suck, you should be able to find ways around it. High CON, Toughness and such.
Just curious, is it rolled or point buy? If either, how much?
I would at least let them reroll if the HP are less than half of a full die. Heck, I let players reroll all 1's on HP as it is as I have a tough campaign and Barbarians all 1's and 2's.
|
|
I also agree that it's especially the fighter/martial types that need the full HP. As a fighter it's your job to stand in the front line, and if you can't even take one hit without falling down, you can't do your job.
A wizard should be huddling behind the fighter, so for the wizard it doesn't matter all that much; if he's getting attacked for real it's gone wrong. But a fighter that gets attacked isn't doing it wrong. He's supposed to be there, making sure it isn't someone else in the party getting hit because the monsters managed to get close.
Meh. If everybody is on board with a hardcore adventure and nobody is super attached to their level 1 characters, then go for it.
My only concern is that the DM is not aware of the cause and effect of this rule.
I wrote a 6 page backstory for my character complete with life goals, etc. before he told us about the rule ><
PF hasn't "done" anything here. It's been solidly the rule since at least 3.0 of D&D. 4E took it even further and went with purely fixed hit points, one of the few things I applaud it for.
It's very common in old-school D&D. It makes the game more lethal, and characters a bit more random. But you still get that feat at level 1, so if you roll badly, you can still take Toughness to compensate.
But if you really, really don't like it, and the others really want that kind of game, it's better to part ways.
There is with the way damage in Pathfinder has been boosted.
When a lowly CR 1/3 skeleton can deal 2d4+4 damage on a full attack at level 1, having 2 HP isn't really an option.
If you only have two hp, it doesn't really matter much how much the monster deals, you are still going down in one hit. Even with Pathfinder monsters, you can get a very long way based solely on armor class, solid tactics, and an understanding of when you are in over your head. Even if you do happen to go down, a healer can pretty much always get you back up after the fight. It's not like PCs instantly die at zero anymore.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that kind of play is for everyone, but it doesn't inherently destroy a game.
If you have 2 hp you could reasonably say you're always in over your head, as you have a chance of going down if you stub your toe. Tactics and AC only go so far when one lucky shot from anything will definitely take you down. You can't plan for some things like "the peasant rolled a 14 on his stone throw, take 3 damage and start dying" or "you all rolled 3 on perception, and here's the surprise round."
My 2 HP fighter spends every week sitting at home making Profession (Baker) checks. NPC's with more health take care of all the dungeon-diving.
It's very exciting.
I wrote a 6 page backstory for my character complete with life goals, etc. before he told us about the rule ><
Oooh, ouch. Given that you've taken the time and effort, I'd argue this:
"Dave, as you can see I've spent a s#@%load on developing this character. Can you make it so that since you could be handicapping my melee character with terrible HP rolls, perhaps you could allow me to take, say, a bare minimum of 60-70% of the maximum roll as a minimum here? So for example, instead of getting cocked up by a 1HP fighter, you start as a 6 + CON HP fighter?"
Assuming your DM is called Dave here.
That is kind of the middle ground that would work.
But on the other hand, in my experience it's better for a GM to make a game more lethal by creating risky situations than by artifically adjusting the scales and measures of the ruleset that they're using.
If you have 2 hp you could reasonably say you're always in over your head, as you have a chance of going down if you stub your toe. Tactics and AC only go so far when one lucky shot from anything will definitely take you down. You can't plan for some things like "the peasant rolled a 14 on his stone throw, take 3 damage and start dying" or "you all rolled 3 on perception, and here's the surprise round."
My point is that in a game where the cleric can get you back on your feet, going down to a lucky hit is not really all that huge a disaster. You make the best plan you can, suck it up, and get hit now and again. You're going to get hit and drop eventually, and when it does, *that's okay*. Unless you are trying to tackle monsters way over your party's level, the odds are pretty good you will not end up at -10 in one shot. Healing can get you back up almost instantly, and even once *that* runs out, most healers can stop you from dying with one cantrip and 100% chance of success.
Unless I am taking 12-damage hits at first level (which qualifies as way over the party's head), odds are very very much in my favor that I am not going to be ground into chunky salsa in one hit. And if I am? So what? I was *first level*. I've had plenty of PCs die on me. It's not the end of the world, and there's really no reason to let the death of a fledgling character bring the whole game to a crashing halt. You just reroll and move on.
I'm not saying rolling your first HD is the only way to play, or even the best way to play. My table prefers maxing the first die too. But I've played like this before, and it's a valid style that doesn't wreck the game.
There is with the way damage in Pathfinder has been boosted.
When a lowly CR 1/3 skeleton can deal 2d4+4 damage on a full attack at level 1, having 2 HP isn't really an option.
If you only have two hp, it doesn't really matter much how much the monster deals, you are still going down in one hit. Even with Pathfinder monsters, you can get a very long way based solely on armor class, solid tactics, and an understanding of when you are in over your head. Even if you do happen to go down, a healer can pretty much always get you back up after the fight. It's not like PCs instantly die at zero anymore.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that kind of play is for everyone, but it doesn't inherently destroy a game.
In fact, it DOES matter how much the monster deals. Let's look at just the Skeleton's single attack.
It deals 1d4+2 per swipe. Minimum damage is enough to knock this character to -1 or -2. With the second swipe he can attack someone else. If they were unlucky with HP rolls as well? Too f%~+ing bad he's unconscious too if he gets hit.
Then there are the other 2 skeletons (being generous and saying at the very least the GM lowered the number of enemies) versus the 2-3 players left standing.
Even if they rolled absolutely perfectly they have around 10/12/14 HP depending on their hit dice. This is still a difficult as hell fight, since a full attack from one of these skeletons does anywhere from 6 to 12 damage a hit, so roughly average damage is till going to drop most of these players unless they GTFO once the first pair is dropped to cut their losses.
Basically every enemy in the game needs to be nerfed just to make this campaign anything more than a tedious slog where your heroes rip apart like wet tissue paper at the slightest touch.
At which point the campaign really isn't any different from a regular one except smaller numbers, which kind of defeats the purpose.
IMO if you want to make things tougher, just raise HP and damage for the enemies a few points instead of weakening the PCs.
Healing can get you back up almost instantly, and even once *that* runs out, most healers can stop you from dying with one cantrip and 100% chance of success.
Unless your healer also rolled a 1 for his HP... then you're pretty much screwed.
All right, thats fair. While relatively few low-level mooks have them, those second attacks do make a pretty big difference at low hp. I'll cede the point about the damage, although I would point out that 3 skeletons is not actually a lower number of enemies than a CR1 encounter would normally contain, and that virtually no other enemy with that low a CR gets more than one attack. Were I running a game like this, I could fix it pretty easily by giving the skellies scimitars and shields instead of two claw attacks. And if I was using goblins or orcs instead, the problem goes away entirely.
You are right that there's a high chance of a knockout in this sort of game, but that's not really the point I was trying to make. What I *am* saying is that a knockout isn't the end of the world. Fighters only have about a 1/3 chance to be hit most of the time, and when they go down, you will usually get right back up. The fights are swingier, sure; but to some folks, that's a feature, not a bug.