Maybe so. I just think that lower HP messes up too many more things relatively than higher NPC damage does. Maybe it's all in my head.
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.
True, but anybody else who goes down any other way takes the same risks. Those are the breaks. Hey, at least you got stabilized.
Maybe so. I just think that lower HP messes up too many more things relatively than higher NPC damage does. Maybe it's all in my head.
It's not in your head. There's just a couple of subsystems that quietly and indirectly mitigate the dangers of this playstyle without being obvious about it. If you died right at zero, low hp would screw you very hard, but getting your Con as a negative HP buffer is actually really helpful. You might be out for the fight, but even when you don't stabilize, your party gets plenty of time to scrape you up off the pavement.
|
I am going to provide you with the start of my house rule for hit points. It explains a few things and might help you when presenting your case to your GM.
What do you mean?
Armor class vs. to hit roll
DC vs. save/skill check
DR vs. damage roll
SR vs. caster level check
Hit points vs…
Wait, hit points are a static number!
Not exactly.
The static portion of hit points is determined by using a variable number, hence the variable versus variable. It is possible that a 10th level wizard could have more hit points than a 10th level barbarian. And because of this phenomenon, hit points are broken more often than the game system would like. Let’s do the math.
First, there is the belief that randomly rolling a d6 will eventually produce an average of 3.5 ((1+2+3+4+5+6)/6). This is true proven by the empirical evidence provided by the Law of Large Numbers. The problem occurs when only a small number of dice are used. In most cases at least 400 dice need to be rolled to observe the 3.5 average. A player rolls only 19 dice, a much smaller number than the minimum required. The average does not occur consistently.
Secondly, if you get a low roll on your first die, your character’s chances to reach the average are much lower. Take a look at this example of a fighter’s hit points:
Your first roll is a one out of ten.
This means your next roll must be a ten to get back to par.
What happens if you don’t? The next roll has an equal chance of ending up as another one as much as a ten. Maybe you roll another one. Now you have to roll a ten twice in the next 2 rolls just to reach the average. You can see how the numbers are able to snowball.
Understanding that each hit point roll directly affects your total hit points is crucial to understand the failing of a rolling for hit points system. We believe this is one of the reasons why Pathfinder Roleplaying Game grants characters maximum hit points at level one. You will at least have average hit points by the first roll (second level). Unfortunately, this approach does not fix the problem. You could still roll a few more ones in a row and be right back in the same boat as before.
We understand the joy of rolling hit points, but we also know that very low hits points can be a major frustration for a player. As such...
<excluding my rules>
Sadly there is no system that is both fun and flawless.
Good luck.
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.
I've found that Mage Armor, Shield, Protection from Evil, and Chill Touch cast in succession makes a Wizard pert near impossible to hit, and a decent melee monkey. You don't HAVE to hide all the time. Heck, once you get into 5th and higher levels, you can cast Invisibility on yourself and then start up on Summon Monster spells, being practically unhittable all that time.
What happens to game balance when the DM maxes out the possible hit points of the monsters?
What happens to game balance when the DM maxes out the possible hit points of the monsters?
Depends on what else the monster has going for it and how big its HD are.
10 HP Skeletons aren't a big deal.
120 HP Vampires are a little worse, but not really all that bad.
240 HP Dread Wraiths? Yeah that's a big boost in the challenge.
What happens to game balance when the DM maxes out the possible hit points of the monsters?
It makes the classes that contribute by dealing HP damage worse, and makes the classes that take out enemies in other ways (like save-or-dies) better by comparison.
In other words, it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
I would just like to point out that there is a difference between a dick DM and a challenging DM.
This DM just seems to be of the challenging sort, there is no indication of this DM trying to outright kill the players for no reason. Just a high damage trap that is within CR range and a houserule from an old edition which he then changed. I say give this DM a chance.
|
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.
But there's also high damage weapons like 2 handers to consider, a 1 hp, average con (10) character has a 1 in 6 chance to go from full health to insta dead from a single greataxe attack even if it has -0- damage bonus... your average CR 1/3 orc charging into combat for a +7 to hit & doing 2d4+4 with a Falchion at an 18+ crit range is incredibly deadly to low hp characters.
If the players are all for that and the GM has a story that will be enhanced by this, fantastic, everyone will have fun, but its really important for everyone to be on the same page otherwise it's going to cause issues. Bottom line, communication is important and the best way to ensure everyone has fun, just like the OP did with his GM and sorted everything out so they can get on playing and all enjoy it.
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 ><
I have used half plus hit points on the first HD since... well a long time. 1E iirc. If you roll under half, roll again. It hasn't cripled my players to not start at max automatically. They are probably a bit more cautious. A Fighter starts with at least 6 hp plus Con bonus. Under PF that means even the lowliest Wizard has 4 hp. I don't suggest unarmored Wizards get into melee too often anyway. On the other hand if asked for advice on back story I tell them that some notes are good and they should focus on writing the characters story within the game. Maybe add to those starting notes later when a more complete background might come in handy. Six pages of backstory for a first level PC, even if he had full hit points is a bit much. One nasty combat and you're down six pages of effort...
What happens to game balance when the DM maxes out the possible hit points of the monsters?It makes the classes that contribute by dealing HP damage worse, and makes the classes that take out enemies in other ways (like save-or-dies) better by comparison.
In other words, it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
I dunno. Save or die effects are unreliable by their very nature.
Just makes me wonder what effect it would have on PC resources if some monster or monsters had maxed out hp. Or the converse, if PC's had maxed out hp and the monsters didn't.
Hey, I just started a new campaign with a new group. No one in the group has played with each other before. DM announces that all the players are going to roll for health at level 1. So, if a fighter rolls a 1, he gets to start with 1 health + Con bonus.
I think this is a really, really bad idea and I disagree with it.
There you go. If he disagrees, find yourself another gamemaster who doesn't hate his players.
|
I've found that Mage Armor, Shield, Protection from Evil, and Chill Touch cast in succession makes a Wizard pert near impossible to hit, and a decent melee monkey. You don't HAVE to hide all the time. Heck, once you get into 5th and higher levels, you can cast Invisibility on yourself and then start up on Summon Monster spells, being practically unhittable all that time.
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.
A first-level wizard can cast up to 3 level 1 spells per day, so on the first encounter you'd blow all your castings on defensives. The rest of the dungeon you're huddling again.
And yeah, it gets better at higher levels, but that's not very useful when discussing HP for level 1 characters.
---
Consider the lowly CR 1/3 orc. He deals 2d4+4 damage with an 18-20/x2 crit range, at +5 to hit. Continues fighting until -12 HP. A level 1 party is supposed to be able to fight about three of them as a normal (not exceptionally difficult) encounter. But how do you see that going for a fighter with below-average HP?
A fighter with HP below 8 or so really isn't a fighter. He can't be played like a fighter. He might be an archer, or a rogue, hoping to kill the enemy at range or by surprise, but in a normal fight he can't do his job, which is surviving the first attack and beating the enemy before getting hit again.
What happens to game balance when the DM maxes out the possible hit points of the monsters?Depends on what else the monster has going for it and how big its HD are.
10 HP Skeletons aren't a big deal.
120 HP Vampires are a little worse, but not really all that bad.
240 HP Dread Wraiths? Yeah that's a big boost in the challenge.
Unless a maxed-out monster can still be killed in one hit, it makes them about 150% to 200% as nasty as the original was: CR +1 or +2. I actually really like doing this for important monsters, because it makes them live longer without actually granting them ridiculous attack and defense bonuses the way extra hit dice do.
A first-level wizard can cast up to 3 level 1 spells per day, so on the first encounter you'd blow all your castings on defensives. The rest of the dungeon you're huddling again.And yeah, it gets better at higher levels, but that's not very useful when discussing HP for level 1 characters.
A 1st level wizard would simply need to cast Mage Armor, and perhaps Shield, and be good defensively. You don't have to cast the entire string of 1st level spells; I just listed them as an example.
Back in the day, we used to say we'd start out characters at 2nd or 3rd level, just because 1st level groups died off quickly, as the CR of what you were up against didn't change for the first 3 levels in the DMG (of course that mixes in terms from 3.0, I came in running games during 2nd ed, and played some 1st). Lots of times, I'd also give out max hp for those first 2-3 levels as well. Kept them alive long enough to learn from their mistakes.
Unless a maxed-out monster can still be killed in one hit, it makes them about 150% to 200% as nasty as the original was: CR +1 or +2. I actually really like doing this for important monsters, because it makes them live longer without actually granting them ridiculous attack and defense bonuses the way extra hit dice do.
I think the next time I run Expedition to Ravenloft I will max out Strahd's hp. Being a necromancer, he doesn't get a whole lot of defenses to begin with.