Considering how fragile 1st level characters can be, I've thought about allowing characters to add what would be their racial hit die (d10 theoretically) to their characters at 1st level. Think about it - when you face a 4th level Ogre Fighter, his hit points aren't just 4d10, or a 7th level Storm Giant Sorcerer isn't just 7d8... giving the characters an extra d10 hit points to start off with seems like a good way to help them survive those first few levels without having to run and hide after every fight.
Another option - the one I've used most often - is to start the characters out at 2nd or 3rd level but with 0 experience points, forcing them to earn their experience all the way up before reaching their new level. Thsi avoids some of those 'silly' CR 1/2 or CR 1 encounters that sometimes feels like the foreplay before the campaign actually starts.
The only campaign I've ever actually enjoyed being 1st level was Skull and Shackles - usually its a necessary pain.
Look up the racial "classes" in a 3.5 book called unearthed arcana. It's a great way to start characters off at lvl 4, with 4th lvl being the first base class lvl. Alternately, you can either gestalt their first 3 levels or up to 6 for half elf and half Orc. Or as a third option, you can give all the class abilities to them @ first level except for the HD. The BaB and save bonuses would be considered racial bonuses, and any caster levels would be a bonus to checks and spell powers, but not spells/day.
It would be very OP for the last 2 examples, but it seems as though that is what you are looking for.
2nd level and 0 xp is a good one, I usually start players at 2. Allows some to play non-human monster races too.
I think a wizard who has no experience or training to take hits, should go down pretty damn fast once the damage comes their way. d10 is potentially a lot.
I get that you want to make all the lower lev adventurers tougher, but I fully support the old values for hit die. Wizards should be d4, barbs should be d12, a wizard starting out should not be d10+d4, that is a lot of hp thrown around.
Extra hp is usually asked for/abused by soft spellcasters to escape one of their prime weaknesses, hp.
Agree with kmal2t.
Ah, and more hp also throws some of the balance and counters out of the window. What do I mean? Well, when sorc/wiz are d4, the undetected rogue is their counter. Put them up to d6 and they can take a sneak attack or two (pretty soon) and end their old counter with spells.
3, 3.5, spellcasters died fast to rogues. More hp can fudge things around a bit. I know pf went d6 for these classes, but I've never liked it.
I like this idea. I'm doing this in the 3.5 campaign I'm currently running. Everyone has 5hp + their Con bonus to represent their "commoner" level. This seems to give PC's a slight edge at first level without going over the top.
In addition to the hp, I also give all characters a "commoner" feat from a select list. These are things like skill focus, running, etc., the feats that no one ever seems to take with their class levels. One of the feat options I offer also allows a PC to make a non-class skill a class skill. If your fighter was once apprenticed to a locksmith then Open Lock becomes a class skill for him.
This seems to help break up the rigidity of the class system and allows for some fun options - and it also forces players to give some thought to their character's backstory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally prefer games which start the pcs off at level one. Everyone is really squishy and there is the very real possibility of getting offed if you fail a save and the opponent rolls well. Even in the case of classes with d10 or d12 hit die, the level 1 pc can still be killed quite easily if the opponent rolls well. The longer the party succeeds at quests, surviving and levelling up, the greater is the sense of achievement. I'm not saying that starting with extra hp from a houserule is bad, it just depends on how big a bonus you would give the players. I and other gamers have found the sense of achievement really diminished when the dm decides to add an extra 5 hp at first level to everyone or rules max hp gained each time the pcs level up. I suppose I prefer a slightly harsh game but everyone's gaming style is different. The pcs are supposed to be the great heroes/villains/cool individuals eventually. Essentially its the ye old thing of "the man of tomorrow is forged by his battles today." Something can't really be considered a battle if its chances of failure are too drastically lowered. But YMMV.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In one of my current campaigns I have given the players extra hit points equal to their constitution score. This makes them less squishy and more heroic.
No extra rules needed, play as it comes and so far only two player deaths on the 5th session (one was killed by the party on purpose) and they are 10 sessions in and some on 4th level and going strong.
This is running through the Rappan Athuk adventure book.
I personally prefer games which start the pcs off at level one. Everyone is really squishy and there is the very real possibility of getting offed if you fail a save and the opponent rolls well. Even in the case of classes with d10 or d12 hit die, the level 1 pc can still be killed quite easily if the opponent rolls well. The longer the party succeeds at quests, surviving and levelling up, the greater is the sense of achievement. I'm not saying that starting with extra hp from a houserule is bad, it just depends on how big a bonus you would give the players. I and other gamers have found the sense of achievement really diminished when the dm decides to add an extra 5 hp at first level to everyone or rules max hp gained each time the pcs level up. I suppose I prefer a slightly harsh game but everyone's gaming style is different. The pcs are supposed to be the great heroes/villains/cool individuals eventually. Essentially its the ye old thing of "the man of tomorrow is forged by his battles today." Something can't really be considered a battle if its chances of failure are too drastically lowered. But YMMV.
The Equalizer, you bring up a great point. Additional hit points must fit the "feel" of the game. In a gritty campaign extra hit points should not be given. Combat should be dirty and deadly. In a high fantasy, heroic type of campaign then I would say extra hit points fit the bill. One's houserules should serve the needs and feel of the campaign and the players involved.