Ultimate Campaign: Retraining to Max Hit Points


Product Discussion

151 to 200 of 219 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Project Manager

Removed a bunch of personal sniping, sarcasm, and ad hominems, as well as responses to the flagged posts. Please revisit the messageboard rules.

Everyone is welcome to repost the points they made without the hostility and personal attacks.

Liberty's Edge

Did SKR just get flagged :)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm not even seeing any FAQ flags there, after a week. Oh, and Sean's post is at 31 favorites now :D


I haven't seen the rule yet but if it takes a significant amount of time and gold investment I don't see the issue.

Of course as a DM I tend to have to pull my punches. Realistically max HP will only give them one or two more hits which is fine for me. It also gives me the opportunity to max HP on BBEGs. I like tactical combat that is less dependent on lucky crits or Save or Die spells though. So maybe its just me.

As a side note: I let my players roll HP and I roll also and they take the highest roll... so my players tend to have higher then normal HP to begin with. My old DM gave me the Idea, but he rolled secretly and you could keep your roll or accept his roll (be it higher or lower).


Gorbacz wrote:
I'm not even seeing any FAQ flags there, after a week. Oh, and Sean's post is at 31 favorites now :D

Speaking of the FAQ:

Paizo FAQ wrote:

"The most important rule: Don't be a jerk."

I guess they forgot to add "...unless you get at least 31 favorites" on the end there.

Liberty's Edge

Jerk is subjective.

Liberty's Edge

Dragonamedrake wrote:

I haven't seen the rule yet but if it takes a significant amount of time and gold investment I don't see the issue.

Of course as a DM I tend to have to pull my punches. Realistically max HP will only give them one or two more hits which is fine for me. It also gives me the opportunity to max HP on BBEGs. I like tactical combat that is less dependent on lucky crits or Save or Die spells though. So maybe its just me.

As a side note: I let my players roll HP and I roll also and they take the highest roll... so my players tend to have higher then normal HP to begin with. My old DM gave me the Idea, but he rolled secretly and you could keep your roll or accept his roll (be it higher or lower).

The only concern I had/have is when SKR said in another thread it wouldn't count against WBL.

But as an optional rule, it is kind of a moot point.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I'm not even seeing any FAQ flags there, after a week. Oh, and Sean's post is at 31 favorites now :D

Speaking of the FAQ:

Paizo FAQ wrote:


"The most important rule: Don't be a jerk."
I guess they forgot to add "...unless you get 31 favorites" on the end?

I think you are being unreasonably sensitive.

Putting a point in such a way to show its absurdity is a perfectly acceptable debating tool. The objection to which SKR was responding was shown to be an unwarranted concern by the time-honoured ad absurdum technique.

This does not make SKR a jerk, nor was his post 'being a jerk'.


ciretose wrote:
Dragonamedrake wrote:

I haven't seen the rule yet but if it takes a significant amount of time and gold investment I don't see the issue.

Of course as a DM I tend to have to pull my punches. Realistically max HP will only give them one or two more hits which is fine for me. It also gives me the opportunity to max HP on BBEGs. I like tactical combat that is less dependent on lucky crits or Save or Die spells though. So maybe its just me.

As a side note: I let my players roll HP and I roll also and they take the highest roll... so my players tend to have higher then normal HP to begin with. My old DM gave me the Idea, but he rolled secretly and you could keep your roll or accept his roll (be it higher or lower).

The only concern I had/have is when SKR said in another thread it wouldn't count against WBL.

But as an optional rule, it is kind of a moot point.

Well yes that would bug me too. It should count against your WBL considering it would be superior to a +Con item considering you can get the HP and still benefit from a Bear's Endurance spell... which you cant with the item... or you could stack the item and the extra HP.

It should cost enough that you have to do without one or two items you could have bought imo.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If reductio ad absurdum would count as "jerk behavior" round these parts, myself and TOZ would be permabanned 3 years ago at latest.

Project Manager

ciretose wrote:
Did SKR just get flagged :)

Sean's post was part of a message chain in response to some posts that were flagged and removed. While I'll admit it made me laugh, leaving it would have made it out of context.

Project Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Discussion about whether or not a deleted post was snarky, funny, inappropriate, etc. is continuing to derail the thread from its actual topic. If you have questions or concerns about moderation decisions, you can PM or email any Paizo employee with moderation privileges to discuss it. This thread, however, is not the appropriate place to debate the moderation.

If you believe a post is inappropriate and should be removed, flag it and move on. Don't respond to it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
mach1.9pants wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
I wonder how the use of the OGL and making a non-backwards compatible version of Pathfinder would interact. Just a thought for when, far in the future, Pathfinder 2.0 arrives.
That is not a problem, if that is what you are implying, there are literally hundreds of OGL games out there, the majority are only slightly compatible with 3.x D&D, many which are not. The OSR (Old School Revival/Renaissance) is based on using the OGL combined with the fact games rules cannot be copyrighted, to create simulacra of all versions of D&D, like PFRPG is a simulacra of 3.x. But beyond that there are games which only bare the slightest resemblance to 3.x and are still published with the OGL included.

Great, that answers that concern! Many thanks!

Now, if only Sean would respond to my question about accelerated crafting from the books main thread. My RotRL round is tomorrow and my GM hoped for an official answer to clear this up... <sigh>


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Introducing a solution with a very low resource cost (gold) results in a choice that is just better than others, and therefore not really a choice at all.

Rather than applying a poorly-conceived patch to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place, why not address the actual problem: Random hit points in a system built on mastery? It seems pretty obvious that in a game where every feat and choice is explicitly designed to have far-reaching, meaningful consequences, one of the most important resources a character has should not be randomly determined.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

bugleyman, you're proposing changing the roll-your-hp game mechanic in the Core Rulebook, invalidating 30+ years of precedent in D&D, and doing it as an errata four years after the Core Rulebook was published.

(Revising the rule in Ultimate Campaign would require errata for the Core Rulebook, you can't just have a newer book blatantly contradict the older one.)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'd like to point out that the "let's get rid of random hp" idea did float around during the Alpha/Beta playtests of PF and didn't exactly raise an army of followers.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

You could have included a flat hp progression optional rule, couldn't you? Would that have had the same effect?


bugleyman wrote:

Introducing a solution with a very low resource cost (gold) results in a choice that is just better than others, and therefore not really a choice at all.

Rather than applying a poorly-conceived patch to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place, why not address the actual problem: Random hit points in a system built on mastery? It seems pretty obvious that in a game where every feat and choice is explicitly designed to have far-reaching, meaningful consequences, one of the most important resources a character has should not be randomly determined.

You could use wounds and vigor, from Pathfinder’s Ultimate Combat.

Or just use the Common Houserule of Base HP based on HD like Average HD +1, OR a more balanced Base total like below.

D6 = 4
D8 = 5
D10 = 7
D12 = 9

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

I always like the d6+x variant, myself. Assures that melee types WILL have much better HP then spellcasters. Standard averages only give them a 1-2 hp advantage. Using d6+x gives them +2 to +6.

===Aelryinth


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:


Rather than applying a poorly-conceived patch to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place, why not address the actual problem: Random hit points in a system built on mastery? It seems pretty obvious that in a game where every feat and choice is explicitly designed to have far-reaching, meaningful consequences, one of the most important resources a character has should not be randomly determined.

I'm gonna say that's not really a problem. Being able to adjust to random factors is an important part of the game. Plus, it has the potential to ameliorate the more extreme tendencies in more static build options. Randomness helps keep the players who lack system in the game because it doesn't play favorites.

Silver Crusade

If we want Paizo's way of doing non-random hit points, we need look no further than PFS and its 'half hit die+1' rule.

We now play by rolling hit points normally, but with the PFS total as a minimum.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

bugleyman, you're proposing changing the roll-your-hp game mechanic in the Core Rulebook, invalidating 30+ years of precedent in D&D, and doing it as an errata four years after the Core Rulebook was published.

(Revising the rule in Ultimate Campaign would require errata for the Core Rulebook, you can't just have a newer book blatantly contradict the older one.)

Fair enough. Though I don't care _at_all_ about precedent, I understand that a change of that magnitude can't be introduced as an errata. And while I still believe that patching in a gold-based solution creates more problems than it solves, I understand that others may feel differently.

What I don't understand is the earlier reaction to someone politely expressing their view of the rule. There's plenty of knee-jerk expurgation directed at anyone who dares to question anything Pathfinder without Paizo staff encouraging more.

:(


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
We now play by rolling hit points normally, but with the PFS total as a minimum.

Which has the unintended consequence of hit point inflation, complete with the attendant nerfing of already sub-optimal direct damage magic...but that is beyond the scope of this thread.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

bugleyman wrote:
What I don't understand is the earlier reaction to someone politely expressing their view of the rule. There's plenty of knee-jerk expurgation directed at anyone who dares to question anything Pathfinder without Paizo staff encouraging more.

People were overreacting. They deserved some good-hearted teasing.

Shadow Lodge

Gorbacz wrote:
If reductio ad absurdum would count as "jerk behavior" round these parts, myself and TOZ would be permabanned 3 years ago at latest.

I still don't know how I've survived this long.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
TOZ wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
If reductio ad absurdum would count as "jerk behavior" round these parts, myself and TOZ would be permabanned 3 years ago at latest.
I still don't know how I've survived this long.

Bribing the moderation team? :p

I can see how people want and/or don't want added HP and/or Skill Points. But I see any 'rule' in any RPG as optional (obviously I don't do any Society type play!) so having a Skill Points for cost as a rule is good for me. The thing about most rules from Paizo is that they are well thought out by peeps who know the system. So an official optional rule of any sort is a plus for me. Use it if you want it type thing. Even better, IMO, is when the rule is accompanied by a sidebar with the dev's thoughts on pros and cons.

Project Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
mach1.9pants wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
If reductio ad absurdum would count as "jerk behavior" round these parts, myself and TOZ would be permabanned 3 years ago at latest.
I still don't know how I've survived this long.
Bribing the moderation team? :p

Wait, there are bribes? I'm going to have to have a word with the other moderators about not mentioning this.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Jessica Price wrote:
mach1.9pants wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
If reductio ad absurdum would count as "jerk behavior" round these parts, myself and TOZ would be permabanned 3 years ago at latest.
I still don't know how I've survived this long.
Bribing the moderation team? :p
Wait, there are bribes? I'm going to have to have a word with the other moderators about not mentioning this.

You don't want what Gorbacz offers.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:
mach1.9pants wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
If reductio ad absurdum would count as "jerk behavior" round these parts, myself and TOZ would be permabanned 3 years ago at latest.
I still don't know how I've survived this long.
Bribing the moderation team? :p
Wait, there are bribes? I'm going to have to have a word with the other moderators about not mentioning this.
You don't want what Gorbacz offers.

*quietly puts back the 99% Spirytus bottle*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alright reading back a few I have seen gold called a very low cost resource and whatnot. What game are you people playing? Do you only play casters? Or do you just hand out 2X-3X the WBL?

For melee (who this rule is clearly meant to help) Gold is spread really damn thin as it is. With the high cost of magic armor and much higher cost of magic weapons, Needing at least the two ability belt if not the all 3 ability score belt, A way to fly at least for a short time every day, Save boosting items (since most melee get jack for will saves) and more. These are needed just to function in their intended roles.

Even if you have a caster to make a couple of those wondrous items for you gold should not be nearly as plentiful as some are making it out to be.


Question as I haven't seen this book/rule yet...

Everyone keeps talking about raising you HP to max... is that a GIVEN? or is it only an option? I mean, is the rule something like you, you spend X gold and Y time to raise stat 1 point... Repeatable as necessary max of... max?

Or is it 'Spend X gold and Y time to raise your HP to max?'

Honestly, I don't see an issue with this one way or another... but I REALLY have no problem with version 1. I've had characters roll high, and I've had them roll low. and at least for the first couple of levels... I HAVE had characters with Max HP.

I think Sean's first post summed it up nicely, when he stated these are numbers that the game is designed that players can get ANYWAY. They may not be the AVERAGE... but 'rolling well' won't break the game.

Especially if it's only ONE player getting the extra hp?!? and devoting all his gold and time to do it?

I'm actually surprised by the backlash here.

Still, I'm curious how the rule is worded.

Also, how is 'max' determined? is it taking into acount the favored class bonus I put into HP the first three levels? or are those just lost now?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
phantom1592 wrote:

Question as I haven't seen this book/rule yet...

Everyone keeps talking about raising you HP to max... is that a GIVEN? or is it only an option? I mean, is the rule something like you, you spend X gold and Y time to raise stat 1 point... Repeatable as necessary max of... max?

It is an optional rule. And the rule is to raise your hit points by 1 point at a time.

Quote:
Especially if it's only ONE player getting the extra hp?!? and devoting all his gold and time to do it?

The cost is fairly low: 30 gp times your level.

Quote:
Also, how is 'max' determined? is it taking into acount the favored class bonus I put into HP the first three levels? or are those just lost now?

Your max hit points are calculates as the maximum possible hit points a character of your level could have, including accounting for Con and Favoured Class.

Grand Lodge

Gorbacz wrote:
I'd like to point out that the "let's get rid of random hp" idea did float around during the Alpha/Beta playtests of PF and didn't exactly raise an army of followers.

Oddly changing wizards & sorcerers to d6 hit points from d4's didn't cause much of a fuss, personally I preferred the two hit die at first level idea instead. Times are changing, and while I admittedly supported rolling hit points back then, now I can't justify why hp's must be random.

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:
mach1.9pants wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
If reductio ad absurdum would count as "jerk behavior" round these parts, myself and TOZ would be permabanned 3 years ago at latest.
I still don't know how I've survived this long.
Bribing the moderation team? :p
Wait, there are bribes? I'm going to have to have a word with the other moderators about not mentioning this.
You don't want what Gorbacz offers.
*quietly puts back the 99% Spirytus bottle*

Who needs vision!

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zombie Ninja wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I'd like to point out that the "let's get rid of random hp" idea did float around during the Alpha/Beta playtests of PF and didn't exactly raise an army of followers.

Oddly changing wizards & sorcerers to d6 hit points from d4's didn't cause much of a fuss, personally I preferred the two hit die at first level idea instead. Times are changing, and while I admittedly supported rolling hit points back then, now I can't justify why hp's must be random.

I can imagine the "IT'S 4E ALL OVER AGAIN!" screams if fixed hp were introduced in 2009. Sometimes good ideas need to be sacrificed on the altar of marketing, alas.


Grimmy wrote:
@Ice Titan: Ouch! I haven't heard of a DM that would make you keep all those ones in a while! We've been just using average HP for a whole now and before that we had tried roll and keep whichever s better, the average or the roll. And before that we had tried roll but reroll all ones.

In 3.0 I played a multiclass barbarian/bard to level 5 or 6 and my average Hp roll was somewhere around 2.

I got no reroll, no bonus, nothing. All I got was a squishy frontline pc.

because of other reasons (it was too much roll playing for such a roleplaying heavy pc) I was not happy with the guy and asked the GM to be allowed to play something else. He declined.

After some time with little fun I started to try and get the pc killed. The gm declined and always only brought him slightly below 0hp. Often close to the start of the fight because I entered battle unarmored and raging.

I would have left the game but my flatmate and I where hosting the game and she (for unknown reasons) liked the game.

Now I just make clear that I will not join a game of D&D or PF where either stats or hp are rolled. And no such game will be hosted in our livingroom.

Grand Lodge

Gorbacz wrote:
Zombie Ninja wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I'd like to point out that the "let's get rid of random hp" idea did float around during the Alpha/Beta playtests of PF and didn't exactly raise an army of followers.

Oddly changing wizards & sorcerers to d6 hit points from d4's didn't cause much of a fuss, personally I preferred the two hit die at first level idea instead. Times are changing, and while I admittedly supported rolling hit points back then, now I can't justify why hp's must be random.

I can imagine the "IT'S 4E ALL OVER AGAIN!" screams if fixed hp were introduced in 2009. Sometimes good ideas need to be sacrificed on the altar of marketing, alas.

I use the 1/3 rule when it comes to 4e, in other words one third of the rules I liked, one third I didn't like , and one third I was ambivalent to. Sometimes looking back at it I wasn't sure why I felt such animosity towards 4e, sure it's not my favorite system, but it had it's up and down side just like 3e did. Personal preferences I guess.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll admit that people are overreacting, but Sean's much-favorited facetious post doesn't really hold water with me. It mischaracterizes those of us who think this optional rule has unintended implications.

I much prefer his explanation later in the thread.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
People were overreacting. They deserved some good-hearted teasing.

It seemed more mean than anything else, but that's a limitation of the medium I suppose. I am also very sensitive to what I perceive as bullying.

Sorry everyone for the kerfuffle.


Zombie Ninja wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I'd like to point out that the "let's get rid of random hp" idea did float around during the Alpha/Beta playtests of PF and didn't exactly raise an army of followers.
Oddly changing wizards & sorcerers to d6 hit points from d4's didn't cause much of a fuss, personally I preferred the two hit die at first level idea instead. Times are changing, and while I admittedly supported rolling hit points back then, now I can't justify why hp's must be random.

It's an issue of scale really. One is +20 hp over 20 levels, the other is potentially +120 (for a barbarian).

Also, it was possible for a d4 wizard to "roll lucky" and have that +20 HP, maybe.

It is extremely improbable to roll max hp at each of 20 levels. That is a one-in-100-quintillion result for a d10, or close to it. I would be surprised if that has even happened for one PC in the history of all editions of the game.

None of the game's balance metrics could possibly assume characters so far from the average.

It's not the retraining rule itself that inspired the incredulousness of the original post, it's the cap. Retraining is awesome. CR is already only dubiously accurate, the last thing we need is another huge blind spot.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Gallo wrote:
Why are HP the only variable-rate resources in levelling?

The short answer is: backwards compatibility with D&D 3.5. (The same reason the "official" default method of *rolling* up a character is to roll your ability scores instead of using a standard array or point-buy.)

.

And 3.0, and AD&D and OD&D. There is something to be said for tradition. I like keeping sold of the old school stuff in.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

The parts of the game that care about your number of ranks, instead of your total modifier, are very few. And if your fighter wants to become a shadowdancer, he needs to put 5 ranks into Stealth to get it. If that means he put 5 fewer ranks into Perception, then there are feats and several cheap magic items he can find or buy that can give him an additional +5 to Perception rolls.

If your character is a diplomat and a significant portion of your ranks in Diplomacy are from a magic item rather than your innate ability, you have made a poor choice for your...

Sean, you make some excellent points, but the mind of the Min/Maxer rocket-tag specialist is something to behold. They read some guide posted and they dump at least two stats down to 7. Heck, that’s EIGHT Free points, right?!! Who needs CHA or INT, right? After all, a 7 CHA just means my PC is a cool loner type with a scar (not someone with no self-esteem and uglier than Tuco). Heck, I can give my DPR a 5% boost!!. Then they use the Favored class bonus for something else, and if they are human, dump the extra SkP option for some other combat booster. Now they have only 1Skp/lvl, and clearly that means the system is broken as now you can’t qualify for that really spiffy PrC.

As you said- “choices”.

That being said, Sean, I think the system baited two of the traps too well. A Fighter loses the same # of SkP by dumping Int to either 9 or 7.

I think you guys made two small mistakes: a Fighter should have 4 Skp/lvl and there should be no option for dumping stats to a 7.

151 to 200 of 219 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Ultimate Campaign: Retraining to Max Hit Points All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.