I recently rolled up a new character for a new campaign I'm joining, and I got shafted hard when it came to my HP roll. I rolled a 2 on my d8, which with CON bonuses gives me a measly 4hp. Essentially, I can be potentially one-shoted by practically every weapon in the game, which is a problem for a melee-focused class like the Magus. Now, my GM seems like the type who's fairly harsh at low levels, so I get the feeling that I'll become a target for NPCs. Now, I've tried my best to work my way around this, such as springing for Studded Leather instead of just Leather in order to bump up my AC, but even still I can tell this is going to be a rough 1st level. So, what else should I do to try and avoid having to re-roll in the first hour? I'm guessing one option would be to try and avoid melee combat altogether, choosing to instead rock the 1d3 from Acid Splash/Ray of Frost, limiting my melee interactions to situations where I can get a confirmed kill without getting hit. Any suggestions?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You always max HP at first level. Your GM seems either misinformed or perhaps he takes pleasure in human suffering. Either way, you should have 10 hp at level 1. 11 if you have favored class Magus and elect for HP.
If you're forced to play a 4 hp character and the DM's monsters gun for you as a result of him knowing about your pretend glass jaw, just die as quickly as you can, pack up your dice, then go have a drink and maybe look for another group.
That sounds harsh, but rolling for hp at level 1 plus singling out PCs for death based on low hp rolls sounds less like a simple misunderstanding and more like malice.
I already knew you're supposed to take the full HD, but when I brought this up during character rolling he shot that down and asked me to roll it. I'll try and bring up the specific rule in the CRB, but if he shoots that down, I'll just have to hope that he's not a dick about it, I guess. Whateves. Thanks anyway!
So, am I to assume that you're playing with house-rules that gets rid of the max-hp at first level? Because normally you'd get maximized HD for your first level, leaving you with 10 HP. If that is the case (in which case, I'd try and find a new DM, but that's just me) honestly, you have one of two (bad) options. The first of which is to take the Toughness feat, which is a pretty terrible feat, but in your circumstance will at least make you more survivable, if still not very durable. The other option is just to write the character off as dead, and roll up a back up character. Honestly, if I were you, I'd roll up more than just 1.
As for 'aggro', there's nothing that can really stop the DM from focusing on you without you being simply out of their reach. While often maligned as too "MMO-esque" I do find it unfortunate that the game doesn't have better mechanics to represent this sort of thing. Both from a player's side of the table (i.e. 'tanking' is more fun because there's more decision making involved) and from the DM's side of the table (i.e. I don't have to essentially fiat the reason why the enemies wouldn't focus fire the squishy wizards).
Edit: though, honestly based on how you described how he reacted to you bringing up the Max HP at first level rule, what I would do (and I'm in no way endorsing that you do this) would be just bring the character sheet with 10 HP (or 11 if you put the Favored class bonus on it), and force him to call me on it. I'd have no intention on playing the session (as honestly, this is a warning sign of a bad DM), I'd just open up for the possibility to put his foot in his mouth in a huge way.
Well, thankfully I have no real commitments to this game. I found it through the LFG section on Roll20. I've mentioned the specific rule on HD in the book to him (even going so far as to screencap it), but if this was intentional and not just a mistake, whatever. I'll let it ride for a session or two. If it seems like he's being harsh, I'll just bow out. No biggie.
Man, every other thread this week is about jerk DMs.
It is what it is, I s'pose. :P
You've got a good attitude going into the game. Good luck. Hopefully it's just a weird houserule and it'll turn out awesome.
Just remember, there is only one real way to avoid the "jerk DM".
Be the DM.
nah, tried that. Game just became more lethal for those that didn't play as the DM had planned...
Just remember, there is only one real way to avoid the "jerk DM".
Be the DM.
I've done it. I just want to actually get to play for once.
OT: Yeah, he doesn't care. "I like my PCs squishy. Despite what the rules say, and I am aware that this mode of starting HP exists, I will still be forcing you to roll HP anyways.:)" From the sound of that, it seems like I'm not going to be staying in this campaign for very long. A DM who likes for his players to be able to be one-shot at level one doesn't exactly seem like a good DM to me. Oh well.
That's a common problem. If someone is a good DM they get stuck with it and don't get to play. Sometimes passive-aggressive players intentionally DM poorly so they can say "no one likes when I DM." Our group has a round robin thing. If a DM wants to manage a certain world completely, on another person's turn we play a different campaign or even different game completely.
Not saying it is, but it could be that he has extremely wimpy opponents for you at first level. {shrug}
As far as ideas...
use hide armor and a shield, you don't have that many spells for spell strike anyway
use a long spear and spiked gauntlet
throw a javelin will make use of your strength for damage
tanglefoot bag to tie them down while you shoot them
alchemist fire to set them on fire, keeps them busy while you hit them
smokestick so they can't see you
toughness or dodge feats and retrain them later (make sure he allows before you chose this)
choose to prepare to prepare stunning disabling spells instead of damaging spells
sneak, surprise, flank, hit, run away
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I think people are jumping on the "Jerk GM" bandwagon a bit too fast here.
One little isolated rule change that you don't like does not indicate the guy/gal is a total ash hat.
My current GM has at least 6 different house rules that I don't particularly like nor do I agree are 'realism improvements.' I would say all of them have more effect on the game than this one. But he is still a pretty good GM and we all have fun.
VS wants to give it a try with an open mind and I think that is great. The guy could still be a great GM with much entertainment being had by all.
IF after he tries it, he finds that the guy is really horrible and does other stuff that is a problem, then that is a completely different situation.
Just remember, there is only one real way to avoid the "jerk DM".
Be the DM.
I've done it. I just want to actually get to play for once.
OT: Yeah, he doesn't care. "I like my PCs squishy. Despite what the rules say, and I am aware that this mode of starting HP exists, I will still be forcing you to roll HP anyways.:)" From the sound of that, it seems like I'm not going to be staying in this campaign for very long. A DM who likes for his players to be able to be one-shot at level one doesn't exactly seem like a good DM to me. Oh well.
A good GM is not required to follow all rules as written--in fact, few good GMs do. A good GM should tell the players the important house rules up front. For the more situational house rules, good GMs bring up the relevant ones when it becomes clear that it has a significant impact on player and/or character autonomy.*
Sounds like this is a good GM. If you don't like the rule change and the GM is resolute, either accept it or find another game.
*Note: All this is off the table for monster abilities, homebrew spells, and so on, so long as the GM makes a reasonable attempt to correctly categorize the change by CR, spell level, or whatever, and doesn't make these alterations out of sheer spite. It's okay if all orcs are immune to electricity in the GMs world, but not if the GM made it so simply because one of the players is an optimized shocking grasp magus.
Just remember, there is only one real way to avoid the "jerk DM".
Be the DM.
I've done it. I just want to actually get to play for once.
OT: Yeah, he doesn't care. "I like my PCs squishy. Despite what the rules say, and I am aware that this mode of starting HP exists, I will still be forcing you to roll HP anyways.:)" From the sound of that, it seems like I'm not going to be staying in this campaign for very long. A DM who likes for his players to be able to be one-shot at level one doesn't exactly seem like a good DM to me. Oh well.
A good GM is not required to follow all rules as written--in fact, few good GMs do. A good GM should tell the players the important house rules up front. For the more situational house rules, good GMs bring up the relevant ones when it becomes clear that it has a significant impact on player and/or character autonomy.*
Sounds like this is a good GM. If you don't like the rule change and the GM is resolute, either accept it or find another game.
*Note: All this is off the table for monster abilities, homebrew spells, and so on, so long as the GM makes a reasonable attempt to correctly categorize the change by CR, spell level, or whatever, and doesn't make these alterations out of sheer spite. It's okay if all orcs are immune to electricity in the GMs world, but not if the GM made it so simply because one of the players is an optimized shocking grasp magus.
For me, it's not just the hp rule that bugs me about the guy. It's the things he said during character rolling, in general correspondence, etc. I'm willing to give the dude the benefit of the doubt. If I didn't I would even be showing up for the game at all. At the moment, however, I have reservations. That's all. This has nothing to do with a hatred of house rules. I've used them myself as a GM. This has more to do with a general gut feeling about the guy.
"I like my PCs squishy"
This is level 1. Max HP barbarians are squishy. House rules are fine, I generally appreciate them to be accompanied by a reason. Especially when it means you die to a shuriken.
Or a housecat.
This has become a fun game of embaressing ways to die. Whats the damage for going barefoot on really small and hard gravel? I mean im sure its subdual but with that low a hp count a walk across the lane could kill you.
Nonlethal caltrops? 1 nonlethal damage on a failed...DC 10 Ref save?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
my buddies and i played from the nsc point of view some years back in 3.5e. everyone rolled up an npc class character, first level hitpoints average, 13/12/11/10/8/7 attribute spread. played it for like 10~12 sessions, was quite fun (stopped when we reached lvl 3, some converted their characters into real heros for the next campaign). Its just a different feel of play as long as the GM hasn't implemented such a rule to kill PCs on purpose.
Remember you dont die at 0 HP, you are disabled and only fall unconscious at -1, death comes at negative constitution. When a Dagger with a max roll can get you to 0 HP its not a dead character, its a different style of play. Once you got some levels you wont be super low on HP, you'll just have 8 HP less then you would normally have.
If your GM does a good job, the low levels will feel completely different from a normal game and it will take a while longer for everyone to feel super awesome, but thats not bad, its different, different may even be good ;)
Unless the rule is there to kill PCs, in that case: Grab your gear and run!
//edit
Didnt really answer the real question of how to survive:
1. Talk. With everyone. About everything. Dont try to murder the thugs that try to rob you on a highway, talk your way out of it. If its reasonable pay them (dont waste a 25 gold alchemical item to fight someone that just wants your purse with 7 GP in it). Even goblins speak a language.
2. Dont Fight unless you have to, in that case: Setup an Ambush
3. Dont work for free
4. Get out the dirty tricks (alchemical stuff, traps, creative thinking)
Remember you dont get XP for killing stuff. You get it for overcoming a challenge. If you talk your way out of a CR 2 encounter you get the same experience as for fighting your way out.
|
Grishnackh: Being at 0 hp is not unconscious, it is being staggered.
And, as mentioned, unless youhave a specific Barbarian build (designed to survive a halfling barbarian with a greataxe's crits), even a 1st level Barbarian tends toward the squishy.
Con: 20: +5
HD: d12: 12
FCB: hp
Toughness: 3
Shoanti tribal feat for 6 hp: 6
Rage: +2
27 hp, 29 when raging
But that dedicates a significant amount of the PC's resources to hit points.
And, even with 11 hp, that still leaves the magus (with a chronically low AC for someone who goes into melee) vulnerable to just about any crit. Especially since you have the possibility of APL+2 CR (or higher) opponents.
A 3rd or 4th level Magus opponent is ugly when you are all 1st level...
@kinevon
actually its disabled, which is staggered with the added benefit of loosing HP on a standart action ;) fixed my post to make it more accurate
And whats going with a PC with 10 CON with a 1 in the HP roll. Is he falling unconscious to a hand shake? Is that kind of "heroes" what he is looking for?
Well, I think, as said, you are in the good way giving him a chance, but I see that houserule like nonsense.
Good Luck!
Wow. A lot of whining in this thread. Sounds like a completely reasonable house rule in my opinion. The GM is probably trying to aim for non-Super Hero PCs, especially at 1st level.
If one house rule is going to cause you to not want to play in a campaign, I'd recommend dropping out at this point rather than playing a session or two and then leaving, as that can be disruptive to a campaign.
Saying that there's a lot of whining here just makes me think you're looking for something to gripe about. You might try, like, disagreeing without abrasively dismissing everything everyone else is saying otherwise.
What kinds of games do you play in where a Magus having 11 hp at level 1 is a superhero? All that means is when fighting things besides choleric orphans, you can probably take 2 hits instead of 1. As you probably know, back in the good old days of older editions we used to roll for hp at level 1 for a pretty long time. There are a lot of very good reasons why that rule changed. Along with the d4 wizard HD.
It's an online game. Rule number one of online games is expect 80% of your players to drop. Rule number two, necessitated by rule number one, is join every game that sounds tolerable, see what sticks.
Back in 1st Ed. I played a thief I nicknamed "the sleeping thief" because during character creation I rolled a 2 for hit points on my d6. I joked that he would fall unconscious if he stubbed his toe and fell. That character made it to 2nd level actually, and I rolled a 5 for hps. We stopped the campaign shortly thereafter. I just took it as a challenge to keep him alive, but recognized that he was extremely squishy and played accordingly.
My current PFRPG bard has rolled horrible for many of his 12 levels (cracked 50 hps at 10th level). Our group often refers to blows taken in "Rikkos" as a measure of his hps ("you take 3/4 a Rikko with that hit!"). The barbarian in the group has over double his hps without raging and has more than triple his hps when raging.
Low hps aren't the end-all be-all of a character. That said, if you're not having fun then you should ask to make up a different character or bow out. Good luck!
What kinds of games do you play in where a Magus having 11 hp at level 1 is a superhero? All that means is when fighting things besides choleric orphans, you can probably take 2 hits instead of 1. As you probably know, back in the good old days of older editions we used to roll for hp at level 1 for a pretty long time. There are a lot of very good reasons why that rule changed. Along with the d4 wizard HD.
and falling after 2 hits instead of 1 is a huge difference in playstyle. if done correctly low level players will think before they charge, which they usually don't and the entire play will feel different.
if done wrong... well... then hide behind the huge mountain of dead bards
I happen to like the max hp at first level rule. That said, I'm old enough that this seems like a whole lot of whinging. Back in my day, 4 hp was pretty darn good for a 1st level character.
|
I played a First Edition monk from 1st level to 8th level before dying. I had 25 HPs at level 8 when killed. That was a challenge to stay alive. That doesn't mean that a house rule as badly designed as a First Edition Monk is a good idea or complaining about the possibility of being one-shoted by a cantrip is wrong.
I played a First Edition monk from 1st level to 8th level before dying. I had 25 HPs at level 8 when killed. That was a challenge to stay alive. That doesn't mean that a house rule as badly designed as a First Edition Monk is a good idea or complaining about the possibility of being one-shoted by a cantrip is wrong.
No. But neither does it justify sweeping statements of:
"... passive-aggressive players intentionally DM poorly ...""... His world, and that's fine... if he likes not having people in it ..."
"...GM ... perhaps he takes pleasure in human suffering..."
"... avoid the "jerk DM"... "
Back in 1st Ed. I played a thief I nicknamed "the sleeping thief" because during character creation I rolled a 2 for hit points on my d6. I joked that he would fall unconscious if he stubbed his toe and fell. That character made it to 2nd level actually, and I rolled a 5 for hps.
And I'll bet you had a blast playing that character.
Low hps aren't the end-all be-all of a character. That said, if you're not having fun then you should ask to make up a different character or bow out. Good luck!
Sure, if you're not having fun, you shouldn't play. But at the same time, the amount of issues that some people seem to have that cause them to not have fun can be quite ridiculous.
I've seen players that are all geeked and ready to play, and then they roll less-than-great stats, and suddenly the game is no fun anymore. Or a magic item is discovered in a treasure chest, and one player got it over another, and so they're not having fun anymore. It just smacks of "I wanted x and didn't get it, no fair!"
TTRPGs are a group game. You have to make some concessions when you agree to a group game. The game doesn't revolve around only you. If you sign up for a campaign, you've presumably read the rules or have a good understanding of the style of play to expect.
If a house rule that states that everyone rolls for HP at 1st level means you no longer have fun, then it seems to me that it isn't really the rule that is the problem, it is the expectations. The GM is clearly expecting a gritty style of play. The player is presumably expecting a heroic style of play.
Why continue? I see nothing but problems if this player - GM experience continues.
Hopefully the OP will suck it up and enjoy the campaign, or drop out now and let that player slot go to someone else.
@Kydeem: Those quotes are all taken out of context. Only half of them are even about the GM. Further, mine was intended to be humor, because I wrote my response under the assumption the GM was in fact merely misinformed, phrasing which you quite conveniently omitted in its entirety.
And to Torm: While I speak for nobody but myself, I think the majority of people leery of this game aren't saying "oh no, you won't have fun without max hp", but more "this GM seems a bit sketchy, hopefully it's not a warning sign".
The OP actually wasn't even complaining about his hp, he was looking for tactics to survive until level 2. He maintained a good attitude throughout. If you're seeing problems, it's not because of anything the OP said. He doesn't need to "suck it up", he's doing a fine job as it is.
And yes, RPGs are a group game, but we don't live in a world of platonic ideals where every campaign has a well written, informative advertisement and every GM has an accurate, complete picture of his or her style, experience, and expectations, and clearly and honestly communicates it to his players before the game starts. Quite often, issues are discovered during play and not beforehand, and sometimes they're not reparable. C'est la internets.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry if I misunderstood you. I've gone back and looked at your first post. Yes it can be said in a humorous tone. But there is nothing to indicate tone in a post. When I first read it, it looked spiteful.
.
No I did not quote every post in it's entirety. That tends to confuse rather than clarify. I put the portion that relates directly to what I was saying in response to another's comment. All of them look to me like they are about the GM either directly or by implication.
.
Some posters sounded hopeful. Others sounded accusatory. Others sound as if the OP should be running away as fast as possible.
.
I agree the OP sounds like he is trying to make it work. He was just asking for advice on how to make it work.
.
I agree it is possible the GM suks roks. But I don't feel that a single rule without any of us knowing the basis (if any) for the rule are justified in making that decision.
I supplied the real answer ("misinformed") with no qualifier, and put a qualifier ("perhaps") in front of the joke answer. That plus the simple absurdity of it is the dead giveaway there.
"... passive-aggressive players intentionally DM poorly" - OP said he wants to play, because he usually DMs. This is about how good DMs get stuck always DMing.
"... avoid the "jerk DM"" - Talking about jerk DMs in general. Meatrace is the one you should've quoted, probably, if you wanted someone implying the DM's a jerk.
"His world, and that's fine... if he likes not having people in it" - A GM should solicit and consider input from his players. I don't think that's a controversial statement. It might be implied this GM isn't, but to be a jerk GM, he'd have to be doing it on purpose.
Nobody's saying that one rule makes a bad GM (though some have said it's a bad rule). Just that it's a red flag.
My one concern would be simple. Is hw rolling the hp of every foe the party faves or are they getting the half plus treatment. That would seem a bot unfair to me. If the pc warrior could have low hp because of fickle dice than so should the big bad. IMO of course.
When I've DM'ed I've tended to do the same. However, this had more to do with having an efficient party that wasn't getting much of a challenge from combat. I had to start thing of ways to creatively make the game more challenging without kneecapping the players. I think it worked out well.