Too many starting hitpoints maybe?


Playing the Game


One thing I always loved about first level characters is that for the most part, that was the only level where the damage weapons did actually made sense. You imagine what a mace would do to someone, or a greataxe, or a longsword and the number values you get in the equipment list compare quite favorably to the hit points first level characters have. In other words, you're lucky to come away with a bleeding wound, if it's a bad hit chances are you're on the ground. I've always felt it made low level combat the two things you want it to be: dangerous and fast.

Starting players this time around have about 16 hit points, give or take. That's enough that even the very top end weapons wielded by the very strongest creatures are unlikely to be able to fell anyone--even unarmored. Then every level you're guaranteed to get max hit points. So effectively hit points are basically double P1. I wonder if that's going to make combat less dangerous? And if there's no real risk, will it be as fun?

Granted this is an open question. I'm not assuming the answer will be yes. I assume there's plenty of people who like more survivable characters and want something to try and counteract the impulse toward 10 minute workdays.

It's a strong temptation, but something I didn't particularly love when they did it in 4e and I'm not loving it here. There's always been an assumption I had that the characters and monsters lived in the same world and that there weren't separate rules for heroes and everything else. This erodes that notion. Player goblins have 14ish hit points. Monster goblins have 6--which makes more sense, really.

I wonder about halving the hit points you get from each source, so 3 for goblins, 4 for humans, etc. and also 4 + Con for alchemists and bards, 5 + Con for fighters and paladins--what that would feel like in play?

Maybe if it isn't for you, it could be an optional rule for grittier play--so everyone could be happy?

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Enemies have attack bonuses that start at +6 as a minimum for a lvl 0 creature and only increase from there. Additionally, they can attack up to 3 times per turn now. Making these proposed changes would be suicide.

Trust me, it's plenty deadly. Try playing part 1 of doomsday dawn without a cleric and you'll get gritty pretty fast.


Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Trust me, it's plenty deadly. Try playing part 1 of doomsday dawn without a cleric and you'll get gritty pretty fast.

We did and it was pretty great for the most part. There were some weird things--like the centipedes felt like they really did too much damage for how many of them there were (mostly the poison, their bite attack felt fine).

One of our guys got hit twice with dogslicers for max damage and was still okay. That seemed off. I was glad he was okay, I didn't want him to die or anything, but it seemed like a lot of punishment to walk away from. If the centipedes were doing less intense poison damage and the hit points were better scaled then our alchemist would have fast mixed an elixir of life for the guy who got hit and we would have been in about exactly the same spot we ended up in at the end of the session.

Grand Lodge

2 max damage attacks from a goblin with a dogslicer will leave basically anyone except a wizard still standing in PF1 too. It's a very low damage weapon and goblins don't have a particularly good str.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
2 max damage attacks from a goblin with a dogslicer will leave basically anyone except a wizard still standing in PF1 too. It's a very low damage weapon and goblins don't have a particularly good str.

Um...are not Goblins good guys now? Must have been a splinter group, perhaps disaffected with having a change to their bad guys status. I imagine it was much the same for the poor Gnomes in 4th ed. D & D who went from good guys to villains. Ah, those were dark days for the Gnomish race...I blame the Dwarves for that debacle.


Enemies now have multiple attacks, and it is easier to crit. Those additional hit points are very much required.

That Goblin attacks at +6, you'll be happy to have an AC 16 at 1st level. Their first attack hits on a 10+, their second hits on 14+(agile). There is a reasonable chance that Goblin hits your Human Fighter(~21HP) for 2d6 damage in one turn. It is conceivable that a bad string of luck lets a single lvl 0 goblin down your fighter in a turn or two.


With crits and getting hit a LOT more often (low AC), level 1 is already deadly enough. Not to mention the complete lack of healing.

Have you playtested yet? In one unlucky combat my group needed to rest after encountering 5 skeletons, which is a mere speed bump in PF1.

In playtest, characters are getting taken down with 1 shot by goblins with bows.

As a matter of fact, the feedback is that 1st level is too deadly. Look at the TPK threads.

Just a note, SOME goblins have 6 hit points because they are level 0 and only have their race hit points, they don't have class hit points because they are level 0!

Personally it feels deadly enough already. Is it possible that the GM is not doing the math correctly for crits?


Just a note, I think more level 0 creatures should have +3 to attack, not +6, it would help makes things a LOT less deadly.

PF1 creatures have +3 to attack often, why would it increase in PF2?

For example skeletons in PF1
Melee broken scimitar +0 (1d6), claw –3 (1d4+1) or 2 claws +2 (1d4+2)

So why do they have +6 to attack now? No wonder it's more deadly.


Jason S wrote:

Just a note, I think more level 0 creatures should have +3 to attack, not +6, it would help makes things a LOT less deadly.

PF1 creatures have +3 to attack often, why would it increase in PF2?

For example skeletons in PF1
Melee broken scimitar +0 (1d6), claw –3 (1d4+1) or 2 claws +2 (1d4+2)

So why do they have +6 to attack now? No wonder it's more deadly.

We'll have to see. Our group is over halfway through Lost Star and we haven't lost anyone yet. Difficulty wise the centipedes have felt a little overpowered, but otherwise it hasn't felt very different from other fantasy roleplaying games. I do agree though that +6 feels high for a to-hit for monsters though. I can't even really see where that number would come from either, since most of these creatures don't even have Str bonuses at all.


Apparently it's the minimum hit bonus for level 0?

I'm just wondering why the attacks stats are so different between PF1 and PF2 for the exact same creature. That would explain the differences in difficulty, especially considering crits.

Considering how bad AC is now (can't UMD Mage Armor or Shield anymore) I'm not sure why they'd increase the attack bonus. Sure doesn't feel heroic resting for 8 hours after fighting 5 goblins or skeletons.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason S wrote:

Apparently it's the minimum hit bonus for level 0?

I'm just wondering why the attacks stats are so different between PF1 and PF2 for the exact same creature. That would explain the differences in difficulty, especially considering crits.

Considering how bad AC is now (can't UMD Mage Armor or Shield anymore) I'm not sure why they'd increase the attack bonus. Sure doesn't feel heroic resting for 8 hours after fighting 5 goblins or skeletons.

I dunno, resting between single encounters sounds pretty right for level 1. I will agree though, where the playtest is right now is probably teetering on the edge of rusty dagger shanktown and making PCs weaker is just asking for TPKs right from the start.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:
Sure doesn't feel heroic resting for 8 hours after fighting 5 goblins or skeletons.

Especially since without dedicated healers natural healing only grants you your Con modifier in hit points every 8 hours. You could be there a while.


Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Additionally, they can attack up to 3 times per turn now. Making these proposed changes would be suicide

Yeah, in fact, PCs might need more HP at 1st-level, because now, instead of 2 orcs attacking you, once, as in PF1, you can have 2 orcs attacking you, thrice!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So we got back from part two of Lost Star. It was a rout. Half the characters died and the rest ran. I don't know that it's the hit points at fault as much as the fact that monsters have such high to hit rolls (+6's are crazy for 0 level monsters!) and that monsters get three actions just like players. I wonder if we're going to give monsters their own mechanics if we might think about having them only have two actions a turn?

I still feel like PC hit points are too high in this version of the game. I feel like at present monsters do do too much damage, but I think that's more to do with their inflated to-hit scores and the gonzo damage poison does combined with the fact that healing potions just aren't as cheap and plentiful as I would want.

I would still take a game with nice lowball hit points (or at least variable hit points so there's the option for folks that like a gritty game) over a game where fighting turns into wood chopping--which is where this looks like it's headed. I'll hang in there though and let you know how I feel as we test out characters with higher HP totals.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the inflated to-hit scores are to blame here, most of all. I haven't gone through all the monsters in the bestiary, but it's not just the level 0 Creatures. Every single monster has greatly inflated to-hit scores.

I mean, a Tiger is a Level 4 Creature with +11 to Hit and Strength +5. Level 4 + 5 Strength = +9. Where's it getting the other +2 from? A level 4 optimised Fighter (18 in Attack Stat, +1 weapon potency, Master in his weapon) is looking at a total bonus of 4 (level)+4 (stat)+1 (potency)+2 (Master)= +11. How's a random tiger just as good as a fully optimised fighter of equal level? And this repeats for basically every monster out there.

Without changing that, giving people less Hit Points will just make it far too deadly. It's already pretty deadly as is, particularly if you do not have a Cleric in the party.


TheFinish wrote:

I think the inflated to-hit scores are to blame here, most of all. I haven't gone through all the monsters in the bestiary, but it's not just the level 0 Creatures. Every single monster has greatly inflated to-hit scores.

I mean, a Tiger is a Level 4 Creature with +11 to Hit and Strength +5. Level 4 + 5 Strength = +9. Where's it getting the other +2 from? A level 4 optimised Fighter (18 in Attack Stat, +1 weapon potency, Master in his weapon) is looking at a total bonus of 4 (level)+4 (stat)+1 (potency)+2 (Master)= +11. How's a random tiger just as good as a fully optimised fighter of equal level? And this repeats for basically every monster out there.

Without changing that, giving people less Hit Points will just make it far too deadly. It's already pretty deadly as is, particularly if you do not have a Cleric in the party.

to be fair it is a tiger.

Grand Lodge

Just curious as I haven't run a game yet and wanted to understand more about players experiences so far.

Are your GMs remembering the multiple attack penalty for monsters? I see many mentioning the fact creatures get 3 actions but if they aren't suffering the -5/-10 then they could be a recipe for disaster.

Another issue might be old PF1 conditions. all the creatures in the first chapter (except Drakus) lack Attack of opportunity, which makes for a lot of freedom on the battlefield than was possible in PF1. Conversly, causing mosters to activate your triggers would also be safer than rushing in to get the first blow. Hitting an advancing goblin then ducking behind the fighter so when it advances on you again provokes the fighters wrath seems like a solid tactic to me.

How many used skills? If im not mistaken, Shove, Trip, and disarm (if trained) have far better changes of succeeding; The creatures DC is 10 plus its saving throw modifier according to the rules.

To shove a Goblin Warrior is Fortitude DC 11 which for a fighters signature skill could suceed more frequently than using a regular attack against the goblins 14 AC. especially while employing a weapon with shove.

The result can knock an opponet out of the fight for quite some time or open up triggers instead of just wading in for the DPS race.

Spells. I've seen it all to often where the spellcasters focus on trying to outdamage the fighter instead of assisting the fighter. Taking electric arc or acid splash over daze. The flatfooted action of daze not only opens up rogues precision damage but also gives everyone a +2 bonus to hit the goblin.

Shields. The long lost item of D&D, the shield has often been forgotten by players due to its flat bonus to AC. but now with Raise Shield and Shield Block (a free reaction while your shield is raised) as long as you win initiative, the first attack against you will likely ever do damage while your shield remains intact!. Yes it costs you an action but are you really going to hit often with a -10 on that 3rd attack at level 1?

I'm not saying your players arent utilizing these abilities, but it would be helpful to know if they are or not in the situations being mentioned here.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
ikarinokami wrote:
to be fair it is a tiger.

I am with ika here. A tiger essentially trains to use it's teeth and claws to survive almost from birth. Suffice to say, their skill in the use of their natural weapons should be quite high or they wouldn't have lived long.

That said, I'd prefer a little less hit probability, too. I understand the desire to see quicker combats by some, but part of the narritive as a DM should include the desperate avoidance and sizing up of opponents that comes only with combat that includes misses. Reducing hit and hit points both would have to go hand-in-hand.

Grimcleaver quite accurately described what I fear, the wood chopping analogy. High hit points, high hit rate, whittling away by or to opponents. I depict (and imagine) battles to be more akin to what you see in some of the better fantasy shows/movies: two foes facing off, feinting and deflecting/parrying until one seizes upon an opportunity to strike a severe blow.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Playing the Game / Too many starting hitpoints maybe? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Playing the Game