Hit Points are fixed, 1d6->6, 1d8->8, 1d10->10, 1d12->12... I 1dX what is needed 1dX, when hp X (dice max)? Don't 1dX are not superfluous, instead of X?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m not sure if I understand your question as intended, but characters don’t use dX to determine hit points anymore. They are listed as a flat number modified by a character’s constitution and possible use of the toughness feat. The dice rolling, dX, is only for damage purposes.
If you are asking why the damage isn’t done as flat numbers like hit points are, I believe that is because people like to have some randomness and to roll dice. If all numbers were static, then I don’t believe it would be appealing to most players.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, in Pathfinder 2nd Edition hit points are given as fixed values rather than as dice rolls.
The developers of PF2 wanted rigorous balance in the game. A 5th-level monster should be as powerful as a 5th-level player character. However, if hit points were rolled, then the toughness of a 5th-level character would vary widely from randomness alone. Characters who rolled high would be tougher than average and characters who rolled low would be more fragile than average. Game balance needed predictable hit points, so PF2 assigns fixed hit points.
Besides, I played early Dungeons & Dragons games where a character rolled a 1 for their hit points. Fighters invested in a Constitution bonus, but even then a 1+Con made them fragile. Wizards (called Magic-Users in those days) preferred other stats to Constitution, so a 1st-level wizard would have 1 hit point and could be taken down by a housecat. Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition added a rule that the hit point roll at 1st level was the maximum value of the hit die, to prevent ridiculous vulnerability.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition also gives hit points from ancestry.
Sorry Blackstorm, but your question is written in a way that's very difficult to comprehend.
It sounds like your question is why did they get rid of rolling for hit points and go with a fixed value? Or perhaps you're looking to confirm the intention that it is a fixed value rather than rolled.
As others have already stated, in PF2 hit points are not rolled. Instead you receive the flat value listed in your class. For example barbarians receive 12 hp per level while wizards receive 6 per level. Don't forget to also add your constitution modifier per level. And also your race gives you hp too (but only once, at character creation).
As to why? At low levels bad hp rolls could make you drastically less survivable. PF2 has actually managed to have an accurate CR rating compared to PF1 or D&D 3.5 or earlier (don't know about later versions). They have tuned the challenges of enemies based on knowing that classes will have a certain amount of hp. If you start rolling for hp instead, you will make the game much more difficult so I would advise against it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Possibly germane: people do still sometimes refer to the class HP values as "dX". This is erroneous and just a holdover, if someone says a wizard is a "d6 HP class" they still mean that it gets the full 6 per level.
PF2 damage is also pretty dang high because monster attack bonuses use fighters as a baseline, so they hit and crit quite often. You really need those "maxed" hit points.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One way I understand the OP's point is why have random values for damage (say 1d6) when HPs are now fixed rather than random (6 instead of 1d6) ?
Which is a rather good question IMO.
A random damage roll adds uncertainty, and uncertainty gives dramatic tension. As a GM I have said, "I planned a Moderate encounter, but the dice made it Severe. Good that you could handle it, but sorry, no extra xp." I have also said, "That was unexpectedly easy for you. The dice liked you." Once the encounter is over, the good luck or bad luck is in the past, and the next encounter could have different luck. It evens out.
Random hit point rolls last for the entire lifetime of the character. Good luck or bad luck in those once-per-level rolls apply during every combat encounter. An enduring effect has too much influence on game balance to let randomness play a major role in the tight math of PF2.
For the same reason, PF2 also does not use dice rolls for ability scores.
Also, if you converted all damage rolls to static values you're getting dangerously close to asking "why roll a d20 to determine what happens?" and then you get into a whole different kind of TTRPG wherein it's much more narrative and you eschew a lot of numbers. It's a drastically different kind of game from Pathfinder or D&D. Not to say it's a bad game, in fact it can be very fun and relaxing. But, it's not what people think of with this game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah... hitrolls and damrolls are the things that keep it in the moment, rather than making each fight something you can plot out turns in advance. They also give you lots of little moments of suspense, without breaking the ongoing balance between individual characters. Rolling for your HP total gives you far fewer moments of suspense, for a pretty significant cost in ongoing balance.
The real thing is that in the original version of this game, balance between characters wasn't a goal. It was intended that there be good options and bad options and wild swerves in character power. High-level wizards were OP, sure... but that was the payoff for managing to survive long enough to stop being low-level wizards. It was a radically different approach to such things.
The real thing is that in the original version of this game, balance between characters wasn't a goal. It was intended that there be good options and bad options and wild swerves in character power. High-level wizards were OP, sure... but that was the payoff for managing to survive long enough to stop being low-level wizards. It was a radically different approach to such things.
I agree that in PF1 and D&D 3.5 and earlier didn't really attempt to have balance between classes. It certainly was not a goal.
However, I'm don't agree that all versions intended for there to be bad (trap) options with wildly fluctuating levels of power dependent on system mastery.
That was absolutely what happened, but saying that was a deliberate intention would imply....something negative about the people who made it.
The real thing is that in the original version of this game, balance between characters wasn't a goal. It was intended that there be good options and bad options and wild swerves in character power. High-level wizards were OP, sure... but that was the payoff for managing to survive long enough to stop being low-level wizards. It was a radically different approach to such things.I agree that in PF1 and D&D 3.5 and earlier didn't really attempt to have balance between classes. It certainly was not a goal.
However, I'm don't agree that all versions intended for there to be bad (trap) options with wildly fluctuating levels of power dependent on system mastery.
That was absolutely what happened, but saying that was a deliberate intention would imply....something negative about the people who made it.
I think when Sanity says the original version of this game they mean first edition D&D, not PF1.
|
The real thing is that in the original version of this game, balance between characters wasn't a goal. It was intended that there be good options and bad options and wild swerves in character power. High-level wizards were OP, sure... but that was the payoff for managing to survive long enough to stop being low-level wizards. It was a radically different approach to such things.I agree that in PF1 and D&D 3.5 and earlier didn't really attempt to have balance between classes. It certainly was not a goal.
However, I'm don't agree that all versions intended for there to be bad (trap) options with wildly fluctuating levels of power dependent on system mastery.
That was absolutely what happened, but saying that was a deliberate intention would imply....something negative about the people who made it.
There's definitely some disagreement among creative staff at the time, but at least some of the 3.0 designers do recall it as deliberate, such as Monte Cook's famous Ivory Tower Design blog.
Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it's not the best choice of feat. If you can use martial weapons, a longsword is better than many other one-handed weapons. And so on -- there are many other, far more intricate examples. (Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game.)
There's definitely some intentional elements of this sort of design present in the older D&D edition's DNA.
Hmmm, I suppose I've been proven wrong, at least with earlier editions of D&D it sounds like it was deliberate.
I would consider that to be a negative thing and leave it at that.
@Temperans. I generally understand and agree with what you're saying, but I disagree with your assessment of PF2.
It's martials are the primary damage dealers, they also have been. And casters have been dramatically scaled back, absolutely. If you start comparing PF2 to PF1 I can understand being profoundly disappointed because of the extreme change.
But looking only at PF2, casters can still do things that martials have no hope of. It's true they don't dominate combat they way they used to with save or suck spells (because of the math behind the system). However, if you start thinking about it outside of an adventurer's narrative where a high level wizard is running around against lower level enemies, suddenly all their spells are incredibly effective. The math of the system and incapacitation trait keep casters from running amok like they used to.
Of course, I find the math of the system to make baseline PF2 not enjoyable for me personally. I'm used to the level of heroics and power in PF1. I think the game is better if you can convince your GM to let the party run 1 or 2 levels above what an adventure is written for by default to have the fun heroic adventurer experience. The default experience (to me) is closer to struggling would-be hero succeeding only by sheer luck.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember old D&D is a war game.
War games by design are such that by design not everything is perfectly balanced and even what seems to be balanced is based on cost and strategy. High level wizards in that sort of setting are the equivalent of nukes and other massive ships compared to fighters just being soldiers and small ships. Which carried forward to DnD3.5e and PF1e.
DnD5e was never a war game and its more of a narrative game.
DnD4e was a greatly balanced game to the point it was boring for most people.
PF2e is a game of martials with casters acting as cheerleaders. It kept the war gaming strategy, but removed the scaling from caster to the point they are neutered.
Whiteroom nonsense! I have played 8+ levels of Bard and 6+ levels of Druid and never felt like a "cheerleader"...well, except the Bard sometimes, 'cuz that's his job, but still made significant contributions to most battles in terms of damage dealt, as well as buffing, de-buffing, healing, and skills.
What has your practical experience with casters been that you felt so useless?
A crit failed save to some spells can completely trivialize an encounter. The issue is that the odds of it happening are so poor that it's a bad strategy to use.
But that's a math issue, specifically with the way the baseline challenge is set up that you're meant to fight on level or higher level enemies.
Narratively, casters can be devastating if they start fighting lower level enemies where their chances of failing or crit failing are much more significant.
This is completely an issue of math, where in they "fixed the balance around CR and fixed saves" such that most monster (of same level or higher) have a significant chance of successfully saving against your spell. It doesn't mean magic can't be a nuke. It's just not a nuke against enemies as powerful as you. Whereas, monster we're terribly unbalanced in PF1 and typically had a glaring weak spot and if a wizard was smart, prepared different spells that targeted different saves, and knew which kind to throw an an enemy you could easily debilitate an enemy with a single spell. To say nothing of s%@@ like a dazing persistent fireball.
Remember old D&D is a war game.
War games by design are such that by design not everything is perfectly balanced and even what seems to be balanced is based on cost and strategy. High level wizards in that sort of setting are the equivalent of nukes and other massive ships compared to fighters just being soldiers and small ships. Which carried forward to DnD3.5e and PF1e.
DnD5e was never a war game and its more of a narrative game.
DnD4e was a greatly balanced game to the point it was boring for most people.
PF2e is a game of martials with casters acting as cheerleaders. It kept the war gaming strategy, but removed the scaling from caster to the point they are neutered.
Whiteroom nonsense! I have played 8+ levels of Bard and 6+ levels of Druid and never felt like a "cheerleader"...well, except the Bard sometimes, 'cuz that's his job, but still made significant contributions to most battles in terms of damage dealt, as well as buffing, de-buffing, healing, and skills.
What has your practical experience with casters been that you felt so useless?
Not sure if Temp has actually played PF2 yet. He might have gotten a few games in finally.
As someone who plays in a living world server where you dont always have the same line up. The difference without a caster is palpable in actual play. They are still gamechangers, they just also need support as well. Its less one is a cheerleader and one is the main attraction and rather everyone is a team member that contributes. Back when my character was a fighter at level 5, I would swing constantly and miss, even with that +2 meanwhile my paladin friend got 3 crits in a row, and we struggled with finding casters to join us on missions with that level. Since I was a free hand fighter I managed to act as a healer via lay on hands(archetypes into Pally), battle medicine, and a healthy stock of potions. But we just barely survived and we took way more damage because we had to think critically to overcome challenges that we almost couldnt overcome because we didn't have any proper casters.
Thaaaaaaaat being said the op's post is confusing.
Can't tell if they are asking about why isnt damage flat or why do people still talk about hp ad having dX.
If its the latter its simply because it's difficult to break from one how usually speaks.
if its the former people* myself included* like the game to keep some level of variety and chaos. its why i hated the flat damage suggestion in 5e for gms.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
DnD4e was a greatly balanced game to the point it was boring for most people.
This is wrong on both points. 4e was not very well balanced and most of the complaints about the system had nothing to do with game balance (and more to do with game structure)
PF2e is a game of martials with casters acting as cheerleaders. It kept the war gaming strategy, but removed the scaling from caster to the point they are neutered.
This is also just not really how PF2 plays at all. I mean, you can play a caster as a 'cheerleader' if you want, but calling it a system truism is fairly inaccurate.
