Hit points include Luck and Defenses including magic shielding shrug as far as I am concerned they dont need to involve many physical elements anyway so you can go ahead and be sickly and have sickly things happen but you arent in huge danger of dying, heck I could easily see giving every character the same number of hit points and "actually" explicitly trading them for extreme defensive moves which are character/class appropriate.
You know what, I kinda REALLY like that idea, where everyone has a set number of HP based solely on character level. Factoring in maneuvers like Parry, and they already increase the effective HP for those classes. Maybe something as straight forward as 5HP * CLvl + CLvl? so level 1 is 6HP (erg), up to 120HP at level 20. Need to boost level 1 a touch, IMO, maybe go 5HP * (CLvl+2) + CLvl
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I would like the designers play with the idea of an optional rule such as: (Rule: Starting hp = Maximum roll on your class hit dice + Con modifier OR Your Constitution, whichever is bigger.)
So basically, you can't have a hp lesser than your Constitution score. Your original hit points come either from your bodily endurance or your class training to sustain damage.
You want to play a 19 Con dwarf? Then you start with 19 hit points. You wizard can't afford to invest in Con for some reason, so she leaves it at 8? She starts with 8 hp, not 5. A highly charismatic but very fragile fighter with a mere 9 Con? He has 10 hp. His training helped him overcome his health issue somewhat, but would not do much good in the long run.
This puts the starting hp of the characters into 8-19 range instead of an 5-16 range which is proposed by the playtest package. Not much difference, but the former tends to concentrate on 10-14 range which is reasonable for a starting campaign. A wizard won't be killed by a rat right at the start, it will take 2 hits from a goblin who knows how to fight with a weapon. You Constitution directly corresponds to your hp, so every point of score matters. Characters with very high Con can now start with very good hp values.
I am not sure about the role of the Con modifier though, it somewhat is responsible for the hp bloat. So maybe making it only affect healing (like, a character adds his Con modifier when he receives healing or when getting a toughness feat and can heal 25% hp [con modifier] times a day.) can work.
Also using the Con modifier as a minimum for hit dice roll when leveling up is better I think. (Rule: When you roll a 1 on your hit dice, you add your Con modifier to the roll, otherwise you only roll your hit dice when leveling.)
I've read the whole thread. While careful readers may note that the OP and I had significant disagreement in another thread, in this case I have to say I'm more in agreement than not, at least insofar as saying that current constitution/hp mechanics are problematic.
As near as I can tell, Karnos's argument comes down to: Having signficant hit point discrepancies between characters is a big problem for character survival. => Players will build their characters to avoid such discrepancies to keep their survival competitive. => There will no longer be a big distinction in character survival unless players want it. => There is no problem in the variation of character survivability.
Others in the thread are taking a different viewpoint, in which it shouldn't feel so important to keep constitution up in order to remain competitive (not equal, but not massively behind either), and further that the choice to keep constitution low should seem approximately as valid as any other stat that is not directly linked to primary functionality.
In this case, I don't think it's reasonable to compare constitution to a prime attribute. That is based on one main assumption: that the game is not designed to treat two characters with significantly different values in a prime attribute as reasonably competitive, but is designed to do so for significantly different values in other attributes. That is, no one is saying that a 20 int and 10 int wizard should be competitive in a broad sense, but a 20 con and 10 con wizard (or wis, or cha, or whatever else) should be. The question then becomes how much difference we should note between such characters. The idea is to keep a larger number of builds, representing a broader range of identities, as comparably viable.
I'm actually not sure how much value there is in comparing low-hp wizards to high-hp fighters, since they occupy such different spaces in gameplay. How far apart they should be is very subjective. I mean, it would be reasonably valid to say that a wizard should be mauled in situations that the fighter will almost certainly survive, depending on how the rest of the game is designed to deal with that disparity. However, comparing hp variation of two characters that occupy essentially the same space is certainly compelling.
In this pursuit, I think it worth noting that changes in hit points may be much more significant than they first appear. If you were to say that a character with 50% hit points is about 50% more survivable, I'd really question that interpretation. For example, suppose you will be attacked 10 times over the course of a fight, that you have 4 hit points, and that each successful hit does 1 damage. The probability that you will go down is about 0.35. Give yourself 50% more hit points for a total of 6, that probability drops to about 0.047.
The point being that if you were to ask "How much proportional difference in hit point totals do you need, all other things being equal, to translate into a significant difference in character survivability?" then the answer would be "Not much."
As near as I can tell, Karnos's argument comes down to: Having signficant hit point discrepancies between characters is a big problem for character survival. => Players will build their characters to avoid such discrepancies to keep their survival competitive. => There will no longer be a big distinction in character survival unless players want it. => There is no problem in the variation of character survivability.
Not really, but you are somewhat correct.
1- I do not beleive hp discrepency is a "big issue", I think it is an intended part of the game
2- Like the OP, I completely agree that there is an optimal ratio of difference in hp between a tough tank and a "normal" wizard
3-Where we differ is that he seems to think that every normal wizard is going to br running around with an 8 Con, and every fighter is going to be a hill dwarf with toughness & durable and use rolled hp and abuse durable to effectly buy 60 extra hp for a single feat. I don't beleive the wizard example and the fighter example would ever realisticly exist in the same game. One is clearly built by an absolute min/maxer powergamer taking every advantage possible even if some are borderline cheating (claims to prefer static hp, but uses rolled hp just to abuse durable for example). The other is built apparently by a player intentionally making the most frail wizard possible with no interest in surviving combat.
You see, the entire thread is a deception, the OP's numbers are based on abuse of the feat durable combined with rolled hp, and making a comparison to a completely inept wizard which no real player would ever roll in a game with such an obvious min/maxer powergamer fighter in the same party.
4- Based on 3, I look at what I do consider normal- a fighter around 18 maybe 20 Con, but not abusing durable, not neccessarily hill dwarf, maybe with toughness, and compare to a wizard taking a 14 or maybe 16 in con, still not pumping it to it's max but accepting it as a decent choice for a 3rd highest statistic, maybe also taking toughness because why not? Neither character abusing durable. When I do the math for this far more realistic comparison, I see that the hp ratio is exactly in line with the OP's "optimal" ratio.
5- So average characters are perfectly in line where they should be, what does that leave out? A player does indeed have the option to intentionally dump Con and add some challange if he chooses. This is something I support fully, and should be possible, but the game doesn't need to be balanced around this any more than it is balanced around fighters with Str&Dex both at 8.
6- In any case, the existing system puts player survivability in the hands of the player, this is optimal in my opinion. A player wants a tougher character, he can focus on Con and give it a higher priority. This is a good thing, it means that there is a nice convinient dial to control those hp ratios that the OP seems to think are so important, and it's in the hands of the person who has the most incentive of anyone in keeping his own character alive.
7- I've suggested that, as an option, if you want consistent hp in your campaign you can simply house rule that everyone has a 12 Con, Con is neither rolled nor ever adjusted. This achieves the same effect as the OP's system, but as a singular houserule it's more easily ignored than the broad changes he suggests that require rewriting the entire monster manual.
>That is, no one is saying that a 20 int and 10 int wizard should be competitive in a broad >sense, but a 20 con and 10 con wizard (or wis, or cha, or whatever else) should be.
I can't say I agree. Are you saying that all else being equal, a 10 Dex and 20 Dex Wizard would be competitive? I don't think they would be either. Con isn't a unique snowflake, it's actually one of the best balance stats in the game IMO.
>The point being that if you were to ask "How much proportional difference in hit point totals >do you need, all other things being equal, to translate into a significant difference in character >survivability?" then the answer would be "Not much."
"All things being equal", that is the problem there. Yes hp is nice, but not everyone will max Con every time simply because all things are not equal. You trade other stats for Con, you miss out on other bonuses. Like I said, I think it's realistic that most characters will have a 14 or 16 in Con by 20, because even though Con is a nice stat not everyone is going to want to trade valuable points of Dex or whatever primary stat.
You see, the entire thread is a deception, the OP's numbers are based on abuse of the feat durable combined with rolled hp. . .
The durable feat is intended by the devs to be combined with rolled HP (which is why it interacts with the rolled HP mechanic), and rolled HP is the default HP generation method. Painting this as an abuse on the part of the OP is a baldfaced falsehood.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
Kronos is incapable of grasping those important facts:
1) you need to compare the variance between optimized and casual PCs. If the game breaks down at any point due to optimization something is wrong with the games basics. If optimized 20 Con warriors have 3 to 4x the HP of casual 10-12 Con rogues and wizards then we have a big problem.
2) Players should not be forced to put a 14 into their Con score. D&D should allow for a wide range of character archetypes.
3) Even not fully optimized PCs have way too much HP when compared to casual PCs.
Ex. Take a 10 Con elf rogue, use static HP gain per level, compare to a 15 Con elf fighter. Rogue has 6 starting HP and gains 4 HP per level. Fighter has 12 starting HP and gains 8 per level. This fighter is not even close to optimized for HP (human would have 16 Con, dwarf would have a larger hit die, and no toughness feat), but he has 2x as much HP as the rogue. This HP disparity only increases with level as the fighter increases his Con score.
Basically, the only way Con to HP woks out is if you don't roll HP, ban dwarfs and barbarians, ban toughness and durability feats, mandate that low HD PCs put a 14 in Con and mandate that high HP PCs can't raise Con above 16.
i never played any edition past 2nd however i cant figure out why people are against either really low hp or high hp especially at 1st level. the trade off especially with wizards is that you may have 2 or 3 hps to start but if your smart you can make it and gain power. constitution is your physical toughness it adds to your ability to survive damage or if you had a childhood disease for example why you get sick alot or have trouble running far without getting winded. from what i have wittnessed from comments on the dnd next board, the current modern player needs to be spoon fed changes and needs crutches because dying at low levels "ruins the game". especially with all these at death door rules in modern play. i think when it comes to ability scores and the reasoning behind things they need to use the classic game rules do away with super high ability scores or leveling scores with levels. its not realistic to think that as you grow mentally you can move from average intelligence to einstein without magical aid or wish spells ect.
the trade off especially with wizards is that you may have 2 or 3 hps to start but if your smart you can make it and gain power.
The problem with that is that wizards didn't "gain power," they gained god-like power. AD&D 2e was balanced so that wizards aged like fine wine while classes like fighters aged like milk. This cross-campaign balacning is one of the main reasons why there's a certain level range that is the "sweet spot."
constitution is your physical toughness it adds to your ability to survive damage or if you had a childhood disease for example why you get sick alot or have trouble running far without getting winded.
Everyone recognizes that. Con has added to HP in every edition. The issue isn't with Con adding to your HPs, it's with how it does so: as a simple bonus or as a level multiplier.
from what i have wittnessed from comments on the dnd next board, the current modern player needs to be spoon fed changes and needs crutches because dying at low levels "ruins the game". especially with all these at death door rules in modern play.
For some it does, while it doesn't for others. These are playstyle preferences, not the handicaps you are painting them to be.
i think when it comes to ability scores and the reasoning behind things they need to use the classic game rules do away with super high ability scores or leveling scores with levels. its not realistic to think that as you grow mentally you can move from average intelligence to einstein without magical aid or wish spells ect.
For what it's worth, even increasing your physical attributes with level is unrealistic. You'd have to base it on physical activity if we're going to be beholden to realism. Any low Con character would be able to raise their Con by starting a morning jogging routine (or increasing Str through weight training).
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
You see, the entire thread is a deception, the OP's numbers are based on abuse of the feat durable combined with rolled hp. . .
The durable feat is intended by the devs to be combined with rolled HP (which is why it interacts with the rolled HP mechanic), and rolled HP is the default HP generation method. Painting this as an abuse on the part of the OP is a baldfaced falsehood.
The thing is, if I was running a game I'd pick either rolled hp or static hp. Flip/flopping back and forth *is* cheating, you are not intended to be able to take static hp when it's advantageous to you and then switch to rolling hp when it becomes more attractive.
Think about how absurd it would be to take the three highest stats from standard array, and then change your mind and decide to roll for stats for your next three stats. That is clearly cheating, and switching between static hp and rolled hp when convinient is similiar cheating.
Note that if the OP was consistent and wanted to use rolled hp from the start and never wavered, I wouldn't call it cheating. I would, however, point out that his entire problem is caused by a single feat offering 60 hp, and without that his "ratio" is just fine.
Even if you roll for hp, 60 hp from a single feat is too much. Durable is broken as printed, and usage by the OP is abuse of a feat that is known to be overpowered. This isn't the final product, there will be abilties and feats which are broken, and durable is one. The fact that he is using it "as printed" is irrelevant, it's printed broken.
Kronos is incapable of grasping those important facts: 1) you need to compare the variance between optimized and casual PCs. If the game breaks down at any point due to optimization something is wrong with the games basics. If optimized 20 Con warriors have 3 to 4x the HP of casual 10-12 Con rogues and wizards then we have a big problem.
That simply is not true. I'm not sure if you are getting tired and making misteaks or intentionally trying to mislead people, but a plain 20 con warrior doesn't have 4X the hp of ANY casual 12 con rogue or wizard. Period. Even with your abuse of durable, it was only over near 3X the hp of an 8 con worst case scenario character.
Here is a clue: a 12 con rogue or wizard gets 5 hp per level. 4X that would be 20 hp per level. If you can show me a fighter who averages 20 hp per level, I'll shut up. Hint #2: you can't, no fighter gains 20 hp per level.
Also, I have corrected you before on my name. I have to assume you are intentionally doing it as a personal attack on me, and I'm going to start reporting your posts to the mods. I don't care if you write my name, but spelling it wrong on purpose is just plain insulting.
>2) Players should not be forced to put a 14 into their Con score. D&D should >allow for a wide range of character archetypes.
I agree, yet you are forcing them to do just this! Your system gives everyone the same hp over time, such that they ALL have the hp of a 14 Con character. You could just save a ton of wasted space by saying "set Con as 14, to appease players such as lawolf who can't handle 6 ability scores".
3) Even not fully optimized PCs have way too much HP when compared to casual PCs. Ex. Take a 10 Con elf rogue, use static HP gain per level, compare to a 15 Con elf fighter. Rogue has 6 starting HP and gains 4 HP per level. Fighter has 12 starting HP and gains 8 per level. This fighter is not even close to optimized for HP (human would have 16 Con, dwarf would have a larger hit die, and no toughness feat), but he has 2x as much HP as the rogue. This HP disparity only increases with level as the fighter increases his Con score. Basically, the only way Con to HP woks out is if you don't roll HP, ban dwarfs and barbarians, ban toughness and durability feats, mandate that low HD PCs put a 14 in Con and mandate that high HP PCs can't raise Con above 16.
So did you lie in your OP also, or are you lying now?
Remember this? "For me, an ideal situation is one where a low HP class like the wizard goes down in 2-3 hits from equal "challenge level" foe. A high HP class like the fighter should survive 3-4 hits from such an enemy."
Your level 5 Fighter has 52 hp and your level 5 rogue has 26 hp.
Monster hits for 14 damage: rogue goes down in 2 hits, fighter survives 3 (goes down on the 4th hit) exactly as you said.
Monster hits for 11 damage, rogue goes down in 3 hits, fighter survives 4 (goes down on 5th hit), again exactly as you said.
You really didn't think this through, did you? Your example of what is a terrible hp disparty falls right into your "ideal situation". MAKE UP YOUR MIND! You claim you want something and then you claim that it's a terrible thing when you actually get it.
