Comments on the 4th Ed fact thread

[HuManBing]

One thing that irked me was how the PC races had a huge disparity of their HD depending on class, whereas the monster races had the reverse mechanic. (What classes they had would boost them but otherwise their genetics seemed to play more of a part in determining HD than did their after-arising conditioning.)

I wonder if they're still going to be wedded to the "dX" based on your class, or whether they might move away from that. Personally I'd like to see the race itself give you the base dX for HD, and then class and Con scores give you a modifier.

So halflings will always be a bit weedy compared to dwarves, and there's no frickin way a M-sized human is going to ever have as many hit points as a fully grown adult dragon.

[alhoon]

That's actually a very very good idea and it is a pity you don't work for WotC or it would have probably be incorporated in 4th edition as it seems quite logical.

However since we have the complete elf layout, I can tell you with a 95% certainity that your bright and logical idea won't be in 4th. We have to wait 6-7 more years to see if it will be there in 5th edition.

Yes, some races get constitution bonuses so they are tougher but let's face it a halfling fighter having the same hp as a human fighter of the same level seems... weird. Sure you could always say that halflings being luckier get less physical damage = they have more hit points or things like that but what you say sounds interesting.

So what would you think?

Small creatures (halflings, goblins, gnomes) or frail creatures (elves): HD =1d6
Medium creatures (humans, orcs, tieflings) and normal: HD =1d8
Large creatures (goliaths, ogres, giants) and tough creatures (dwarves): HD=1d10.
Exceptionally tough creatures like dragons or what-have-you: HD=1d12
Exceptionally small or frail creatures like kobolds and fey: HD=1d4

Wizards, sorcerers and other frail classes: -1 hp/HD
average classes like cleric, rogue, aristocrat: no modifier
Tough classes like barbarian, fighter, warrior: +1 hp/HD

How this sounds?

[Jester of the FoS]

Hitpoints are an abstract system at best. Half of it is actually taking the damage and half of its is experience minimizing a blow. Or more or less.

[Jonathan Winters]

I admit to having mostly skimmed through the 4E info because I am not that interested right now (that might change, but I don't think so).

But, is it just me or it seems that having base BAB, saves, etc, with multiple MODs (depending on race, class, etc.) doesn't really simplify things? It just seems like another can of worms at first glance. OR, are they just trying to make things different for difference's sake?

Maybe it's just me...

Patrickl

[HuManBing]

I was thinking for each size category, you go up a dice, generally.

Halfings and kender are quite frail so their base commoner HD would be d4. Elves, half-elves, dwarves, and humans would be d6. Extremely warlike races that are the size of humans, like orcs (hugely muscled in comparison - consider how muscular a half-orc is!) would get a d8.

This might be tailored for creatures that mature through size categories too. A dragon might use d4s when it's small and then convert them all to d6s when it grows a size category.

As for classes, commoners get no bonuses to hp. It's assumed they spend time outdoors and do a reasonable bit of labor, even if it's carrying dishes and beating the lord's carpets.

Wizards and sorcerors could do with a slight penalty, as reflects all those hours spent indoors. A -1 or even a -2 might be suitable, but that would really make them dependent on others to intercede for them. At -1, at first level it would be 1-5 with average of 2.5 (assuming minimum of 1 hp gained regardless of penalties). At -2, first level is 1-4 with average 1.5 (!). A -2 would be even worse than a d4. A -1 would be roughly the same as a d4 (actually slightly better as you can never get a 0 to balance it out).

I've never agreed with clerics being d8 hit dice. What makes a cloistered priestly spellcaster type worthy of being equal to a rugged wilderness ranger type? Personally, I would split the cleric up into a spellcasting-heavy "priest" class with a HD similar to the wiz/sorc, and a "templar" class that has much more limited spellcasting ability but packs a good combat punch. WotC seems to have confused these two archtypes and in so doing, made a seriously overpowered class.

But I digress.

Priests and rogues don't get any special bonus or penalty to HD.

Rangers and druids, because of their necessarily outdoors preoccupations, get a modest bonus, say +1. Monks, as they undergo intense physical training, get this too, even though they're not dedicated soldiers. For a human this would be 2-7, with 4.5 being the norm. This is roughly equivalent to your average d8 roll.

Then you have the career warriors - the fighter, the paladin, and the barbarian. All of these would get a +2 to HD. For a human that would be 3-8 per level with an average of 5.5, or roughly similar to what a current fighter gets on a d10.

Things like the undead and construct templates could drop all class bonuses and apply a straightforward template bonus, perhaps +3 for undead and +4 for constructs. (Much as I like undead, it makes no sense to me that constructs get an inferior HD. If I hit a golem, I expect to do a lot less damage than if I thwack a skeleton or zombie.)

Most classes get a little reduction in hp but that's to my personal liking as I always thought the HP calculus gets a bit ridiculous after a bit. DnD tries to cover this up with mechanics like the Massive Damage Death rule, which is frankly just arbitrary, but it still shows through. A wizard at high levels can do massive amounts of damage with a single spell, and a fighter... can just swing his weapon or his fist. A few more times.

Oh, and they should also include a few more Asian characters in 4th Ed. Especially in the sodding book on MARTIAL ARTS. Grrrr...

</rant over>

[JinnTolser]

My take on clerics being a d8 hit die (as well as having heavy armor proficiency) is that it was given to them so they don't get killed trying to heal the melee characters, since cure spells have a range of touch, and all. As far as the less-spellcasting templar type, isn't that what we have the paladin for, or am I misunderstanding you?

[Jester of the FoS]

Clerics get good hp and AC because that's all the class has going for it.

And there is a cap on the number of HD for fine and tiny creatures and a minuimum HD for huge, gargantuan and collossal creatures.
And really, why would a small-sized hunting dog automaticly have fewer hitpoints than a medium-sized wizard?

[HuManBing]

Clerics get good hp and AC because that's all the class has going for it.

I disagree. You're overlooking their spellcasting, which they can do with no armor penalty. They're the only class that has freely swappable spells for healing - a logistical boost that means a group of clerics heading into any given dungeon will generally fare far better than a group of any other homogenous class.

And really, why would a small-sized hunting dog automaticly have fewer hitpoints than a medium-sized wizard?

A small sized hunting dog with 1d4+2 hp per HD (3-6 hp, average 4.5) would generally do considerably better than a medium sized human wizard with 1d6-1 hp per HD (1-5 hp, average 2.6 hp). There's nothing "automatic" about it.

[Jester of the FoS]

Clerics get good hp and AC because that's all the class has going for it.

I disagree. You're overlooking their spellcasting, which they can do with no armor penalty. They're the only class that has freely swappable spells for healing - a logistical boost that means a group of clerics heading into any given dungeon will generally fare far better than a group of any other homogenous class.

But spellcasting is all they get and they're less useful without a party. They're the least autonomous class. Little offence and limited weapons.
As stated, clerics get the AC and hp because they're always be right behind the front lines and close to danger while the wizrads can be just fine 25+ feet away.

And really, why would a small-sized hunting dog automaticly have fewer hitpoints than a medium-sized wizard?

A small sized hunting dog with 1d4+2 hp per HD (3-6 hp, average 4.5) would generally do considerably better than a medium sized human wizard with 1d6-1 hp per HD (1-5 hp, average 2.6 hp). There's nothing "automatic" about it.

If you're also doing away with max hp at first level.

It's an interesting idea but really breaks away from current rules (which ties HD to class not size) and would require a tonne of adjustments to the entire game system, mostly to damage. It's a neat idea for an alternative system but would work less with D&D. Especially for melee classes (fighters, barbarians). I've seen games with the average hp assumed (Living Greyhawk) and it doesn't work that well. You'll generally drop after one or two hits all the way to 3rd level. In reality, and especially in homegames, DMs tend to get players to re-roll 1s and sometimes even 2s (to say nothing of cocked dice) so the 'average' tends to be much higher.

[Jester of the FoS]

I should comment it's not that I hate the idea, I just see alot of sudden busts of creativity with no follow-through. If you're willing to deal with all the possible changes and options it might work.

Here are some of the kinks I see:

Okay, tying HD to size work and the numbers are close. But it is adding complexity as you're going from HD tied to type or class plus Con to HD tied to class plus type modifier plus Con. That one extra step.

Plus the idea of something just changing its HD type as it grows means some monsters will be easier to kill at low levels than their CR indicates. A small dragon will have its hitpoints halved. The obvious solution is to boost their hp with a bonus. But then at high levels the bonus remains so they have *more* hp than their CR would indicate. And having the bonus apply on the part of the time so the numbers work is a really stop-gap solution. So CRs would have to be adjusted instead.

Then what about spells? enlarge person or reduce prerson. Now they'll be granting bonus hp as well. They should likely be more powerful spells then. Or does the size change not add to hp?

What about small-sized fighters? Sure, a human fighter has the same average hp as he currently has, but a halfling fighter's at 1d4+2 for an average of 4.5, which, while only a hp less every level, is a steep difference and does mean monks, rangers and the like have the same hp as a halfling fighter-type. And feel really sorry for the poor halfling wizards, with their 1.5 hitpoints/level.

What about fine or tiny sized creatures? Why do they have the same HD as halflings? Or do they get the lovely semi-real d3 and d2?

What about things like giants or titans? They'll also get a boost in hp without a related CR increase.

And the big one: where's the trade-off?
It's done for realism but this is still a game with a careful balance maintained through a give-and-take. If big monsters get a boost in hp while small creatures have their hp knocked down, what do the big monsters give up and what do the small creatures recieve in compensation. What do the poor maligned gnomes and halflings get out of the deal?

[Ail]

I still go by what Jester said previously. HP is not merely physical endurance, it's also the ability to avoid damage through experience. That is tied up to an old argument, and iirc, to that being able to fight at 100% ability even when you have 1hp.

It's not completely a physical notion, I say, and we should remember that. So, it still makes sense, in a way, that a halfling trained in war would still be able to avoid damage more easily than a human mage and thus resist longer, this being represented by having more HD.

Remember LOTR, where halflings were surprising resilient? That might have been luck, not class, but size is not automatically more physical endurance.

Alex

[HuManBing]

Jester's right insofar as the DnD system would need a major overwrite if it were to function to my satisfaction. Some of his counter proposals are perfectly valid points.

For what it's worth, I dislike the way AC is handled in the game. Ideally, AC should be split into two parts - a DR function, and an actual evasion bonus. Most armors do not give you any evasion bonuses and they actually may reduce your evasion bonus because you can't move as quickly. The payoff is that you "soak" damage from each hit so less gets through. This can effectively make things like slings useless against platemail, but battleaxes and longbow arrows or heavy crossbow bolts could still be useful. (And yes, the weapon stats would have to be altered too.)

Even as is, the AC caps on armor is so lenient that nobody really wants to rely on Dexterity. You can be wearing a chain shirt and still have a maximum of +4 to AC from a Dex bonus. Which is to say, you can have the highest normal Dex possible (as a human on 3d6) and wear chain and have no penalty. In order for this to even be a mild penalty you'd need a 20 Dex or higher. No wonder monks suck - they can't wear armor, and their Wis bonus to AC usually isn't any better than a chain shirt. A fighter only needs an 18 Dex and 100 gp to get a +8 to AC, or a 16 Dex and 115 gp (chain shirt plus buckler). A monk needs an 18 Dex and an 18 Wis, and then that assumes he's not going to need a high Str ability to actually be worth a damn in melee combat.

I find your faith in the 3.5 designers' abilities somewhat greater than my own. They did a good job, but not a perfect one, and it's not like their work is some gospel creed that cannot be questioned. Clerics or Druids are known in the WotC boards as CODzilla classes, and with good reason - they're overpowered, plain and simple.

It's weird that you invoke house rules (DMs let PCs reroll 1s and 2s) as a means of buttressing your argument that the current system works. I'd be more inclined to deduce that something is broken about it if DMs and PCs have to do that. Note also that my suggestions are exactly "brief ideas with no follow up", and I'm unable to offer any more and frankly I'm surprised you didn't expect that. I'm not a statistician and I'm not a professional game designer. I'm a law student on Xmas break who has a few moments to go through game notes he threw together awhile back.

If my stuff is really looking unworkable to you then we can dismiss it as a bad house rule at my gaming table. (And my players indeed may or may not agree with you, depending.) But who knows? Sifting through the rubble of my tabletop curiosity may yield a few nice glimmers here and there.

As far as HP goes, my personal tastes tend more towards the "more vulnerable in combat, longer, and earlier". Even a L10 fighter should be wary of engaging multiple L2-4 foes and not charge recklessly into combat. Superior planning and preparation should allow a significantly lower CR challenger to seriously injure or even take out a higher CR/CL PC or monster. That's just my take on things - I understand this is not a universal or even particularly popular view.

Without changing the game and hp mechanics hugely, I'm experimenting with a "healing as temp damage conversion" mechanic that is in Unearthed Arcana. Healing restores no hp at all - it merely converts permanent damage into temporary damage, so you regain it at a rate of {PC level} x {hours} instead of {PC level} x {days}. It means that PCs have to be very leery of combat because damage you take is damage you can't regain until after the combat's over. And if somebody is knocked unconscious it can be hours before they're even back on their feet. It's also much easier to take somebody prisoner - even if they're healed to max hp, it's still temp damage haunting them and they're essentially helpless until fully healed through time.

One thing I'm looking forward to seeing is 4E's approach to spells. It seems like wizards won't be expected to predict ahead of time what spells they'll need and guess accordingly. It seems like they have some capacity for picking and choosing spells as the day progresses. That's a welcome change from the hidebound Vance system.

[Lord Soth]

Even as is, the AC caps on armor is so lenient that nobody really wants to rely on Dexterity. You can be wearing a chain shirt and still have a maximum of +4 to AC from a Dex bonus. Which is to say, you can have the highest normal Dex possible (as a human on 3d6) and wear chain and have no penalty.

Apparently in 4E they're getting rid of that. If you wear armor, you don't get a Dex bonus. You have to burn a Feat to get the Dex bonus, though I'm not certain about the requirements. I think the case was that only Fighters could get such a Feat.

Anyway, I may have mentioned this before, but I think I'll mention it again. If D&D isn't cutting the mustard for you, as far as Ravenloft is concerned, then I suggest checking out the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay system. Now THAT is a brutal rule set. They have hit points, but the most powerful characters only have about 20 Hit Points (Starting Hit Points are around 10). A far cry from having a character with 200+ Hit Points.

To top it off, it's horrific what happens when you run out of Hit Points. Unlike D&D, there are no negative Hit Points. And being reduced to 0 doesn't KO you. Instead, you can keep fighting as normal. However, for every hit which you sustain which inflicts more damage then you have Hit Points, you take a critical hit. The more excess damage inflicted, the more severe the critical hit. It's in the critical hits where it REALLY gets nasty, as they range from simply being KOed to losing a limb or being outright killed!

There're other elements which you may appreciate. Like magic being a danger to the caster. Or the lack of magic items (Even the greatest heroes of the Warhammer Fantasy world, Kings and Emperors of mighty nations, have at best three magic items). It's a brutal setting all around. So I imagine it'd be pretty easy to port Ravenloft over to that system. Especially since it shares many of the same races (Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, and a few others).

[Jester of the FoS]

There's some good house rules that add DR and an unarmored armour bonus in Unearthed Arcana that can also be found in the SRD. I use them in my Ravenloft homegame so the paladin has to choose between a higher AC without his armour or increased DR.

I concede the house rule rolling 1s and 2s. From experience average hp doesn't work as well as expected for PCs and even the designers realize this alot. The RPGA Eberron game assigns hp closer to 75% which I find tends to fit giving knights and barbarians as well as fighters a needed edge.

The HD based on size is really interesting and the numbers you have really do work with d20, but, as I said, too much needs to be redone. It could work in a homegame though.

And I don't have a tonn of faith in the makers of 3e, I know it has a crap-load of problems, but there's a lot of subtleties in there often missed and its not as easy as it looks, as demonstrated by the stacks and stacks of 3rd party books, all of which have absolutely crap mechanics.

[ewancummins]

I agree with Lord Soth about WFRP being a good choice for running Ravenloft. The specifics of magic would need to be fiddled with, and Power Checks put in place of Chaos stuff, but it could be done. The rules support low magic, horror/fantasy hybrid games very well. If that is how you run Ravenloft, you might want to give it a look.

Of course, I worship at the altar of Warhammer, so I'm not an unbiased source.