Giving PC's 10 additional hit points at level 1

[DarkSoul]

You could give max for hit die plus a roll plus Con for level 1. It gives bonus hp without making everyone extremely tough at level 1.

Though I'm not fond of something like that in general. If you're going to play a wizard at level 1, find someone to hide behind.

[martixy]

I do like the idea.
If you look from the perspective of lucky crits, give them a crit's worth of bonus damage in HP. So something like 5 hp on average. If you want to be extra safe, someone already listed a few common <= CR 1 enemies, the most of which is d8+2, which has a max value of 10.
So yes, you're on good grounds.
Just pick between average safety and extra safety.

It is also a good idea from another perspective - if someone takes a level adjusted race, they'll really need a buff like this.

[Max Caysey]

How would that impact the game? My intention is making the PC's more durable at low levels without it having much impact later in the game. I think this could potentially save a few lives from lucky crits made by orcs with falcions (falciones?).

I usually allow my palyers, when DM'ing, to reroll a 1 the first three levels... Simply just to as you say "making the PC's more durable at low levels without it having much impact later in the game", for me and my players it have worked fine. Its nice both for me, that I can add a litle ekstra, to make the proverbial orc or goblin a little more interesting, without running a too high risk of TPK'ing them all the time... I would say though, that if they are super pro full optimizations, it might just make things worse, but then again, if they are super pro Tippy optimizars... the game is not really caring about HP anyways...

[RoboEmperor]

I'd suggest that you just give them an item that grants 10 temp hp once per day instead of giving a flat 10hp boost.

[Arael666]

I usually allow my palyers, when DM'ing, to reroll a 1 the first three levels... Simply just to as you say "making the PC's more durable at low levels without it having much impact later in the game", for me and my players it have worked fine. Its nice both for me, that I can add a litle ekstra, to make the proverbial orc or goblin a little more interesting, without running a too high risk of TPK'ing them all the time... I would say though, that if they are super pro full optimizations, it might just make things worse, but then again, if they are super pro Tippy optimizars... the game is not really caring about HP anyways...

I always see this coming up... are 1s really that frequent when rolling for HP? I can see how it would impact a PC for a whole level and all ( the psycological damage being the worst part), but ever since I've joined my secon campaign I just used average HP and I never rolled a single HD ever again. I really thought getting average was more common than rolling for HP, but It seems I'm mistaken to assume that.

[martixy]

Look at it from a maths perspective.

It is, on average, +0.5 HP.

So on average, among half(not even all of them!) of the people that use this rule, durability will have improved by 1 HP.
Realistically, it does very little.

Especially when YOU specifically roll a 2.

This is basically for sneaky DMs who want their players to think he's doing them a favor.

[Coidzor]

The way I DM 20 negative would be the same as 10 negative. I tend to play my mobs to their actual inteligence, meaning a band of goblins would not imediately ignore you just because you're uncounscious, unless there's some advantage to it.

Like, say, finishing off the rest of the PCs? Using the downed combatant as bait for the healers to spend actions trying to save a downed comrade instead of contributing to their side winning?

[Arael666]

Like, say, finishing off the rest of the PCs? Using the downed combatant as bait for the healers to spend actions trying to save a downed comrade instead of contributing to their side winning?

Spending a stardard action to stab a fallen opponent (killing them) and taking a move action to position yourself next to your ally is not only smart but it's also optimal. You've just eliminated the risk of that PC being healed and coming back to fight again.

[Coidzor]

Spending a stardard action to stab a fallen opponent (killing them) and taking a move action to position yourself next to your ally is not only smart but it's also optimal. You've just eliminated the risk of that PC being healed and coming back to fight again.

Unless you can charge another enemy, aiding one of your allies directly. Or there's a foe already next to you and the fallen one to attack. Or a healer you want to lure from the backline.

Et Cetera.

It's not always optimal to do so, and to pretend that's the case, let alone deliberately contrive to engineer situations where that's always the case, is just silly. Being married to this idea is just wanting to be a Killer DM for Killer DM's sake.

[Honest Tiefling]

Why not double up on that maximized hit die at first level? A wizard with 14 constitution will get 14 HP. The fighter with 14 constitution will get 22. That's in opposition to 8/12. There's still a bit of distinction to favor the mundanes, but that 6 extra HP might prevent the wizard from dying too soon.

[Endarire]

I recommend giving everything +5 to +10 HP upon gaining its first class level. Yes, NPCs too.

[Arael666]

Unless you can charge another enemy, aiding one of your allies directly. Or there's a foe already next to you and the fallen one to attack. Or a healer you want to lure from the backline.

Et Cetera.

It's not always optimal to do so, and to pretend that's the case, let alone deliberately contrive to engineer situations where that's always the case, is just silly. Being married to this idea is just wanting to be a Killer DM for Killer DM's sake.

Think about it this way, if you were facing another party and you just managed to drop their fighter, would you immediately get away from him and charge, lets say, the cleric, or you would spend a standard action making sure no one would be able to get him back on action?

[Zanos]

Think about it this way, if you were facing another party and you just managed to drop their fighter, would you immediately get away from him and charge, lets say, the cleric, or you would spend a standard action making sure no one would be able to get him back on action?

Considering that most combats only last 4-5 rounds, I'm not going to spend my action making sure an already neutralized threat doesn't get back up. It's a much more efficient use of my limited action to try to neutralize another threat. Especially if it's from damage, since healing is so weeny that he'll just go down in one hit again, and getting an enemy spellcaster to waste an action is good value. In most combats, there aren't people who could actually get a person up from negatives anyway.

The only time I would bother with this is if the enemy in question was high priority because they had seen something they shouldn't and I really need them to not get away, or had proved themselves to be resistant to staying down already.

It's the same principle of attacking enemies that aren't debuffed or controlled first. If i've got 3 orcs that are slowed and 2 that aren't, it's a much better use of my action to take out an orc that isn't slowed than one that is.

[Theobod]

Just skimmed this but one suggestion that minimises 1st lvl squishiness but has zero effect on the long term would be to start the PCs with the HP of a second or third lvl version of themselves and just not gaining HP at 2nd or 3rd lvl. End result is no change but can't be crit killed straight off by one lucky roll and maintains the HD divide from tanks through mages.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'm still quite in shock how many people in this thread are so eager to make the martials' even more ineffectual by diluting their high HD and giving a flat numerical or Con score bonus hp to everyone.

Just skimmed this but one suggestion that minimises 1st lvl squishiness but has zero effect on the long term would be to start the PCs with the HP of a second or third lvl version of themselves and just not gaining HP at 2nd or 3rd lvl. End result is no change but can't be crit killed straight off by one lucky roll and maintains the HD divide from tanks through mages.

Yes, I've seen this done in games before, it works fairly well other than people who aren't sure yet what classes they'll have at 2 and 3 (not everyone stays single class). You could just triple the HD of their first level class and adjust it at 2 and 3 if they multiclass, though that has the interesting quirk of them losing hp when they level up.

Still infinitely better idea than +10 or +Con score or other "FU martials!" ideas.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I'm still quite in shock how many people in this thread are so eager to make the martials' even more ineffectual by diluting their high HD and giving a flat numerical or Con score bonus hp to everyone.

Point of order: How long does it take most 1st level martials to run out of hp without access to someone else healing them? Because in my experience, that's about one fight + one round. Doubling their hp would lead to lasting almost three full fights, and it would allow the party's healers to make use of the party's resources more judiciously.

[Andezzar]

Point of order: How long does it take most 1st level martials to run out of hp without access to someone else healing them? Because in my experience, that's about one fight + one round. Doubling their hp would lead to lasting almost three full fights, and it would allow the party's healers to make use of the party's resources more judiciously.

By killing the enemies before they kill them. I have very rarely seen in combat healing. Also it is usually a better choice for the cleric to do other things in combat rather than healing. After combat he can still spontaneously cast healing spells if necessary.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

By killing the enemies before they kill them. I have very rarely seen in combat healing. Also it is usually a better choice for the cleric to do other things in combat rather than healing. After combat he can still spontaneously cast healing spells if necessary.

...This doesn't even attempt to dispute anything I said. Are you disagreeing with me? The tone suggests it, but nothing you say here has anything to do with what I was saying.

[Andezzar]

I thought your question suggested that under normal rules the martials would need in combat healing. I countered that they won't need it, if they kill the opposition before they themselves run out of HP and clerics would do a much more to help them by buffing their allies and debuffing their enemies than by giving back d8+1 HP per standard action.

[Nifft]

What I did was:

- Racial bonus HP (e.g. humans get +8 HP just for being human; dwarves & half-orcs get +10 HP; elves get +6 HP; small races get +4 HP).
- Max HD at level 1.

... however I really like the 4e idea (get your Con score rather than bonus, plus a few HP for your class).

[DrMartin]

I'm still quite in shock how many people in this thread are so eager to make the martials' even more ineffectual by diluting their high HD and giving a flat numerical or Con score bonus hp to everyone.

every table has different experiences, but at the tables I've been attending martials are definitely not ineffectual at first and low levels. In my opinion the fact that they become such at higher levels is a different topic altogether.

[mauk2]

I'm still quite in shock how many people in this thread are so eager to make the martials' even more ineffectual by diluting their high HD and giving a flat numerical or Con score bonus hp to everyone.

Interesting.

I find that martials tend to have more hitpoints than other classes partially due to their larger dice, and much more due to their larger Con.

For example, moving up a Die size is equal to giving that class a free +2 Con.

D4 = 2.5/die
D6 = 3.5/die
D8 = 4.5/die
D10 =5.5/die.
etc.

The average is going up by +1 per die size.


So a D10 class effectively has a free +4 Con versus a D6 class. Numerically, it's identical, on-average.

By making it a die roll, the DM is allowed to 'fudge' the averages by allowing re-rolls.

I think a stronger way to differentiate marshalls vs spellies is to bake more advantages and goodies into armor and shields. (See sig for details, if you care.)

So, adding Con Stat to everyone at first level is indeed 'a rising tide lifts all boats' situation, but you drive home the durability advantage of martials via gear.

[Anlashok]

How is making it less likely for a level 1 fighter or rogue to instantly die in a melee engagement with standard orcs an "FU" to martials? Making them reasonably competent at their main job seems like the exact opposite.

[Theobod]

I think it's mostly because by doing so in a universal way across the board you devalue the natural advantage in HP that martials have somewhat.

[Honest Tiefling]

Could also be the idea that very few people tend to make the martials with the idea of babysitting the mages during the lower levels. Maybe a lot of fighters aren't so worried about that advantage being taken away, especially if they have newer or less optimizing friends playing the mages? "Hey! You in the dress! Take it like a warrior, I got orcs to kill!"

[ericgrau]

Must start at level 1, don't want to screw with balance.

Ok, have the players make backup characters. That's the #1 thing.

You might also let them go deeper into the negatives. -15 isn't terrible for balance. Plus encourage at least half of them to either have divine magic or get ranks in heal. Even cross class ranks. It makes a big difference at level 1. They can always stop raising their ranks at higher levels.

You may let them retrain a feat each level. In particular toughness. So that way those that want extra hp have to pay for it a little in other ways.