That was on purpose. I think sometimes we fail to see when we're talking about the same thing. I recognized that your points and my points were of a mind. And I wanted to try to point that out.Hamakto wrote:What you described as a HP system is very similar to what I suggested.
You at d4+3 for warriors and me a d6+2 for warriors. They both average out to the same rolls.
I strongly prefer the B/X attribute bonuses. First for the reason you mention about them. Second, because they model the bell curve of 3d6. I think that's important.Hamakto wrote:You do throw some interesting stats about what they look like with ability bonuses, but for the purpose of the forum discussions I do not think we can worry about the extremes as much. Since Joseph has already committed to the 3e ability bonus (+1 every 2 points), they have inherited the problems that come with higher bonus numbers. That if a character does roll a 16, that +3 is a huge bonus in DCC. When it comes to con, it is going to be very large.
(I actually prefer the 13-15 = +1, 16-17 +2, 18+3 system. It keeps things from getting as out of balance)
That said, I think the extremes are important to consider. I don't think we can ignore them. Only considering the averages is misleading, IMO. Sure, it's fine to say on average a Fighter at 10th level will have 55 hp. If you're going to track down problems with a system, it's going to be at the edges. Not on the averages. So while I wouldn't sell the farm on the highs and lows, I think they're worthy of consideration.
I think DCC needs to get the CON bonus out of hit points per level. I think they're overly punitive for low CON scores and overly beneficial for high CON scores.
Think about this. A 10th level Fighter with an 8 CON will have 45 hp "on average". A 10th level Fighter with 16 CON will have 85. Fighters of comparable skill level. One has almost half the other's hit points. Why? How does the Fighter with 16 CON parry an attack better than the one with 8 CON?
And why in the world would anyone play a Wizard with anything under 14 CON?
It's a dumb move. And here's why.
Because that -1 CON at every level hurts every class worse than the Fighter. If DCC keeps CON bonus per level, my advice to players... Never play a Wizard unless you have CON of 12 or higher. If you have a negative CON bonus, play a Fighter. Does that make any sense? I didn't think so either. But it's what the system promotes.
I don't see how what I was talking about changes that.Hamakto wrote:Because of the 3d6, the way that character HP's work (in 3e numbers) is that a squishy (wizard) has 1/2 as many HP as a meat shield (warrior). The Thief and (Militant) Clerics fall somewhere in between.
Again, I don't see how what I suggested did that. Zero-level characters will have (max) 8 hit points. A Zero level character (with a d4 hit die and +4 CON bonus) in 3e can have a (max) of 8 hit points. A first level character will have between 3-17 hp. How is that bumping up hit points too much at level one?Hamakto wrote:I do not think giving 1st level characters too many bonus HP's is what Joseph has in mind for the game. He wants things to be deadly (i.e. start with 3 zero level chars and maybe you will have one survive by level 2 or 3). If you bump up the HP's too much at level one, you drastically change the base feel of the game.
Assuming DCC zero-level characters have any hit points at all... and assuming that those carry over to 1st level... A 1st level DCC Fighter could have as many as 22 hit points.
I apologize for not communicating well. I feel I've over-explained myself. I'm not talking about inflating or deflating hit points. What I'm talking about is narrowing the range and pushing them all towards the center of a common curve.
To create a high-low range that's not 10-100 at 10th level. I don't think people are going to be playing with averages. That's what 4e does. It turns the averages into a flat bonus. I don't think either of us like that option.
Yup. It also means that Wizards will get hit more often. And Thieves. I'm suggesting that they get a little boost towards the middle. To keep the outliers from getting whacked. What I'm suggesting doesn't penalize the Warriors. It just brings them back down to earth a little. Everyone towards the center of a common curve. Instead of everyone existing on their own curve.Hamakto wrote:1. AC will not scale like 3e/4e. That means that based on the Warrior combat progression, people will probably get hit more often
On average, we talk about Wizards having 1/2 the hit points of Fighters. But in reality, they could have 1/3 or 1/4. And they'll be getting hit more often. I'm not sure what more I need to say here.
Yup. And I'm suggesting the "cap" for Fighters is too high. And a significant percentage of the problem is adding the CON bonus every level.Hamakto wrote:2. Classes will possibly max out at level 10. That puts an effective cap on HP.
Consider this... If you're a Wizard with 18 CON from the luck of the die, you'd get more hit points from your CON bonus than your hit die. You could potentially have more hit points than the party's Fighter. Actually, if you're lucky enough to roll up a character who has an 18 CON, I'd encourage a player to choose Wizard unless the character had less than 10 Intelligence.
I disagree. Ability bonuses will float around the -1 to +1. With most characters having at least one +2. That lucky roll on a CON score nets the character 20-50% more hit points (depending on class) every level, until the end of time (or 10th level). And it gets used everytime a Fortitude save is rolled. And probably means the character heals twice as fast as everyone else.Hamakto wrote:3. Ability bonuses will be non-existent for most characters. The core rules need to float primarily for them.
What other attribute nets that kind of awesome?
I would wonder how Monster damage fits into all this. Because that would make the squishy pretty squished, IMO. If the Monsters get combat dice, then ouch. Watch out 10th level Wizard with 25 hp!Hamakto wrote:4. I think I read that Warriors might be adding their combat dice to weapon damage (or a bonus die) as they level up.
I agree. But I don't see how that applies to what I was talking about. A Wizard with an 18 CON would be as good (or better) a meat shield as an "average" Fighter.Hamakto wrote:I know I proposed a wound system earlier. You proposed one... and I think a few others have chimed in with a few ideas on the boards. I am really starting to lean towards not promoting a wound system for DCC. There is no real simple way to do one that keeps the base spirit of HP in DCC/DnD. Unless you are willing to re-do the entire spell/weapon damage system to go along with it (I think that would be too drastic of a change).
To be honest, I think the fighter will need his 55hp on average to survive in his party role of meat shield. You want the squishies to tremble in fear when they get into melee. You still handing out too many HP to them, and that part of the game dynamic starts to go by the wayside.
So, another thing to consider. By my suggestion, the max a 1st level fighter could have is 17 hp. But they're far more likely to be towards the middle of that range. By using max HP at 1st level (CON 18 and 1d10 hit die) and assuming just "average" on 1d4 at zero level, a 1st level Fighter would have (2 + 4 + 10 +4) 20 hit points.Hamakto wrote:(as a side note): I have always done max HP as a house rule. And I think that should be part of level one in DCC. (using d6 method you end up with 6-8 hp for 1st level chars)... With a min(-2)/max(+4) range in your example of (4-12hp). This keeps things deadly without providing too much life to the characters at first level.
So I don't see how I'm suggesting handing out way too many HP.
I agree. But I'm hoping that at least these numbers on hit points help get the point across. I feel like I'm singing into an air tunnel but I'm hoping that someone understands what I'm saying.Hamakto wrote:The problem with all of our discussions is that there are so many unknowns out there that it is difficult to work out a system that fits easily into the game and keeps the loose rule feel that Joseph wants.
I see it as a problem with 3e and I've talked about it before. I don't think it so bad with the B/X bonuses. And that's why I pushed for those as well. But I believe those are off the table. So hopefully this gets read.
And I don't think changing the hit dice per level to something more equanimous is an intrusive change. It's basically your suggestion, Andy. 1d6+1, 1d6+2, 1d6+3 with d4s as you've pointed out. That was the point of my last post. I've just come up for reasons why it's a really, really good idea.
Can we agree or must I continue defending your really great idea?