set hit points per level

[Dustin]

I am not a fan of having players roll hit points per level, but I don't want to just give them the max each level. Do you think 3 + Constitution per level is fair?

[Bardwulf]

Bear in mind, from tier 3 it levels out to a fixed con amount, like mana.

[Dustin]

Bear in mind, from tier 3 it levels out to a fixed con amount, like mana.

When you say tier 3, are you referring to levels past 10? (sorry, I have not read the play test)

[shonuff]

I am not a fan of having players roll hit points per level, but I don't want to just give them the max each level. Do you think 3 + Constitution per level is fair?

I break it up -- +2 for mages, +3 for rogues, +4 for warriors.

Bear in mind, from tier 3 it levels out to a fixed con amount, like mana.

When you say tier 3, are you referring to levels past 10? (sorry, I have not read the play test)

Yup.

[Dustin]

+2, +3 & +4? That is ingenious! I might start using that! Thanks!

I need to be on this forum more because I have tons of questions, but not enough time to get on here and ask.

Thanks again!

[shonuff]

No problem! I also altered the starting HP though, because I wanted the CON bonus to be retroactive, and HP got stupid-high.

[pensamento_coletivo]

Since we first played we use this:

Warrios get 4 + Con Health per level
rogues get 3 + Con Health per level
mages get 2 + Con Health per level and 4 + Magic mana per level

All retroactive So, if you raise Con you'll raise your Health as if you always had the new Con stat.

[shonuff]

Since we first played we use this:

Warrios get 4 + Con Health per level
rogues get 3 + Con Health per level
mages get 2 + Con Health per level and 4 + Magic mana per level

All retroactive So, if you raise Con you'll raise your Health as if you always had the new Con stat.

Yeah, basically I do the same, but I switched Magic with Willpower. Balanced mages, IMO.

[Bardwulf]

have you guys playing in tier 3 content found your parties unkillable then?

[shonuff]

My system is only for the dice-rolling levels -- at 11, I'll switch to the RAW. Well, I'll be keeping MP using Willpower instead of Magic.

[pensamento_coletivo]

have you guys playing in tier 3 content found your parties unkillable then?

Not at all. But again... in my game, the difficulty level is always hardcore. The world is dark and grim and the monsters smart enough to press every advantage against the heroes. So, you might think they have a lot of health and mana... but they have only enough to make the game playable.

So, again, te rule is a suggestion and may not work on "easier" games.

[Loswaith]

I typicaly use +3 for mages and rogues, while warriors effectivly have +4, and let Constitution sort out the other differences. As I dont realy see any reason why there should be that difference between the classes, as a rogue can be just as frail/unhealthy as a mage can (especially if the rogue is not focused on combat), but it's less likely for a warrior.

This is mainly because I have a talent based around health and physique, and warriors start with the Novice talent, which gives them the additional HP for static increases or the ability to roll 2 dice and choose one with random (this isn't retroactive either).

[Andferne]

For our campaigns at every level up everyone only gets 1+Con score in Health. The only difference between the class is their respective starting health (20/25/30).

We've also introduced two new talent trees though.
Might makes right: Each of the three levels gives you a +5 health bonus.
Mind over matter: Each of the three levels gives you a +5 mana bonus.

[MacGrein]

@ pensamento_coletivo
Retroactive? So everything is a Shower of HP.

To do a Dark Fantasy, you don't need to Up the enemies, you need to hold down Player Power Ups, use Moral Problems, like the Official Adventures, and a darker/colder tone on characters and enemies...

@ Bardwulf
You're right, this seems nothing like "Dark Fantasy" to me ...

@ shonuff
This is a good idea, just like in the PC game. In my game, mages cure MP only by Lyrium-addicting potions or by Deep Sleeping (it makes the Fade connection, restoring self Mana). So MP is somewhat scarce, but I found another use to it in the spells: Every Spell has no Mana cost, but higher TN numbers. Mages use MP to lower the TN numbers.
In my game, a Mage starts with 10 + Ability in MP. And gains +Ability MP every level up, since Level 1. This gives a harder tune to the scenario.

Until now, I'm using Magic for this "ability", but if Mana is connected to the Fade, and mages restore it by sleeping (mental/spiritual thing), so a good mentality/concentration could improve the state in the Fade, reigning the Mana points. If Magic is also about mental/spiritual health (fatigue), so Willpower reigns over it. Even more since Magic is the innate mystic power and "ability to channel it into reality", so Magic is about Control the Mystic and Willpower/Mana is about Fueling it!

Remember the "Mind, Body and Soul" and make "Willpower, Constitution and Magic" esque thing.

I'm changing my house rules!

[shonuff]

@ pensamento_coletivo
Retroactive? So everything is a Shower of HP.

Personally, I find that if CON isn't retroactive then it is just about a worthless stat. The CON foci aren't that common/useful IMO. Few Specialization require CON.

Retroactive CON also allows you to create items that scale per level.

[pensamento_coletivo]

@ pensamento_coletivo
Retroactive? So everything is a Shower of HP.

To do a Dark Fantasy, you don't need to Up the enemies, you need to hold down Player Power Ups, use Moral Problems, like the Official Adventures, and a darker/colder tone on characters and enemies...

No, it's not, really. And I never said I power up enemies (in terms of stats), I just use them in effective ways. An evil bann who wants the PCs dead will not attack head on with a sword and two hired thugs, he will use his resources to frame and execute them or (as in the game) will hire highly skilled professional killers (with high level mercenary help). That's what I meant. And in my setting magic itens are rare, so they NEED the extra health. And I never said moral problems and the darker cold/tone were out... they are even more in than the average game.

Just check it out: a 10th level warrior with Con 5 has 120 health. A lot, if you realize he's also wearing a ligh plate (armor . But it is worth nothing after a simple 3 stunt point skirmish + knockdown throws him into a 20ft-deep pit with greased walls, where he hears the bood mage villain explain to him why his beliefs are failed before his goons shut the pit with a huge rock. And as he fails over and over again in his attempts to climb back, and even if he succeeds he can't move the rock... thank the Maker all that health now can keep him alive (and suffering) as the other player get a chance to save him. And give the villain the chance to lay out a bargain, later: "if you let me go and sacrifice these innocents I'll tell you where your companion is so you can save him".

I do not fear give more health or more power to player's EXACTLY because of the darker tone of the setting... and maybe also because I'm blessed with players who have over 10 year gaming experience and use that power to improve the history, never to just roll over it.

[MacGrein]

Personally, I find that if CON isn't retroactive then it is just about a worthless stat. The CON foci aren't that common/useful IMO. Few Specialization require CON.
Retroactive CON also allows you to create items that scale per level.

This "maybe" in the RAW Specializations.
About the tests, put your players in a Desert area, or make them brave a cold mountain. Poison Killers, anyone?
In my game, CONS rules over most of physical resistance checks. Stun, Paralysis, Frozen, endure an Ogre's Grab attack, Diving (about breath), endure poison's effects, illness, dehydration, pain from torture, running, etc.

@ pensamento_coletivo
That's right, the tune of the setting rellies just a little on rules. Of course, it would be harder to play Dark Fantasy in a Toon-like System...

But I don't agree with retroactive CON bonus on HP upping.
This would be like a Time Travel to when you leveled up, just to regain some bonus points you didn't have that time... This does't make any sense, and adds useless calculations.
Level 1: CONS +1
Level 2: CONS +1
Level 3: CONS +2 (it's time to do math!)

Level 3 you get CONS (2) + 1d6 (i'd say 4) + actual HP (about 40) + "X" * {Levels-1} (X being the increase of CONS from the last level up, if any)
So you have 2 + 4 + 40 + 2 (for a retroactive method) = 48

Or Actual CONS value (2) + 1d6 (4) + Actual HP (40) = 46 ---- For the Normal Method.

Not so different? What about the 19th Level.

You have upped CONS to +8 | Actual HP 105 | X=? ohh Crap, I have to update the calculations from the first CONS increase, for it's all retroactive since I get my feet on Thedas...
If you started with +1 CONS and now have +8, so X=7, but everytime you increased it, you gained additional points. So how can we know?
If you get your character from the beginning and were increasing each level and making the math (the first equation), you get to know, of course, so no problems.
But if your character dies and you want a new one, in the average level rating of the group?
Everybody is at 19th level and you start to calculate the HPs of your newborn 19th level character. You'll only finish the problem when your group arrive at 20th level....

So, I find myself in no need of this...

[shonuff]

Personally, I find that if CON isn't retroactive then it is just about a worthless stat. The CON foci aren't that common/useful IMO. Few Specialization require CON.
Retroactive CON also allows you to create items that scale per level.

This "maybe" in the RAW Specializations.
About the tests, put your players in a Desert area, or make them brave a cold mountain. Poison Killers, anyone?
In my game, CONS rules over most of physical resistance checks. Stun, Paralysis, Frozen, endure an Ogre's Grab attack, Diving (about breath), endure poison's effects, illness, dehydration, pain from torture, running, etc.

I'm not saying the CON has no uses, just that they're limited. I've never had a GM kill anyone from a running/swimming/etc. check, but that might just be me.

Furthermore, what happens if you give a PC a +1 CON item? They just have to slip it on when they train for level-ups and they get the HP? Or do CON boosters affect HP? What happens if a character loses CON (via age, illness, poison, etc.)? Would their HP stay constant? If you do subtract HP due to the CON-loss, how do you account for CON additions gained as they leveled? So, IMO, CON is better off if it's retroactive because then you can add/subtract easily.

[MacGrein]

If someone loses some CONS, he does not low the HP, but lowers his regeneration rate and chance to survive other checks. In my game, I use very often CONS checks.
Rogues like to Backstab. Not every moment they can walk around the enemy to reach his back or try for Bluff, so they Stun and after Backstab automatic.
Enemies are target of this, and PCs too, cause enemy rogues also try for this.
Stun demands a CONS check.

This ability seems "not so usefull" cause it's more like a passive ability.
What about WILL and CUN ?
Just cause it isn't used activelly, it doesn't seems to be a useless stat.
Mana is also retroactive?

[shonuff]

Yeah, Mana is retroactive and based Willpower instead of Magic -- I don't like how in RAW, Mages can be one-trick ponies.

And again, I don't like the muddying effect that if you have a +1 CON item, in RAW you just have to use it when you level, and then you get the HP bonus. Yeah, I know it's obviously gaming the system, but that's my point. Whereas, if it's retroactive, IMO it is less so.

[pensamento_coletivo]

@ pensamento_coletivo
(...)
But I don't agree with retroactive CON bonus on HP upping.
This would be like a Time Travel to when you leveled up, just to regain some bonus points you didn't have that time... This does't make any sense, and adds useless calculations.
Level 1: CONS +1
Level 2: CONS +1
Level 3: CONS +2 (it's time to do math!)

Level 3 you get CONS (2) + 1d6 (i'd say 4) + actual HP (about 40) + "X" * {Levels-1} (X being the increase of CONS from the last level up, if any)
So you have 2 + 4 + 40 + 2 (for a retroactive method) = 48

Or Actual CONS value (2) + 1d6 (4) + Actual HP (40) = 46 ---- For the Normal Method.

Not so different? What about the 19th Level.

You have upped CONS to +8 | Actual HP 105 | X=? ohh Crap, I have to update the calculations from the first CONS increase, for it's all retroactive since I get my feet on Thedas...
If you started with +1 CONS and now have +8, so X=7, but everytime you increased it, you gained additional points. So how can we know?
If you get your character from the beginning and were increasing each level and making the math (the first equation), you get to know, of course, so no problems.
But if your character dies and you want a new one, in the average level rating of the group?
Everybody is at 19th level and you start to calculate the HPs of your newborn 19th level character. You'll only finish the problem when your group arrive at 20th level....

So, I find myself in no need of this...

Dude... no!

Read the post again. I use a fixed gain of Health and mana per level. It's really easy.

Check it out. A warrior has 30 health, plus 4 + Con per level. Just that.

If your 1st level warrior has Con 4, he'll have 38 Health. 30 base +(4+4) x 1 (level)
At 19th level, assuming all possible advancements went to Con, he'll have Con 8, right? So, his health:
30 (base) + (4+8)x10 (level) = 30 + 120, or 150 Health up to 10th level, plus 8 Health per level from 11 to 19 levels. (That's 9x8 = 72 Health). So, your character will have
Note that ou add the 'dice' bonus up to 10th level.

Don't worry about the retroactive part of the Health calculation. Just make the calculation os total Health at that level.

OF COURSE... the rule ALSO works without Health being retroactive, so it's only a matter of preference.

[shonuff]

@ pensamento_coletivo
(...)
But I don't agree with retroactive CON bonus on HP upping.
This would be like a Time Travel to when you leveled up, just to regain some bonus points you didn't have that time... This does't make any sense, and adds useless calculations.

IMHO, I think that a retroactive CON bonus makes more sense. I view HP as an abstract concept that determines how long a character can remain in a fight. And if two people have the same constitution now, will it really matter what constitution one had months or even years ago? Nope.

The extra calculations could get problematic, but as pensamento says, it really only works with a static HP increase. 30+ (4+CON)*(level) is much easier to figure out than 30+ (level * d6)+ (CON * level).

[MacGrein]

Hmm ... I still prefers the normal way ...
Why complicate when you can do it the easy way?

Wants more HP? Make each CONS point to increase x2 or x3 points.
Whatever... this retroactive-thinge doesn't seems to make any sense to me...

[Loswaith]

Retroactive Con simply makes it easier to calculate multiple levels in one go, while non retroactive Con is easier to use as a progressive development.

This is simply because for retroactive its; base + (1d6+con) * level, as Shonuff mentioned, while for non retroactive its; Current Health + 1d6 + con.

Retoractive you dont need to be worried about when the con was increased, only that it is increased to calculate the total, but have to keep tabs on your level, and remember to add the extra.
Non-retroactive you dont need to worry about level when increasing con, but need to keep tabs on when it was increased when calculating the total over multiple levels at some later point.

I dont think people realy worry too much about the total health at the end of the day either way offers, only calculating it in the first place.

[shonuff]

Retroactive Con simply makes it easier to calculate multiple levels in one go, while non retroactive Con is easier to use as a progressive development.

...

I dont think people realy worry too much about the total health at the end of the day either way offers, only calculating it in the first place.

This might be your point, but the scaling benefit of retroactive CON shouldn't be ignored. Say, for example, a level 1 character starts as a werewolf. The GM wants to give an HP significant HP boost while the character is in were-form. 10 HP at level is too strong, IMO, but at level 10 it could easily be nothing "significant". And at 20, the boost could easily still leave the PC at lower HP levels than other PCs (depending on rolling). However, putting HP as dependent on current CON, it's easily scaleable.

And for all of the other primary stats (with the exception of Magic and MP), you get the full bonus on secondary stats, so IMO that is another reason why I believe that CON should be retroactive. As Macgrein argues (and others, as well), CON does have other uses, but I've never been a part of campaign where someone died from thirst, drowning, etc. And even if that were more prevalent, the CON roll is typically secondary to a failed other roll -- the rogue backstabbed you because your perception is low, so why not just increase that? IMO, non-retroactive CON encourages min-maxing.