set hit points per level

[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.

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.(...)

Totally agree, specially at higher levels.

"When a character takes damage from a
sword hit, for example, it can represent bruising, FATIGUE,
LOSS OF BREATH, or actual wounds." (Player's Guide 1)

[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.

...

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.

That said there is no reason you cant also have benefits of scalling with the health bonus, instead of a flat 10 for the werewolf, having it as a +2 per level scales it reguardless of whether the character has retroactive con or not. The GM in this case doesnt have any issues of using house rules so can work with whatever they want.

Additional downsides to retroactive con is a player never needs to worry about missing out on the health by taking it later, and thus sacrificing some of their current power by not increasing magic, strength or dexterity, especially since at higher levels you get more returns on increasing con than if you do it eairler assuming retroactive approach. It also gets a little icky if you simply want to boost all con skills without health.

A thing to note too however is none of the other stats (again aside from magic) have any scalling/retroactive effects at all, they all are the value at the time it is used (as con is by RAW for health).

At the end of the day neither way is better than the other it's just different, both have benefits and downsides.

[shonuff]

And the #1 reason why CON should be retroactive is so the GM doesn't have to hear anyone whining about how only being able to increase CON every other level will nerf their character...

[pensamento_coletivo]

And the #1 reason why CON should be retroactive is so the GM doesn't have to hear anyone whining about how only being able to increase CON every other level will nerf their character...

Er.. Amem to that?

[Loswaith]

And the #1 reason why CON should be retroactive is so the GM doesn't have to hear anyone whining about how only being able to increase CON every other level will nerf their character...

No offence, but if they are doing that get a new player.
Though that argument could be used for any stat to be honest.
It still however is a downside for both methods, less so for retroactive I would expect.

[MacGrein]

In the end, it's all a matter of modular choices...
Good point indeed, Loswaith.

[shonuff]

And the #1 reason why CON should be retroactive is so the GM doesn't have to hear anyone whining about how only being able to increase CON every other level will nerf their character...

No offence, but if they are doing that get a new player.

Who said that isn't me?

[Loswaith]

I got the impression you are a GM moreso than a player, but if thats an issue for you as a player then haps the system isn't what you should be playing then as its a core factor of every stat in the system.

If its only an issue with con (increasing every other level) and not the other stats as well then haps the acronym STFU is appropriate

[shonuff]

Oo... touche. LOL.

But yeah, I'm GMing, but I've played with enough nerf-screamers over the years to know if you kick 'em all, you end up with no one eventually. Or maybe that's just my luck.

[pensamento_coletivo]

Oo... touche. LOL.

But yeah, I'm GMing, but I've played with enough nerf-screamers over the years to know if you kick 'em all, you end up with no one eventually. Or maybe that's just my luck.

Really? Bad luck Brian you are. Or am I just blessed with players who trust me and care more about getting a good history?

[shonuff]

Oo... touche. LOL.

But yeah, I'm GMing, but I've played with enough nerf-screamers over the years to know if you kick 'em all, you end up with no one eventually. Or maybe that's just my luck.

Really? Bad luck Brian you are. Or am I just blessed with players who trust me and care more about getting a good history?

Maybe. The people I've gamed with have always engaged heavily in stacking, theorycraft and meta-gaming. We take a game and try and break it.

[Loswaith]

I suspect it would be fairly hard to find a system you cant break too.

Though while most of my group likes the theory craft side of things, it's typically used to get the character concept you want (not so much to break the system, or to create powerful characters), as we tend to be more focused on characterisation, a cohesive world and the story.
So there is definatly room for the theory craft in a game of any type, as per most things its the way its used that matters most.

I have had those players in groups in the past you have to use the STFU for at times though too, but they never did seem to be groups that lasted all that long.

[shonuff]

Though while most of my group likes the theory craft side of things, it's typically used to get the character concept you want (not so much to break the system, or to create powerful characters), as we tend to be more focused on characterisation, a cohesive world and the story.
So there is definatly room for the theory craft in a game of any type, as per most things its the way its used that matters most.

Actually, that's where the theorycraft becomes most important. Typically, my group doesn't pick "the best" class; instead, we have picked what we wanted to play, in line with what everyone else was playing and what the story required. Then we see how we can fully maximize the benefits.

And then, typically, we back off and self-nerf. It's fun to break a game, but it's not fun to play one.

I have had those players in groups in the past you have to use the STFU for at times though too, but they never did seem to be groups that lasted all that long.

I have to say, I consider myself lucky -- I've always gamed with close friends (of course, that's never stopped them from getting in tiffs - lol). Now, I've heard horror stories from them, but nothing I've experienced first hand.