PDA

View Full Version : (3.5) Would this be too much as a house rule?



Agrippa
2011-01-04, 06:45 PM
Browsing through the pseudo-retro clone Mutant Future I noticed its hit point rules. Most player character races start with one hit die per point of Constitution. Mutant plants, humans and animals start of with a d6 hit die per Con score while non-mutant humans start out with with their Con score d8. So let's take that into D&D 3.5.

{table=head]Race|Hit die type
Aasimar|Con d8
Changeling*|Con d6
Dwarf|Con d10?
Elf**|Con d6?
Coblin***|Con d6
Gnome|Con d6
Gnoll|Con d8
Halfling|Con d6
Half-elf|Con d8
Half-orc|Con d8
Human|Con d8
Kalashtar*|Con d6
Kobald|Con d4
Lizardfolk|Con d8
Shifter*|Con d8
Tiefling|Con d8[/table]
*Eberron campaign setting
**Includes drow
***Include blues

Since I'm using humans as a baseline a race having a higher or lower hit die is is reflective of being sturdier or frailer than a human. In addition hit dice from Constitution stack with racial hit dice and hit dice from class levels. Please note that this isn't an exhaustive list.

P.S.

Now I realize that this leaves out constructs and undead. Now bear with me here.
{table=head]
|
|[/table]

Silverscale
2011-01-04, 07:32 PM
As long as what you do for the PCs you also do for the NPCs then pretty much anything you do is balanced as long as it makes sense for you and your campaign.

Agrippa
2011-01-04, 07:41 PM
As long as what you do for the PCs you also do for the NPCs then pretty much anything you do is balanced as long as it makes sense for you and your campaign.

PCs and NPCs alike would benefit.

Gamer Girl
2011-01-04, 07:47 PM
So a 1st level dwarf fighter with an 18 constitution would get 18D10 hit points? So 10-180 hit points? At first level?

Even a halfling with a con of 10 would get 10-60 hit points?


This is a lot of hit points.

guess you could balance it if everything got the same bonus hit points.

Kyuu Himura
2011-01-04, 07:52 PM
I suppose you mean for each point of their CON modifier, yes??

Agrippa
2011-01-04, 08:08 PM
Okay, I see a problem with this. Since constructs and undead lack Constistution scores that would mean that they would have substantially fewer hit dice than most anyone else.

Agrippa
2011-01-04, 08:13 PM
So a 1st level dwarf fighter with an 18 constitution would get 18D10 hit points? So 10-180 hit points? At first level?

Even a halfling with a con of 10 would get 10-60 hit points?


This is a lot of hit points.

guess you could balance it if everything got the same bonus hit points.

First the dwarf fighter you mentioned would get 19d10 hit points at first level. At the same time anyone lacking actual class levels would only have their Constitution in hit dice.

Gamer Girl
2011-01-04, 08:17 PM
Is the idea here that you want combat to take forever?


If a medium monstrous spider has 50 hit points, it will take a group of 1st level characters like an hour of real time to kill it. And if they are fighting a dwarf with 100 hit points that will be all night.

After all a 1st level character is still doing less then 10 points of damage, it will take a long time to do 100 points of damage.

It might make combat pointless...

Hyooz
2011-01-04, 08:21 PM
Yeah, this makes melee-types and other damage dealers even more useless and the wizard even more vital. Save-or-dies are even more powerful than they were, crowd control becomes super-vital, and sneaking past is preferable to any kind of combat.

I can't imagine low level combat :smallfrown: Gamer Girl has it right: one encounter might take sessions to conclude.

mroozee
2011-01-04, 09:17 PM
Increasing hit points for creatures only will have several effects:

1. Combat will be slowed dramatically
2. There will be less variability in combat outcomes
3. Cures and healing (short of Heal) will be much less valuable
4. Falling would not be a major concern
5. Anything that requires a hit point sacrifice becomes more powerful
6. Things that damage Con become more powerful
7. Undead (who have no Con score) would need to be ruled separately
8. Con will be everyone's primary stat...
9. ...so Instant Wins that avoid Con become even more powerful...
10. ...and all PrC's / Skills / Feats, etc. that rely on Con will be more common

Silverscale
2011-01-05, 09:06 AM
I think Agrippa means that you get bonus HD for your Con Modifiyer not your Con Score which would still make Con an important stat, to be sure, but not draw out combat to the point of getting rediculous/boring.

As for Undead, Constructs, etc that don't have a Con Score, I think if you rule that for the purpose of HP calculations they have a Con Midifier of CR/5 or CR/4 min 1, then that means that low level undead have one extra HD, mid level have 2, etc.

Golden-Esque
2011-01-05, 12:29 PM
Okay, I see a problem with this. Since constructs and undead lack Constistution scores that would mean that they would have substantially fewer hit dice than most anyone else.

This is easily mendable by stating that Constructs use their creator's Craft check in place of their Constitution modifier when determining hit points. Undead have always used their Charisma in place of their Constitution, so I don't think that would be a problem either.

I'd play around with the Construct rules, though. If you do make it based solely on a Craft check, player-crafted Constructs are going to have obscene amounts of HP. Perhaps make it based on the creator's caster level instead?

Kuma Kode
2011-01-05, 12:50 PM
I think Agrippa means that you get bonus HD for your Con Modifiyer not your Con Score which would still make Con an important stat, to be sure, but not draw out combat to the point of getting rediculous/boring.
Most player character races start with one hit die per point of Constitution. Mutant plants, humans and animals start of with a d6 hit die per Con score while non-mutant humans start out with with their Con score d8.
First the dwarf fighter you mentioned would get 19d10 hit points at first level. At the same time anyone lacking actual class levels would only have their Constitution in hit dice.

Unless you know of a first level dwarf fighter with 46 Constitution, I'm gonna say Agrippa meant Constitution SCORE, so yeah, I'm going to agree with what has already been said: this would make combat nearly unplayable for most levels and jack up those classes who bypass hit points to the effect of being the only truly playable classes. Unless you're going to overhaul weapon damage, spell damage, environmental damage, and pretty much anything else that deals with hit points, I would warn against doing this.

Unless you want everyone in the world to be ludicrously tough (which is possible, if your setting had something mutagenic in its past). In which case, this actually seems like a pretty decent way to do that, but makes class HP much less important.

lesser_minion
2011-01-05, 12:59 PM
Halve the numbers -- i.e. each creature starts with 5 + con modifier hit dice, and gains 1 hit die every two levels -- and this could be interesting.

If I was going this route, then a high constitution score wouldn't award any bonus hitpoints per hit die, and I'd give everyone the same hit die type as well (probably either a d6 or a flat number -- either 3 or 4). Even if elves are less sturdy than dwarves in your setting, if they already have a lower Con score, there's no reason to make them pay for it twice.

Implementing this in traditional D&D would be a complete pain in the backside, and it's worth bearing in mind that the biggest reason to play 3.5 is that there is a substantial library of ready-made content that you can easily import into your game -- changing fundamental aspects of the system destroys that advantage.

Gandariel
2011-01-05, 01:05 PM
You could say that every charachter, at first level, besides the hit dice they get for their class, they have 1 additional dice (d8+con for humans, etc)

Glimbur
2011-01-05, 04:21 PM
You could say that every charachter, at first level, besides the hit dice they get for their class, they have 1 additional dice (d8+con for humans, etc)

Hackmaster, for example, gives everyone a kicker of about 20 hp at first level. It makes the lower levels less swingy.

Agrippa
2011-01-05, 05:08 PM
Then how about this critical hit rule. An attack inlificts and extra die of damage per every five the BAB and d20 roll combined exceeds the targets armor class. Any weapon that normally confirms a critical on a 19-20 instead grants an extra damage die per four points above AC while a weapon with threat range of 18-20 or 17-20 adds an additional per every three points above AC. Weapons that typically have higher critical multipliers inflict damage equal to the critical multiplier after the first three, four or five points above AC and add one die of damage afterward. Basically a modified version of these (http://breeyark.org/deadly-wounds-and-balanced-combat) critical rules.

Silverscale
2011-01-05, 06:53 PM
Then how about this critical hit rule. An attack inlificts and extra die of damage per every five the BAB and d20 roll combined exceeds the targets armor class. Any weapon that normally confirms a critical on a 19-20 instead grants an extra damage die per four points above AC while a weapon with threat range of 18-20 or 17-20 adds an additional per every three points above AC. Weapons that typically have higher critical multipliers inflict damage equal to the critical multiplier after the first three, four or five points above AC and add one die of damage afterward. Basically a modified version of these (http://breeyark.org/deadly-wounds-and-balanced-combat) critical rules.There is a point at which it crosses from a fun/interesting variant rule into just being too much math to have to deal with and I think this is starting to cross that line. No one should need a small spread-sheet to be able to tell weither or not they need to multiply and for how much.

Agrippa
2011-01-05, 09:04 PM
There is a point at which it crosses from a fun/interesting variant rule into just being too much math to have to deal with and I think this is starting to cross that line. No one should need a small spread-sheet to be able to tell weither or not they need to multiply and for how much.

Are you saying that subtracting your enemy's AC from your attack and dividing by five is too difficult.

Kuma Kode
2011-01-05, 09:17 PM
Are you saying that subtracting your enemy's AC from your attack and dividing by five is too difficult. Difficult and tedious are two completely different things. A modification to a rule isn't worth a damn if it slows down combat to a crawl because it adds extra math to every attack.

Preferably, like with combat bonuses in normal D&D, you should be aiming to be able to calculate as much of it in advance as possible. Having it based on numbers that change repeatedly requires the same calculation to be performed every attack, and that's a great increase in inefficiency for very little gain.

EDIT: For instance, you could have the weapon's die type increase by one step for every 4 points of base attack bonus the attacker has. This can be calculated in advance and requires no in-combat time for math.