Pathfinder Hit Point Inflation and Power Creep in Pathfinder

[Roman]

Don't get me wrong, I am a Pathfinder RPG fan, but I am somewhat concerned about the power creep in Pathfinder, particularly when coupled with an understandable reluctance to state the precise power adjustment Pathfinder characters have over their 3.5E counterparts (it is understandable, because this is difficult to calculate and may vary with level). To me this presents a bigger obstacle to backward compatibility than most mechanical changes in and of themselves.

Consider for example:

Extra +2 an ability score for all races
- Yes, the extra +2 can enhance mechanical support for race flavor, but it is power creep for sure. Perhaps it could be mitigated by assigning an extra (second) -2 to another ability score as an additional penalty?

Feats every 2 rather than every 3 levels
- This is a 50% increase in the rate of feat acquisition and although it feels nice to be able to customize a character with extra feats it does also add to the power increase of characters.

Class Redesigns
- The classes have had a host of abilities added to them to make it more viable to remain single-classed. This is mostly a good change and does help to accomplish its intended purpose, but again it does boost the power of characters.

Standardization of hit dice to d6, d8 and d10
- Though it is neater to have it, there was no real need for HD standardization to BAB. Standardization could be done to d4, d6 and d8 instead.

Starting hit points
- Bonuses to starting hit points are a good idea with respect to enhancing survivability at low levels, but again, they add to power creep.

Favored class bonuses
- Adding +1 to hit points or skill points per level of favored class is a much better mechanic than that in 3.5E, but it does present a small amount of power creep too.

The above are the changes that come to mind immediately - there may be more.

The worst offender for me is the hit point inflation in Pathfinder:
- Higher hit dice --> +1 to mean hit points / level
- Better toughness feat --> +1 to mean hit points / level
- Favored class bonus to hit points --> +1 to mean hit points / level
- Starting hit points --> +6 hit points overall (well, the number depends on the option chosen)

Yes, not all of these always apply to all characters, but the overall effect is that some characters can have +3 hit points per level in addition to a starting hit point bonus compared to what they had in 3.5E!

10th level Elven Wizard in 3.5E:
~ 40 hit points (assuming initial Con 12, brought down to 10 by racial modifiers)

10th level Elven Wizard in Pathfinder RPG:
~ 76 hit points (assuming the same Constitution score and taking the hit point boni from favored class)

...and that is if he didn't take the much improved Toughness feat or it would be 43 versus 79 hit points for 3.5E and Pathfinder Elven Wizard respectively!

The difference is huge.

I would recommend the following solutions:

1) Either standardize hit dice at d4, d6 and d8 with a d10 exception for the Barbarian or abandon standardization altogether and revert back to 3.5E hit dice
2) Remove the hit point bonus possibility from favored class
3) Eliminate the maximum hit points rule for 1st level
4) Implement some kind of combination of the above

I would prefer the new Toughness feat be kept - the old Toughness feat was simply too useless. I would also prefer that starting bonus to hit points remained, since it is a much better targeted fix to survival of starting characters than increased hit dice the effects of which mostly accumulate at higher levels and thus have little impact on survival at lower levels, while promoting hit point inflation.

[BryonD]

IMO the HP thing is a good change.
The kick start helps solve the screwy power curve at low levels.
And the rest seems to be power creep in areas where the power was a bit lagging.

I'd be fine with re-tooling the favored class part. For example, I've already offered dwarf fighters +1 HP and Elf wizards +1 SP in my games for a little while now. (Since before I saw the PF version). But I don't allow Wizards to get more HP for favored class. That said, it isn't something I'm worried about.

I share a general hesitancy about about power creep. But PF is setting a new baseline. And it really isn't moving that far. The next year may tell a lot, but I'm very optimistic.

[Roman]

Nooo, I lost a long reply when posting it...

Maybe I will write something shorter again later.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Increasing hit points is the fastest, smoothest, least problematic way you can possibly smooth out the power curve. They don't DO anything, power wise, other than increase survivability.

I multiply my Elite monster hit points by x2, and my Solo monster hit points x the number of party members. At 2nd level, the six of them fought a giant spider with ~120 hit points.

The only noticeable effect was a comment afterwards, "That thing was tough!"

[Roman]

I agree that the starting hit point bonus is a good thing. It is well targeted at helping characters survive at lower levels, which is a desirable effect. The other hit point increases like the larger hit dice, however, are less desirable, as they only provide significant amounts of hit points at higher levels and thus fail to help survivability at low levels, yet contribute to hit point inflation.

The power creep involved is very significant in some cases. Consider our 3.5E and PF Wizard duo outlined above. The Pathfinder Wizard has almost 100% more hit points and that's assuming maximum hit points per hit die for both - if we take mean hit points per hit die, it would actually reach a full 100% hit point difference.

But yes, hit points are not the only area of power creep, but I think they are merely the most egregious.

For me, power creep is an issue, but is counterbalanced by the positive changes Pathfinder is making. I know some people, however, for whom power creep is an important enough issue that they refuse to convert to Pathfinder on that basis.

[Kerrick]

Of all the things contributing to power creep, I think hit points are far from the top.

Extra +2 an ability score for all races
- Yes, the extra +2 can enhance mechanical support for race flavor, but it is power creep for sure. Perhaps it could be mitigated by assigning an extra (second) -2 to another ability score as an additional penalty?

Or you could eliminate the second +2 bonus.

Standardization of hit dice to d6, d8 and d10
- Though it is neater to have it, there was no real need for HD standardization to BAB. Standardization could be done to d4, d6 and d8 instead.

Why? Hit Dice are fine the way they are.

Starting hit points
- Bonuses to starting hit points are a good idea with respect to enhancing survivability at low levels, but again, they add to power creep.

Not really... they add to survivability at low levels. By the time you're L5, they cease to have any real effect.

Favored class bonuses
- Adding +1 to hit points or skill points per level of favored class is a much better mechanic than that in 3.5E, but it does present a small amount of power creep too.

Just get rid of favored classes. It's a goofy rule anyway.

...and that is if he didn't take the much improved Toughness feat or it would be 43 versus 79 hit points for 3.5E and Pathfinder Elven Wizard respectively!

The Toughness feat needed to be changed - as written, it's utterly worthless. It serves little use besides as a filler feat for undead because they don't get a Con bonus.

[Roman]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

Increasing hit points is the fastest, smoothest, least problematic way you can possibly smooth out the power curve.

Yes, and that's why the +6 starting hit point bonus is a great rule - it addresses the survivability problem occuring at low levels. Higher hit dice and other level-scaling hit point boosts, however, don't make much difference at lower levels, but contribute to hit point inflation in the long run.

I multiply my Elite monster hit points by x2, and my Solo monster hit points x the number of party members. At 2nd level, the six of them fought a giant spider with ~120 hit points.

That's a pretty cool way to approach monsters, I must say. I might steal the idea.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Roman

The other hit point increases like the larger hit dice, however, are less desirable, as they only provide significant amounts of hit points at higher levels and thus fail to help survivability at low levels, yet contribute to hit point inflation.

Your argument assumes agreement that "hit point inflation" is a bad thing, and goes on in the same vein using terms like "power creep."

And hit points <> power, at least not as you are using the term.

I know some people, however, for whom power creep is an important enough issue that they refuse to convert to Pathfinder on that basis.

There's nothing you can do to combat this perceived "power creep" among such folks. Folks raised the exact same complaints when 3e threw away the old 9 HD caps.

For the most part, more hit points does nothing more than prolong combat. (That has its own set of cascading issues, of course.)

But it prolongs combat in a good way-- hitting for twice as long into twice as many hit points, as opposed to missing for twice as long into the prior amount of hit points.

Yet lots of folks are asking for a level-based bonus to AC. The last thing I want to see is a lot more attacks that miss.

Consider again the example I gave above, my 2nd level PCs vs. the big spider. I could have had the exact same final result (dead spider) by leaving the hit points alone and raising its AC so that the PCs land a blow 1/6 as often.

Same end result-- very different feel from the players' perspective.

[Roman]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

Your argument assumes agreement that "hit point inflation" is a bad thing, and goes on in the same vein using terms like "power creep."

Well, yes, I do consider hit point inflation to be a bad thing for several reasons:

1) It makes the players more powerful relative to monsters (and relative to non-converted NPCs from older adventures) than they were in 3.5E --> challenges are less challenging (remember, no accurate guidelines provided as to how to take this into account) --> backward compatibility suffers
2) The hit point inflation is, for the most part, not targetted at at the levels, where low hit points are a problem (as in, low levels - only the starting hit point bonus is targeted at that)
3) Simulationism suffers even more with greater hit point numbers (granted, hit points were abstract enough and numerous enough already that this is not a significant issue, but it needs to be mentioned for the sake of completeness)
4) Greater numbers for everybody mean unnecessarily more calculation
5) This gives a power boost to classes that really don't need it (e.g. Wizards), relative to other classes (e.g. Fighters)

And hit points <> power, at least not as you are using the term.

Come on - you know what I mean...

My definition of power is: Power = ability to influence or resist influence of the environment

There's nothing you can do to combat this perceived "power creep" among such folks. Folks raised the exact same complaints when 3e threw away the old 9 HD caps.

You may be right, but removing unnecessary power creep might help.

For the most part, more hit points does nothing more than prolong combat.

But it prolongs combat in a good way-- hitting for twice as long into twice as many hit points, as opposed to missing for twice as long into the prior amount of hit points.

Yet lots of folks are asking for a level-based bonus to AC. The last thing I want to see is a lot more attacks that miss.

Consider again the example I gave above, my 2nd level PCs vs. the big spider. I could have had the exact same final result (dead spider) by leaving the hit points alone and raising its AC so that the PCs land a blow 1/6 as often.

Same end result-- very different feel from the players' perspective.

I am not sure I really want to prolong combat... in fact, I mostly don't want to do that. Still you would be right about the relatively benign prolonging of combat if the higher hit points applied also to monsters, but they only affect the PCs...

[Jeff Wilder]

The only area in which I agree with the OP is in racial ability mods. (In particular, getting rid of the d4 HD and the incentives for favored classes are big plusses, as far as I'm concerned. FWIW, Monte Cook is on record as saying that the only reason he accepted d4 HD without more of a fuss is that bear's endurance had a much longer duration in 3.0. He redid the sorcerer long ago with d6 HD.)

I haven't crunched the numbers (and can't check right now), but how does Pathfinder's "standard" point build correspond with 3.5's? I read that you can build the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) with both, but I'm wondering about higher scores. Is it more or less expensive to spike a stat or two? If it's more expensive, maybe "dual +2" is okay. If it's the same, or less expensive, I think that the double-bonus needs to go.

And there's a simple fix: just let the player pick one of the two potential bonuses.

[Roman]

Originally Posted by Jeff Wilder

The only area in which I agree with the OP is in racial ability mods. (In particular, getting rid of the d4 HD and the incentives for favored classes are big plusses, as far as I'm concerned. FWIW, Monte Cook is on record as saying that the only reason he accepted d4 HD without more of a fuss is that bear's endurance had a much longer duration in 3.0. He redid the sorcerer long ago with d6 HD.)

Fair enough, but Monte Cook did not give Wizards and Sorcerers a starting hit point bonus, a favored class hit point bonus and an improved toughness feat on top of the higher hit dice.

As to the favored class incentives, I far prefer them to the 3.5E favored class mechanics, so they are definitely a positive change. That does not change the fact that they add to power creep though, it just says that sometimes power creep of a new mechanic can be outweighed by the benefits the mechanic brings. But yes, I would keep the current favored class rules.

I haven't crunched the numbers (and can't check right now), but how does Pathfinder's "standard" point build correspond with 3.5's? I read that you can build the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) with both, but I'm wondering about higher scores. Is it more or less expensive to spike a stat or two? If it's more expensive, maybe "dual +2" is okay. If it's the same, or less expensive, I think that the double-bonus needs to go.

It depends on the how hight you want to spike the stat, but if you want to go high, it is indeed more expensive than in 3.5E, but the balancing ought to be based not just on point buy, but also on the standard/modern rolling method.

And there's a simple fix: just let the player pick one of the two potential bonuses.

That's what I suggested on the paizo boards, as one of the potential solutions, but as you can see on this thread, the reaction was mixed: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards...corePowerBoost

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, the "hit point power creep" is a trade-off for certain gameplay advantages - like avoiding that 1st level PCs can easily die from a single blow.

The racial changes are marginal, but they improve the thematic feel of the race.

A change to hit points will not be too apparent in most games after a certain level. The discrepancies that the system allowed between hit points are too big to be "psychologically" visible. Of coursse, a statistical analysis of battles will still show that the extra hit points helped survivability, but as a player, you will only feel the effect at low levels.

I think one of Pathfinders goal is the improvement of the gameplay experience. Changes to the rules and changes to power levels are to be expected then. You can't have the one without the other, so the question is: Do you agree with the goals?

[Roman]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

Well, the "hit point power creep" is a trade-off for certain gameplay advantages - like avoiding that 1st level PCs can easily die from a single blow.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record I will reiterate that I support the starting bonus to hit points that characters get at level 1. That does enhance survivability. The larger hit die and the favored class hit point boni, however, don't really make a large difference to low level hit points and instead provide hit point boosts that scale with level, only providing significant hit points at higher levels. These, rather than the starting bonus, are the primary contributors to hit point inflation.

The racial changes are marginal, but they improve the thematic feel of the race.

Well, these would be borderline LA +0/+1 races in 3.5E, so the racial changes are not entirely insignificant. I do agree, however, that the improvement to the flavor of the races they provide are very significant - I would say significant enough to outweigh the power creep these changes engender.

A change to hit points will not be too apparent in most games after a certain level. The discrepancies that the system allowed between hit points are too big to be "psychologically" visible. Of coursse, a statistical analysis of battles will still show that the extra hit points helped survivability, but as a player, you will only feel the effect at low levels.

Well, some wizards, for example, may have 100% more hit points for a given level around level 10. That is a very considerable difference as far as I am concerned and not limited to low levels.

I think one of Pathfinders goal is the improvement of the gameplay experience. Changes to the rules and changes to power levels are to be expected then. You can't have the one without the other, so the question is: Do you agree with the goals?

Fair enough, but the power level is changed for a good purpose in some cases. For example, in the case of the races it is changed to provide greater flexibility and much better mechanical support for the flavor of the races, while in the case of the starting hit point bonus it provides a needed boost to character survivability at low levels. Power level can also be changed gratuitously, however, such as with the higher hit dice, which are neater when standardized, though standardization was not really necessary and does not solve any major gameplay issues and in any case could have been done to lower hit dice d4, d6 and d8.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Roman

I am not sure I really want to prolong combat... in fact, I mostly don't want to do that. Still you would be right about the relatively benign prolonging of combat if the higher hit points applied also to monsters, but they only affect the PCs...

The monsters don't need more hit points-- instead, you can use more monsters.

More hit points is good for the game. It's most noticeable where it's most needed-- at low levels-- and the impact drops off as level increases.

A 1st level PF Wizard with 18 hit points is much better off than a 1st level 3e Wizard with 6 hit points. Three times as many hit points!

The same two characters at the same rate of class-based hp advancement at 10th level will be separated by 12 hit points and this is negligible. You can vary this much or more in 3e on CON bonus alone.

You can substitute "real" numbers if you like but the mathematical principle is the same. The difference in hp does not keep doubling or tripling or quadrupling (or whatever the case may be) as you go beyond 1st level. It's a linear rate of advancement with the same constant separation between hp totals.

You mentioned something upthread (or elsewhere) I agree is important, and that is making sure that the separation between the "strong" HD classes and the "weak" HD classes does not get similarly watered down. I worry about bumping wizards to d6 and dropping barbarians down from d12, for example.

[Jeff Wilder]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

You mentioned something upthread (or elsewhere) I agree is important, and that is making sure that the separation between the "strong" HD classes and the "weak" HD classes does not get similarly watered down. I worry about bumping wizards to d6 and dropping barbarians down from d12, for example.

Just to be sure you're aware, barbarians were specifically exempted from the d10-for-full-BAB rule.

Personally, I'm not entirely sure why Pathfinder has kept fully random HP. The possibility of a barbarian rolling a 1 while his wizard buddy rolls a 6 -- God forbid it happen a few levels in a row -- is stupid. They'll probably still change it, but it seems a basic and simple enough change to have made it into the Beta. There may well be no more common a house-rule in 3.5 than taking full randomness out of HP rolls.

[Walking Dad]

I didn't read through the full thread, but had you take a look at the purposed standard ability array and standard campaign point buy?
The racial bonus is needed to bring them on (nearly) vanilla 3.x standard.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Jeff Wilder

There may well be no more common a house-rule in 3.5 than taking full randomness out of HP rolls.

Opinions differ emphatically on this point, but I am of the opinion that nothing about character creation should be random. No random ability scores, no random hit points, etc.

Keep the randomness to in-game task resolution.

[Jeff Wilder]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

Opinions differ emphatically on this point, but I am of the opinion that nothing about character creation should be random.

It's difficult to articulate this, but I'll try. (This is veering off-topic, so I won't take it very far.)

I think, insignificant as it may seem, players like this tiny bit of randomness when going up a level. (And I do mean "tiny bit.") I know that as a player, I'm excited when I roll high HP, and disappointed when I roll low, even though we've got a minimum of half the die (rounded down).

Again, I fully understand that this is one roll over an entire level, and is thus relatively insignificant, but "rolling HP" has been almost a ritual in literally every group of D&D players I've ever played with. We would miss it if it were gone, and I'd wager an overwhelming majority of D&D players would as well.

Given that, and given the disastrous possibilities of linear HD and multiple rolls totaling on the left tail of the bell curve, pretty much every HP house-rule has to do with keeping the randomness and the "boo-yah!" of a max roll, while mitigating the disaster of a minimum roll. And that's what Pathfinder needs to do.

In short, theoretically I agree with you. As the game plays out, if randomized HPs were removed, I'd put them back without hesitation.

[Phlebas]

Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane

Opinions differ emphatically on this point, but I am of the opinion that nothing about character creation should be random. No random ability scores, no random hit points, etc.

Keep the randomness to in-game task resolution.

opinions do vary pretty dramatically. in my last game i had two players who would only do a dice roll character gen, and one who insisted on point buy. in the end it made more sense to let them do what they want (apart from the die roller who for the third PC running ended up with three scores 16 or over. with me watching. i cant decide wether to ban him or wait for the deities of dice-rolling to have their revenge and force him to play the 8 max pc he must eventually roll...)

sorry, in summary it probably is best for the game if the random is left as an option, even if the recommendation is for point buy / standard hp's


to the OP. hp's is the least worrysome power creep to me. its the in game equivalent of a healing potion or two. I worry more about some of the class special abilities which, while nice, might end up causing issues when you combine the right feats / PrC's etc from the other reams of 3,5e material and thats why the PF guys are going to have to balance their OGL game with the non-ogl options available.... definitely something that the beta playtest needs to play with

[Voadam]

Originally Posted by Roman

At the risk of sounding like a broken record I will reiterate that I support the starting bonus to hit points that characters get at level 1. That does enhance survivability. The larger hit die and the favored class hit point boni, however, don't really make a large difference to low level hit points and instead provide hit point boosts that scale with level, only providing significant hit points at higher levels. These, rather than the starting bonus, are the primary contributors to hit point inflation.



Well, these would be borderline LA +0/+1 races in 3.5E, so the racial changes are not entirely insignificant. I do agree, however, that the improvement to the flavor of the races they provide are very significant - I would say significant enough to outweigh the power creep these changes engender.



Well, some wizards, for example, may have 100% more hit points for a given level around level 10. That is a very considerable difference as far as I am concerned and not limited to low levels.



Fair enough, but the power level is changed for a good purpose in some cases. For example, in the case of the races it is changed to provide greater flexibility and much better mechanical support for the flavor of the races, while in the case of the starting hit point bonus it provides a needed boost to character survivability at low levels. Power level can also be changed gratuitously, however, such as with the higher hit dice, which are neater when standardized, though standardization was not really necessary and does not solve any major gameplay issues and in any case could have been done to lower hit dice d4, d6 and d8.

One of the criticisms of high level games was that it was "rocket tag", i.e. that offense is significantly more powerful than defense and that combat is over quickly with huge advantages for the side that gets a jump on the other side.

All of the HD changes and favored class bonuses are increases to PC hp that scale with levels. This adds some defense to high level game play to make PCs a little more likely to survive an ambush.

Pathfinder also changes many save or die spells to damage. This removes the one roll rocket tag aspect but increases the proportion of attacks leading to hp damage as a tradeoff making low hp characters slightly more vulnerable to being taken out by hp damage.