Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Hitpoints and Spell Tables?

[Sylrae]

Okay. The plan is to use the pathfinder hit points variant. where base hit points = CON + HD + bonus.

To compensate for healing spells I made them heal 1d6 extra.

But my question is, this variant makes melee characters last longer in combat, so how do I adjust the spells per day tables to compensate for that? how much do I raise them? and what way would you guys recommend I raise them? just a flat bonus? change the progression entirely? what?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Wait, I don't understand at all. First off, what is the new hp system? Full Con score + HD (is it still rolled -- if so, don't worry the high HD classes will get shafted plenty as the rolls are too infrequent for the law of averages to take hold) +bonus? What is "bonus"? Does this system typically result in much more bloated hit points, or just as early levels?

As for healing, if your group was already using wands of lesser vigor for out of combat healing, it may not be a big issue. For 750 gp, you get 11 hp/charge x 50 charges, or 550 hp healed for the cost. So keeping the high hit point meatshields healed isn't necessarily that hard. I'd be more worried about the poor direct damage focused mage, who is already the weakest of his lot. I mean, come on. A fireball's been d6/level, max 10 since at least 2E, when people stopped gaining actual HD to hp after like level 10! Just a flat 2 or so. 3E made high level hps much higher, and if this system works like it sounds, it's further doing this. I suspect this is what you meant when you mentioned giving more spell slots?

That wouldn't be the answer. The save-or-die/lose/paralyze/cry/join the dark side spells don't care what hp the guy has, so giving more spells per day only helps them more. You'd need to go and just give evocation spells larger damage outputs. Perhaps instead of manually doing this for every spell, it'd be easier to make blatantly good feats to help with this like...

Trogdor's Apprentice [General]
You're very good at buninating the countryside. Or melting it, or freezing it...
Benefit: Any damage from an Evocation spell you cast has its die size increased by 1.
Normal: Evocation spells suck.
(please, that was meant as humor, don't yell at me )

Perhaps you could make Empower and Maximize Spell, often most useful for Evocation, cheaper to use.

Stuff like that.

 

[Sylrae]

Wait, I don't understand at all. First off, what is the new hp system? Full Con score + HD (is it still rolled -- if so, don't worry the high HD classes will get shafted plenty as the rolls are too infrequent for the law of averages to take hold) +bonus? What is "bonus"? Does this system typically result in much more bloated hit points, or just as early levels?

It results in an additional CON score worth of HP which you get at level 1. The point is to make players not get 1 shotted in the low levels.

As for healing, if your group was already using wands of lesser vigor for out of combat healing, it may not be a big issue. For 750 gp, you get 11 hp/charge x 50 charges, or 550 hp healed for the cost. So keeping the high hit point meatshields healed isn't necessarily that hard.

Hmm. I was not familiar with this magic item. They've been using potions. buttloads of them. current group has 3 players and no cleric, so although the druid can do SOME healing, the players have to stock up on healing potions. I give them to them at half cost though. but the issue was that they were healing too slow so I upped the hp they give by d6. I'll have to introduce those items into the game though.

I'd be more worried about the poor direct damage focused mage, who is already the weakest of his lot. I mean, come on. A fireball's been d6/level, max 10 since at least 2E, when people stopped gaining actual HD to hp after like level 10! Just a flat 2 or so. 3E made high level hps much higher, and if this system works like it sounds, it's further doing this. I suspect this is what you meant when you mentioned giving more spell slots?

That's exactly what I was referring to .

That wouldn't be the answer. The save-or-die/lose/paralyze/cry/join the dark side spells don't care what hp the guy has, so giving more spells per day only helps them more. You'd need to go and just give evocation spells larger damage outputs. Perhaps instead of manually doing this for every spell, it'd be easier to make blatantly good feats to help with this like...

We play with no direct save or die effects, but the other save or X spells are there are there. Save or die spells aren't directly removes, but they instead do ability damage or normal damage depending on the spell.Phantasmal killer for example. instead of die or 3d6, it's 6d6 or 3d6. Maybe we should change that 6 to a 9 to compensate for the extra HPs though.

I don't want to make them take a feat to not suck. So maybe I just go through the spells and up the die types. Make fireball do d8s or d10s.

is that the suggestion youre proposing?

---------------------------------------
Just in case you were wondering, this is used in conjunction with other rules changes. it's 34 point point buy, for instance. But npcs get the same amount of extra points(9). The reason for the extra points, is Stats become much more important with the variant rules we're using. CON and class switch roles for HD type, Skill points are based on INT+WIS with a smaller bonus by class, Dex is always used to hit, Str for Damage, (unless you take the inverse of the old weapon finesse feat to use STR with particular weapons), CHA is used for WILL instead of WISDOM. The result is that everyone needs every stat to varying degrees. It's a bit of an aside, but I thought I'd mention it. So far it's working out well. Class is less important now. It needs tweaking, but I think it holds promise. The players like it too. It means the caster can have better HD if they want. Course, one player was minmaxing during his first character creation and realized that doing so would give his barbarian a d4 HD. that was funny. Oh. I should note, that the main goal of all this, was to make minmaxing more difficult, as well as have every stat be useful to everyone.
The only problem I'm having with it, is because of a shorter skill list, everyone has too many skills. I think I might switch skills to something like in pathfinder where you dont put ranks in skills and skills are done more like in 4e. I'd probably go somewhere in between though and have a few levels of competence.
The more I play D&D the farther we get from core rules. eventually I'll just print out my own phb and eventually wont be that long. I'm already like halfway there.
------------------------------
Back on topic:
So how would you suggest I alter damage? just up all evocation spells by 1 damage type? maybe just add a d4 to all of them? what would you recommend?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Hmm. I was not familiar with this magic item. They've been using potions. buttloads of them. current group has 3 players and no cleric, so although the druid can do SOME healing, the players have to stock up on healing potions. I give them to them at half cost though. but the issue was that they were healing too slow so I upped the hp they give by d6. I'll have to introduce those items into the game though.

Well, it's actually a spell in spell compendium and complete divine. Basically, cleric and druid 1, fast healing 1 to the target for rounds equal to 10 +1/CL, max 15. So, a wand can be made at CL 1 for 750 gp market price that lasts 11 rounds. A cleric, druid, or anyone that can make UMD 20 can use them. It really reduces the worries over healing to strictly in combat (where theoretically the extra hp all around is making combat less deadly anyway, or at least not "surprise! x4 crit! you're dead!").

I don't want to make them take a feat to not suck. So maybe I just go through the spells and up the die types. Make fireball do d8s or d10s.

is that the suggestion youre proposing?

Something like that. It's just that Evokers already fall behind the barbarian and warblade for damage output and have limited resources, stacking even more hp makes it even worse. if it's just a +con score at first level, you may not need to increase die sizes, and just have some static bonus damage. I suggested using feats because it's easier than going through all the spells.

---------------------------------------
The more I play D&D the farther we get from core rules. eventually I'll just print out my own phb and eventually wont be that long. I'm already like halfway there.
------------------------------

Heh, yeah. I have rules that will approach a hundred pages, but it sounds like I've still got nothing on you!

So how would you suggest I alter damage? just up all evocation spells by 1 damage type? maybe just add a d4 to all of them? what would you recommend?

I really don't know. It's probably something you'll have to figure out and adjust as you gain playtesting experience with it. I'm just thinking. If everyone's adding Con at first level, and the Wizard's getting like 3 level 1 spells, how in the hell is he supposed to ever kill even one enemy with magic missiles before running out of spells? Try adding some static bonus to damage spells like that d4, and see how it works out.

 

[Sylrae]

Well, it's actually a spell in spell compendium and complete divine. Basically, cleric and druid 1, fast healing 1 to the target for rounds equal to 10 +1/CL, max 15. So, a wand can be made at CL 1 for 750 gp market price that lasts 11 rounds. A cleric, druid, or anyone that can make UMD 20 can use them. It really reduces the worries over healing to strictly in combat (where theoretically the extra hp all around is making combat less deadly anyway, or at least not "surprise! x4 crit! you're dead!").

exactly

Something like that. It's just that Evokers already fall behind the barbarian and warblade for damage output and have limited resources, stacking even more hp makes it even worse. if it's just a +con score at first level, you may not need to increase die sizes, and just have some static bonus damage. I suggested using feats because it's easier than going through all the spells.

It probably is. I'm gonna do it the hard way anyways though, for the reasons mentioned above.

Heh, yeah. I have rules that will approach a hundred pages, but it sounds like I've still got nothing on you!

That's not bad. I'm up around 130 or 140

I really don't know. It's probably something you'll have to figure out and adjust as you gain playtesting experience with it. I'm just thinking. If everyone's adding Con at first level, and the Wizard's getting like 3 level 1 spells, how in the hell is he supposed to ever kill even one enemy with magic missiles before running out of spells? Try adding some static bonus to damage spells like that d4, and see how it works out.

 

[Bladesong]

Back when PHBII came out we turned all non-combat spells into incantations (rituals if you prefer), so the spellcasters only filled their slots with damage type spells (with a few obvious exceptions like feather fall). We also added their level and abilitiy bonus (i.e. Int, Wis, or Chr) to the amount of damage they inflicted. We also had changed spells to attacks rather then DC for saves and if they crit with a spell, they did not lose the slot (we liked this better than increasing damage). We also converted all of the spells to 20 levels so if you were 10th level you could cast upto 10 the level spells (Monte has a book out that does this if you need help; Book of Marvelous Might or something like that). You do not need to do this to make it all work, however. If...and I emphasize if...you kind of like the magic aspect of 4 ed, using spells this way sort of simulates Daily and Encounter abilities. We also turned Familiar into a feat and gave wizards the ability to cast a bolt of magical energy each round beginning at 1st level (Attack vs. Reflex, damage starts at 1d6 + INT bonus and increases by 1d6 at each level where they would get another melee attack). There were feats to increase the die size as well.
Starting HP for us have always been full CON + HD at first level and it works fine, and made all healing max to take up the slack.
No complaints...everyone is happy with it.

 

[Sylrae]

Back when PHBII came out we turned all non-combat spells into incantations (rituals if you prefer), so the spellcasters only filled their slots with damage type spells (with a few obvious exceptions like feather fall). We also added their level and abilitiy bonus (i.e. Int, Wis, or Chr) to the amount of damage they inflicted. We also had changed spells to attacks rather then DC for saves and if they crit with a spell, they did not lose the slot (we liked this better than increasing damage). We also converted all of the spells to 20 levels so if you were 10th level you could cast upto 10 the level spells (Monte has a book out that does this if you need help; Book of Marvelous Might or something like that). You do not need to do this to make it all work, however. If...and I emphasize if...you kind of like the magic aspect of 4 ed, using spells this way sort of simulates Daily and Encounter abilities. We also turned Familiar into a feat and gave wizards the ability to cast a bolt of magical energy each round beginning at 1st level (Attack vs. Reflex, damage starts at 1d6 + INT bonus and increases by 1d6 at each level where they would get another melee attack). There were feats to increase the die size as well.
Starting HP for us have always been full CON + HD at first level and it works fine, and made all healing max to take up the slack.
No complaints...everyone is happy with it.

I think I like this. I'm not sure I like the ritual thing, but it could work as long as its not a feat thing like in 4e. Maybe you can do it directly from your spellbook, and for divine casters you can do it directly from your deity. Not a bad variant.

Add your stats to spell damage isn't a bad Idea either.

Spells as attacks I like. though why reflex? Should it not be touch AC?

I like the crit = keep slot thing.

I dont understand your 20 levels variant. If you could explain it it would be a big help.

so a generic mage attack huh. that might even things out a bit too. Attack v reflex, ok, again, why not touch ac? thats how existing roll to hit spells work. damage at 1d6+int, increasing for every new BAB attack, thats very infrequently. I think it happens once.

 

[Bladesong]

Spells as attacks I like. though why reflex? Should it not be touch AC?

Sorry, we've been doing it so long I forget it is not 3.5. We got rid of touch/ranged touch and used Fort/Reflex/Will as static defenses well before 4ed was even announced...thought it made more sense at the time.

I dont understand your 20 levels variant. If you could explain it it would be a big help.

Well, we just took the existing 1-9th level spells and stretched them out to have 20 full levels of spells. It was mostly guess work and included some trial and error, but it worked out ok. You can make your own decisions. As a basic "rule" 1st level spells were divided into 1st and 2nd level spells, 2nd level spells were divided into 3rd and 4th level spells, 3rd into 5th and 6th...I think you can get the picture. We then expanded the spell slot table to match. At 10th level for instance a wizard would have 2 slots for each level of spell 1 - 5 and 1 slot for each spell level 6 - 10. Oh, and 0 level spells were just turned into a minor ability for casters (never seemed to have any real game effect).

so a generic mage attack huh. that might even things out a bit too. Attack v reflex, ok, again, why not touch ac? thats how existing roll to hit spells work. damage at 1d6+int, increasing for every new BAB attack, thats very infrequently. I think it happens once.

Ok...go ranged touch attack...it would be the 3.5 norm. Feel better?
Sorry again, neglected to state that we used the average BAB for this particular attack, so it would end up being 3d6+INT at their highest level, and it could crit for 2x damage (range 20, but you could take improved crit to make it 19-20). They still used the poor BAB for melee/missile attacks however. Keep in mind the average BAB progression was just used to determine the number of dice of damage...they did not get 2 or 3 attacks.

 

[Sylrae]

Sorry, we've been doing it so long I forget it is not 3.5. We got rid of touch/ranged touch and used Fort/Reflex/Will as static defenses well before 4ed was even announced...thought it made more sense at the time.

It sort of does. I just didn't get it. only issue is I dont like the idea of the players not rolling to dodge traps and whatnot. I might drop touch attacks, but hav touch attacks use DCs with reflex saves. Cause I think rolling to dodge, or for willpower is fun. Fortitude I wouldnt care if it was static though.

Well, we just took the existing 1-9th level spells and stretched them out to have 20 full levels of spells. It was mostly guess work and included some trial and error, but it worked out ok. You can make your own decisions. As a basic "rule" 1st level spells were divided into 1st and 2nd level spells, 2nd level spells were divided into 3rd and 4th level spells, 3rd into 5th and 6th...I think you can get the picture. We then expanded the spell slot table to match. At 10th level for instance a wizard would have 2 slots for each level of spell 1 - 5 and 1 slot for each spell level 6 - 10. Oh, and 0 level spells were just turned into a minor ability for casters (never seemed to have any real game effect).

I think I'll keep it at 9, just for the sake of simplicity.

Ok...go ranged touch attack...it would be the 3.5 norm. Feel better?

Reflex is fine, I just wanted to know if there was a reason. Knowing that you did away with touch attacks, it makes perfect sense.

Sorry again, neglected to state that we used the average BAB for this particular attack, so it would end up being 3d6+INT at their highest level, and it could crit for 2x damage (range 20, but you could take improved crit to make it 19-20). They still used the poor BAB for melee/missile attacks however. Keep in mind the average BAB progression was just used to determine the number of dice of damage...they did not get 2 or 3 attacks.

Nifty thought. here's another. Getting multiple attacks instead of bigger dice, would they have any real end effect? You still have the same max and min damage per round roughly (+ or minus int score) but youd be more likely to get average damage and less likely to get high or low.

Either way. very cool variant. and I think I shall incorporate it into my game in some form or another.