Pathfinder 1E Hit Point Inflation and Power Creep in Pathfinder

[Roman]

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/messageboard...CreepInPathfinderThe222AbilityScorePowerBoost

 

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.