1st Level HP's = CON..thoughts on the rule

Emirikol

Adventurer
In an attempt to make 1st level more palatable, I used a common house rule where your 1st level hit points equals your constitution score. My thoughts are shared below. What are your thoughts?

It's made for a much more fun 1st level experience. It seems like before with regular HP's, 1st level was the ultimate in powergaming one-trick ponies. Everyone had their characters so maxed out, just to survive, that it KILLED the role-playing. That's right...the worst powergaming is at 1st level...

Anyways, with the new rule, there is better distribution of skills and abilities. Combats can take longer, but the PC's aren't over-munchkinized, leaving a more-fun experience...CON HP's at 1st level seems a lot more like 4th-6th level (the most fun in my experiences). You're not superpowerful, but you have enough hit points to play for a while before getting back to the boring part of the game..healing.

Another side-advantage is you don't need someone to play the cleric!

Here are the stats at 1st level for our Norse campaign:
Neanderthal barbarian - 20 hp's
Human druid - 14 hp's
Human fighter - 13 hp's
Human UA-Expert - 12 hp's
Human scout - 11 hp's

jh
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Wouldn't it be a good idea to have 1st level hit points = CON + class HD or something? Or is your plan that 'all 1st level characters are as tough as their Con, whether a wizard or a barbarian'?
 

I've considered doing this multiple times...maybe I will use this kind of deal for my next campaign. I like Plane Sailing's idea of CON + (class) HD, though.
 

I've been running with Constitution + class hit die at first level for about a year now, and we've all very much enjoyed it. The extra leeway it has given for me to misjudge an encounter or throw some extras at them is appreciated from the DM side of the screen, and the extra ability to take a hit and still do something cool has made the players happy. Doesn't work so well if you're going for 1st level as gritty style, but we've been playing a more heroic, swashbucklery-type game, and it's been great.
 

The "HP=Con" idea really lowers the difference between character classes, which I think is nice to a degree (especially since I usually play Bards, Rogues and Wizards). But I'd probably go with the "John McCLaine" system of adding Con to the Max HP characters normally get at first level. If anyone needs it, its the magey-types.
 

I like HP = CON a LOT. To compensate, classes could get ability bonuses at 1st level, appropriate to their class. That way the Barbarians aren't shafted on that. It also represents their training a little better.

d12- +6 overall
d10- +5
d8- +4
d6- +3
d4- +2

Barbarians would get +3 Con and +3 Str, Fighters would get +2 Str, +2 Dex, +1 Con, Wizards would get +2 int, Rogues would get +1 dex, +1 int, +1 cha, clerics would get +2 wis and +2 cha, etc.

Edit:

Sorcerers- +2 cha
Bards- +2 Cha, +1 Dex
Druids- +2 Wis, +1 Cha, +1 Con
Rangers- +2 Dex, +1 Str, +1 Wis
Paladins- +2 Str, +2 Cha, +1 Wis
Monk- +1 Str, +3 Wis
 
Last edited:

Excellent, the last reason to NOT take your first level as Rogue is gone!

Go go Rogue / Barbarian!

Munchin', -- N
 

Nifft said:
Excellent, the last reason to NOT take your first level as Rogue is gone!

Go go Rogue / Barbarian!

Munchin', -- N
whew, i was worried i'd be the only dissenting voice
PCs already get till -10hp
the fact that a mage can fall to one strike makes melee scary for them
even a first level fighter should be worried about a couple goblins

encourage mages to take the toughness feat, or just start everyone out at 2nd level
 


Nifft said:
Excellent, the last reason to NOT take your first level as Rogue is gone!

Go go Rogue / Barbarian!

Munchin', -- N


...my idea suggests the bonuses are only at first character level.

What about HP = Con, and you get half your con per level beyond the 1st?

Ex: Con 16, level 3 = HP 32. (16+8+8)
 
Last edited:

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top