Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jeffh" data-source="post: 6034628" data-attributes="member: 2642">Right now, monsters are so badly calibrated that this discussion is almost meaningless. Give me a solid idea of what monsters can do and then we can meaningfully discuss PC hit points. (WotC really should have designed the two in tandem, but the ship appears to have sailed on that.)It makes a huge difference whether the typical first level monster is doing about 1d6 damage (as in pre-3E editions), about 1d8+4 damage (as in 4E), or somewhere in between (as in 3.x/Pathfinder); the second option is more than double the first, and just as importantly its minimum is five times that of the first (profoundly affecting the possible designs for low-level characters would even have a chance against such a beast).If Next is sticking closer to the first of those options, the current system, two hit dice at first level, or a uniform bonus of say 1d6 hit points at first level are all reasonable, some people might be okay with even less, and it's pretty clear that adding your entire Constitution score is WAY too much, no matter what playstyle you're running. Half Con, perhaps, at most ("half Con" is essentially a fancy way of saying you're just giving everyone a +5 bonus across the board). If it's going to move closer to the second option, then adding your entire Con starts to seem more reasonable.A bigger problem right now is that monsters have "bounded" accuracy in the sense that they appear to be fighting with their weapon arm bound behind their back. Hit points don't matter at all beyond about second level because nothing is a legitimate threat after the point where it can no longer one-shot you. But enough has been said about that, I think.</blockquote>

Verification