Adjusting HP and damage

[Sempronius]

In a recent game, I decided to screw around with the HP rules a bit.
Every class had HD of d4, but there were some changes with con modifiers and HP:
]Characters only suffer losing half their con penalty (rounding down, minimum of one)
]in a move following 2nd ed., I ruled classes gained bonus HP from con bonuses in the following manner:
]]classes with a RAW HD of d4 gain 1/3rd con bonus to HP
]]classes with a RAW HD of d6, d8, gain 1/2 con bonus to HP
]]classes with a RAW HD of d10, d12 gain their full con bonus to HP.
This also applies to monsters.

All classes gain HP equal to their Con at character level 1, and class levels 10, 15, and 20 (though maybe that should be changed to all character levels, and at 5th as well)

To balance this out, damage from spells was nerfed in the following manner damage die was reduced by one die type (d4 to d3, that type of thing), damage increase from caster levels was halved.

Weapons were kept as is, but energy damage from weapons was dropped to d4s. As with monster abilities.

Now, the thing is this: it worked out fine and all, but the group rotates DMs frequently, and most games are just one-off adventures with no long term character advancement.

Now, there is no issue with the group enjoying it, that is fine, my question here is: Do people think this is majorly unbalanced in any way, and if so, how could it be improved?

 

[irdeggman]

yes it is unbalanced.

For one each character now has less hit points than the RAW assumes - thus messing up total "assets" available.

Monsters have not had their hit points reduced - you apply the fighter benefits to all monsters even though they have a base d8 HD.

You did not change weapon damage (and thus natural weapon damage) - so things wielding weapons are inherently more powerful than was the original design.

A raging barbarian with a power attack and a great ax is (or great sword) is going to wade through the party like butter.

Spells have been drastically nerfed (and 3.5 already nerfed a lot of them to begin with) so spellcasters are not much "weaker" and more fragile since they get fewer hit points (including things resulting from "buffs" to boost them).

Why would any wizard/sorcerer even bother using ability increases to boos Con now since they aren't going to get a benfit through out their entire carrer since they would have to boost the Con bonus by +3 to gain a single bonus hit point per hit die (thus they would need to gain a 6 point increase in Con to get there).

Wait a minute I missed that bonus of Con score to hit points, really messes things up totall. Seems like an "add on" in order to make up for the total house rule of just about everything in existance.

Sorry there are far too many implications from this massive house-rule to give a reasonable assessment. But I think you have discovered the inherent problem with house-rules. Everything in D&D is linked in one way or another (much more so in 3.5 thqn in previous versions) so a single house-rule (that seems small and reasonable at the time) has a domino effect on just about everything else.

I suggest moving this post to the house-rules section instead of the "rules" section, you are more likely to get a reasonable assessment there instead of a "rules based" answer.

 

[Herzog]

It doesn't look unbalanced, and it sounds like your group playtested it and didn't find any problems with it.

It does, however, introduce something you might not have realised:

With RAW, you could play a wizard with a CON of 18, and end up with reasonable hp to create some kind of combat-wizard.

With your system, that no longer works.

(and, I see irdeggmann has already commented along those lines)

 

[Shin Okada]

Just for curiosity. What do you want to achieve by that rule change?

I mean, you may re-adjust the game balance if you nerf down HPs of PCs and every creatures, and everything related damages. But, is there any meaning on doing that?

 

[Sempronius]

Monsters have not had their hit points reduced - you apply the fighter benefits to all monsters even though they have a base d8 HD.

Sorry, I meant to say that monster HP was changed in accordance with the above tables (which means undead get shafted, but there aren't too many of them in out games)

A raging barbarian with a power attack and a great ax is (or great sword) is going to wade through the party like butter.

Funnily enough, the group doesn't care about that part: They can do it themselves as well, or something. That is a piece of unbalancing that works, so for now, it looks like it will stay.

Why would any wizard/sorcerer even bother using ability increases to boos Con now...

They would, I imagine, spend them on other abilities. Not that anyone in my group did that. The casters have tended to be primary and dex heavy anyway, so that doesn't seem like it will impact us much.
Though thanks for the heads up. If someone new came and wanted an HP heavy wizard, they would be in for a shock. I didn't think of that.

And, no, the con onus thing wasn't tacked on. I thought of a few ideas, and that seemed to be the way to get the HP level I was looking for.

I suggest moving this post to the house-rules section instead of the "rules" section, you are more likely to get a reasonable assessment there instead of a "rules based" answer.

Well, I wanted a rules based answer I don't really think there is much I will change, I more or less wanted to know what to expect from these changes, seeing as though I won't be DMing for a while, and won't have the oportunity to deal with the problems raised on that side of the screen, and the other players don't go to gaming boards like this, so I thought this was hte est way...
Did that make sense?

Herzog: Yeah, I didn't think about that, and for any new people who play along that style, somethinng would have to bbe done...(if nothing else, I guess they could just take Toughness a few times...)

Just for curiosity. What do you want to achieve by that rule change?

I mean, you may re-adjust the game balance if you nerf down HPs of PCs and every creatures, and everything related damages. But, is there any meaning on doing that?

Reflecting thhe rage that sweeps gaming boards every while, in my group there was a dispute over the worthyness of fighters against casters, and of ranged fighters against melee. This was the compromise I came up with: crimp damage a little, crimp magic a bit more, and crimp HP ots more, this means that while magic still does a lot of damage comparable to the targets HP, so do weapons.
I felt it was easier to reduce them by unequal amuonts, rather than raise damage.


but yeah. The battle caster thing. Noone in my group has done that, yet, so I didn't think of it... So I do have to look at that. It is better to fix it now, even if noone needs to use it, than find out someone wants it when there is no fix ready.

 

[green slime]

And I thought there was a forum for 3rd edition house rules....