Alternate HD System based off AEG's Farscape d20 system

[Ahzad]

I'd like to get some feedback on this idea ever since seeing it the Farscape RPG I can't help but liking it, it just feels right and I want to adapt it to my D&D games.

The following HD system is based off of the HD system introduced by AEG’s Farscape RPG. Instead of the normal HD based off of which class you take, your HD is based off of your race, and then modified by the class you take.

Race HD
The Farscape uses d8/d10/d12 for the races, but they don’t have halfling, elves, dragons, or all the races to deal with. I went with d6/d8/d10 so I can get as close to most of the actual HD that the classes actually have. As for dealing with races in the MM or other books I’d have to say for simplicity I’m going to leave them as is, and only change them on a case by case basis.

Dwarf d10 / Elf d8 / Gnome d6 / Half-Elf d8 / Half-Orc d10 / Halfling d6 / Human d8

I was waffling with the elves for a while about being a d6, and a friend at the LFGS convienced me to go with the d8's.

Class HD Modifier
This is a bear, my instinct is to have the numbers balance out, i.e. if you have a +3 there should also be a –3, obviously I didn't run with my instinct, but depending on your con rolls you can have some really powerful HD numbers for some classes, i.e. a dwarf wizard with an 18 Con modified by race would give him a 20 Con so his hps at 1st level would be 12, but to come to think of it that’s what I’m going for, in most cases a dwarf wizard is tougher than his human counterpart, ect., ect.
But this is a section where I'd really love to hear some feedback.

Barbarian +3 / Bard +0 / Cleric +0 / Druid +1 / Fighter +2 / Monk +1 / Paladin +1 / Ranger +1 / Rogue +0 / Sorcerer –1 / Wizard –2

With the abilities that the paladin and ranger have, I didn't want to give both of them a +2 like the fighter I though maybe they should be different from the fighter. I gave the druid a +1 simply b/c you have to be a tough individual to live with nature. But anyway I want to hear what you folks think.

Ability Con modifiers
Not really sure what to do about these yet. I could leave them as is or go and swap the con modifiers out with another stat, something that makes sense, i.e. lose the dwarf +2 Con and change it to +2 Strength. I’m pretty sure I’m going to leave them alone and use as normal.

Terry
(ICQ#59496435)

 

[Keia]

I don't think that there needs to be any constitution modifiers for race for the base character races. For example, a dwarf has +2 Con bonus, ergo the dwarf has a d10 hit die for its race. Same with elves.

Now having said that, I think modifications for 'sub-races' could be appropriate for those sub-races that do not fit the main race. For example, a dwarven race that is less hardy than its brethern could possibly have a -2 Con modifier (which I guess effectively makes them a d9 hit die race).

I like the overall idea and I think it answers some questions (especially for the half-dragon and dragon disciples out there).

Chris

 

[elockanllor]

The following HD system is based off of the HD system introduced by AEG’s Farscape RPG. Instead of the normal HD based off of which class you take, your HD is based off of your race, and then modified by the class you take.

This is something that would inherently work better when you have the much greater ranges of physicality of the Farscape universe rather than the quite-homgenous nature of D&D PC races. There is a huge difference between a Scarran's and a Nebari's toughness so this works out ok. There is no difference statistically from, say, a human and a halfling CON-wise so why bother?

Race HD
The Farscape uses d8/d10/d12 for the races, but they don’t have halfling, elves, dragons, or all the races to deal with. I went with d6/d8/d10 so I can get as close to most of the actual HD that the classes actually have. As for dealing with races in the MM or other books I’d have to say for simplicity I’m going to leave them as is, and only change them on a case by case basis.

Dwarf d10 / Elf d8 / Gnome d6 / Half-Elf d8 / Half-Orc d10 / Halfling d6 / Human d8

Why the difference between Dwarves and Gnomes when they both have the same +2 CON bonus? Half-Orcs at the same level as dwarves? Why do Elves have the same HD as half-elves and humans when only Elves have a -2 CON? I'd think at the very least you need to start with the Core rules and *expand* upon them and not go off on an inaccurate tangent at the very start.

If you're wanting to do this right, the obvious grouping (when using d8 as the Base) is:

Elves: d6
Humans, Halflings, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs: d8
Dwarves, Gnomes: d10

It might be boring but thats what you've got to work with. And yes, by the Core rules Halflings are just as tough (not Strong, *tough*) as half-orcs on average. Remember you're wanting to do a class-modifed HD structure which will automatically take care of halflings still tending to be less tough due to favoring rogues while half-orcs gravitate towards barbarians.

Barbarian +3 / Bard +0 / Cleric +0 / Druid +1 / Fighter +2 / Monk +1 / Paladin +1 / Ranger +1 / Rogue +0 / Sorcerer –1 / Wizard –2

Maybe I missed something in your post, was the intention not only to produce a race-based HD ruleset but *also* change some discrepancies you perceive in the Core rules Class HD assignments? By the Core rules:

Clerics are tougher than Bards.
Clerics and Druids are equivalent.
Fighters and Paladins and Rangers are equivalent.
Rogues are weaker than Clerics.
Sorcerers and Wizards are equivalent.

Until you separate out your revisions from your houserules we can't tell if your revisions are broken or not. I'd hafta say broken at this point as, obviously, any system trying to reverse engineer the proper HD of a paladin or ranger won't be able to do so with your system above.

Following your idea the "proper" designations (again, using the human d8 HD as the Base) would be:

Barbarians: +4
Fighters, Paladins, Rangers: +2
Clerics, Druids: 0
Bards, Rogues: -2
Sorcerers, Wizards: -4

Looking at this, a half-orc (d8 HD) barbarian (+4) works out to be statistically similiar to the standard d12 barbarian, and a dwarf (d1) barbarian (+4) reproduces the Core d12 barbarian with a +2 CON bonus. Looks real good to me. The great thing about this system is that it reduces the randomness of class HD rolls. By the books a high-rolling rogue could have more hp than a low-rolling fighter. By using the flat bonuses/penalties above rather than changing the size of the die rolled this problem is somewhat lessened.

NOTE: this is still alotta work for something that is going to, on average, produce the same results as the Core rules.

Ability Con modifiers
Not really sure what to do about these yet. I could leave them as is or go and swap the con modifiers out with another stat, something that makes sense, i.e. lose the dwarf +2 Con and change it to +2 Strength. I’m pretty sure I’m going to leave them alone and use as normal.

Core System:
Dwarf: +2 CON
Barbarian: d12 HD

CON 18, +2 = CON 20.
d12 +5 hp = 17 hp at 1st level

Altered System:
Dwarf: d10 HD
Barbarian: +4 hp

CON 18, +2 = CON 20
d10 +4 (barbarian) +5 (CON bonus) = 19 hp

Ug... this is where is starts to break down and gets worse with each level, by keeping the Con modifier you essentially double-dip each level into the hp pool. I dunno, maybe this is the way you want to go, really tough characters playing really tough classes have *lots* of hp.

I don't think that there needs to be any constitution modifiers for race for the base character races. For example, a dwarf has +2 Con bonus, ergo the dwarf has a d10 hit die for its race. Same with elves.

There is still the problem with bonus hp above and beyond HD calculation. Under the Core rules you still add bonus hp after putting that +2 CON on the dwarf, in the same way you should still add bonus hp after putting that d10 on the dwarf. Same thing. The problem is that at the higher ends the new system starts to scale upwards a little more quickly than we're used to. It works out just fine with average values (standard con human clerics) but starts to ramp up for high-Con dwarven barbarians. Right offhand I don't see a way to fix it to make it 100% backwards compatible. This might be an acceptable variant of the ruleset.

 

[Keia]

Some interesting ideas here, but:

I think you are doubling up on the benefits of having a good hit die for a race. If you increase the hit die for a particular race because of the 'Con Bonus' that the PHB indicates the race should have, I think you should only do that and just drop the con bonus.

So if a Dwarf should have a d10 for its racial hit die, then it shouldn't also have a +2 con bonus. Save that for the bigger critters out there.

from elockanllor:
Barbarians: +4
Fighters, Paladins, Rangers: +2
Clerics, Druids: 0
Bards, Rogues: -2
Sorcerers, Wizards: -4

From this you are implying that there is a +8 con bonus for barbarians. Now I'm sure the barbarians would be happy about this but I don't think anyone else would be. The same with the Sorcerors and Wizards. Remeber this is an adjustment to hit die, which only happens for every 2 Con points.

I think the class adjustments to the racial hit die that Azhad posted have more merit. Are they identical duplications to the Core Rules? No. But I think they make sense all things considered (outdoors types, book learners, bodies trained as weapons, etc.)

Chris

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

I did something a bit similar IMC...

I didn't like the idea of sickly Elves (they spend a great deal of time outdoors afterall), so I did away with the negative CON modifier, and instead adjusted their HD Type downwards by one step.

I did the same thing for Halflings to reflect their small stature, but left the CON bonus in place in order to offset it somewhat (this puts their HPs on par with a Human--rather than surpassing them--yet still reflects their resistant natures).

 

[Caliber]

Barbarians: +4
Fighters, Paladins, Rangers: +2
Clerics, Druids: 0
Bards, Rogues: -2
Sorcerers, Wizards: -4

I would suggest you halve your numbers here.

The d12 Barbarians have for HD averages 6.5 per roll. If a d8 is the standard HD then Barbarians should get a +2 modifier to it (d8s average 4.5. 4.5+2 = 6.5 or average d12.)

I could do the math showing the exact same effect for all the other modifiers, but its pretty obvious.

Also, you should note that if you do halve these bonuses, your 1st level Dwarven Barbarian has 17 HPs, just like his Core rules buddy.

And as a side-note, I would discourage using this system. Many people consider the Dwarf to be an unbalanced race but with this system, who really wouldn't play one?

Dwarven Wizards effectively have d6 HD, and possibly much more if they roll high. This system doesn't give the melee types more HPs, it gives the casters more.

 

[Ahzad]

Alternate HD system

>>>This is something that would inherently work better when you have the much greater ranges of physicality of the Farscape universe rather than the quite-homgenous nature of D&D PC races. There is a huge difference between a Scarran's and a Nebari's toughness so this works out ok. There is no difference statistically from, say, a human and a halfling CON-wise so why bother?<<<

In the new campaign I'm fiddlin' about with I want there to be a difference between the different races in toughness.

>>>Why the difference between Dwarves and Gnomes when they both have the same +2 CON bonus? Half-Orcs at the same level as dwarves? Why do Elves have the same HD as half-elves and humans when only Elves have a -2 CON? I'd think at the very least you need to start with the Core rules and *expand* upon them and not go off on an inaccurate tangent at the very start.<<<

I'm not looking at the existing con bonuses or how the core rules do things. I'm looking at the races and thinking to myself how I see them in this 'campaign period' I don't see gnomes as hardy as dwarves or even humans in this period so I equate them with the halflings. I'd rather have the elves at a d6 for hd, b/c I don't see them as hardy as humans or half-elves. If I do decide to use this system I'll probably drop the elves to d6 simply b/c that's what feels right to me.

>>>Maybe I missed something in your post, was the intention not only to produce a race-based HD ruleset but *also* change some discrepancies you perceive in the Core rules Class HD assignments?<<<

I have no discrepancies with the core rules I like them just fine, I just liked what Farscape did and wanted to try something similar for a new campaign I'm working on.


>>>Following your idea the "proper" designations (again, using the human d8 HD as the Base) would be:

Barbarians: +4
Fighters, Paladins, Rangers: +2
Clerics, Druids: 0
Bards, Rogues: -2
Sorcerers, Wizards: -4<<<

I almost went with this way first, but decided against it b/c I see Sorcerers tougher then wizards no reasoning here I just feel that way, I see Druids tougher then clerics, this is b/c I see living in the wilderness w/ nature as an occupation for a hardy individual, but I also have some problems b/c the martial dieites are going to have some tough clerics out there in the battlefield and what-not. So to save myself some grief by adding additional mods based of sleric domains or what have you I'm going to generalize them. I'm in favor of giving the +4/-4 to the barbarian and wizard it feels right to me. Now when I hit the Fighter/paladin/ranger/monk is where I get a headache I think the straight +2 will work for me there, though maybe the monk should dropped to the 0 level.


>>>NOTE: this is still alotta work for something that is going to, on average, produce the same results as the Core rules.

Core System:
Dwarf: +2 CON
Barbarian: d12 HD
CON 18, +2 = CON 20.
d12 +5 hp = 17 hp at 1st level

Altered System:
Dwarf: d10 HD
Barbarian: +4 hp
CON 18, +2 = CON 20
d10 +4 (barbarian) +5 (CON bonus) = 19 hp

Ug... this is where is starts to break down and gets worse with each level, by keeping the Con modifier you essentially double-dip each level into the hp pool. I dunno, maybe this is the way you want to go, really tough characters playing really tough classes have *lots* of hp.<<<

Yea, it is does seem a lot of work for very little difference, but it's an idea that appeals to me, and I would lose the racial con bonuses if I opt to experiment with this. I do want the tough characters playing tough classes to have lots of hps, b/c the tone of the campaign is going to be very dark, and brutally tough to be a pc in so it fits in that respect.

Well I appreciate your comments and I apolgize for taking so long to reply I was kicking about your comments along with some other feedback, and I got sidetracked getting a new campaign idea in order.