Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="elockanllor" data-source="post: 351468" data-attributes="member: 7297">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?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: d6Humans, Halflings, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs: d8Dwarves, Gnomes: d10It 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.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: +4Fighters, Paladins, Rangers: +2Clerics, Druids: 0Bards, Rogues: -2Sorcerers, Wizards: -4Looking 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.Core System:Dwarf: +2 CONBarbarian: d12 HDCON 18, +2 = CON 20.d12 +5 hp = 17 hp at 1st levelAltered System:Dwarf: d10 HDBarbarian: +4 hpCON 18, +2 = CON 20d10 +4 (barbarian) +5 (CON bonus) = 19 hpUg... 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.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.</blockquote>

Verification