• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Pathfinder 1E Hit Point Inflation and Power Creep in Pathfinder

Personally, I loathe low starting hit points with the utmost intensity. Any boost to low-level survivability is a boon to me. As a DM most of the time, the low levels were always appalling to design adventures for -- basically, the characters were so fragile that I had to do stuff like reduce the orcs' damage die to d4, and such.

It's so easy to hit with that d12 against the PC's flabby starting armor -- and a good solid roll of 10 to 12, which is quite common, is an automatic death sentence at that level. I once participated in a game (as a player) where a party of 5 1st level players got four deaths from one orc thanks to a series of bad die rolls on their part. :confused:

It was so depressing that the DM let us start over again with the same characters at the town, and this time we avoided the place where we knew the orc was like the plague. ;)

I'm all for a feeling of risk to build excitement, but I hate being forced into a binary choice, as a DM, between the near-certainty of killing someone's carefully-made character with a random kobold or forest lynx, and playing with kid gloves so that they at least survive to see the other 90% of the adventure that I spent hours writing.

Now, if they can fix the high level stuff, I'll be one happy Bean. :D
 

log in or register to remove this ad

A housecat should do no damage to anything larger than a mouse. A painful scratch, that might well get infected or inflict disease, but no hit point damage at all. OR do 1d2-1 with a minimum of 0 if you must have it do damage. Familiars would of course be exempt from the above and do normal damage.

Some things just shouldn't do hit point damage. Stubbing your toe, a scratch from a cat, skinning your knuckles when a wrench slips, etc.

I think the real solution is applying common sense to this situation. Can a housecat kill you by scratching you to death? No- its claws aren't nearly big enough to do more than make you bleed. Solution: Use your common sense instead of doing rediculous things like telling a commoner that a cat scratched him to death with a single swipe.
 

But the rules make no differentiation in all prior editions of the game. It deals HPs of damage and people only have a few. 4E and Pathfinder both have far too many starting hit points for a kitty massacre to happen and that is a good thing. I dont' agree with many of the changes in Pathfinder from a backwards compatibility angle, but I've always hated the low levels of D&D and we hadn't started below 3rd or 5th level in a long time. Being able to not feel completely useless and scared of your character dying all the time at first level is nice.
 

And being able to feel overwhelmed and scared of your character dying all the time at first level is nice, as well. There should be room for both styles of play. I still say the simplest solution is to keep hit points low (as in standard 3e rules) and for those who don't like low level play to start at level 3 (or 2 or 5, whatever.)
 

But the rules make no differentiation in all prior editions of the game. It deals HPs of damage and people only have a few. 4E and Pathfinder both have far too many starting hit points for a kitty massacre to happen and that is a good thing. I dont' agree with many of the changes in Pathfinder from a backwards compatibility angle, but I've always hated the low levels of D&D and we hadn't started below 3rd or 5th level in a long time. Being able to not feel completely useless and scared of your character dying all the time at first level is nice.

And being able to feel overwhelmed and scared of your character dying all the time at first level is nice, as well. There should be room for both styles of play. I still say the simplest solution is to keep hit points low (as in standard 3e rules) and for those who don't like low level play to start at level 3 (or 2 or 5, whatever.)

PF rules [gloat] as written in my signed beta copy [/gloat] (as opposed to the sidebar discussing options) give you +3 hp on 3,5e. and thats only if your class was d4/d6 due to the die bump, AND take the favoured class hp instead of skill point AND assuming its your favoured class. for a fighter / barb you're looking at +1 hp max

PF is nowhere near 4e style starting hp's!

If you look at some of the sidebar options, they range from die increases, +6 across the board, to using your con as your base hp. but they are only discussion options

so in theory PF is both things. you can play as written and get that pant-wetting low level experience (my preferred option) or you can take one of the options and ensure everyone is in double figures when they start.
 

Power Creep and Inflation have to be understood before they can be solved as problems. If you look back, D&D 1e originally started with powerful magic and weak physical attacks—spells had no or few damage caps and a properly worded Wish could do ANYTHING, while characters making melee attacks were limited to, at best, 2 per round with even a high level fighter inflicting somewhere around 2d6+10 damage per attack. Since those days, magic has gotten progressively weaker and less useful while now characters can easily make 5 or 6 attacks per round and are capable of inflicting hundreds of points of damage in a single round!

Regarding the original points of the OP:
An extra +2 to any stat doesn't necessarily increase the power level of the game, but of the PCs. This gives them an extra +1 on attacks, skills, damage and saves and with the glut of available modifiers a +1 bonus just doesn't make a big enough impact. It certainly won't matter for that 10th level Fighter with a +25 BAB who is going to hit just about any enemy so long as he doesn't roll a 1. The 1 point of extra damage isn't going to matter when a character has 1 extra hit point per hit die. Is it inflation? Absolutely. Necessary? Not at all. Especially when the DM is likely going to give monsters more AC, HP, etc., to make their monsters more challenging to the players. Power difference stays roughly the same while only the numbers increase.

Easiest solution is to drop/ignore this bonus or have it only apply to scores less than 10, that way it can mitigate negative modifiers without increasing positives—this not only solves the point of inflation, but power creep as well. And another solution is to provide a +1 bonus at every 4 points instead of 2. Instead of +1 at 12 and +2 at 14, give a +1 at 14 and a +2 at 18. This has the benefit of making the +2 extra bonus important without it really increasing the overall power while also reducing power creep and negating the problems of inflated stats.

Feats every even level:
This is easy. Just require that every 4th level, the character must spend their feat on something related to their race or class. Have rogues spend it on a skill based feat while wizards buy a magic related feat (Item Creation, etc.), while Clerics can spend on Divine feats, and Fighters can spend on feats that don't make them necessarily more powerful, but more versatile.

Class Redesigns:
Simply incorporate prestige class abilities as accessible class based powers. For example, allow a Rogue to take Death Attack as one of his Special Abilities at 10th, 13th, etc., and do something similar for each class. This eliminates the need to have to take a prestige class especially when players only want one or two abilities from a 10 level class. You can also incorporate other class abilities too. If a Fighter wants to be able to Sneak Attack, instead of multi-classing as a Rogue, he could get Sneak Attack as a combat feat maybe once every 5 levels or so, or a wizard wanting a combat feat could get a Fighter's Bonus Feat instead of a spell based feat at 4th level, rather than having to multi-class. Even allow duplication, to a degree. If a 4th level Paladin wants to Smite Evil more than 1/day, he could use his feat to gain an extra 2 uses per day, whatever.

Standardize HP to BAB:
The OP complained only that the numbers were too high, but they are fine at D6 HD = ½ BAB, D8 HD = ¾ BAB, d10 HD = 1 BAB.

But here is where the crux of the power creep/inflation issue lies. With the advent of 3.0, D&D dramatically increased the ability to inflict damage without providing a proportionate means of negating or ablating damage. HD are basically the same, but damage output is through the roof! The easiest way to solve this entire issue is an extension of the above: Standardize damage to HD and BAB!

If you have D6 HD, you have ½ BAB and can inflict a maximum of 1d6 damage (per target) per round; D8 HD get ¾ BAB and inflict 1d8 damage, while D10 HD have 1 BAB and inflict 1d10 damage per round.
Of course there are exceptions such as with magic, weapon specialization and such. But the point is, bring damage output back under control and all of a sudden, gobs of hit points become unnecessary. If a wizard starting with 8 hit points is faced with a goblin, he not going to be AS scared when he knows the goblin can only 1d4 or 1d6 with its attack. He knows he can take at least 1 good hit and maybe 2-3 before he is in trouble.

I would count the + bonus of a weapon as an exception to this limitation. Now, most players I know tend to get +1 weapons and just load up with enchantments (Keen, etc.). But with these rules, a +3 weapon becomes pretty powerful once again.

Spells would be another. Once again, that 5th level wizard's Fireball suddenly seems more terrifying when it can “break the rules” and deal 5d6 damage instead of the 1d6 a wizard can normally do. What fighter or rogue now is even worried about a 5th level fireball? A fighter or cleric has a 50/50 shot of making his save and having enough HP to soak it up anyway while a rogue is most likely going to evade it, only another wizard is going to be worried about a 5d fireball!

Starting HP:
Just give the PCs a bonus/fixed amount. They get their max HD at 1st level, roll the rest. In addition, they all get an extra 6hp at 1st, 4hp at 2nd and 2hp at 3rd. This gives that extra 'padding' that helps keep them alive at the lower levels without making them exceptionally tougher at mid and high levels. You don't need to house rule anything, adjust or create new feats, just give them this bonus and they should have plenty of HP to get through encounters without having to worry about getting killed in a single hit.

Favored Class Bonuses:
I say scrap the whole Favored Class concept anyway. Its pretty damn weak and doesn't provide any real benefit. Its nothing more than a nod to older editions of D&D for those who think most dwarves should be fighters and most elves, wizards. If any race can be any class, this concept needs to go completely out the door! Give a dwarf more hit points because he wants to be a fighter instead of a rogue or wizard? How? Where exactly does it come from? Why should a dwarf fighter automatically have more hp than a human or halfling fighter? Where is an elf wizard getting his extra hit point in comparison to the half-orc wizard who took the same classes, studied the same magic?
 

[Observations on relative power levels.]
Pretty much agreed, here.

Feats every even level:
This is three extra feats at 20th level, two extra at 18th level, and 1 extra at 12th level. This is not something to worry about. We did Pathfinder conversions of the 10th- and 11th-level PCs in my Eberron game last night, and everybody came out fine. (We did not use bonus HP at 1st level, because we have a HD-minimum houserule, and we did not use the extra racial mods, because we have a point-buy houserule, so I can't really comment on those, except to say I think they'd both be fine in a Pathfinder game starting at 1st level, with Pathfinder point-buy.)

If you have D6 HD, you have ½ BAB and can inflict a maximum of 1d6 damage (per target) per round; D8 HD get ¾ BAB and inflict 1d8 damage, while D10 HD have 1 BAB and inflict 1d10 damage per round.
God, no. No, no, no. This is way over-genericizing PCs. This is the 4E way of doing things. If it's what I wanted, I'd give 4E another look.

Favored Class Bonuses:
I say scrap the whole Favored Class concept anyway. [...] Where exactly does it come from? Why should a dwarf fighter automatically have more hp than a human or halfling fighter? Where is an elf wizard getting his extra hit point in comparison to the half-orc wizard who took the same classes, studied the same magic?
Dwarf fighters are tough. Elf wizards are the most skilled wizards in all the land. And so on.

I like favored classes in general. Not thrilled about how 3.5 handled them, so I really like the Pathfinder changes. I wouldn't be averse to keying the bonus (HP versus skill point) to BAB, with Average BAB classes getting to choose, though I don't mind it as it is now.
 
Last edited:

This is three extra feats at 20th level, two extra at 18th level, and 1 extra at 12th level.
Not really... It's 1 extra at 2nd level, 2 extra at 8th level, 3 extra at 14th level, and 4 extra at 20th level.

Though there are levels in between these where a 1/3 progression catches up a bit, like 3rd and 9th.

-O
 

Not really... It's 1 extra at 2nd level, 2 extra at 8th level, 3 extra at 14th level, and 4 extra at 20th level.
You're right. I misread "feats every even level" as "feats every other level." I was specifically talking about Pathfinder and got my wires crossed, I guess.
 

I'm all for more feats, myself, whether its one per even or odd level. Doesn't matter to me. Its the system now that is too deficient both in the amount of feats and the quality of feats. If Pathfinder is at least fixing the amount, then that takes care of half the work for DMs right there!

God, no. No, no, no. This is way over-genericizing PCs. This is the 4E way of doing things. If it's what I wanted, I'd give 4E another look.
Actually, I don't see how its getting generic, or the connection to 4e--which I do not like. But with the advent of 3e, damage output went through the roof while AC and HP did not and since then, power creep and inflation have only escalated things.

How would you propose getting things "under control"?

Dwarf fighters are tough. Elf wizards are the most skilled wizards in all the land. And so on.
Yes, dwarf fighters are tough, as represented by their higher Constitution, not just because they are a dwarf or because they are a dwarf and a fighter. As for elves, there is nothing in 3e that makes an elf a better wizard than anyone else, yet it is their favored class? Why? Why is an elf a better wizard just because he/she is an elf? What is it about being an elf that makes them a better wizard than anyone else, especially when they have no racial abilities that make them a better wizard?

If you have to keep the Favored Class concept around, why not have it give a tangible and immediate benefit? Saying they don't get an XP penalty if they do X or don't do Y, that's not a benefit. That's a warning. If you want more dwarves to be fighters, give them a reason to be fighters. Maybe an extra 2 skill points per level in Fighter. Tangible, immediate benefit. Useful. Not overpowered--and helps solve the issue of low skill points without really contributing to inflation. If dwarves have a easier time with being a fighter, it should show in them learning skills faster (more skill points), than a dwarf who might have a harder time at a different class (like wizard).

But extra hit points? Just because a certain race takes a certain class? Why would a halfling rogue be able to take more damage than a human rogue just because he's a halfling and a rogue. Why would an elven wizard with the same level and Con (and rolled hit points) as a elven bard, take the same amount of damage from an attack and its more of a scratch for the wizard and a more serious blow to the bard?
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top