Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Fargren 12-06-05, 09:15 AM	Noticing hoeçw all wizards have high CON, i've decided to implement a houserule to allow the unhealthy weak mage: All clases with d4 HD intead roll d6, but add only half their Con modifier to the HP, rounding down. So a mage with CON 8 in this sstem still has about the same HP as one with 12 HP under the current system, but can be more lickely to be sick, and more fragile. What do you think?
eagleye 12-06-05, 09:40 AM	Your logical is faulty. You want to make and unhealthy weak mage, but you still want him to have decent hit points? If one was to make such a character, he could always just take the "Toughness" feat at level one, that's what they're there for. Allowing a mage to take d6 HD just for this reason makes no sense at all.
Vapthorne 12-06-05, 09:56 AM	I don't like this idea because I fail to see how it'll change the problem with an 'unhealthy' mage. The d6 is nice, but I see the half CON to HP as a harsh penality just for the sake of enforcing a stereotype. Furthermore, it's not going to change the problem for making CON a priority for two reasons. 1) Other than a mage's INT or CHA stat there isn't much for them to focus on. 2) Higher CON equals more HP and it affects fortitude saves. It's just doesn't feel right, and I'm curious where the idea of an 'unhealthy mage' comes from. In the adventuring world of D&D; any unhealthy character is a dead character, so it would make sense for a hero of any class to be moderately fit.
Fargren 12-06-05, 10:19 AM	Take for example, Raistlin Majere in Dragonlance( I know it was ADD, but anyways). He probably had a CON of 6. I have no problem with him having some hitpoints, but he needs to have low fortitude. With this rule-change, the character is viable, and can survive. A friend of mine tried to make a sickly amge once, an he had HP equal to his level. He died at lvl 3, the first time he received an attack. However, I see how this can make wizards more powerfull(and they are allready one of the best classes; probably the third one). I just want to make a wizard with poor health a viable alternative.
starfire311 12-06-05, 10:42 AM	Take for example, Raistlin Majere in Dragonlance( I know it was ADD, but anyways). He probably had a CON of 6. I have no problem with him having some hitpoints, but he needs to have low fortitude. With this rule-change, the character is viable, and can survive. A friend of mine tried to make a sickly amge once, an he had HP equal to his level. He died at lvl 3, the first time he received an attack. However, I see how this can make wizards more powerfull(and they are allready one of the best classes; probably the third one). I just want to make a wizard with poor health a viable alternative. And how often did raistlin get hit in combat? If he had gotten hit often he would not ahve survived. Last stats I saw for him though, I thought he had a constitution of 10 Using these rules your frail mage con 10 will ahve more HP than regular mage con 12... I would not allow a player to min/max this to gain an advantage... I would be tempted to start the player with 2 or 4 fewer points if using point-buy.
Koga:The ninja trick 12-06-05, 05:21 PM	Here's a simpler solution, but The Koga likes where you're going with this.. Clerics and druids have a "weakness" penalty. (It's like a reverse toughness.) Where they suffer -3HP per level. They can't "lose" HP they already have, but can conceivably gain no HP despite a level gain. (0mGz! Balance!) Wizards, Psions, Psi-Warriors, Bards, Battle-Sorcerers, and Psi-Rouges gain no bonus HP despite thier con modifier. (Magick/Psionics needs to be knocked down a peg anyway..) Sorcerers, Spellthieves, Wilders, and Warlocks gain 1/2 thier HP bonus from con modifier rounded down. (Sense these four are most notably the weakest of spellcasters/manifestors, that's why their penalty is a little less harsh.)
Ozymandias V. 12-06-05, 05:38 PM	Regarding OP: That's an unfair penalty to mages. If they want to waste points on CON, that's their call. If they want to put the points into INT instead, that's their call. Why make some silly ruling such as "A caster's CON bonus inexplicably isn't as good as an equal CON bonus for another class"?
Fargren 12-06-05, 06:22 PM	Here's a simpler solution, but The Koga likes where you're going with this.. Clerics and druids have a "weakness" penalty. (It's like a reverse toughness.) Where they suffer -3HP per level. They can't "lose" HP they already have, but can conceivably gain no HP despite a level gain. (0mGz! Balance!) Wizards, Psions, Psi-Warriors, Bards, Battle-Sorcerers, and Psi-Rouges gain no bonus HP despite thier con modifier. (Magick/Psionics needs to be knocked down a peg anyway..) Sorcerers, Spellthieves, Wilders, and Warlocks gain 1/2 thier HP bonus from con modifier rounded down. (Sense these four are most notably the weakest of spellcasters/manifestors, that's why their penalty is a little less harsh.) I like that a lot! But I believe Psy Warriors,and batle-sorcerers suffer too much, as they are clases that con conceivably(sp?) be tanks, and this houserule makes the possibility a lot harder... Regarding OP: That's an unfair penalty to mages. If they want to waste points on CON, that's their call. If they want to put the points into INT instead, that's their call. Why make some silly ruling such as "A caster's CON bonus inexplicably isn't as good as an equal CON bonus for another class"? The d6 hd s uposed to lessen the penalty this will cause wizards. And this actually cna become an advantage to wizards, as they can have a CON on 6, and still have more HP than a regular wizard with 6 HP. Wich, of course, is not necesarily good... But well, I guess my houserule was unnecesary...and bad, and unbalanced. I was just was trying to make low fortitude wizards able to survive, by having an acceptable amount of HP. I guess I'll have to stick with flaws from UA.
Braids 12-06-05, 07:41 PM	Take for example, Raistlin Majere in Dragonlance( I know it was ADD, but anyways). He probably had a CON of 6. I have no problem with him having some hitpoints, but he needs to have low fortitude. With this rule-change, the character is viable, and can survive. A friend of mine tried to make a sickly amge once, an he had HP equal to his level. He died at lvl 3, the first time he received an attack. However, I see how this can make wizards more powerfull(and they are allready one of the best classes; probably the third one). I just want to make a wizard with poor health a viable alternative. There are generally two common types of mages players create. A high-Dexterity mage and a High-Constitution. Looking at how Rasitlin is describedyou can see he was more likely a high-dexterity mage. Had he been hit he would have died quite easily [As can be seen when he was stabbed in the stomach by a dagger [Flat-Footed, probably considered a sneak attack] and was nearly killed. If a mage doesn't need to worry about hit points, then he would have more points to spend on Dexterity, creatring an imballance.
smoker 12-06-05, 09:19 PM	Lame. This goes back to an article I just read about how the youth of america are in the entitlement generation. There is no good reason to mess with hps. Playing a wizard is tough and a challenge. smoker
Tyler Do'Urden 12-07-05, 01:09 AM	Noticing hoeçw all wizards have high CON... Since when? All wizards have high Int. Not all wizards have high Con. This sounds more like a fad in your particular gaming group than a function of the gaming system itself.
Fargren 12-07-05, 09:48 AM	Since when? All wizards have high Int. Not all wizards have high Con. This sounds more like a fad in your particular gaming group than a function of the gaming system itself. Probably. However, I've read this in this boards at least wice, so I thought it was more common than it probably is.
starfire311 12-07-05, 10:52 AM	Since when? All wizards have high Int. Not all wizards have high Con. This sounds more like a fad in your particular gaming group than a function of the gaming system itself. Depends on your defintion of high, but generally con is placed at the 2nd or 3rd most important stat for Wizards, but guess what con is the 2nd or 3rd most important stat for just about everyone. If using point-buy and trying to build the "best" wizad possible and I had 28 points I would go with Str 8 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 18 Wis 8 Chr 8 With 32 points I would go Str 8 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 18 Wis 12 Chr 8 With unhealthy weak mage option and 32 points I would go Str 8 Dex 16 Con 10 Int 18 Wis 12 Chr 8
Rolof 12-08-05, 08:45 AM	If you don't want your mage players to "tank up" and try to get all the HPs they can, I think there's a better way, which is less intrusive or abusable. Just use the rules that the old D&D used. Max con bonus for non-fighter types =2. So, the wizard of the group wants an 18 con? Fine, he can have an 18 con, but he only gets +2 HPs per level. Numbers wise, this mirrors your idea of 'half con' at higher numbers, while not nerfing the guy who has a 12 con but getting no bonus, with your way. They still get the higher bonus applied to a fort save, though. It also would eliminate sticky situations that could backfire on you. Like a player who really wants to roleplay 'the sickly mage', and makes one with a 6 con. By your rule, literally applied, half con 'bonus' of -2 becomes a -1, instead, thus actually being better for the character. Note: I'm not saying this is a good thing to do, just that it is a better way of doing what the OP wanted, in my opinion.