Wild Shape HP?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

A friend of mine is playing a druid and has just reached lvl 5. Say he
shapes to a small rat, does he (as Alter Self and Polymorph-spells say)
keep his own hitpoints even if the animal has a constitution
bonus/penalty? One could argue that this bonus/penalty would change the
druids HP.

I only seem to get bad and sometimes contradictionary info about this.
Anyone who really knows?

Robert Karlsson Svärd
- who never have played a druid and (probably) never will

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Robert Karlsson Svärd wrote:

> A friend of mine is playing a druid and has just reached lvl 5. Say he
> shapes to a small rat, does he (as Alter Self and Polymorph-spells
> say) keep his own hitpoints even if the animal has a constitution
> bonus/penalty? One could argue that this bonus/penalty would change
> the druids HP.
>
> I only seem to get bad and sometimes contradictionary info about this.
> Anyone who really knows?
>
> Robert Karlsson Svärd
> - who never have played a druid and (probably) never will

As far as I know you keep your core HP (from your class) and modify
it by the wildshapes CN bonus (or penalty). Can he even take a rat form
at 5th level though? Your size is governed by your Druid level. I don't
think you can assume forms that small at 5th level. I know the Hit Dice
of the assumed form are controlled by your Druid level. So a 5th level
Druid can assume a 5 HD animal form. Dire shapes, legendary shapes and
advanced shapes can be assumed as soon as the Druid level allows.

--
Tetsubo
My page: http://home.comcast.net/~tetsubo/
--------------------------------------
If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
-- Anatole France

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

The druid keeps his own hit points based upon his normal self
Constitution. He uses the Constitution modifier of his wild-shaped
form for abilty checks, fortitude save, and skill checks.

Gerald Katz

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <uc_ve.357$in3.330@amstwist00>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Robert_Karlsson_Sv=E4rd?= <rks@chello.se> wrote:
>A friend of mine is playing a druid and has just reached lvl 5. Say he
>shapes to a small rat, does he (as Alter Self and Polymorph-spells say)
>keep his own hitpoints even if the animal has a constitution
>bonus/penalty? One could argue that this bonus/penalty would change the
>druids HP.
>
>I only seem to get bad and sometimes contradictionary info about this.
>Anyone who really knows?

According to "Rules of the Game: Polymorphing (Part Three)":
(http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040525a)

"Unlike previous versions of the D&D game, the subject's hit
points change according to his new Constitution score. The
subject's Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores revert
to normal when resuming its normal form, which may prompt another
change in hit points."

So it looks like you take the character's base hit points (or
un-apply the character's normal CON bonus/penalty), and modify it
using the new form's CON bonus/penalty. Presumably, this means you
should keep track of all of your character's hit dice separately,
in order to correctly track modified hit points (a fifth level Druid
who rolled straight '2's for his additional hit points, with a base
CON of 12, has 16 base hit points, and would normally have 21 hp
(8+2+2+2+2+5). Wildshaped into a form with CON 5, he should have
(5+1+1+1+1) = 9 hp, not 16-(3*5) = 1...)

Hope this helps.

--
Donald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:
> tussock wrote:
> > The rule is you always have a minimum of 1hp per HD (at full
> > health at least).
> > I have everyone track rolled HPs seperate from Con ajustments.
> > Allows for easier application, while avoiding having to keep alot of
> > numbers lying around at high level. Also allows me to ignore that
> > aberration of a rule about always getting 1 HP out of a level.
>
> These days I just give all characters average-rounded-up HP at level-up.
> Solves the problem of a few dice rolls giving similar characters major HP
> disparities without the complications of "reroll ones" or "best of two
> rolls" houserule systems, and makes things like tracking CON modifiers much
> simpler. It's a little overgenerous to wizards and sorcerers and less
> favourable for barbarians, fighters and paladins, but it seems to work out
> well.

I give players a choice; they can take average-rounded-up HP (the
exception is Barbarians, who get 8, not 7), _or_ they can roll. If they
roll, and they don't like what they get, they can reroll, but only
once, and they have the accept the result of the second roll.

Statistically, everyone is better off choosing to roll, except for
mages and barbarians, who get a mean score of 4 (or 8) either way.

Laszlo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamh...@freemail.hu wrote:
> firelock...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > I was tempted by a variant on the Toughness feat that allowed
> > you to reroll 1's and was stackable - second Toughness allowed
> > you to reroll 1's and 2's, third allowed 1's, 2's and 3's, etc.
> > The thing that kept me from using it was deciding whether it
> > would replace or partially replace the usual +3 hp from the
> > book version of the feat.
>
> Crunching the numbers, this method makes Toughness equal to half an
> Improved Toughness (that is, +0.5 HP every level) if you replace the
> usual +3 HP with it.
>
> That is, assuming it allows you to reroll 1's (and 2's, and 3's, etc)
> any number of times.

That was the idea. If it aligns with half an Improved Toughness
feat, then maybe leaving in a +1 HP/level bonus with each level
of it in addition to the rerolls would work out. I'd still
be surprised to see someone take the feat more than once or
twice.

So, you'd have:

Toughness: +3 to starting HP (I use the max HP at 1st level rule
for PC's and major NPC's).
Improved Toughness I: +1 HP per level gained after taking this
feat, reroll all 1's rolled for HP after gaining this feat. I'd
apply to the level gain that got the character this feat.
Improved Toughness II: +2 HP/Reroll all 1's and 2's, otherwise
as above.

That might be workable. Thoughts?

Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
> laszlo_spamh...@freemail.hu wrote:
> > firelock...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > I was tempted by a variant on the Toughness feat that allowed
> > > you to reroll 1's and was stackable - second Toughness allowed
> > > you to reroll 1's and 2's, third allowed 1's, 2's and 3's, etc.
> > > The thing that kept me from using it was deciding whether it
> > > would replace or partially replace the usual +3 hp from the
> > > book version of the feat.
> >
> > Crunching the numbers, this method makes Toughness equal to half an
> > Improved Toughness (that is, +0.5 HP every level) if you replace the
> > usual +3 HP with it.
> >
> > That is, assuming it allows you to reroll 1's (and 2's, and 3's, etc)
> > any number of times.
>
> That was the idea. If it aligns with half an Improved Toughness
> feat, then maybe leaving in a +1 HP/level bonus with each level
> of it in addition to the rerolls would work out. I'd still
> be surprised to see someone take the feat more than once or
> twice.
>
> So, you'd have:
>
> Toughness: +3 to starting HP (I use the max HP at 1st level rule
> for PC's and major NPC's).
> Improved Toughness I: +1 HP per level gained after taking this
> feat, reroll all 1's rolled for HP after gaining this feat. I'd
> apply to the level gain that got the character this feat.
> Improved Toughness II: +2 HP/Reroll all 1's and 2's, otherwise
> as above.
>
> That might be workable. Thoughts?

IMO too powerful. Improved Toughness isn't really meant to be
stackable.

This is most abusive for mages. It would easily be worth it for a mage
to take Toughness and Improved Toughness I-III. That would get him a
total of 7 HPs every level (plus Con bonus)!

BTW, do you want to make Toughness a prerequisite for Improved
Toughness? Going by the RAW, it's not a prerequisite.

Hm, wait... the "after taking this feat" bit is also non-RAW. It
balances Improved Toughness a bit, but I don't really like that way of
doing it. It makes the feat worth more if taken early. No other feat
works that way.

Laszlo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
> > So, you'd have:
> >
> > Toughness: +3 to starting HP (I use the max HP at 1st level rule
> > for PC's and major NPC's).
> > Improved Toughness I: +1 HP per level gained after taking this
> > feat, reroll all 1's rolled for HP after gaining this feat. I'd
> > apply to the level gain that got the character this feat.
> > Improved Toughness II: +2 HP/Reroll all 1's and 2's, otherwise
> > as above.
> >
> > That might be workable. Thoughts?
>
> IMO too powerful. Improved Toughness isn't really meant to be
> stackable.

Well, maybe limit it to just taking it once - or modifying
the feat so this New Imp. Tough I gets you reroll 1's + 1HP,
but New Imp. Tough II+ only increases the reroll range by one
per level.

> This is most abusive for mages. It would easily be worth it for a mage
> to take Toughness and Improved Toughness I-III. That would get him a
> total of 7 HPs every level (plus Con bonus)!

These aren't on the Wizard/Sorceror bonus feat list. By the
time a mage gets his 4th feat, he'll be 6th or 9th level - and
his total bonus HP would be 32 at 6th level (about 5.3 per level)
for a human who spent *all* his non-bonus feats on this HP bonus.
Besides, there are a lot of foes for a 6th to 9th level Wizard who
don't care how many HP you have.

> BTW, do you want to make Toughness a prerequisite for Improved
> Toughness? Going by the RAW, it's not a prerequisite.

I think I'd make it so, but I can see how to do it otherwise.
Thing is, if you use full HP at 1st level then this Improved
Toughness is mostly worthless at 1st level - you don't roll
for HP anyway.

> Hm, wait... the "after taking this feat" bit is also non-RAW. It
> balances Improved Toughness a bit, but I don't really like that way of
> doing it. It makes the feat worth more if taken early. No other feat
> works that way.

I can think of a lot of feats that are only really useful
if taken early, but I see where it's hard to think of a
feat that's worth a lot more when you're 9th level if
you took it at 1st level than the same feat taken at
9th level. You do have to take a look at opportunity
cost, though - what feat did you not have available since
1st level because you chose Toughness?

Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Donald Tsang wrote:
> In article <uc_ve.357$in3.330@amstwist00>,
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Robert_Karlsson_Sv=E4rd?= <rks@chello.se> wrote:
> >A friend of mine is playing a druid and has just reached lvl 5. Say he
> >shapes to a small rat, does he (as Alter Self and Polymorph-spells say)
> >keep his own hitpoints even if the animal has a constitution
> >bonus/penalty? One could argue that this bonus/penalty would change the
> >druids HP.
> >
> >I only seem to get bad and sometimes contradictionary info about this.
> >Anyone who really knows?
>
> According to "Rules of the Game: Polymorphing (Part Three)":
> (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040525a)
>
> "Unlike previous versions of the D&D game, the subject's hit
> points change according to his new Constitution score. The
> subject's Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores revert
> to normal when resuming its normal form, which may prompt another
> change in hit points."
>

F'ing sage! Always changing the rules by misinterpreting them. He can
go stick it up his Ass' ass! This makes wildshaping & polymorphing far
too powerful.

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Donald Tsang wrote:
> <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote:
> >> Improved Toughness I: +1 HP per level gained after taking this
> >> feat, reroll all 1's rolled for HP after gaining this feat. I'd
> >> apply to the level gain that got the character this feat.
> >> Improved Toughness II: +2 HP/Reroll all 1's and 2's, otherwise
> >> as above.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >Hm, wait... the "after taking this feat" bit is also non-RAW. It
> >balances Improved Toughness a bit, but I don't really like that way of
> >doing it. It makes the feat worth more if taken early. No other feat
> >works that way.
>
> Except "Vow of Poverty". Also, one of the Tattooed Monk's tattoos
> works that way, IIRC.
>

No, Vow of Poverty gives you the full benifit of your character level
no matter what level it is taken at.

> Realistically, Weapon Specialization works that way, too (etc., ad
> nauseam).
>

No that gives you a set benifit, not an increasing benifit from that
level on.

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>
> >
> > firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>laszlo_spamh...@freemail.hu wrote:
> >>
> >>>firelock...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>I was tempted by a variant on the Toughness feat that allowed
> >>>>you to reroll 1's and was stackable - second Toughness allowed
> >>>>you to reroll 1's and 2's, third allowed 1's, 2's and 3's, etc.
> >>>>The thing that kept me from using it was deciding whether it
> >>>>would replace or partially replace the usual +3 hp from the
> >>>>book version of the feat.
> >>>
> >>>Crunching the numbers, this method makes Toughness equal to half an
> >>>Improved Toughness (that is, +0.5 HP every level) if you replace the
> >>>usual +3 HP with it.
> >>>
> >>>That is, assuming it allows you to reroll 1's (and 2's, and 3's, etc)
> >>>any number of times.
> >>
> >>That was the idea. If it aligns with half an Improved Toughness
> >>feat, then maybe leaving in a +1 HP/level bonus with each level
> >>of it in addition to the rerolls would work out. I'd still
> >>be surprised to see someone take the feat more than once or
> >>twice.
> >>
> >>So, you'd have:
> >>
> >>Toughness: +3 to starting HP (I use the max HP at 1st level rule
> >>for PC's and major NPC's).
> >>Improved Toughness I: +1 HP per level gained after taking this
> >>feat, reroll all 1's rolled for HP after gaining this feat. I'd
> >>apply to the level gain that got the character this feat.
> >>Improved Toughness II: +2 HP/Reroll all 1's and 2's, otherwise
> >>as above.
> >>
> >>That might be workable. Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > IMO too powerful. Improved Toughness isn't really meant to be
> > stackable.
> >
> > This is most abusive for mages. It would easily be worth it for a mage
> > to take Toughness and Improved Toughness I-III. That would get him a
> > total of 7 HPs every level (plus Con bonus)!
> >
> > BTW, do you want to make Toughness a prerequisite for Improved
> > Toughness? Going by the RAW, it's not a prerequisite.
> >
> > Hm, wait... the "after taking this feat" bit is also non-RAW. It
> > balances Improved Toughness a bit, but I don't really like that way of
> > doing it. It makes the feat worth more if taken early. No other feat
> > works that way.
>
> Rogue is a CLASS, but IT works that way.

No, you don't get an improving benifit from rogue for having taken 1
level of it as your 2nd lv.

> Intelligence is a STAT, but IT works that way.
>

This is the only thing that works that way, it's also house ruled by
many, and tempting to do myself.

- Justisaur.

P.S. Assuming I understand the discussion, which I may not, I'm a
little vague on what he means.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:

>
> firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>laszlo_spamh...@freemail.hu wrote:
>>
>>>firelock...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>I was tempted by a variant on the Toughness feat that allowed
>>>>you to reroll 1's and was stackable - second Toughness allowed
>>>>you to reroll 1's and 2's, third allowed 1's, 2's and 3's, etc.
>>>>The thing that kept me from using it was deciding whether it
>>>>would replace or partially replace the usual +3 hp from the
>>>>book version of the feat.
>>>
>>>Crunching the numbers, this method makes Toughness equal to half an
>>>Improved Toughness (that is, +0.5 HP every level) if you replace the
>>>usual +3 HP with it.
>>>
>>>That is, assuming it allows you to reroll 1's (and 2's, and 3's, etc)
>>>any number of times.
>>
>>That was the idea. If it aligns with half an Improved Toughness
>>feat, then maybe leaving in a +1 HP/level bonus with each level
>>of it in addition to the rerolls would work out. I'd still
>>be surprised to see someone take the feat more than once or
>>twice.
>>
>>So, you'd have:
>>
>>Toughness: +3 to starting HP (I use the max HP at 1st level rule
>>for PC's and major NPC's).
>>Improved Toughness I: +1 HP per level gained after taking this
>>feat, reroll all 1's rolled for HP after gaining this feat. I'd
>>apply to the level gain that got the character this feat.
>>Improved Toughness II: +2 HP/Reroll all 1's and 2's, otherwise
>>as above.
>>
>>That might be workable. Thoughts?
>
>
> IMO too powerful. Improved Toughness isn't really meant to be
> stackable.
>
> This is most abusive for mages. It would easily be worth it for a mage
> to take Toughness and Improved Toughness I-III. That would get him a
> total of 7 HPs every level (plus Con bonus)!
>
> BTW, do you want to make Toughness a prerequisite for Improved
> Toughness? Going by the RAW, it's not a prerequisite.
>
> Hm, wait... the "after taking this feat" bit is also non-RAW. It
> balances Improved Toughness a bit, but I don't really like that way of
> doing it. It makes the feat worth more if taken early. No other feat
> works that way.

Rogue is a CLASS, but IT works that way.
Intelligence is a STAT, but IT works that way.

Is that what you really want?

- Ron ^*^

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Donald Tsang wrote:
> According to "Rules of the Game: Polymorphing (Part Three)":
> (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040525a)
>
> "Unlike previous versions of the D&D game, the subject's hit
> points change according to his new Constitution score. The
> subject's Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores revert
> to normal when resuming its normal form, which may prompt another
> change in hit points."

Hmm, that's new. Sensible change really, in line with how every
other Con change in the game works.

> Presumably, this means you should keep track of all of your character's
> hit dice separately, in order to correctly track modified hit points (a
> fifth level Druid who rolled straight '2's for his additional hit
> points, with a base CON of 12, has 16 base hit points, and would
> normally have 21 hp (8+2+2+2+2+5). Wildshaped into a form with CON 5,
> he should have (5+1+1+1+1) = 9 hp, not 16-(3*5) = 1...)

The rule is you always have a minimum of 1hp per HD (at full health
at least).
I have everyone track rolled HPs seperate from Con ajustments.
Allows for easier application, while avoiding having to keep alot of
numbers lying around at high level. Also allows me to ignore that
aberration of a rule about always getting 1 HP out of a level.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock wrote:
> Donald Tsang wrote:
>> According to "Rules of the Game: Polymorphing (Part Three)":
>> (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040525a)
>>
>> "Unlike previous versions of the D&D game, the subject's hit
>> points change according to his new Constitution score. The
>> subject's Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores revert
>> to normal when resuming its normal form, which may prompt another
>> change in hit points."
>
> Hmm, that's new. Sensible change really, in line with how every
> other Con change in the game works.
>
>> Presumably, this means you should keep track of all of your
>> character's hit dice separately, in order to correctly track
>> modified hit points (a fifth level Druid who rolled straight '2's
>> for his additional hit points, with a base CON of 12, has 16 base
>> hit points, and would normally have 21 hp (8+2+2+2+2+5). Wildshaped
>> into a form with CON 5, he should have (5+1+1+1+1) = 9 hp, not
>> 16-(3*5) = 1...)
>
> The rule is you always have a minimum of 1hp per HD (at full
> health at least).
> I have everyone track rolled HPs seperate from Con ajustments.
> Allows for easier application, while avoiding having to keep alot of
> numbers lying around at high level. Also allows me to ignore that
> aberration of a rule about always getting 1 HP out of a level.

These days I just give all characters average-rounded-up HP at level-up.
Solves the problem of a few dice rolls giving similar characters major HP
disparities without the complications of "reroll ones" or "best of two
rolls" houserule systems, and makes things like tracking CON modifiers much
simpler. It's a little overgenerous to wizards and sorcerers and less
favourable for barbarians, fighters and paladins, but it seems to work out
well.

--
Mark.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamh...@freemail.hu wrote:
> Statistically, everyone is better off choosing to roll, except for
> mages and barbarians, who get a mean score of 4 (or 8) either way.
>
> Laszlo

That should have been: who get a mean score of _3_ (or 8) either way.

Laszlo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> I give players a choice; they can take average-rounded-up HP (the
> exception is Barbarians, who get 8, not 7), _or_ they can roll. If they
> roll, and they don't like what they get, they can reroll, but only
> once, and they have the accept the result of the second roll.
>
> Statistically, everyone is better off choosing to roll, except for
> mages and barbarians, who get a mean score of 4 (or 8) either way.

I was tempted by a variant on the Toughness feat that allowed
you to reroll 1's and was stackable - second Toughness allowed
you to reroll 1's and 2's, third allowed 1's, 2's and 3's, etc.
The thing that kept me from using it was deciding whether it
would replace or partially replace the usual +3 hp from the
book version of the feat.

Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

firelock...@hotmail.com wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > I give players a choice; they can take average-rounded-up HP (the
> > exception is Barbarians, who get 8, not 7), _or_ they can roll. If they
> > roll, and they don't like what they get, they can reroll, but only
> > once, and they have the accept the result of the second roll.
> >
> > Statistically, everyone is better off choosing to roll, except for
> > mages and barbarians, who get a mean score of 4 (or 8) either way.
>
> I was tempted by a variant on the Toughness feat that allowed
> you to reroll 1's and was stackable - second Toughness allowed
> you to reroll 1's and 2's, third allowed 1's, 2's and 3's, etc.
> The thing that kept me from using it was deciding whether it
> would replace or partially replace the usual +3 hp from the
> book version of the feat.

Crunching the numbers, this method makes Toughness equal to half an
Improved Toughness (that is, +0.5 HP every level) if you replace the
usual +3 HP with it.

That is, assuming it allows you to reroll 1's (and 2's, and 3's, etc)
any number of times.

Laszlo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote:
>> Improved Toughness I: +1 HP per level gained after taking this
>> feat, reroll all 1's rolled for HP after gaining this feat. I'd
>> apply to the level gain that got the character this feat.
>> Improved Toughness II: +2 HP/Reroll all 1's and 2's, otherwise
>> as above.
>
> [...]
>
>Hm, wait... the "after taking this feat" bit is also non-RAW. It
>balances Improved Toughness a bit, but I don't really like that way of
>doing it. It makes the feat worth more if taken early. No other feat
>works that way.

Except "Vow of Poverty". Also, one of the Tattooed Monk's tattoos
works that way, IIRC.

Realistically, Weapon Specialization works that way, too (etc., ad
nauseam).

Donald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

>> >Hm, wait... the "after taking this feat" bit is also non-RAW. [...]
>> >No other feat works that way.
>>
>> Except "Vow of Poverty". [...]
>
>No, Vow of Poverty gives you the full benifit of your character level
>no matter what level it is taken at.

Except the bonus Exalted feats.

>> Realistically, Weapon Specialization works that way, too (etc., ad
>> nauseam).
>
>No that gives you a set benifit, not an increasing benifit from that
>level on.

The total damage output to opponents. When you take Weapon
Specialization, a bunch of foes you once encountered don't
all-of-a-sudden grow wounds or fall dead... (though that might be
kinda cool... also, see:

http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=34

)

Donald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Donald Tsang wrote:
> So it looks like you take the character's base hit points (or
> un-apply the character's normal CON bonus/penalty), and modify it
> using the new form's CON bonus/penalty. Presumably, this means you
> should keep track of all of your character's hit dice separately,
> in order to correctly track modified hit points (a fifth level Druid

This is far too much work and record keeping. All
one needs to do is simply apply the differential
CON adjustment. That is, say a characater has a CON
bonus of +3 and the new form has a CON penalty of -1;
the differential is -4 so one only has to take away
4*LVL hp's.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119988029.202772.270140@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> F'ing sage! Always changing the rules by misinterpreting them. He can
> go stick it up his Ass' ass! This makes wildshaping & polymorphing far
> too powerful.

I don't see how. The Con changes are just like barbarian rage - which
means that the damage you sustain remains constant ...

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1119988029.202772.270140@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > F'ing sage! Always changing the rules by misinterpreting them. He can
> > go stick it up his Ass' ass! This makes wildshaping & polymorphing far
> > too powerful.
>
> I don't see how. The Con changes are just like barbarian rage - which
> means that the damage you sustain remains constant ...
>

If you survive the fight with your 40 extra hp, healing is a lot easier
than if you were dead.

There's also the flip side of the coin, making many lower con creatures
unviable to polymorph into, or baleful polymorph too powerful.

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Klassen wrote:
> Donald Tsang wrote:
>> So it looks like you take the character's base hit points (or
>> un-apply the character's normal CON bonus/penalty), and modify it
>> using the new form's CON bonus/penalty. Presumably, this means you
>> should keep track of all of your character's hit dice separately,
>> in order to correctly track modified hit points (a fifth level Druid
>
> This is far too much work and record keeping. All
> one needs to do is simply apply the differential
> CON adjustment. That is, say a characater has a CON
> bonus of +3 and the new form has a CON penalty of -1;
> the differential is -4 so one only has to take away
> 4*LVL hp's.



--
Mark.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Klassen wrote:
> Donald Tsang wrote:
>> So it looks like you take the character's base hit points (or
>> un-apply the character's normal CON bonus/penalty), and modify it
>> using the new form's CON bonus/penalty. Presumably, this means you
>> should keep track of all of your character's hit dice separately,
>> in order to correctly track modified hit points (a fifth level Druid
>
> This is far too much work and record keeping. All
> one needs to do is simply apply the differential
> CON adjustment. That is, say a characater has a CON
> bonus of +3 and the new form has a CON penalty of -1;
> the differential is -4 so one only has to take away
> 4*LVL hp's.

Except that the minimum HPs you can get per level is 1, even if your CON
penalty would otherwise take it below that amount. So if the Druid in your
example had rolled 1 for his level-up on three occasions, your method costs
him three hitpoints - more if he chooses a form with a higher CON penalty.

Likewise, if his natural CON gives him a penalty to HPs and he rolled some
low HP rolls at level-up, your method gives him an excess of HPs if he
chooses a high-CON creature.

--
Mark.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in
news:3iipf6FlavjdU2@individual.net:

> David Klassen wrote:
>> Donald Tsang wrote:
>>> So it looks like you take the character's base hit points (or
>>> un-apply the character's normal CON bonus/penalty), and modify it
>>> using the new form's CON bonus/penalty. Presumably, this means you
>>> should keep track of all of your character's hit dice separately,
>>> in order to correctly track modified hit points (a fifth level Druid
>>
>> This is far too much work and record keeping. All
>> one needs to do is simply apply the differential
>> CON adjustment. That is, say a characater has a CON
>> bonus of +3 and the new form has a CON penalty of -1;
>> the differential is -4 so one only has to take away
>> 4*LVL hp's.
>
> Except that the minimum HPs you can get per level is 1, even if your
> CON penalty would otherwise take it below that amount. So if the Druid
> in your example had rolled 1 for his level-up on three occasions, your
> method costs him three hitpoints - more if he chooses a form with a
> higher CON penalty.

For the sake of simplicity, I've always treated the 'minimum of 1 per hit
die' as an overall limit, after the actual dice are rolled. So a 10 hit
dice creature has a minimum hit point total of 10, no matter how much Con
damage it has taken. Otherwise, a creature that rolled a 10 and a 1 is
treated differently than a creature that rolled a 6 and a 5, which just
strikes me as silly and inconsistent.