I already started a thread about this on the Races & Classes board but i think this would have probably been a better place for it.
A common complaint i have heard is about the swinginess of rolling hit points. For example, it is easily possible to have two identicle 10th level fighters with a difference of over 20 hit points because of this.
I recently had a friend who felt really gibbed when his character (the party meatshield) rolled 17 on 5d10 for Hitpoints (this did increase to over 30 though after adding Con and stuff) and the GM didn't allow him to re-roll his hit points. The big problem with the current system is often players can be left feeling highly disadvantaged with their character just because a handful of dice rolls didn't go as well for them as the other players.
A couple of possible fixes we have come up with are;
1. Whenever hit points are rolled the minimum value you can get is half the total value (ie 3 on a d6, 4 on a d8, 5 on a d10, etc.)
2. Reducing the dice rolled and giving them a set bonus per level (ie 1d4+2, 1d6+2, 1d8+2, etc.)
3. Giving each class a class bonus plus 1d4 hit points per level (ie 1d4+2, 1d4+4, 1d4+6, etc.)
The average hit points/minimum hit points per level for each of these would be;
MINIMUM HALF:
1d6 - Average: 3.5, Minimum: 3 (Per Level)
1d8 - Average: 4.5, Minimum: 4 (Per Level)
1d10 - Average: 5.5, Minimum: 5 (Per Level)
SET BONUS:
1d4+2 - Average: 4.5, Minimum: 3 (Per Level)
1d6+2 - Average: 5.5, Minimum: 3 (Per Level)
1d8+2 - Average: 6.5, Minimum: 3 (Per Level)
CLASS BONUS:
1d4+2 - Average: 4.5, Minimum: 3 (Per Level)
1d4+4 - Average: 6.5, Minimum: 5 (Per Level)
1d4+6 - Average: 8.5, Minimum: 7 (Per Level)
TRADITIONAL (for comparison):
1d6 - Average: 3.5, Minimum: 1 (Per Level)
1d8 - Average: 4.5, Minimum: 1 (Per Level)
1d10 - Average: 5.5, Minimum: 1 (Per Level)
Of these the Set Bonus option is probably my least favorite. It pushes up the average hit points per level but still gives larger hit dice characters a chance of being screwed with it's low minimum hit points.
I do like the Class Bonus system but using it will lead to much higher hit point characters on average with the average hit points and minimum hit points getting much larger as the hit dice increase.
I think that the Minimum Half system is my favorite as it feels the most elegant and keeps the averages the same as they were.
I would love to hear some more thoughts on this.
I hate to roll hit points at all, and prefer fixed numbers.
But if to roll hit points, I too would go for the half-minimum option.
It's just more than disappointing when you are playing a barbarian and only got 15+3xCON hit points at 3rd level.
I really don't like this. D&D is a game, and as such it is supposed to require players to think their way through every situation. That includes finding ways to overcome a low hit point total. As a "role-playing" game, one function of the rules is to provide obstacles for the characters to overcome, in effect simulating the curve balls that life so frequently throws. In other words, if your fighter rolls low hit points you are supposed to assume that he's been remiss in his training, got sick, was born frail, or whatever, and find a way of handling the problem.
What you are suggesting is that D&D should be played as a mathematical exercise. Obstacles should be overcome preemptively by making sure your numbers are high enough. Playing the game this way devolves into a continual comparison of your numbers to the DM's numbers, and thereby forces the DM to spend all his time making sure his numbers aren't too low or too high. Your success in the game becomes little more than luck since you have to depend on the dice to change the odds from round to round.
And that is not to say that "roll" playing isn't a valid way to play the game. However, it does suggest that if this is the approach you prefer, then perhaps you should dispense with rolling for hit points altogether. Instead, simply assign them. Using dice to determine hit points with this approach only complicates the process of determining the DM's numbers. If you roll too high, the DM has to adjust his numbers upwards, which may cause problems for those in the party who roll low numbers. If the DM adjusts the numbers downward to accommodate those with few hit points, then your high-hp character won't be sufficiently challenged, etc.
Thus, in the situation you described, the player who only rolled 17 on 5d10 should modify the way his character is described. Perhaps the fighter in question thinks of himself as a tank, is trained as a tank, and even has the mindset of a tank, and yet was born without a sufficiently athletic body. Now the character has to grow (as does the player) to find a way to overcome his weaknesses. Perhaps he has to develop new tactics or new weapons specialties. Perhaps he needs to learn that he's better suited to be an archer. The possibilities are endless. The result is that both the character and the player are forced to grow. The player in question will likely find that he enjoys his low-hp fighter even more for having successfully overcome challenges.
The only other alternative is to scrap the fighter and start another character. What's the DM going to do? Say no? Then get the fighter killed in the first combat and start another character anyway. There are ways around all these problems, and changing the rules of the game is not always the best way to handle them.
And that is not to say that "roll" playing isn't a valid way to play the game. However, it does suggest that if this is the approach you prefer, then perhaps you should dispense with rolling for hit points altogether. Instead, simply assign them. Using dice to determine hit points with this approach only complicates the process of determining the DM's numbers. If you roll too high, the DM has to adjust his numbers upwards, which may cause problems for those in the party who roll low numbers. If the DM adjusts the numbers downward to accommodate those with few hit points, then your high-hp character won't be sufficiently challenged, etc.
Thus, in the situation you described, the player who only rolled 17 on 5d10 should modify the way his character is described. Perhaps the fighter in question thinks of himself as a tank, is trained as a tank, and even has the mindset of a tank, and yet was born without a sufficiently athletic body. Now the character has to...
And perhaps he gets into combat and is killed in two hits.
I have no problems playing flawed characters, but they should be flawed by design. The character i envisaged as a great warrior shouldn't be forcd to be frail just because a few dice rolls didn't go my way. And telling a player that if their character isn't what they wanted it to be they should scrap it or forcing them to get it killed is just unfair, if a player wants to play a mighty warrior then they should be allowed to, and a few bad dice rolls shouldn't stop them from doing so.
I would want to keep it the same.. but houserule as you please.
For example; I challenge my players rolls. They roll their die and I roll one.. they get the higher of the two. We also always re-roll '1's.
They seem fairly happy with that.. even if we both roll a '2' on a d12.
They had two chances to get higher.. so they feel alright about it.
Funny that Paul,
I do exactly the same thing.
And telling a player that if their character isn't what they wanted it to be they should scrap it or forcing them to get it killed is just unfair, if a player wants to play a mighty warrior then they should be allowed to, and a few bad dice rolls shouldn't stop them from doing so.
What's unfair about being able to roll another character that fits your concept better? How does that mean a few bad dice rolls stop you from doing anything? All you have to do is roll the dice again, after all. All you've lost is the miniscule effort of picking up a few d6s. Heck, you could even shortcut the process and only roll up the numbers you don't like. There aren't any real restrictions on this, after all. If your DM is being a jerk about it, that's a problem with him and not a problem with the game. Nobody's punishing you for rolling bad dice at all. And, after all, I did suggest that simply assigning the numbers you want is a possible solution. How is that unfair to anybody?
If we make hit points static, what about making weapon and spell damage static as well?
I'll go you one better: let's make everything static. Combat can be run by simply comparing attack bonuses to ACs, high number wins the fight. Skills can be used by comparing skill bonuses to DCs, high number succeeds.
For that matter, adventures could be a lot shorter, too. For example, you could just check Paizo's website and click on "Play Pathfinder #2", for example. Is your character 4th level or higher? Yay! You win! Paizo will email your updated character in a few minutes. Is your character lower than 4th level? Awww, too bad! You lose. Paizo will email your updated character in a few minutes, and it's the same character you would get if you won.
See? Problems solved!
(Oh, and I have it on good authority that the above rules system forms the core mechanic for D&D 6e.)
And telling a player that if their character isn't what they wanted it to be they should scrap it or forcing them to get it killed is just unfair, if a player wants to play a mighty warrior then they should be allowed to, and a few bad dice rolls shouldn't stop them from doing so.What's unfair about being able to roll another character that fits your concept better? How does that mean a few bad dice rolls stop you from doing anything? All you have to do is roll the dice again, after all. All you've lost is the miniscule effort of picking up a few d6s. Heck, you could even shortcut the process and only roll up the numbers you don't like. There aren't any real restrictions on this, after all. If your DM is being a jerk about it, that's a problem with him and not a problem with the game. Nobody's punishing you for rolling bad dice at all. And, after all, I did suggest that simply assigning the numbers you want is a possible solution. How is that unfair to anybody?
Apologies then, i miss understood your intent, i thought you meant re-rolling the entire character. I have known GMs who have ruled that you must live with whatever you roll. I guess at a minimum it would be nice to have some kind of "if you don't roll more than X re-roll" mechanic in the game, like for rolling ability scores (though i do prefer the points buy method for abilities). If nothing else, these could be offered up as optional variants in the same way as the DMG has optional variants for ability score generation.
I already started a thread about this on the Races & Classes board but i think this would have probably been a better place for it.
A common complaint i have heard is about the swinginess of rolling hit points. For example, it is easily possible to have two identicle 10th level fighters with a difference of over 20 hit points because of this.
I recently had a friend who felt really gibbed when his character (the party meatshield) rolled 17 on 5d10 for Hitpoints (this did increase to over 30 though after adding Con and stuff) and the GM didn't allow him to re-roll his hit points. The big problem with the current system is often players can be left feeling highly disadvantaged with their character just because a handful of dice rolls didn't go as well for them as the other players.
A couple of possible fixes we have come up with are;
1. Whenever hit points are rolled the minimum value you can get is half the total value (ie 3 on a d6, 4 on a d8, 5 on a d10, etc.)
2. Reducing the dice rolled and giving them a set bonus per level (ie 1d4+2, 1d6+2, 1d8+2, etc.)
3. Giving each class a class bonus plus 1d4 hit points per level (ie 1d4+2, 1d4+4, 1d4+6, etc.)
The average hit points/minimum hit points per level for each of these would be;
MINIMUM HALF:
1d6 - Average: 3.5, Minimum: 3 (Per Level)
1d8 - Average: 4.5, Minimum: 4 (Per Level)
1d10 - Average: 5.5, Minimum: 5 (Per Level)SET BONUS:
1d4+2 - Average: 4.5, Minimum: 3 (Per Level)
1d6+2 - Average: 5.5, Minimum: 3 (Per Level)
1d8+2 - Average: 6.5, Minimum: 3 (Per Level)CLASS BONUS:
1d4+2 - Average: 4.5, Minimum: 3 (Per Level)
1d4+4 - Average: 6.5, Minimum: 5 (Per Level)
1d4+6 - Average: 8.5, Minimum: 7 (Per Level)TRADITIONAL (for comparison):
1d6 - Average: 3.5, Minimum: 1 (Per Level)
1d8 - Average: 4.5, Minimum: 1 (Per Level)
1d10 - Average: 5.5, Minimum: 1 (Per Level)Of these the Set Bonus option is probably my least favorite. It pushes up the average hit points per level but still gives larger hit dice...
My group plays this way: You have to roll above your con modifier.
I.E.: A wizard with a d6 hit die and (for some reason) an 18 con score CANNOT roll less than 4. You just keep rolling untill you roll a number greater than your conscore, and even then everyone rolls twice and takes the highest score. So lets say that wizard rolls a 4 and a 6, he gets the six.
That house rule only furhter privileges casters above warrior-types.
I Propose the following, which gives magic-users more of a percentage increase, but frees warriors from more risk and uncertainty:
D4= 3 HP per level
D6= 4
D8= 5
D10=6
D12=7
We've been adding parts of Pathfinder into the current game we are running.
Speaking to the guy that runs it, he's not over enthused with the average number being used at with the increase of wizard to D6 makes much less of a difference.
we normally go by half plus one so:
D6 HP = 4
D8 HP = 5
D10 HP = 6
D12 HP = 7
without taking CON into account a barbarian only get 3 HP more a level than a wizard.
Talking over a pizza Saturday night we came up with the idea of a fixed bonus for anything above 6, so:
D6 HP = D6
D8 HP = D6+2
D10 HP =D6+4
D12 HP =D6+6
This gives the "healthier" classes a fixed minimum and doesn't change in any way the HP of a Wizard.
Not sure if we will be taking this into the game, but it's all good debate.
|
Most likely the hit dice will stay the same, and organized play (Pathfinder Society) will imply a similar system used in Living Greyhawk. d6 gets 4hp, d8 gets 5hp, d10 gets 6hp and d12 gets 7hp. I use the same for my home campaigns; they simply make it easier and won't make the player feel frustrated over one bad roll.
It's simply a matter of the style of the play.
I allow players to roll the dice and if they get below 1/2 they get 1/2. So if a fighter rolls a 1,2,3,4 or 5 they get 5.
Talking over a pizza Saturday night we came up with the idea of a fixed bonus for anything above 6, so:
D6 HP = D6
D8 HP = D6+2
D10 HP =D6+4
D12 HP =D6+6This gives the "healthier" classes a fixed minimum and doesn't change in any way the HP of a Wizard.
Just to compare;
CLASS BONUS (1d4):
1d4+2 - Average: 4.5, Minimum: 3 (Per Level)
1d4+4 - Average: 6.5, Minimum: 5 (Per Level)
1d4+6 - Average: 8.5, Minimum: 7 (Per Level)
CLASS BONUS (1d6):
1d6 - Average: 3.5, Minimum: 1 (Per Level)
1d6+2 - Average: 5.5, Minimum: 3 (Per Level)
1d6+4 - Average: 7.5, Minimum: 5 (Per Level)
TRADITIONAL:
1d6 - Average: 3.5, Minimum: 1 (Per Level)
1d8 - Average: 4.5, Minimum: 1 (Per Level)
1d10 - Average: 5.5, Minimum: 1 (Per Level)
I allow players to roll the dice and if they get below 1/2 they get 1/2. So if a fighter rolls a 1,2,3,4 or 5 they get 5.
As I said, if to roll HPs, this one's the best. Quick and easy.
Since I always played with masters who ruled live with what you get, I ALWAYS hated rolling hit points and more over rolling abilities, since they almost never went as I imagined them to stick to the character.And that's not what ROLE-playing is about for me.
I have an image in my mind that I wanna play, but since I rolled crap I have to play something different? Not with me.
I would want to keep it the same.. but houserule as you please.
For example; I challenge my players rolls. They roll their die and I roll one.. they get the higher of the two. We also always re-roll '1's.
They seem fairly happy with that.. even if we both roll a '2' on a d12.
They had two chances to get higher.. so they feel alright about it.
This sounds like something I might implement in our group! Especially since my players have always contended that I roll better than them ;)
Thanks for the suggestion!
As for the topic at hand, I would like to keep it the same as well. I like the random element of it all and feel it can reflect any number of things as somebody posted earlier (lack of training, frailty, etc).
I would want to keep it the same.. but houserule as you please.
For example; I challenge my players rolls. They roll their die and I roll one.. they get the higher of the two. We also always re-roll '1's.
They seem fairly happy with that.. even if we both roll a '2' on a d12.
They had two chances to get higher.. so they feel alright about it.
Just wanted to say, tried this this weekend and it worked great. We actually did both roll a '2' on a d10, but having that "extra chance" made all the difference! Thanks again for the great idea!
|
Just wanted to say, tried this this weekend and it worked great. We actually did both roll a '2' on a d10, but having that "extra chance" made all the difference! Thanks again for the great idea!I would want to keep it the same.. but houserule as you please.
For example; I challenge my players rolls. They roll their die and I roll one.. they get the higher of the two. We also always re-roll '1's.
They seem fairly happy with that.. even if we both roll a '2' on a d12.
They had two chances to get higher.. so they feel alright about it.
Well, I know DMs who allow their players to roll twice and pick the better. However, I personally like the current system -- it might be possible to include some optional HP rules into the game (e.g. you choose whether you want to roll or take the "average" HP for your class, or you roll but the "average" is the minimum HP you'll gain) but I wouldn't want to see fixed/static HPs. That's one of the things I especially hate in 4E.
Of course, you can always take a level of cleric with Luck domain and just reroll your hit die if need be when you level up. Totally worth it for you hit point monsters out there.
:-)
Of course, you can always take a level of cleric with Luck domain and just reroll your hit die if need be when you level up. Totally worth it for you hit point monsters out there.
:-)
I hope this was a joke, since the Luck Power was never intended to be used for hit dice ("... before the DM declares whether the roll results in success or failure")
I hope this was a joke, since the Luck Power was never intended to be used for hit dice.
I have seen DMs who allowed the Luck reroll on hit dice, but I did intend it light-heartedly (witness the smiley face).
I think the problem is perception.
Sure, a roll of 4 (on d12) for hit points seems pretty crappy campared to the possibility of 12. But now compare it to 6... Now it seem that it's just a little below average. In my mind, a character rolling d12s for hit points should have rolled about 36 at sixth level. Barbarians, who should have a high constitution, should add 12 or 18 to this, bringing the character in question around 50 hit points. Which in my book, isn't that bad. It allows for the character to survive a few hits and keeps the players on their toes (and makes for exciting fights).
It may sound rough to you, but my players really think twice about attacking that family of owl bears living in the woods. And in my game, the reckless frontal attack almost never prevails.
Ultradan
I allow players to roll the dice and if they get below 1/2 they get 1/2. So if a fighter rolls a 1,2,3,4 or 5 they get 5.
Ditto.
I'm just having this strange idea:
Why not rolling your TOTAL hit points all over again either:
a) every level
b) every day
c) every adventure start
While this would be more book keeping, it could be fun.
Just wanted to say, tried this this weekend and it worked great. We actually did both roll a '2' on a d10, but having that "extra chance" made all the difference! Thanks again for the great idea!I would want to keep it the same.. but houserule as you please.
For example; I challenge my players rolls. They roll their die and I roll one.. they get the higher of the two. We also always re-roll '1's.
They seem fairly happy with that.. even if we both roll a '2' on a d12.
They had two chances to get higher.. so they feel alright about it.
Glad it worked out for you. A poster below you had mentioned letting the player roll twice. That would work, but I've found that players have bad days and they'll still feel yucky about it.
Having another person give it a try is great.. and having your DM try is even better.
Either, you get a gift from the DM - I rolled max.. so you get that.
-or-
You beat the DM. You rolled max? I only got a two.. good job.
It gives the player a sense of gratification either way. Even when you tie.. the player feels good about it.
It's so deep.. so much more than just hit points...
:D
I like rolling them at each level. Getting a set # per level makes leveling a little less exciting. A big problem I have with 4e. 5pts per level. Not gonna kill me, but when (on odd levels) I only get to pick a daily power then get 5pts. leveling is well...boring. Even levels get all the cool stuff.
3.5 was great for customizing. A bit of a pain, though, if you had to roll hitpoints for building a 12th level character though. But I kinda prefer rolling over set points. And Constitution mod. definatly needs to figure in. If hitpoints are set, one might as well make Con. their low stat. The only thing to worry about would be fort. saves.
My idea I'm contemplating using for my upcoming beta Pathfinder game on dndonline pbp is 3+Class+or- Con. Mod. at 1st level. So a wizard would have 3+6+or minus Con. mod. at level one. Then just go with 3.5 hitpoints (roll by class) thereafter. Unless the players I have (will have) decide they want set hitpoints.(I'm assuming all pc characters are tough).
There are some interesting ideas in this thread though. I'm sure the Pathfinder team will figure things out. I think I read there was a want for more starting hitpoints. I just thought giving toughness to the pcs for free would fit. It could be more like 5 or 10 +class+Mod. Or less. Don't know whats in the plans, but excited none the less.