Memento Mortis |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We roll a d4 and add the difference based on class. Then add Con scores.
For example:
Barbarian (d12) = 1d4 + 8 + Con
Cleric (d8) = 1d4 + 4 + Con
Fighter (d10) = 1d4 + 6 + Con
Wizard (d6) = 1d4 + 2 + Con
We figure this way a fighter, who constantly exerts himself physically will never gain fewer hp for a level than his bookish wizard counterpart.
This ends up giving most characters hp on the higher side of average (and much more likely to roll max). I think this is pretty okay given that we like heroic games with terrifying BBEGs.
Getting hit with Disintegrate and dying round one = lame
Getting hit with Disintegrate and surviving to beat the BBEG in the end = epic.
Sinatar |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my games we do average rounded UP:
d4=3
d6=4
d8=5
d10=6
d12=7
So a 3rd level Barbarian with 18 CON would have:
12 (1st level) + 14 (2nd & 3rd level) + 12 (CON modifier) = 38 HP.
I hate randomly rolling for HP... it diminishes class HD and the value of CON. Having fixed increases based on class HD is the way to go, in my experience.
Ravingdork |
When I'm playing during a game (such as leveling up) I roll the hit points. When I make a pre-made character, such as those you often see me posting on the forums, I give them 3/4 of the maximum variable, round up.
For instance, a 10th-level fighter with 18 Constitution would have...
10 Max HP @ 1st level
68 3/4 HP for the next nine levels (round up)
40 for Constitution modifier
10 Favored class bonus (optional)
10 Toughness (optional)
...118 to 138 HP.
NPCs always get the average if I have anything to say about it.
Stazamos |
We've experimented with different ones. We've
1) Rolled randomly (Edit: it was choose average, rounded down, or roll if you felt lucky, taking whatever you got)
2) Used a completely different formula altogether that I can't remember, but is a linear progression that boosts lower levels and diminishes higher levels (we didn't get to high levels that time, though; short adventure)
3) Die average, rounded up
4) Die average, rounded down, but with Toughness as a bonus feat.
In the future, I'm going to recommend we go with the method used for NPCs, which is die average, keeping the fractional part.
In all of the above cases (edit: except #2), max HP at first level.
Overall, it would appear that we prefer formulas.
Laithoron |
I use the same number fixed HP per HD that is used in Pathfinder Society. I've found that this simply allows me to plan encounters more easily without having to worry over yet another level of disparity between characters. It's the same reason why I use point-buy for ability scores now instead of rolled stats.
Plenty of room for potential inequality/imbalance where builds and not-so-impartial d20s are concerned. For the sake of fairness I see little reason to compound the issue further.
Rycaut |
so it sounds like most DM's just use Average HP for monsters & NPCs?
Seems to me that adding variability to monsters & NPC HP might be a way for adjust for different groups (especially in modules/AP's) - could even be an option in the future for PFS to consider.
i.e. instead of adding / removing / varying the monsters in a given encounter to adjust for 4 or 6 player parties (as is currently being done in 4th season PFS scenarios) what if you were to adjust between monsters with average HP (i.e. straight Bestiary monsters or standard custom NPCs') and versions with either MAX HP or HP adjusted up.
As a DM I would probably experiment with this if my players weren't being challenged - adding a bit of HP to monsters w/o adding levels or templates is a quick process (one calculation) and basically just means a few more rounds of combat in most cases - in most cases a big crit or full-attack from an optimized character would still have the same effect (though perhaps leaving the NPC dying instead of a blood splatter already at negative CON)
hogarth |
More often than not, we use some kind of rolling system, but often a more forgiving system (e.g. "if less than 1/2 max, take 1/2 max" or "roll 1d4+4 instead of 1d8").
When I GM, I let people take "max HP - 2" each level. Or they can roll if they really really want to, but then no whining is allowed.
Haladir |
In my campaign, we use max hp at level 1, then for each level, PCs receive a fixed number of hp (plus Con mod) base don their hit die:
d6 = 4 + Con mod
d8 = 5 + Con mod
d10 = 6 + Con mod
d12 = 7 + Con mod
PCs therefore always have better-than-average hp.
I calculate NPC and monster hp normally (average hp/die). This gives the PCs more of an edge.
Tinkergoth |
In my games, both the players and I roll the appropriate die, however my roll is hidden from them. They then choose if they will take their result, or take a risk on taking mine.
In general I find that they will keep their result on an average roll, but anything lower and they'll take the risk. A couple of them have been happily surprised when they decide to take mine after only getting an additional 2 hp from a d10 or d12, and have found that they're getting maximum.
Ashiel |
In PFS play everyone uses max HP at first level and average HP for each level you advance.
I'm curious how people handle HP in home games mostly for PCs but also for monsters and animal companions.
We take average, with the option to roll it. Most of us just take the average though. It's a safer bet and doesn't risk you rolling badly a few levels in a row (which hurt you worse than a few good rolls helps).
I like consistency as well, so more exotic Hp generation methods based on HD aren't that useful to me (I'd just use them on my NPCs and it would just result in inflated HP all around).
Ciaran Barnes |
My DM gives max hit points at all levels. But he gives NPCs and monsters max HP as well.
When I DM, I normally just declare no rolling, everyone take their average (fractional, rounded down but recalculated each level) HP.
I'm curious how that plays out, aside from lengthening combat. Do you find it difficult to get healed up to full hit points? Do you take more risks? Does combat get boring after a certain point?
claymade |
We roll the appropriate level die, and if it's in the high end of the die range, we take the die average rounded up. If it's in the low end of the die range, we take the die average rounded down. So a D8 class would get either 4 or 5 HP depending on whether they rolled 1-4 or 5-8.
It always has to be the correct die, of course. So what if it's just a 50-50 chance regardless? If you're a D8 class, you're supposed to be rolling D8s at level up, y'know? :-)
Wildonion |
We have a system where you count as having rolled half your HD, with an additional +1 at odd numbered levels. It works pretty good and you get a nice little bump by the time you hit level 20. Otherwise, we just go ahead and count as having rolled the maximum for your HD; which is great in some of the higher powered campaigns.
StreamOfTheSky |
Last game I ran, I had max hp at 1st level (as usual) and 3/4 HD at all other levels. This meant that for the d6 and d10, odd and even levels gave different hp values.
I also allowed the option to roll, but I intentionally tried to make it a horrible idea by forcing someone to keep what they rolled (except reroll 1's) both to give the illusion of choice and because I enjoy punishing stupidity.
*devil face*
But I have a smart group, they all went for the fixed hp.
...................
I wouldn't be opposed to max hp either, I was just worried so much hp could have unforseen consequences on stuff like the value of direct damage spells. Definitely has to be fixed and more than half, though. Otherwise, you trivialize the benefit of a high HD. I've seen a ~18 Con d4 (D&D 3E) HD Sorceror with better hp than the d12 HD Con 12 Barbarian before, thanks to random good/bad luck on HD rolls, I do not wish to ever see it again.
Rolling is a total turn off... I've avoiding joining games because of it, and when I do join, I restrict my character choices to classes with low HD anyway and/or ranged characters. No way in hell am I playing a melee warrior in a game with random HD rolls.
Adamantine Dragon |
I introduced the choice between taking a true average or rolling for HP years ago, and all of our group's GMs have adopted the same practice (although one still uses the "round down" average instead of a true average).
What is a true average? You round down on odd levels and round up on even levels. So if you have a d8 and take the true average through level five you'll get the following HP values:
Lvl 1 - 8
Lvl 2 - 5
Lvl 3 - 4
Lvl 4 - 5
Lvl 5 - 4
etc...
This gives (other than level 1) an average of 4.5 HP per level, which is the true average.
If a player chooses to roll for HP, they get whatver they roll.