Error101's page

Some errors in the following [corrected in bold]:

Error101 wrote:

I previously brought up some ideas for alternate HP rules in this thread...;

MINIMUM HALF:

1d6 - Average: 3.5[4.5], Minimum: 3 (Per Level)
1d8 - Average: 4.5[6], Minimum: 4 (Per Level)
1d10 - Average: 5.5[7.5], Minimum: 5 (Per Level)
1d12 - Average: 6.5[9], Minimum: 6 (Per Level)

I used this system in my fairly high-powered first edition game, works fine. Currently for my pathfinder game it's just straight rolling mostly (a limited reroll mechanic can sometimes be used). One player has rolled 3 under max on d10's at 4th level (with an 18 con). Another two have rolled 1's and low. Provides quite a nice variation of interactions (the former is most certainly The Tank).

I probably should have been clearer but when i said average i meant average roll not average value. With the minimum half system people will still be rolling 3.5 on average with a d6. This one probably did need two different average values though as its average is worked out slightly different.

A more even progression, setting the system to "3/4 average," would be...

d6 = d4+2
d8 = d5+3
d10 = d6+4
d12 = d7+5

This is the same as saying "you reroll everything below the halfway mark."

Quoting from my own house rule list:

-Hit dice are rolled for each level. However, characters may reroll hit dice that are lower than half the maximum for their die. E.g. Wizards reroll 1s, rogues rerolls 1s and 2s, rangers reroll 1s, 2s, and 3s, fighters reroll 1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s, and barbarians reroll 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, and 5s. This way, no one gets screwed on hp, but no one gets favored more by the odds.

I actually went out of my way to not incorperate non-existant dice into any system i came up with as i feel they just complicate matters.

And just for comparison, this is the original idea i had for the class bonus system before i changed it to a d6;

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)
1d4+8 - Average: 10.5, Minimum: 9 (Per Level)

I previously brought up some ideas for alternate HP rules in this thread, but just to recap, they were;

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 1d6 hit points per level (ie 1d6+0, 1d6+2, 1d6+4, 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)
1d12 - Average: 6.5, Minimum: 6 (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)
1d10+2 - Average: 7.5, Minimum: 3 (Per Level)

CLASS BONUS:

1d6+0 - 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)
1d6+6 - Average: 9.5, 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)
1d12 - Average: 6.5, Minimum: 1 (Per Level)

The idea here is to keep some of the randomness of rolling HD so that every character isn't identicle, but to reduce the swinginess of rolling HD so you don't end up with two 5th level fighters (CON 14), one with 20hp and the other with 50hp.

Of these the Minimum Half system is my favorite as it feels the most elegant and keeps the averages the same as they were.

I am not asking for any of these to become the norm, only that something like this (as well as a set HP per level system) are offered up as optional rules in Pathfinder the same way as the alternate Stat Gen rules were.

Stay.

We now have much friendlier raise mechanics in Pathfinder.

Which still can't raise people killed by death effects.

I couldn't find another thread dedicated to save or die effects so i thought i would start one up to get an idea on the general feel about them.

So simply put, save or die effects, should they stay or should they go?

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.

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)

Error101 wrote:

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.

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 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.

Once Alpha 2 came out this is my last issue. These cover rules seem cumbersome and should immediately slow down play with lines and counting and so on. I thought we were trying to move away from things that suddenly derailed a session's excitement.

I agree.

If you are intent on changing them though maybe something like;

Draw a line from the centre of your square to the centre of your targets square, the target gets a +2 cover bonus if the line passes through an obstacle and a +1 cover bonus for each additional obstacle the line passes through, Max. +6.

Still more complicated than the current system, but a lot less than the new one, and it can be easily determined even if you are not using a battle grid.

On the other hand, I LIKE the idea two fighters could have widely differing hit points. It sets the characters apart. Joe may be a damn good fighter, but he'll never be as tough as Bob.

The problem is when Joe and Bob are both player characters in the same party.

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.

Just to add a little more information about the various systems, the average Hit points per level for each would be;

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)

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)

Of these three 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 still think that the Minimum Half system is my favorite as it feels the most elegant and keeps the stats the same as they were.

I would love to hear some more thoughts on this.

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. A couple of possible fixes we have come up with are;

1. Each class gets a set number of hit points per level

2. Whenever hit points are rolled the minimum value you can get is half the total value (ie 3 on a d6 and 6 on a d12)

3. Reducing the dice rolled and giving them a set bonus per level (ie 1d4+2, 1d6+2, 1d8+2, etc.)

4. Giving each class a class bonus plus 1d4 hit points per level (ie 1d4+2, 1d4+4, 1d4+6, 1d4+8)

Of these my favorite is probably the second one as it's the simplest and doesn't alter the probability of the dice rolls but means a player won't get screwed over by bad rolling.