In a recent D&D discussion with some friends, one friend asked "What do random HP's add to the game?"
Most players have now adapted the "point buy system" for allocating ability scores. This takes away from the randomness of the dice rolls, and helps to create an equal playing field for all the players.
Does rolling low HP on my fighter make me feel more "challenged" to play him more cautiously?
Does rolling high HP on my wizard mean I will no play him more fool-hardy?
Sure there is the old "take the average instead of rolling" option... but then why do I have a d10 for a hit die as a fighter, when I'm only going to be taking 5 or 6 hitpoints every level?
Could the Pathfinder RPG please consider scrapping the random hit point roll every level. (I won't propose an alternative at this time, I'm just suggesting to remove the random roll at this time).
The random hit point roll adds nothing to the game, other than possible frustration to those rolling which may ultimately lead to an unplayable character if the player consistantly rolls low.
Some people like randomness when they're creating their characters; it's like a mini-game you play before you've even started. Not me. I hate gambling, so I gave up on random HPs long ago. I give [max/2 + 1] at each level. There'll be plenty of randomness AFTER you've built your character, trust me...
Similarly, I think experience points don't add much either, so I got rid of them too.
I think random hit points do add something to the game. It's simple variance, and one of the reasons I prefer to use a modified rolling method to generate characters. A modified system of rolling HP may be called for to avoid the dreaded one, but even then it could be as simple as Low=2+1d4, Medium=2+1d6, and high=4+1d6. The barbarian could remain the exception with 5 or 6+1d6. This leaves variance with the numbers, but prevents a constant low roll from penalizing the player too much. Rolling a one would still mean something, but not as much.
My argument for variance and rolling in character building: I've never met two people exactly alike. I've met plenty of people who I wonder how they survive each day, others I wonder why they aren't fighting crime. With as much variance as there is in people, I think it adds something to the roleplaying side of the game that there's no cap, and no real floor. You may end up rolling a character who represents the very peak of existence. You have about as good a chance of getting someone who struggles at the very thing you're supposed to be good at. I like rolling hit points because, for me, it helps reinforce that it's not just physical toughness that influences your HP. The fighter with a +4 constitution could consistently roll under average on his d10 and end up being tough, but not quite as dedicated, or more cautious than others. A sorcerer could consistently roll max on his d6 despite a -1 penalty on his Con. While he's not physically as resilient, he has more skill or luck at turning hard blows into light ones, or he's not as willing to retreat.
|
I also removed random hit points from my game, but I have no problem with them still being in the core rules. At the moment I'm thinking of removing the maximized first level hit die to remove multiclass optimizing (I was very pleased by the removal of the x4 skill points). I would appreciate it, though, if the option of fixed hp would be presented as pronounced as the point buy method.
Personally I like random hp, one of the things that turns me off of 4e is the static hp gains. and if I roll a dreaded 1 then I live with it.
You would be the exception, in my experience. I always heard a lot of whining or moping (or even worse, "That doesn't count because it fell off the table").
There's never been a problem with random hp in our group, although I must admit that I allow the players to roll really low numbers (1,2,3 depending on the hit die). I like this remaining the way it always has.
As has already been pointed out, random hit points reflect the variability in people, making the game a bit more realistic feeling. It also prevents some strategy from the players based on some simple math. If your players know every 1st level fighter MOST LIKELY has 12 or 13 hit points, they can base strategy on that.
I already don't like the 3.5 technique of assigning monsters 'average' hit points, it just doesn't make sense. There's absolutely no reason why every gnoll is the same as every other gnoll.
While we are on the topic, I think that max hit points + CON modifier is the MOST players should ever have at 1st level. If we give them double, or max + con stat, are we going to give all 1st level monsters double hit points?
|
We do semi-random. Hit points absolutely should be a limited resource, but having above average hit points in my opinion really reflects on the nature of adventurers as above average people. As such, we make all our HP totals half fixed and half random (i.e. a fighter is d5+5, cleric is d4+4, rogue is d3+3, etc.). Firstly is keeps a random element to hit point totals but also helps players reflect their above average nature, secondly it gives us an awesome use for that d5 I have lying around (now if only somebody would come up with a class using a d14 for hit dice so I can us my d7).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I love/hate random hit points! I think it's evident how wonky the rule is given the number of house rules in existence to change them. I suspect that the number of tables that run a straight roll-once-keep-it type HD roll is a substantial minority.
But, I love them too. Why? Because it's fun rolling dice. And it's particularly fun rolling the maximum for such an important roll. Once each level, you have a single die roll that will determine a significant portion of your character's power, and it makes for a very dramatic roll...
Unless you get a 2. Then it sucks.
So, I think that's why HD rolls are so well loved and yet so house ruled. It's extremely awesome when you score max HD and it's a big pile of suck when you get a low roll.
That being said, I can't say that fixed hit points is my ideal situation. I can appreciate the simplicity of it, but rolling HD is such a part of D&D, it's hard to surrender.
Random hit points are fun. Taking the average is just so...average.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
... the players roll and I roll secretly. After seeing their own roll, they can choose their's or mine.
I like that a lot. It reduces, but does not eliminate, the chance of rolling poorly, and eventually penalizes the people who aren't satisfied with average rolls. ("You didn't like your roll of '4'? Then take my roll of '2'.)
|
|
I have always used random HP in my home games.
I use max hp at first level and them roll dice moving forward.
I also us random hp for bad guys too, and factor that into designs.
As I tailor my designs for the players at table, their relative hit points are part of that design. Variance in HP add contour and distinctive identity to the characters. Every third level fighter does not have the same HP total. Likewise, each third level fighter has to make different choices in terms of acquired resources and tactical choices as a result too.
It adds diversity.
From a design perspective, Paizo would be well suited to present multiple HP generation options as valid in a game, and allow DMs to tailor as needed. What I do is cool. What you do is cool. The decision should be up to the DM and his or her players.
In overarching design philosophy flexibility and customization trumps the specific every time.
The group I game with, use to spent a lot of time playing the various "Living" campaigns so we have just adapted 1/2 max hit dice + 1 as our standard across all 4 of our home campaigns.
Doug
I think already this thread reinforces the need for an "optional" hitpoint system with a fixed element.
Anyone who "supports" a random system, has rules to help prevent being totally disadvantaged by the random system. However, as soon as you do that, the system is no longer a "random system". All those alternative rules usually introduce a fixed element anyways.
I'd like to suggest that Paizo consider an official Patherfinder RPG rule to address this. Everyone uses a different house rule right now because the random system doesn't work!
There's already enough randomness in the game (i.e. rolling d20's). I don't understand how randomness in creating/leveling your character adds to the game -- hence the point buy ability system most players now use.
(Of course there are those few that say I still roll my abilities random too -- but lets face it, if your rolls are all between 6 to 10, your DM is letting you re-roll that character -- and probably at your request. As soon as that happens, the system is no longer random!)
If you want randomness in your character why not randomly roll your class every level to see what class you will advance in? How about rolling a random alignment at character creation? (I realize these are "extreme" examples, but I don't see how these options would add more "fun" to the game any more than a random hit point roll).
A barbarian should always have more HP's than a fighter... that's one reason why you choose a particular class. The barbarian is likely going to be less armored than a fighter, so the trade off is more hit points. If that benefit is taken away due to a "random element", then I just don't see the balance!
Perhaps there could be 2 official rules for hp's.
#1 - Fixed HP's
#2 - Random system with a fixed element
|
|
I love/hate random hit points! I think it's evident how wonky the rule is given the number of house rules in existence to change them. I suspect that the number of tables that run a straight roll-once-keep-it type HD roll is a substantial minority.
But, I love them too. Why? Because it's fun rolling dice. And it's particularly fun rolling the maximum for such an important roll. Once each level, you have a single die roll that will determine a significant portion of your character's power, and it makes for a very dramatic roll...
Unless you get a 2. Then it sucks.
So, I think that's why HD rolls are so well loved and yet so house ruled. It's extremely awesome when you score max HD and it's a big pile of suck when you get a low roll.
That being said, I can't say that fixed hit points is my ideal situation. I can appreciate the simplicity of it, but rolling HD is such a part of D&D, it's hard to surrender.
WORD!
I do maximum hit points per level. Otherwise what's the point of being a barbarian with a d12 HD compared to a sorcerer with d4 HD? If the barbarian rolls a 1 and the sorcerer rolls a 4, the sorcrer suddenly has 4 x as many hp as the supposedly super-tough barbarian, which makes absolutely no sense.
Contributor
|
How about 1d4 + (maximum-4)?
Just an idea off the top of my head.
So wizards get d4
Rogues Get d4+2
Clerics get d4+4
Fighters get d4+6
Barbarians get d4+8
My brother uses a different system. Roll once. If it's above average, that's your roll. If it's less than average, roll a second time and take the better of the two.
Although in general I'm more and more in favour of fixed HP as time goes by.
|
Fixed hp is one major problem I have with the 4e mentality. Rolling dice is fun. Success is sweeter when there is the possibility of dismal failure. That 10 is sweeter when 1 is a reality
I've mentioned it before, but in my games, I allow one reroll for hp when characters level. The catch is that the second roll must be taken, even if it is lower than the first roll. A 1 or a 2 on a d10 is a no brainer for a reroll, but what about that 6? It makes them debate concerning how lucky they feel. Also its fun to see their faces when they reroll a 2 and get a 1. I always try to look sympathetic.
|
|
I do maximum hit points per level. Otherwise what's the point of being a barbarian with a d12 HD compared to a sorcerer with d4 HD? If the barbarian rolls a 1 and the sorcerer rolls a 4, the sorcrer suddenly has 4 x as many hp as the supposedly super-tough barbarian, which makes absolutely no sense.
You haven't met my dwarven wizard yet, a 20 con put me well above and beyond the cleric and nearly to the fighter in a group I once participated in. But then again, that's the problem with pure randomness.
*shrug* We all have our preferred house rule on this one and frankly I don't EVER see that one going away, no matter how the rules are put together.
The most convoluted I've ever done though is the max-reroll (as I call it) system. Roll your die (d10 for example), your max is ten. You can keep your roll or reroll with a maximum reduced by 1. You roll a 3 and choose to reroll, now your max is 9 and you roll again. You roll a 4 and choose to reroll, your max is now 8 and you roll again. You roll a 6 and decide to keep it because you don't want to risk two horrible rolls. It left in some player decision making, but I've also seen a character roll so badly and he refused to keep a 5 when he was rolling for max 7 that his final score was a 3 anyway on a d10.
I do maximum hit points per level. Otherwise what's the point of being a barbarian with a d12 HD compared to a sorcerer with d4 HD? If the barbarian rolls a 1 and the sorcerer rolls a 4, the sorcrer suddenly has 4 x as many hp as the supposedly super-tough barbarian, which makes absolutely no sense.
The point being, for that one brief level in time, the sorceror is better than the barbarian! Or close, anyway, since you're ignoring the fact that the barbarian most likely has a better CON score, and when he rages, gets extra HP anyway. Sure, that could happen again, and again, and again, but the odds are very much against it, and if it does, its just created a great character dynamic! I know many wizards who were very proud of rolling hit points and ending up 'above' average, just as I know many fighters and barbarians who rejoice when they roll a 10 or 12 - and get more hit points than the wizard in 3 levels. The same goes for wizards with below average hit points who are proud of surviving despite it. A lot of fun and characterization gets lost if you don't roll.
Besides which, max per level means a complete sameness within each class that is kind of strange. Basically, what you're saying is that 50% of all wizards have 5 hp, 20% have 6, 20% have 4, 10% have 7, and there's 10% with 3 or 8. In other words, that way 80% of wizards have 5 or more hit points at 1st level, ditto 2nd level, 3rd level... that much sameness seems strange, why have hit points?
|
|
In my campaigns, when creating characters or going up levels, I've always let my players choose between:
a) Roll Abilities or use point-buy method.
b) Roll hps or just add high average (i.e. 3 points for d4s, 5 for d8s and so on).
To this day, they've always chosen the random method. So, if I take it away from them, I know it'll be missed.
Rolling dice is fun. Success is sweeter when there is the possibility of dismal failure. That 10 is sweeter when 1 is a reality
When rolling a d20 to determine a hit... yes its fun. Its situational.
When rolling a HD, and rolling a 1, it is not fun. You are stuck with it for the rest of your character's life, which suddenly got a lot shorter.
Rolling dice to determine successes = fun.
Rolling dice to determine aspects of your character that could limit your character's true potential = not fun!
Wicht, if for 5 levels of a barbarian you roll 1's 2's and 3's. Are you going to have the same fun playing that character? I doubt it, and certainly not as much fun as you would have if he could actually absorb a couple hits with higher hit points.
|
|
I like rolling HP. As DM I roll and the PC rolls taking the better roll for HP. For monsters I create a range for HP (2 numbers before and 2 numbers after the average number, then I roll a d5 to see what range they hit and multiply the range by the HD. So for undead the range is 5,6,6.5,7,8. Roll the d5 and get a 4 for the 4th number in the range (7) then my 10d12 zombie has 7x12 hp or 84. A bit of quick math but I don't mind and I can always 'nerf' the roll to make the creatures stronger or weaker.
I do maximum hit points per level. Otherwise what's the point of being a barbarian with a d12 HD compared to a sorcerer with d4 HD? If the barbarian rolls a 1 and the sorcerer rolls a 4, the sorcrer suddenly has 4 x as many hp as the supposedly super-tough barbarian, which makes absolutely no sense.
One more thought here - the character hit points are taken into account in a lot of other ways in the game, in such things a weapon damage and spell damage. If you choose to always do max hit points every level, did you also increase weapon damage and spell damage? Do cure spells do more because the characters now have more hit points to cure per level?
|
|
Wicht, if for 5 levels of a barbarian you roll 1's 2's and 3's. Are you going to have the same fun playing that character? I doubt it, and certainly not as much fun as you would have if he could actually absorb a couple hits with higher hit points.
A character with low hp simply has to make different choices than a character with a lot when it comes to combat. I don't see the problem. It may play against type and even against what we might want our PCs to ideally be like, but such is life. *shrug*
Besides, *evil grin*, as I DM mostly, its not my problem. ;)
|
When rolling a d20 to determine a hit... yes its fun. Its situational.
When rolling a HD, and rolling a 1, it is not fun. You are stuck with it for the rest of your character's life, which suddenly got a lot shorter.
Rolling dice to determine successes = fun.
Rolling dice to determine aspects of your character that could limit your character's true potential = not fun!
That sums up my view better than I have been able to express it.
A character with low hp simply has to make different choices than a character with a lot when it comes to combat.
To me, a d12 or d10, etc is a class feature. A character does not gain 1d4 skill points per level. They don't gain 1d3 feats per level. They don't gain random saves per level. A character who chooses a barbarian or fighter, is choosing to be a "tank" character. Adding in a random roll takes away an important Class Feature.
The choice a low hp "tank" constantly makes is... "well, one hit nearly killed me again... I have to run away again exposing the rogue and wizard to danger on the front line again... oh well, they have more hp than me anyways, they can take the hits".
Where's the fun in the game of having the "choice" of your "tank" running from battle all the time because of a poor ruleset for a randomized class feature? :)
In my games, I let the players roll (because, when I play, I enjoy the rolling of HP, and the thrill of rolling well). IF they roll below average, they get average. It keeps people from getting 1 hp, but still makes them excited when they get a particularly good roll.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think already this thread reinforces the need for an "optional" hitpoint system with a fixed element.
Anyone who "supports" a random system, has rules to help prevent being totally disadvantaged by the random system.
Not true, Terry. Some GM's ask their players to roll hit points.
I'd like to suggest that Paizo consider an official Patherfinder RPG rule to address this. Everyone uses a different house rule right now because the random system doesn't work!
Shrug. It doesn't work for you. It worked fine for Arneson and Gygax. It worked for Zeb Cook. And so on. It's worked for generations of players. It works for me. But it doesn't work for your style of gaming, and that's all right.
I don't understand how randomness in creating/leveling your character adds to the game -- hence the point buy ability system most players now use.
Your mileage may vary, Terry, but I've seen point-buys for stats, and fixed hit points, become popular primarily through RPGA organized play tables, where strangers come to your table with characters you've never seen before, and you have no way to tell how honestly or fairly they were built. So randomness doesn't work in that environment, the way it does work at your home campaign with your friends.
I'm not saying that you're wrong for wanting fixed hit points. (After all, we have fixed skill points; I've never heard anybody think it would be better to have fighters get 1d4 + Int skill points per level.) I do take issue, though, with your attitude that your way to play is the only style that works.
If you want randomness in your character why not randomly roll your class every level to see what class you will advance in? How about rolling a random alignment at character creation? (I realize these are "extreme" examples, but I don't see how these options would add more "fun" to the game any more than a random hit point roll).
(blink) Because different races, or classes, or alignments, or allocations of skill points, are all supposed to be legitimate, fair choices for a fun character; nobody chooses to play "2 hit points" 'cause it's fun. They're supposed to curse their luck.
(The way I run D&D, it's not a game about your character always getting everything she wants. Characters aren't perfect people doing perfect things in just the right way and always succeeding against level-appropriate encounters. Sometimes, a PC might end up worse than average in certain respects.) But you don't have to run D&D the same way I do.
(I suppose it would be possible to run a campaign where the PC's were agents of some large shadow organization that game "the team" orders like "Lidda, your weapons training is falling below par. For the next level, you'll spend time training with the rangers." With the right GM, that might be fun.)
A barbarian should always have more HP's than a fighter... that's one reason why you choose a particular class. The barbarian is likely going to be less armored than a fighter, so the trade off is more hit points. If that benefit is taken away due to a "random element", then I just don't see the balance!
Well, a Barbarian is going to be a better attacker than, say, a Bard, but that won't be guaranteed, every round, due to a "random element" (quotes yours). The Barbarian might roll badly and the Bard get lucky. But the Barbarian will hit more often, in the long run, and that's considered a compensation to that class.
Likewise, the d12-hp Barbarian will have more hit points than the d10-hp Fighter, in the long run, even though that's not guaranteed every level.
|
|
I would be very interested in hearing about characters that were actually ruined by one bad hp roll. Never seen it happen. I've seen ones rolled and it evened out when a 12 was rolled on the next level. Statistically, it will level out but the chance to roll an outlier should not be removed from the game, IMO.
If it bothers you, give your players a choice. Let them either pick an average or have an opportunity to roll. I know my players would all choose to roll and our rule about allowing 1 reroll means that on average, our hp tend towards the high end of the spectrum, not the low.
|
|
(After all, we have fixed skill points; I've never heard anybody think it would be better to have fighters get 1d4 + Int skill points per level.)
Actually rolling for skill points might be fun.
(The way I run D&D, it's not a game about your character always getting everything she wants. Characters aren't perfect people doing perfect things in just the right way and always succeeding against level-appropriate encounters. Sometimes, a PC might end up worse than average in certain respects.)
*nod in agreement*
(I suppose it would be possible to run a campaign where the PC's were agents of some large shadow organization that game "the team" orders like "Lidda, your weapons training is falling below par. For the next level, you'll spend time training with the rangers." With the right GM, that might be fun.)
Okay, this is going in my list of campaign ideas.
Roll for random ability scores. Then after that, roll for a random classes. And maybe even random skills.
It could be a paranoia style campaign where a powerful communistic government decides you are going to be an adventurer and mandates your training.
I generally prefer randomly rolled stats and hit points. They provide another way to help define a character in unplanned ways. The wizard rolls really well on his hit points? Gives me ideas for playing him a little tougher. The fighter got a spot of bad rolls, time to revise some of his tactics or reprioritize his plans to purchase better gear.
If I were to put on the old geezer hat:
"Back in MY day, we used to put up with the variations of random character developments and we LIKED it!"
Plus, as the characters level up, good or bad rolls tend to even out and the hit points regress toward the mean anyway.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
(I suppose it would be possible to run a campaign where the PC's were agents of some large shadow organization that game "the team" orders like "Lidda, your weapons training is falling below par. For the next level, you'll spend time training with the rangers.")
Okay, this is going in my list of campaign ideas.
Roll for random ability scores. Then after that, roll for a random classes. And maybe even random skills.
It could be a paranoia style campaign where a powerful communistic government decides you are going to be an adventurer and mandates your training.
Or, maybe, it's a Lawful-aligned prestige class that relieves the individual members of personal choice. When you become a Marine, do you think the Corps lets you put your skill points anywhere you want?
In my games, I let the players roll (because, when I play, I enjoy the rolling of HP, and the thrill of rolling well). IF they roll below average, they get average. It keeps people from getting 1 hp, but still makes them excited when they get a particularly good roll.
I'll amend my original statement -- loading the dice in my favour takes a lot of the sting out of rolling for hit points. :-) Whether that's with a fixed minimum value or rerolling or with other house rule -- anything's an improvement on the default method!
My fixed HP system seems downright stingy by comparison to some of the "random" methods talked about here!
|
|
Many years ago I played in a set of linked campaigns (several DMs, one world, each of them had a piece of it) where HP were rerolled every level with the proviso that character HP could never go down. So the fighter who rolls a 1 at first level only has to hang on until the level break, then they'll get to roll 2d10. Good rolls tended to stay with a character for a while, but bad rolls didn't as much.
I'm just utterly gob smacked how many people think that randomly rolling HP is a good idea that adds something to the game.
It may be a sacred cow, but when you use point buy for abilities, you shouldn't have to be rolling for HP.
How does it make sense, how is /that/ realistic that every time you learn something new you become randomly tougher, or possibly not?
Need I remind one D&D characters are HEROES not ordinary people who might roll all 8's and 2 on their first Level HP (For 2nd Edition)
I think 4E goes too far with a lot of things, but non-random hit points is one of the few things I /like/.
A game can either be a number-crunching power-gaming mathematical balance-fest, or an utterly random unforgiving wacky fest of explosions and dead PC's. Mixing and matching elements tends not to work so well.
|
|
I'm just utterly gob smacked how many people think that randomly rolling HP is a good idea that adds something to the game.
It may be a sacred cow, but when you use point buy for abilities, you shouldn't have to be rolling for HP.
How does it make sense, how is /that/ realistic that every time you learn something new you become randomly tougher, or possibly not?
Need I remind one D&D characters are HEROES not ordinary people who might roll all 8's and 2 on their first Level HP (For 2nd Edition)
I think 4E goes too far with a lot of things, but non-random hit points is one of the few things I /like/.
A game can either be a number-crunching power-gaming mathematical balance-fest, or an utterly random unforgiving wacky fest of explosions and dead PC's. Mixing and matching elements tends not to work so well.
Given that some of us don't use point-buy, your point is irrelevant. And the fact that you are gob-smacked that other people can enjoy playing a different style to you is gob-smacking to me.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I've enhanced the meta-game hp roll by adding an additional gambilng element to it. Every time a player in one of my games rolls for hp, I give them to option of letting me re-roll for them, but they have to take the result of my roll, even it it's lower.
Obviously, they always take me up on it if they roll a 1, but it's always interesting when they get exactly half of the potential, i.e. a 3 on a d6. I've found that most people I play with are gamblers, and almost always have me re-roll then, even though they sometimes get lower. I've never had anyone take me up on the offer though when they were above 50% potential.
I agree with the OP. In fact, I'm not crazy about the idea of randomly generated attributes as a standard rule, but what can you do about legacy?
Personally, I agree that there should be random and fixed hp options in the rules. Also, the random option should have some protection against low rolls, just as the core 3.5 rules have the "hopeless character" clause to protect against bad ability score rolls.
We could have options like these:
1. Random. Roll 1/2 of current hit die and add half maximum score, so you end up with
d4 = d2 + 2
d6 = d3 + 3
d8 = d4 + 4
d10 = d5 + 5
d12 = d6 + 6
2. Fixed. Give characters 1/2 max + 1 every level after 1st (the RPGA method).
Responses to various points raised in the thread:
I really don't see being forced to change your tactics because of low hp rolls as a good thing. If you're building your character to be a tank and you have a run of low hp rolls, you can't play the character concept you've been building. How does this add to the game? Furthermore, you're not just hindering one character. If the party tank has low hp, everybody has to change their tactics to cover for that deficiency.
And a run of low rolls is a real possibility. It's true that die rolls will average out in the long run. The problem is that, when you're talking about probability, the long run is *thousands* of repetitions, not 19. Over such a relatively brief number of rolls, it's quite possible to have runs of subpar results that put a character's career hp total below average.
I've used 2 methods in the past:
1) Roll 2 die, drop one (kind of like rolling 4d6 and drop the lowest).
2) Fix the minimum then add a single die. d12 becomes 6+1d6, d10=4+1d6, d8=4+1d4, & d6=2+1d4 (I ditched d4's for hp long ago but a straight d4 seems appropriate). Mearls used a similar approach in Iron Heroes (no books at work to reference, though).
The latter version was ultimately more rewarding (PC's ARE above average, afterall. Otherwise, they'd be commoners).
|
|
We use the roll, but I am a 'nice DM'. If you roll less than the half number, I give you that, and I have since 1st Ed. Min D4=2,D10=5, etc...
As well, to the Original Poster above who stated that 'Most Players now uses point buys', I wonder where you are playing D&D... I DM 3 campaigns, play in 3 others off/on (Folks' time commitments and all...), and only one player likes point buys, out of a pool of 25 or so. True, it works great for Cons, online PbP gaming, and where you might have people whine about things not being fair (Joe rolled better than I did, this character sucks!). but I play with adults, and we take the dice as they roll.
This was not meant as a snippy comment towards the OP, but I am expressing a bit of amazement that there is some area where 'almost everyone' uses a point buy.I used to run quite a lot of ENWorld games (Same name there), and used the PB for obvious reasons, since it's hard to witness someone's rolls when a continent seperates you.
Granted, I do give you best 3 of 4D6, roll '1's over, then allow one re-roll of any one stat. Nobody complains about this, and it has been adopted by the aforementioned pool of players, minus the one guy who likes the points buy. He usually takes a 32 point buy instead. Some people just don't want a '6' in a stat, but quite a lot like the option of rolling 3 '18's. I find that with a point buy, you almost always get a bunch of CHA 8 scores (Unless someone has CHA as their important stat), or a 10 maybe...Maybe.Just look at the Pathfinder Adventure Characters...they all have that going on. Everyone has an 18 where they like (16+ Racial is easy), sameness, homogeny...No thanks.
OK,, a bit OT, sorry for the mini-rant.
-Uriel
Probably for the same reason we still bother to roll weapon die.
While it matters a great deal at low level, the higher you get it's the mods that matter more than what you roll on the die.
(consider 1d4+1 at 1st level, compared to a wizard having 18 con at 20th- you end up (if using average HD rolls) with 2/3 your HP total being from your adjusted con score rather than the die rolls).
It amazes me how often I hear players say that they love random ability scores and hp because they make the game more exciting and realistic, and yet I've heard all of one or two gamers suggest rolling for other permanent character stats like skill points, feats, spells, even levels. It just doesn't seem very consistent to me.
TS
I enjoy rolling for both hit points and stats. To a certain extent, it's a love of the gamble. Yes, I might get a low roll, but the fun of getting that full 10 on the fighter level is such a lure....now, having said that, my husband (my primary DM) allows us to take the average instead if we roll low. I also played under another DM who allowed us to have two other players roll the same die with us, and we got the highest of the three rolls.
I also enjoy rolling my stats, though again, we typically allow a 32 point buy if you're not satisfied with your stats. It allows for the joyous possibility of really high stats, but doesn't screw you if you roll badly.
Actually, one of the things I dislike about 4e is that they have done away with randomness in character building entirely. It makes for more balanced characters, I suppose, but I love the fun of getting something that's a little better than average.
But, having said that, I really fall into the camp of offering two options, much like 3.5 did with making stats available by 4d6 drop lowest and point buy.....but this time, let's put them in the same place.
We could have options like these:1. Random. Roll 1/2 of current hit die and add half maximum score, so you end up with
d4 = d2 + 2
d6 = d3 + 3
d8 = d4 + 4
d10 = d5 + 5
d12 = d6 + 62. Fixed. Give characters 1/2 max + 1 every level after 1st (the RPGA method).
And standard roll of previous editions? Rolling for random number of HP is an important part of D&D...
So 3 options? Random, fixed, and half-random (or half-fixed...)
By the way, I really like the half-random method. Barbarians (D12) will always have better base HP per level than D6 and D4 caracters. It also helps the fighters stay on the front line.
Responses to various points raised in the thread:I really don't see being forced to change your tactics because of low hp rolls as a good thing. If you're building your character to be a tank and you have a run of low hp rolls, you can't play the character concept you've been building. How does this add to the game? Furthermore, you're not just hindering one character. If the party tank has low hp, everybody has to change their tactics to cover for that deficiency.
Everybody also include the DM. It's dificult to come up with nice encounters that wouldn't kill the unlucky low-hp tank (or any other player). Also, CR work well with average party level... consisting of caracters of *average* power...
Full randomness can lead to extreme situation :
Lucky Barbarian (18CON) 3rd-level, Max HD + CON at first level:
(12+4)+(12+4)+(12+4) = HP48
Unlucky Wizard (8CON) 3rd-level, max HD + CON at first level:
(4-1)+(1-1)+(1-1) = HP5
The DM would have a hard time finding an interesting encounter for them...
Random roll has been around for dozens of years. It will be difficult to remove it from the game. The two other options are very good to adress the randomness issue.
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.
|
|
As a DM, I've had a house-rule that you could reroll any hit point roll under average. So 1-2 on a d4, 1-3 on d6, 1-4 on a d8, so on.
As a player, I really hate random HP rolls. My DM and I argue about this all the time, because I play a Knight and all my class ailities are built around soaking damage, and by 5th level I had rolled (on a d12) 2, 2, 3, and 4 for my hit points. I was falling to negatives in every single battle and couldn't ever use my Shield Ally ability. Finally he agreed that to let me take the average hit points for my level rounded down, so even at 9th level I still have lousy hit points for a class with so many damage soaking abilities.
i really don't think random hit points add anything to the game, and I'd seriously consider using a flat hit point gain based on BAB. D6 = 4, D8 = 6, D10 = 8, D12 = 10.