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...)
I figured putting a fully random method would be a bit like printing a system for rolling attributes without some kind of hopeless character rule, which 3.5 ditched. That's why I left it at two.
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.
That was the idea. The only thing that might be problematic about this approach (which was also brought up by somebody else earlier in this thread, IIRC) is having to explain to new players how to get a d3 and a d5 (since I realize that I automatically regurgitated the d4 value even though it doesn't exist for Pathfinder PCs).
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) = HP5The DM would have a hard time finding an interesting encounter for them...
Good point.
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.
One of the few things 4e did right was to make fixed attribute generation and hp the standard option (though there's an optional rule for rolling ability scores). Some sacred cows do die eventually. I don't necessarily think that putting in a random method with some kind of floor on it is any more of a break with tradition than adding hopeless character rules to ability score rolling or making 4d6 the standard way of rolling abilities. It's just giving official sanction to something most players are already doing anyway.
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.)
<snipped long list of numbers>
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...
Your first and third options look really good to me. I would go further and argue that one of these methods (or something like them) *should* be the standard random method (see my response to YULDM above).
I really HATE rolling out a character! (abilities or HP)
It just SUCKS if you have a clear concept in mind and just roll that poorly that you can't achieve half of what you wished.
ESPECIALLY if any other player rolled say a 16 in average.
This is neither fair nor fun.
The same goes for HP. If my fighter always rolls 3 in average and the rogue 6 or 7, where is the benefit for the game. Especially MY game?!
No thanks.
I say: Point-buy abilities and FULL HP at every level.
(Full HP are too much? Think the other way round, this way you can dish out A LOT of damage with your nice monsters without worrying they could kill the PCs right away. As I said before: There is nothing a DM can't deal with).
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.)
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)
We use this method in our games and as the party tank (paladin) it insures that I can do my job every level. You have the certainty of a min amount of hps but you have the fun gambling element of "daddy needs a 10!". It's a nice compromise and nothing sucks worse than having rolled a 1 one level and a 2 the next, it just doesn't work and the risk of dying is too high. Doesn't help that the DMs WotC dice seem to have a high rate of rolling 19s and 20s...
I have another, rather radical idea:
Reroll your TOTAL HP every new level.
(But keep the old one if it's better)
Might be fun to roll 10d10 if your fighter goes from level 9 to 10th
|
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.
Have they?
Or is this an assumption? I'd never played in a point-buy game until i joined an online pbp this year.
A more even progression, setting the system to "3/4 average," would be...
d6 = d4+2
d8 = d5+3
d10 = d6+4
d12 = d7+5This 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 prefer fixed HP, but what I really prefer is the game offering both. That way, everyone's happy.
Who has 20d12 for the poor barbarian, though?I have another, rather radical idea:
Reroll your TOTAL HP every new level.
(But keep the old one if it's better)Might be fun to roll 10d10 if your fighter goes from level 9 to 10th
I do. In fact, I have more than 60d12.
*Raises Hand*. I'm sorry to break it to you, but I would LOVE to play a game that everything was randomly generated at character gen. Race, class, HP, ability scores, HP, skills, feats, even starting level! Everything!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
Don't be sorry! I wouldn't want to play such a random game, but I can actually buy the "randomness = fun + realism" argument from someone who doesn't advocate just random ability scores and hp.
TS
Rerolling all your hitdice with each level, and not taking any lower amounts, would result in quite a bit higher average hitpoint. Lots of rolling too, which may or may not be fun depending on the person.
What are the odds on the dice when you get to reroll 210 times (20 + 19 + 18, etc), and keep the best result as you go along?
Anyone good at math capable of churning out the percentages on that? I'd try and figure it out but I'm way too tired right now and have to work later...
Plus, there's probably some discreet math for these kinds of things that I'm not particularly privy to.
*Raises Hand*. I'm sorry to break it to you, but I would LOVE to play a game that everything was randomly generated at character gen. Race, class, HP, ability scores, HP, skills, feats, even starting level! Everything!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
Don't be sorry! I wouldn't want to play such a random game, but I can actually buy the "randomness = fun + realism" argument from someone who doesn't advocate just random ability scores and hp.
TS
I don't think random is totally realistic, it can produce results in a gaming system that you'd never see in an adventuring group "realistically".
It does allow the most extreme and unlikely of possible outcomes occurring though.I would hate to play in such a game as a permanent campaign. I would not mind at all playing in such a game as a one-shot, or silly game.. such as going through the World's Largest Dungeon and see how many PCs it takes to reach the end (start at level 1, and keep trying/making characters and as you gain xp your characters can be made at higher levels, etc).
We are doing something similar to that, only a bit more structured. 3d6, but if your overall bonus is 0 or lower you can reroll, and we can't choose the same race/class twice. :)
|
Rerolling all your hitdice with each level, and not taking any lower amounts, would result in quite a bit higher average hitpoint. Lots of rolling too, which may or may not be fun depending on the person.
What are the odds on the dice when you get to reroll 210 times (20 + 19 + 18, etc), and keep the best result as you go along?
Anyone good at math capable of churning out the percentages on that? I'd try and figure it out but I'm way too tired right now and have to work later...
Plus, there's probably some discreet math for these kinds of things that I'm not particularly privy to.
The odds of getting minimum hit points are 1 in 4.25*10^422 with this system. They are 1 in 3.83*10^21 under the normal one roll keep it even if it sucks system. Or to put it another way, you're going to have to invent entirely new numbers to describe what the odds are, but they are several orders of magnitude different.
This would push the odds hugely in favour of the well above average over 20 levels. But I can't be bothered to come up with the exact figures.
I remember in a 2nd edition campaign that I ran. My buddy was playing a Halforc fighter with enough constitution to get a +3 bonus. Due to terrible rolls he only had 23 hit points by 4th level. One of the other players was a rogue with a +2 constitution bonus, he had 30 hit points by the same level.
we decided from that day to change the way we rolled hit points.
At the time we would go for a smaller dice with a bonus (1d6+4 for fighters).
We now use the maximum at first level and the fixed at levels after that.
|
If you roll bad ability scores you can always scratch the character and roll another one.
Roll bad hit points and you are stuck.
There is nothing in the rules allowing you to re-roll your hit points - no feat, magic-item, nothing.
Ok - rolling a 1 or a 2 for a fighter level hit points might be a bit incovenient. Do it for 3 or more levels in a row and your character is unplayable.
IMVHO
My rule, which I have used for about 25 years now, and which I'm surprised no one else has suggested, is to treat rolls of less than half the die as half the die. Not a re-roll, just a round-up of, for example, a 1-4 on a D10 to a 5, a 1-3 on a d8 to a 4, and so on.
The changes to the average score per die are highest for the highest die, and anyway are as follows:
d4 up 0.25
d6 up 0.5
d8 up 0.75
d10 up 1
d12 up 1.25
- which hardly seems that unbalancing to me, and it does prevent nightmare scenarios.
Richard
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
*Raises Hand*. I'm sorry to break it to you, but I would LOVE to play a game that everything was randomly generated at character gen. Race, class, HP, ability scores, HP, skills, feats, even starting level! Everything!
Then everytime you level up, you roll to see if how many skill points you gain, how much HP, and roll to see if you gain a feat or gain a point in a ability score. I even figured it out for abilities score increases and feats!
For feats, roll 1d3 (or 1d2 for Pathfinder RPG). If its a 3 (2 for Pathfinder RPG), you gain a feat. For Ability score increases, roll 1d4. On a 4, you gain a point in a ability score determine by roll 1d6 and consulting the following chart:
1: Strength
2: Dexterity
3: Constitution
4: Intelligence
5: Wisdom
6: CharismaI would so play game using such a system.
This game already exists, it's called 'Warhammer Fantasy' and it's a very good game. But in Warhammer Fantasy, the variances that make a character are not so ridiculous as rolling a d10 every time you level up as a tank. Your Wound points range from around 8-15, and they tend to only vary by 3 points or so. Nobody will choose to play a Soldier with 12 Toughness (Attributes are on a 1-100 scale, wounds on 1-10 based on attributes), and if they /do/ they can spend EXP to increase their attributes so they don't suck. Also, rolling for profession is optional, so if you DO get stats that make a bad soldier, you can pick another profession, and unlike D&D's heavily restricted classing, it allows you to move from profession to profession.
D&D's system of randomness makes no sense. It should either be back to the silly, nonsensical unbalanced game of 2nd Edition, or forward to a balanced, Streamlined points based game. Having it be somewhere in between is just...frustrating.
You can't enjoy being totally random because you'll get a sub-optimal character that can't survive encounters equal to his level, you have to plan your feats and class and skills and equipment perfectly only to have it dashed by bad rolls that hamper you permanently...but you can't play it completely as a point-based game either.
The players in my group don't like point buy and wouldn't be happy with set hit points. When they heard about it in 4e they thought it was ridiculous. One of the highlights of any session is the hp roll after gaining a level. Everyone stops to see what the others are rolling for hit points.
Now I cut them a few breaks: max hp at 1st, over 50% at 2nd and 3rd, and one reroll from 7-10 and 11-20.
The same goes for rolling stats. The roll seven sets of 4d6, dropping the lowest. If they are awful, they can use point buy. Noone has yet.
I think it is the thrill of the roll and living with the consequences. And for the players with the really bad luck, they live with it. It becomes a part of their character.
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 and one of my players enjoy playing completely random characters, name, race, class, gender, etc. Great idea on taking more things randomly! :)
Some errors in the following [corrected in bold]:
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).
Rerolling all your hitdice with each level, and not taking any lower amounts, would result in quite a bit higher average hitpoint. Lots of rolling too, which may or may not be fun depending on the person.
What are the odds on the dice when you get to reroll 210 times (20 + 19 + 18, etc), and keep the best result as you go along?
Anyone good at math capable of churning out the percentages on that? I'd try and figure it out but I'm way too tired right now and have to work later...
This is not overpowered at all as another said, though the odds of all 1's are indeed phenomenally unlikely, since you compare to the previous amount, sans the new die roll. However at your request:
d10's, no con mod, Average roll vs. standard Average:
1st: 10 vs 10 (duh)
2nd: 12.2 vs. 15.5, net loss of (-3.3)
3rd: 17.25747 vs. 21, net loss of (-3.74)
4th: 23.1 vs. 26.5, net loss of (-3.4)
5th: 29 vs. 32, net loss of (-3)
6th: 34.89 vs. 37.5, net loss of (-2.61)
7th: 40.77 vs. 43, net loss of (-2.23)
8th: 46.64 vs. 48.5, net loss of (-1.86)
9th: 52.52 vs. 54, net loss of (-1.48)
10th: 58.38 vs. 59.5, net loss of (-1.12)
11th: 64.24 vs. 65, net loss of (-0.76)
12th: 70.09 vs. 70.5, net loss of (-0.41)
13th: 75.93 vs. 76, net loss of (-0.07)
14th: 81.79 vs. 81.5, net gain of (0.29)
15th: 87.64 vs. 87, net gain of (0.64)
16th: 93.46 vs. 92.5, net gain of (0.96)
17th: 99.3 vs. 98, net gain of (1.3)
18th: 105.12 vs. 103.5, net gain of (1.62)
19th: 110.93 vs. 109, net gain of (1.93)
20th: 116.76 vs. 114.5, net gain of (2.26)
So slightly lower average until much later on. However, if you allow the first die to stay maxed then there is a marginal benefit early:
1st: 10 vs. 10, net gain of (0)
2nd: 15.5 vs. 15.5, net gain of (0)
3rd: 21.33 vs. 21, net gain of (0.33)
4th: 27.21 vs. 26.5, net gain of (0.71)
5th: 33.1 vs. 32, net gain of (1.1)
6th: 39 vs. 37.5, net gain of (1.5)
7th: 44.88 vs. 43, net gain of (1.88)
8th: 50.77 vs. 48.5, net gain of (2.27)
9th: 56.66 vs. 54, net gain of (2.66)
10th: 62.52 vs. 59.5, net gain of (3.02)
11th: 68.39 vs. 65, net gain of (3.39)
12th: 74.25 vs. 70.5, net gain of (3.75)
13th: 80.09 vs. 76, net gain of (4.09)
14th: 85.95 vs. 81.5, net gain of (4.45)
15th: 91.79 vs. 87, net gain of (4.79)
16th: 97.63 vs. 92.5, net gain of (5.13)
17th: 103.45 vs. 98, net gain of (5.45)
18th: 109.3 vs. 103.5, net gain of (5.8)
19th: 115.12 vs. 109, net gain of (6.12)
20th: 120.94 vs. 114.5, net gain of (6.44)
The steps to actually implement this in game would be:
- Upon leveling, subtract Previous Level * Con Mod from HP.
- Start with first level max, and reroll each level (including the new Level), adding up the total.
- If the new total is higher, use that. Otherwise use previous total.
- Add New Level * Con Mod
On a poor set of rolls this could result in only gaining your Con Mod to your hp (which could be negative), but generally has a positive effect.
Major adjustments to these figures could result from:
- Allowing a minimum gain at a level (such as 1 + Con).
- Allowing this as a level by level option -- This would allow a player to strive for a reasonably likely above average roll and then revert to standard. This would give peaks in the gains that would slowly be lessened percentage wise. For instance, if a player re-rolled each level until eventually rolling a 7 average on the die, they would have a 1.5 * current level advantage over normal rolling permanently.
Allowing any sort of additional rerolling (such as "reroll 1's") should have a minimal effect vs. normal results of such things.
Okay.. I'm tired now.. night all...
The same goes for rolling stats. The roll seven sets of 4d6, dropping the lowest. If they are awful, they can use point buy. Noone has yet.
Just a minor minor note. I did an analysis and 4d6, six rolls, ends up about equivalent to 28-29 point-buy (though with potential for far less of course). 7 rolls is quite a bit higher, more like 32-33 point buy, with far less chance of going below what could be accomplished with standard 25 point buy (or 28).
Not a bad system btw - modestly high powered rolling, with a backup system that doesn't involve "okay.. I guess you can roll another set since those weren't so good".
The players in my group don't like point buy and wouldn't be happy with set hit points. When they heard about it in 4e they thought it was ridiculous. One of the highlights of any session is the hp roll after gaining a level. Everyone stops to see what the others are rolling for hit points.
Now I cut them a few breaks: max hp at 1st, over 50% at 2nd and 3rd, and one reroll from 7-10 and 11-20.
The same goes for rolling stats. The roll seven sets of 4d6, dropping the lowest. If they are awful, they can use point buy. Noone has yet.
I think it is the thrill of the roll and living with the consequences. And for the players with the really bad luck, they live with it. It becomes a part of their character.
I find it interesting that a good number of people who say "My players would kill me if I removed random hit points/ability scores" have very generous house rules for rolling hit points/ability scores! Of course no one is going to complain about rolling for hit points if the odds of rolling a "1" are very low (for instance).
I find it interesting that a good number of people who say "My players would kill me if I removed random hit points/ability scores" have very generous house rules for rolling hit points/ability scores! Of course no one is going to complain about rolling for hit points if the odds of rolling a "1" are very low (for instance).
Exactly. Everyone wants to do really well, so average stinks - as long as failsaves prevent you to go below average. Bunch of munchkins out there ;-)
That's in part why I use fixed rolls for stats and HP: Don't want the bad? Well, that's at the cost of the good. Life's not just fun and games, and if you like it, take the damn Prozium :D
Some errors in the following [corrected in bold]:
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 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 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.
|
|
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").
Yeah I hear that a lot, I also love 1st level play with it's fragile one crit can kill you so play careful nature. I think I just gravitate towards things other people don't like, maybe I'm crazy (hear gnarls barkly when you read that last part)
|
|
I remember in a 2nd edition campaign that I ran. My buddy was playing a Halforc fighter with enough constitution to get a +3 bonus. Due to terrible rolls he only had 23 hit points by 4th level. One of the other players was a rogue with a +2 constitution bonus, he had 30 hit points by the same level.
we decided from that day to change the way we rolled hit points.
At the time we would go for a smaller dice with a bonus (1d6+4 for fighters).
We now use the maximum at first level and the fixed at levels after that.
See that's what I don't like, I've always enjoyed D&D as a simulationist game more than a game game, and as everyone knows in real life if you are a trash collector you will always be sturdier than a secretary. Always.
I guess that I just got used to accepting and moving past the bad as a quality of a hero. So if you are a barb that goes down easy you play a more cautious character. Although I do understand that there are people who don't want the dice to dictate how they play their character.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
D&D's system of randomness makes no sense. It should either be back to the silly, nonsensical unbalanced game of 2nd Edition, or forward to a balanced, Streamlined points based game. Having it be somewhere in between is just...frustrating.
You can't enjoy being totally random because you'll get a sub-optimal character that can't survive encounters equal to his level, you have to plan your feats and class and skills and equipment perfectly only to have it dashed by bad rolls that hamper you permanently...but you can't play it completely as a point-based game either.
Hi, Big Fish. This quotation comes from the second post in which you rudely express disbelief that anyone might like to roll random hit points.
You're allowed to like fixed hit points. (And if you like fixed attack rolls and fixd damage totals, more power to you.)
But let me try to explain away one of your objections: the DM's in charge, not the hypothetical CR.
My first experience with playing in 3.5 was
Now, we had a DM who realized that we were an odd kind of party --for one thing, I was the only healer-- and she gave us adventure challenges commensurate with our abilities.
If a party has a fighter who's rolled poorly on hit points for the last couple of levels, and who has chosen not to compensate with the Toughness feat, then the DM should realize that, and maybe throw in some more monsters that drain levels or cause attribute damage, or maybe make sure the party has access to healing magic.
Likewise, if the party has a barbarian with nearly maxed-out hit points, a good DM adjusts the encounters there, too, to provide a challenge.
It's not silly. It's not nonsensical. And "balance" comes from the DM, not from the hypothetical CR, just as it always has.
as everyone knows in real life if you are a trash collector you will always be sturdier than a secretary. Always.
Those are fighting words, part. Get your trash collector (what trash does he collect? Breakeys?) and I'll get the secretary. Her name's Butch, and she moves around the files in the office. Her boss doesn't like computers, so if he needs a file, Buch just brings him the filing cabinets he asks for. She usually carries two under each arm, and they're all full to the brim.
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.)
...
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)
I believe your math may be wrong here. If you roll a d6 and get at least 3 hit points, you get:
Roll HP received
1 3
2 3
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
Average result of rolling: 4
Not a big thing, but I thought that I would mention it.
leave the randomness of rolling hd alone it has been for almost 40 years been a perfect way to get hit points now all of a sudden people want to cry if they get bad rolls well deal with it . If your fighter gets bad rolls for HP then learn a new way to fight. just becuase you gelt low rolls does not mean you cannot have fun with that charecter it just means you have to find a new way to play a class you have probably played to death.As for me some of my fav charecters have been wizards where i have had a -to Con and rolled super low on hit points imagine if you can playing a tenth level wizard with 13 hit points now that to me is fun and challenging.
leave the randomness of rolling hd alone it has been for almost 40 years been a perfect way to get hit points now all of a sudden people want to cry if they get bad rolls well deal with it .
"All of a sudden"!? I've heard complaints about bad ability & hit point rolls for the past 25 years...
all of a sudden to me i have played with a very select few people and most of us roll with the bad rolls, this is the first message board i have been on so all this complaining bout low rolls is new to me. i mean when we roll our charecters we still do 3D6 for each stat we dont buy points or do 10+1D6 or whatever.
all of a sudden to me i have played with a very select few people and most of us roll with the bad rolls, this is the first message board i have been on so all this complaining bout low rolls is new to me. i mean when we roll our charecters we still do 3D6 for each stat we dont buy points or do 10+1D6 or whatever.
So every time you've ever created a D&D character, you rolled 3d6 for each ability and used that character as-is (even if all of the scores were below 8, say)?
My hat is off to you, sir! In my AD&D days, those feeble characters tended to commit suicide pretty rapidly in order to make room for the next one.
I'm kindof fascinated by the idea of implementing nonrandom hp at a game system level.
Given that 99% of GMs give their players max hp at level 1, removing random hit die roll altogether gets rid of the necessity of having a hit die value in the first place. There's no point in having a d10 hit die if you're never actually going to roll a d10 for anything.
Under a system where classes have set hp (like 4e), the hit die becomes a redundant concept and should probably simply be replaced by a starting value with a bonus applied each level.
This seems simple, but doesn't take into account the somewhat complicated (overly-so in my mind) relationship between hit dice and level, which is muddier in 3.x than in previous editions. In 3.x, power = HD = size, and if "level" and "HD" just become merged (as they are in True20), then you enter the uncomfortable situation where powerful monsters must, by necessity, be big ones.
Under a system where every class uses the same hit die, and adds a class bonus (like the proposed 1d4 + x and 1d6 + x systems above), you achieve the goal of making sure the tanks stay buffed, and at least keep the concept of having a number of hit dice around for use by other mechanics (specifically mechanics like sleep that have an effect based on the hit dice of their target).
It's been mentioned that a system like this favours high HD classes over lower-HD classes, and this is true; moving a fighter from 1d10 -> 1d6+4 and a wizard from 1d6 -> 1d6 clearly benefits the fighter more than it does the wizard. In my mind, however, this is fine. It eliminates the possibility of an overly-frail fighter, while keeping the benefits of a random system part of the game. Ultimately, I don't care if wizards are frail: they're supposed to have glassjaws. I do care that fighters can stand toe-to-toe with bad guys like they're suposed to instead of doing jack-in-the-box impressions every time they take a hit.
I think I like this second system best, but I'm still pondering . . .
In my next campaign I'm going to test letting the players roll twice at each level, keeping the better roll. Ones will count. Should reduce the very bad rolls, but keeps some randomness.
I also like the poster who said he does this but the DM rolls the other dice secretly and lets the player gamble on his roll or the DM's. I might have to try that one too.
Here's why I go with maximum hit points +20.
First, you never decide to take less than your maximum BAB, saves, skills, feats, etc. Why would you do the same with hit points?
Second, you know how powerful an enemy is and what their weaknesses are by their class. Barbarians have LOTS of hit points. Wizards have FEW hit points. That's by DESIGN; barbarians have lots because they're in melee most of the time and need it, wizards don't because they're NOT in melee most of the time. If you can suddenly take down a barbarian with two hits while the wizard needs five, game balance is off, and if they're PCs the barbarian is FAR less effective and the player won't have as much fun while the wizard can take hit after hit and still be going.
Third, there's still variety in hit points between two PCs of the same class. There are feats, Con scores, and spells for that.
Fourth, as for the extra 20 hp, that's so everyone gets a chance to survive. The wizard could actually take a hit or two before being forced to run away and is no longer a one-hit-wonder. And with Pathfinder's new sorcerer and wizard, even if they run out of spells they still have abilities that they can use (at-will cantrips, supernatural abilities, etc.). And it doesn't favor anyone; monsters get the same as the PCs. Everyone is on a level playing field.
D&D's system of randomness makes no sense. It should either be back to the silly, nonsensical unbalanced game of 2nd Edition, or forward to a balanced, Streamlined points based game. Having it be somewhere in between is just...frustrating.
You can't enjoy being totally random because you'll get a sub-optimal character that can't survive encounters equal to his level, you have to plan your feats and class and skills and equipment perfectly only to have it dashed by bad rolls that hamper you permanently...but you can't play it completely as a point-based game either.
Hi, Big Fish. This quotation comes from the second post in which you rudely express disbelief that anyone might like to roll random hit points.
You're allowed to like fixed hit points. (And if you like fixed attack rolls and fixd damage totals, more power to you.)
But let me try to explain away one of your objections: the DM's in charge, not the hypothetical CR.
My first experience with playing in 3.5 was ** spoiler omitted **That's the key.
If a party has a fighter who's rolled poorly on hit points for the last couple of levels, and who has chosen not to compensate with the Toughness feat, then the DM should realize that, and maybe throw in some more monsters that drain levels or cause attribute damage, or maybe make sure the party has access to healing magic.
Likewise, if the party has a barbarian with nearly maxed-out hit points, a good DM adjusts the encounters there, too, to provide a challenge.
It's not silly....
There is a difference between your spoilerized example and what we're talking about in this thread, though. The DM in your example changes encounters to accommodate the kinds of characters his players want to play. The DM of the barbarian who rolls bad h.p. is compelled to change encounters because one of his players is prevented form playing the kind of character he/she wants to play.
Another consideration is that it's harder to radically change encounters in a pre-written scenario. I bring this up because one of the purposes of PRPG is presumably to support pre-written scenarios released by Paizo over the next several years. Not to mention that the stated reason for maximum backward compatability as a design goal is to allow people to use pregenerated 3.5 scenarios from WotC and others.
I wonder, does anyone here realise the original intent of dice for hit points was that they'd be rerolled for every trip to the dungeon?
Weird, huh. Gygax didn't word it very clearly, so very few people played it that way. Within a coupe of years, the rule everyone was using (keep your total, and add a single new dice each level) had become the official one.
Having just gone over that section in the White Box, I can confirm that Gary Gygax didn't word those rules clearly at all. You can't tell whether he intends for all h.p. to be rerolled every level, or just one additonal die. And there's absolutely nothing to indicate that they should be rerolled every session or dungeon crawl.
Thank you hograth and yes even sub optimal charecters got played yes they may have died quickly but they often were either A) a well placed comedy point in the game or B)well remembered for something very heroic they tried to do and died in the process of doing. My fav charecter is a wizard with the following stats
Str:4
Dex:8
Con:4
Int:18
Wis:10
Chr:9
HP: 17
thats using first edetion D&D rules with an 18th level wizard. i have many many fond memories of playing this character.
Thank you hograth and yes even sub optimal charecters got played yes they may have died quickly but they often were either A) a well placed comedy point in the game or B)well remembered for something very heroic they tried to do and died in the process of doing. My fav charecter is a wizard with the following stats
Str:4
Dex:8
Con:4
Int:18
Wis:10
Chr:9HP: 17
thats using first edetion D&D rules with an 18th level wizard. i have many many fond memories of playing this character.
I will admit that using the "3d6 for stats, no rerolls" method in AD&D sometimes came up with memorable characters. I remember my brother had a couple of characters named Avern Black (memorable for the number of 10s and 11s he had for stats) and "Sewage-Face" Lulu (not the best Charisma score, obviously).
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
There is a difference between your example and what we're talking about in this thread, though. The DM in your example changes encounters to accommodate the kinds of characters his players want to play. The DM of the barbarian who rolls bad h.p. is compelled to change encounters because one of his players is prevented form playing the kind of character he/she wants to play.
Hi, Kelvin; it's nice to see your posts here. They've added a lot of care and consideration to the thread.
I see your point, but I think the person playing the 4th-Level-Barbarian-with-25-hit-points" is already playing the character she wants to play, because 25-hit-points is a possibility for a 4th-Level Barbarian, and because there are in-character rememdies. (Did she take Toughness at 3rd level?)
If someone playing a Barbarian really wants to play "a Barbarian with better-tha-average hit points", well, then, I really want to play a Cleric with more skill points, a Wizard who always makes her Reflex saves, a Rogue with a fighters BAB, and a Totemist with frickin' laser beams.
And the DM with the party running a Barbarian with near-max hit points is also "compelled" to change encounters.
Another consideration is that it's harder to radically change encounters in a pre-written scenario. I bring this up because one of the purposes of PRPG is presumably to support pre-written scenarios released by Paizo over the next several years. Not to mention that the stated reason for maximum backward compatability as a design goal is to allow people to use pregenerated 3.5 scenarios from WotC and others.
Sure, backwards compatability is a goal. And pre-written adventures are written for a well-balanced party of four characters.
Any deviation from that --from a fifth character; to a party with an odd combination of classes ; to a fighter with unusually high hit points; to a cleric/ranger who's built to be hell-on-wheels against undead; to a player who is so creeped out by spiders that she shouldn't experience them in-game-- requires local adjustment from a DM (who can see the party before her, whereas the module writer can't).
That's true no matter what edition of the game you're playing.
|
|
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
We used this in our regretfully short-lived "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft" campaign. People dug it.
I once had a Ranger cohort who rolled a 1, 2, or 3 for all of his hit points through 10th level. It became a sort of running joke... in that, he ran from just about everything. My concept of him shifted from a stealthy woodsman wielding two hand axes to more of a scout and skirmisher. The random HP took him in a different direction.
Ironically, when our most brash party member--a symptom of the player's brashness, and typical of most of his characters, I suppose--threw back a tapestry above a clearly evil altar in a mind flayer prison (anyone remember the Spiral from "Dungeon" mag?), Kerrik survived the symbol of death. That character and another PC were killed, heheh.
If someone playing a Barbarian really wants to play "a Barbarian with better-tha-average hit points", well, then, I really want to play a Cleric with more skill points, a Wizard who always makes her Reflex saves, a Rogue with a fighters BAB, and a Totemist with frickin' laser beams.
But you don't roll randomly for skill points or BAB. You do roll for Reflex saves, but not during character creation; you don't roll for your Reflex save modifiers (which are set during character creation).
You know exactly what skill points you're getting when you take a level of Cleric.
You know exactly what BAB you're getting when you take a level of Rogue.
You know exactly what Reflex save modifier you're getting when you take a level of Wizard.
You have a 1 in 12 chance of guessing what hit points you're getting when you take a level of Barbarian.
(You also don't roll for laser beams, although "rolling for a chance of laser beams" is a pretty accurate description of AD&D psionics. Maybe we should bring that system back...) :-)