I've used 2 methods in the past:
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).
I like this way, except for the fact that it favors d12 and d8 and disfavors d10 and d6. It probably should be:
d12 is 6+1d6
d10 is 5+1d5
d8 is 4+1d4
d6 is 3+1d3
|
System I suggested some years ago thats now been picked up by at least 5 different groups I've played with...
Base HD - Roll
d4 - 1d2+2
d6 - 1d4+2
d8 - 1d6+4
d10 - 1d6+4
d12 - 2d4+4
I personally see no problem with removing hp rolls in favor of fixed but the balance should reflect the game.
One of the biggest issues I've had with running RotRL under the alpha document is that the extra hit points has made 100% of the creatures in the first 2 levels of the AP pointless. the party just has too many hit points and the creatures too few. I have decided on my second running of the game (for a different group hopefully starting later this month) I will reduce the number of bonus hit points at 1st to a fixed number instead of double and grant all monsters maximum hit points; e.g. goblins will go from 5 hps to 9.
I'm not sure how this will affect higher levels of play but it seems a necessary boost for lower level creatures. with more healing and more hit points the monsters for existing modules do need a little boost here and there.
*Tangent Alert!*
Whats peoples thoughts on modifying the existing cure X wounds spells to reflect the increase in hit points, say for example...
cure light heals 2d4 hit points +2 per level (max +10)
cure moderate heals 3d6 hit points +2 per level (max +20)
cure serious heals 4d6 hit points +2 per level (max +30)
cure critical heals 4d8 hit points +2 per level (max +40)
my group already use the increased base dice for a better minimum per heal but we still use only +1 per level. would upping it to +2 make too much of a difference you think?
Here's what I'm going to experiment with next week on character roll-up:
d4 - 4 hp
d6 - 4 hp + 1d6 (1 & 2 = 0 hp, 3 & 4 = 1 hp, 5 & 6 = 2 hp)
d8 - 6 hp + 1d6 (1 & 2 = 0 hp, 3 & 4 = 1 hp, 5 & 6 = 2 hp)
d10 - 8 hp + 1d6 (1 & 2 = 0 hp, 3 & 4 = 1 hp, 5 & 6 = 2 hp)
d12 - 10 hp + 1d6 (1 & 2 = 0 hp, 3 & 4 = 1 hp, 5 & 6 = 2 hp)
This helps to preservet the "class feature" of the higher HD, yet still adds a little variety.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
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 have a 1 in 12 chance of guessing what hit points you're getting when you take a level of Barbarian.
You don't roll all your character's hit points at character creation, either, hogarth. Otherwise, you make a telling point about my analogies; they aren't very good.
The question was whether a player who wanted to run a Barbarian was running "the chracter he wanted to play" if he was playing a Barbarian with below-average hit points.
My answer was yes. If that wasn't the character he wanted to play, then his expectations included "luckier than average", which isn't part of the class.
A Wizard who expects to make an average number her Reflex saving throws is probably a better analog. Another would be a guy who builds his character around the idea of getting at least an average number of attacks to hit, for at least average damage.
My friend Eleanor, who's run the same D&D campaign since the 70's, says "If you don't want the dice to speak, don't ask them anything."
If a DM doesn't want random hit points, I really have no problem with that. But if a player knowingly comes into a campaign where the dice do speak, and can't play "the character he wants" because he rolls poorly (on hit points, or on Fortitude saves, or anything else), then I don't think the blame rests with the dice.
If a DM doesn't want random hit points, I really have no problem with that. But if a player knowingly comes into a campaign where the dice do speak, and can't play "the character he wants" because he rolls poorly (on hit points, or on Fortitude saves, or anything else), then I don't think the blame rests with the dice.
O.K., I guess I agree with that. I'm a big believer in the idea that, if you don't like the way your DM rules things, start your own campaign and do everything perfectly! ;-)
|
Just to chime in my two cents about which side of the fence I'm on, I happen to prefer the random rolling method for hit dice. In the 4 or so years I've been GM, I've always made my players take the number that lands, whether it be the max, or if she's just rolled a 1 for 3 levels straight. I've always been a fan of random ability scores too, though I've always found that these things have less impact on characters then might be imagined.
(Again, this is all personal experience. If it clashes with your own, then I did not mean to step on any toes)
As an experiment a year and a half ago, I made my players all switch to the Organic roll out of the DMG. You ever seen a wizard with an Int under 10 survive five level? I have. And the same goes for the fighter who had no stats over 14 except charisma which as 18. We all had a great time playing these characters for all their strengths and weakness and the same goes for health. Yes, the barbarian who consistently rolls 1's may end up being almost useless in the front lines, but it also encourages the other characters to work closer together to try not to let him die or to buff up his con so that he has a fighting chance.
(Incidentally, as a side note to my personal view of random, I have gone so far as to redesign magic, both arcane and divine, to a skill based system just to make it more random and allow the possibility of failure. I also intend to continue on this trend with feats and ability scores and have switched ability score rolls to the fortune card method mentioned in Dragon a while ago.)
Again, none of the above statement was meant to offend. If it did I am sorry. If you want more information on any of the systems I have developed or my personal justifications beyond "We're still having fun so they obviously work" then just ask.
I had a game with one of my group monday night. I had just read this thread few hours before, so I talk about random HP and different propositions with them. We all agreed on many things:
1- Randomness is fun when rolling HIGH numbers
2- Randomness is bad when rolling low numbers (duh!)
3- Fixed number is dull.
We all found that an hybrid system with some randomness seems to be the best because it removes low HP roll and still allow for a fun dice rolling experience at level up.
I presented them the following two methods:
D4 method:
D6 = 1D4+2
D8 = 1D4+4
D10 = 1D4+6
D12 = 1D4+8
Half-Random method:
D6 = 1D3+3
D8 = 1D4+4
D10 = 1D5+5
D12 = 1D6+6
Everybody likes both method. The methods make sure that fighter-type caracters get more HP than spellcaster-type, which seems logical. We also agreed that, while giving a little more HP to PCs, both system work well with actual 3.5 ressources (MM). For backward compatibility, no change are required.
We all think that the D4 method is the easiest to explain and simplest to put in an rulebook. But we all prefer the Half-random method. (If a D4 method was the rule, we would be happy but we would use the other one as a houserule!)
Our discussion about HP also adress the 1st-level. The SRD standard "max HD at 1st-level" is not logical. We all think it was made this way to give caracters a chance to survive 5 minutes... We use another option:
1st-level, like any other level, use a normal roll (whatever the system). To give more HP, we add HALF constitution score ("score", not Mod). We realize that using the full score can result in a large and weird gap (8CON vs 20CON = 12 HP difference at 1st level), this is why half is better. Using CON modifier made no sense because of possible negative modifier.
This is also simple to implement in previous material. To update a creature, just add half CON score... or don't. Sometimes it is not worth spending time and making some math just to add 8hp to a CR10 monster...
In conclusion, after discussing with my group (and updating their 7th-level caracters) this is what we consider a big win:
Using D4 method for every level (including 1st-level), and giving HP bonus equal to half Constitution score.
*Player are happy because no low HP score, and fun rolling dice.
*DM is happy because no change has to be made when using existing 3.5 ressources.
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 have a 1 in 12 chance of guessing what hit points you're getting when you take a level of Barbarian.
You don't roll all your character's hit points at character creation, either, hogarth. Otherwise, you make a telling point about my analogies; they aren't very good.
The question was whether a player who wanted to run a Barbarian was running "the chracter he wanted to play" if he was playing a Barbarian with below-average hit points.
My answer was yes. If that wasn't the character he wanted to play, then his expectations included "luckier than average", which isn't part of the class.
A Wizard who expects to make an average number her Reflex saving throws is probably a better analog. Another would be a guy who builds his character around the idea of getting at least an average number of attacks to hit, for at least average damage.
My friend Eleanor, who's run the same D&D campaign since the 70's, says "If you don't want the dice to speak, don't ask them anything."
If a DM doesn't want random hit points, I really have no problem with that. But if a player knowingly comes into a campaign where the dice do speak, and can't play "the character he wants" because he rolls poorly (on hit points, or on Fortitude saves, or anything else), then I don't think the blame rests with the dice.
I have to ask how you define "average." If you're talking about the average unmodified die roll, you have a point. If you're talking about the average unmodified die roll for all characters, exceeding this average is part of the game. That's why you max out skills, put high scores in certain abilities, and take feats that add modifiers to your die roll. These features are there to allow you to stack the odds in your favor and against your opponents.
On the issue of "letting the dice speak," I would say there are times when it's good to let the dice speak freely and other times when it's good to inhibit the dice's "free speech." If you make a bad attack roll or reflex save roll, the results only affect you until your next die roll (assuming you don't die as a result). OTOH, bad ability scores stick with your character forever (except for the occasional bump), so the core rules provide hopeless character clauses in random generation methods to put a floor on any character's bad luck. I would argue that hp rolls, which you're stuck with for 3-4 game sessions, are another place where the dice should be curbed.
For example, let's say we go with the simplest alternate rule proposed in this thread (roll randomly, round everything below half max up to half max). Under this rule, a string of 5's might make a barbarian a subpar melee fighter, but it probably won't make his hp total so ridiculously low that he can't be on the front line. I don't care about randomness as long as it doesn't keep you from getting what you signed up for when you picked your class (and being tougher than most people is something you reasonably expect when you decide to play a barbarian).
System I suggested some years ago thats now been picked up by at least 5 different groups I've played with...
Base HD - Roll
d4 - 1d2+2
d6 - 1d4+2
d8 - 1d6+4
d10 - 1d6+4
d12 - 2d4+4I personally see no problem with removing hp rolls in favor of fixed but the balance should reflect the game.
One of the biggest issues I've had with running RotRL under the alpha document is that the extra hit points has made 100% of the creatures in the first 2 levels of the AP pointless. the party just has too many hit points and the creatures too few. I have decided on my second running of the game (for a different group hopefully starting later this month) I will reduce the number of bonus hit points at 1st to a fixed number instead of double and grant all monsters maximum hit points; e.g. goblins will go from 5 hps to 9.
I'd probably want to test the reduced PC bonus (assuming you're using the flat +6 option from the alpha) without boosting the monster hp first. Since the whole premise of increasing starting hp is that low-level characters die too often, giving the monsters more hp might defeat the purpose.
D4 method:
D6 = 1D4+2
D8 = 1D4+4
D10 = 1D4+6
D12 = 1D4+8
We also use the above method for pretty much exactly the same reasons.
More hitpoints make slightly longer fights and it seems to me that Pathfinder already tries to do this. Pathfinder PCs have slightly more hitpoints and healing which makes combat last a bit longer and reduces the need to rest often.
For NPCs and monsters I use static hitpoints:
D4 = 2
D6 = 4
D8 = 6
D10 = 8
D12 = 10
This way PCs have 0.5 x lvl more hitpoints on the average, but I can live with that. :)
I like the randomness of rolling HP. We roll HP AND ability scores. One thing I really dislike in 4E is the static HP award at every level.
If you like static HP, it's easy enough to do. Why lobby for Pathfinder to change a rule (rolling HPs) that doesn't need to be changed, even if you want to put in static HP. I suppose they could add a static variant to the ruleset easily enough.
There are some things you, as a person, can choose.
You can choose your career. You can choose to learn a thing, or not to learn it. You can go one path in life, or you can go another.
You can not, however, change (generally speaking) how strong, or how much endurance you have. You can't change your innate intelligence.
in D&D this amounts to you being able to choose your class, your skills, your feats- but not your ability scores.
Now I realize that in real life you can exercise or read a book- but D&D allows for that with a point spent every 4th level. What you start out with though does largely effect how you end up.
(try as you might, if you put a 10 in strength you are going to have a hard time getting to 25 by level 10).
Hit points are the same way. Every character has a damage threshold that is at least partly random as based on their class.
But- not ever swordsman is equally hardy just as not every wizard is equally frail.
There is variation in the d20 system and that variation is brought about by the random die + con mod.
Randomness is for me a key aspect of the game. I understand the reason for point buys systems but I find they lack verisimilitude. Unpredictability is fun and I would hate to think a mechanic would be excised because some groups prefer to use an alternate method.
I believe that in the spirit of D&D the die rolls should remain for both stats and hit points, however the text should indicate acceptable point buy systems for use in tournaments, with unfamiliar groups or people that want the appearance of 'fairness'. I know that regardless of what is in the core rules my games will be run with dice.
NPCs and Monsters don't have random HP, they instead have a fixed (average) amount of HP. Their ability scores also follow a standard array. (not much verisimilitude here)
I think that players are *special" in some way, and should not be weaker than average monsters because of bad random dice rolls.
An hybrid system keeps some randomness and at the same time prevent a player of being stuck with a sub-caracter.
what is in the core rules my games will be run with dice.NPCs and Monsters don't have random HP, they instead have a fixed (average) amount of HP.
I roll HP for monsters and NPCs as well.
Regardless, rolling v. not rolling is such an easy house rule than I'm not sure how much it matters which way the rules write it. I suppose you could provide both as variants.
There are some things you, as a person, can choose.
You can choose your career. You can choose to learn a thing, or not to learn it. You can go one path in life, or you can go another.
You can not, however, change (generally speaking) how strong, or how much endurance you have. You can't change your innate intelligence.
in D&D this amounts to you being able to choose your class, your skills, your feats- but not your ability scores.
Now I realize that in real life you can exercise or read a book- but D&D allows for that with a point spent every 4th level. What you start out with though does largely effect how you end up.
(try as you might, if you put a 10 in strength you are going to have a hard time getting to 25 by level 10).Hit points are the same way. Every character has a damage threshold that is at least partly random as based on their class.
But- not ever swordsman is equally hardy just as not every wizard is equally frail.
There is variation in the d20 system and that variation is brought about by the random die + con mod.
Except that people tend to choose careers that reflect their aptitudes. A melee fighter with a 10 strength who rolls a string of 1s for hp is like a CPA who can't do basic arithmetic. Is it realistic that either of these people would have chosen their respective professions, given their individual talents (or lack thereof)? Furthermore, this concept of realism left the standard ability score generation rules when they started allowing you to arrange your rolled attributes as desired. Why should it be maintained in hp advancement?
Randomness is for me a key aspect of the game. I understand the reason for point buys systems but I find they lack verisimilitude. Unpredictability is fun and I would hate to think a mechanic would be excised because some groups prefer to use an alternate method.
I believe that in the spirit of D&D the die rolls should remain for both stats and hit points, however the text should indicate acceptable point buy systems for use in tournaments, with unfamiliar groups or people that want the appearance of 'fairness'. I know that regardless of what is in the core rules my games will be run with dice.
I don't think anybody's actually lobbying for the complete elimination of random hp. Some people have suggested that a fixed hp variant be included in the rules, and others (me included) have argued that the random hp method should have some floor to prevent the most ridiculous cases.
|
|
Im about to start a new version of the RotRL campaign with a second group and for this group I'm eliminating the dice roll of hit points. instead characters gain maximum hit points at 1st level then the following fixed hit points per level.
HD - HP gained
d6 - 4 hps
d8 - 5 hps
d10 - 7 hps
d12 - 9 hps
|
We allow the option. Roll or take 1/2 rounded up. Once you've rolled, you don't get to take it back!
I always choose stuff. I have awful luck with dice, and am infamous for rolling 'mulligan' characters (a house rule made just for me, if a character, after rolling his six attributes, doesn't have a single +1, or has a negative total, you can reroll).
Others always roll 'hot,' and I'm used to adventuring with people with multiple 18s, while I'm busy re-rolling my latest mulligan, seeing if I can get a character with a net +1 ability modifier.
And Villains & Vigilantes? Oh yeah, that was fun, playing the dude with Heightened Speed (I rolled low for the amount of it too, about 1/3rd of the potential power) while the guy across from me had Gravity Control, Heightened Strength, another Heightened Strength, Flight (faster than my Heightened Speed, obviously), Invulnerability and Animal powers (which included another H. Strength, H. Agility, Armored skin and H. Senses).
Traveller was even worse. Other people would muster out with a decade's worth of cool stuff, and if I tried to have a character stay more than a year, he'd die in a training accident during character generation.
For me, randomness just adds frustration. I suffer enough from bad dice rolls *during* the game, I'd rather not be punished by having to play someone who is *guaranteed to suck* before the play even starts.
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.
I do something very like this, actually.
As a DM, I want to make sure my player's characters aren't too fragile, as they sometimes do crazy things like split up the party or storm multiple encounters at once because sometimes it seems like it's ICly the logical or necessary thing to do under the circumstances, even if the OOC taboos are well known.
I could give some examples, if there are nay-sayers who think my players are just dumb or foolish, but that's not the point of this thread.
Anyway... what I do is... anytime you roll hit points, you get to reroll any roll that falls under 1/4 of your hit die type (rounded up.)
d4 reroll 1s,
d6 or d8 reroll 1-2s
d10 or d12 reroll 1-3s.
Gives a decent average upping bonus and lets roller-lovers roll!
Actually the "Rulebooks" are just guidelines. Otherwise house rules would be, well, against the rules.Way back when, in the DMG, there was what we called Rule 0, which stated that all rules presented were subject to DM decisions.
Weellllll... yea, buuuuuuut....
Most people honestly don't think of the rules as guidelines, they think of them as rules. This is why the core rulebooks are called "rulebooks". The dm may change the rules, but then the new rules are just as binding as the old ones were: you have to play by them. Even if it offers itself for change, it's a rigid system, so people are going to bicker about which way to set it up.
Compare that to (if you've ever done it) freeform rp or cooperative storytelling. There are guidelines for that, and you either follow them or don't moment-by-moment, depending on what results in the best play experience. This is a bit more like cooking.
Yea, you can play D&D like that, but not many do. Infact, sometimes it takes a while just to get used to rule 0. Utalizing rule 0 IS against the rules. What we have here is a ruleset which states "for the DM, breaking the rules is allowed within the rules". That's confusing at first. Not many other games do that.
I agree that the level to which people take these arguements is... a bit silly, though.
At the end of the day, it's just a game. Cooking should arguably regarded as a more grave issue than D&D.
You're right about the various D&D core rulebooks, they tend to be pretty well balanced, even when they aren't your style.
This becomes less true when you talk about alternate rule sets (Iron Heroes) or official splatbooks, but even then, I guess saying "they don't work" wouldn't quite be true. I would also argue that "they don't work for everyone" is a simplicifation, though.
I'd say that they all have flaws, some books have bigger flaws than others, and that some players have a greater or lesser capacity to cope with those flaws.
For a reply in such a casual thread this got pretty long. And at this point I admit that I've lost touch with the cooking analogy.
Weellllll... yea, buuuuuuut....
Most people honestly don't think etc. etc. etc. offtopic offtopic
Huh? I did?
This is not the thread in which I thought I posted that.
And for some reason I can't find the edit command to clear it out.
|
|
what is in the core rules my games will be run with dice.NPCs and Monsters don't have random HP, they instead have a fixed (average) amount of HP.
I roll HP for monsters and NPCs as well.
Regardless, rolling v. not rolling is such an easy house rule than I'm not sure how much it matters which way the rules write it. I suppose you could provide both as variants.
I also roll for everything, including monsters. If I pick up a published adventure and I notice static XP I fix it right away. I don't find it a bother, since I have a scratch-pad notation for entire statblocks that I copy into my DM notes.
I love the look on new players faces when they hit a monster for X damage and it dies, and when they hit its twin for X damage it lives.
Random hp further simulates the random ability to avoid lethal damage.
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.Anyway... what I do is... anytime you roll hit points, you get to reroll any roll that falls under 1/4 of your hit die type (rounded up.)
What's the point in rolling if there is no risk? Why not just give them 1/2HD rounded up? I give players the choice as lkl suggested above. As a small mercy if they roll poorly I let them reroll the next die smaller. Rerolls generally it still works out better for them but if they roll 2 1s in a row the fighter is suddenly rolling a d6 for HP and they never roll a 1 then a 10.
As for the OP... if you don't like rolling then don't. Many people don't like rolling attributes and wind up using point buy. What is the point of rolling ANYTHING in the game. Hit Points at least you get one chance every level to do Ok. Roll bad attributes and you are screwed until your character dies.
-- Dennis
I roll HP for monsters and NPCs as well.
Regardless, rolling v. not rolling is such an easy house rule than I'm not sure how much it matters which way the rules write it. I suppose you could provide both as variants.
I also roll for monsters. I roll for treasure sometimes too, but that's as extreme as I get (and I tend to compensate for good/bad treasure rolls later on).
I (and many others) are of a mind that no bad roll should be written onto your character sheet forever. Every adventure should give you a fresh start with lady luck.
It is an easy houserule, and I respect that some people still like to roll. But I think that not rolling has become a lot more common.
I don't know how many online games I've browsed where the only things written in the houserule section were "average hitpoints" and "32 point-buy".
I always choose stuff. I have awful luck with dice, and am infamous for rolling 'mulligan' characters (a house rule made just for me, if a character, after rolling his six attributes, doesn't have a single +1, or has a negative total, you can reroll).
What you need to do is get the DM's permission to roll the 3d6 and subtract your result from 21. I had a hard-luck player do this once, and darned if he didn't end up with a decent character.
|
Back in the old days, you rolled your attributes on 3d6 in order, chose your character class (Dwarf and Elf were classes originally!), and rolled your hit points, including your first hit die. That produced an even bell curve distribution of ability scores - in theory, anyway.
The results over time tended to produce a skewed curve, because the characters with lousy ability scores and hit points tended to die faster than those with better scores. Your long-term survival was strongly influenced by your initial luck with the dice.
Now I've no problem slinging dice in the game - it's part of the fun, though the Amber RPG showed you could still have fun without them. But I don't think that bad luck during character creation ought to cripple your character for life, and the same applies to randomly generating hit points. Certainly real life may deal us bad hands at random, but a game is supposed to be fair.
As GM, I give my players an array of attributes to distribute as they please, and fixed HP advancement. Both are generous, in part because I run a tough campaign. As a player, I'll play with anything, but prefer point allocation or fixed array, and often dread rolling for hit points.
Oh, and I've heard mention of NPCs and monsters with fixed stats - the main reason for that is to simplify the GM's task of generating encounters. When you've twenty gnolls attacking, keeping track of the attribute scores and hit points of each one separately is a royal pain in the hinder parts. Notable (named) NPCs get separate stat lists, but the rank and file are more quickly handled via the cookie cutter approach. If the PCs want to take the time to talk to one of the mooks, I can whip up a personality and backstory on the fly.
|
|
I have one question for all those who complain about random hit points..do you roll random weapon damage because if you don't have one you shouldn't have the other. If your characters are going to have fixed HP then your weapons should do fixed damage..then you can work out exactly how many hits it will take to put down the fixed HP monster..
Removing the ramdom elements takes most of the uncertainty out of the game and wheres the challenge in that
I have one question for all those who complain about random hit points..do you roll random weapon damage because if you don't have one you shouldn't have the other.
You don't understand the difference between having random elements start after character creation, as opposed to during character creation?
As a previous poster put it: If you like rolling for hit points, why don't you roll for skill points, number of spell slots, number of feats, etc. as well?
|
|
If you roll ability score you are rolling number of skill points and number of spell slots thanks to ability modifiers.
As a previous poster put it: If you like rolling for hit points, why don't you roll for skill points, number of spell slots, number of feats, etc. as well?
The skill points and spell slots are fixed numbers plus ability modifiers. You are advocating random numbers plus ability modifiers. I would hope you can see the difference.
In any event, I've merely made my preferences known. Those that wish to play with random hit points are certainly welcome to do so, and I'll not say less of you for your choice.
I have one question for all those who complain about random hit points..do you roll random weapon damage because if you don't have one you shouldn't have the other.You don't understand the difference between having random elements start after character creation, as opposed to during character creation?
As a previous poster put it: If you like rolling for hit points, why don't you roll for skill points, number of spell slots, number of feats, etc. as well?
As has also been said previously, there's a difference of duration. If you roll a bad damage roll, you only have to live with that result until your next attack. If you have extremely low hp for your class, you're stuck with it until you level up.
My point is: People like rolling dice.
I, for myself, hat rolling dice as a player, simpl because I am really unlucky, but my players seem to like.
In my games I offer the pcs the chance of having 75% of the die (9 for d12, 7 for d10, 6 for d8, 4 for d6 or 3 for d4), OR roll two dice and get the better. They have great chance of receiving less and little chance of receinving better. But guess what? Half players just want to roll and roll and roll. There are those who want the safe ground of getting 75%, but here and there, when he sees his friend getting max rolled hp (even if the friend rolled 20% in the past, say, five levels) some players simply roll...
I offer a secure way, but the Heavens will understand why the players like to roll so much...
I wash my hands.
|
I like YULDM's d4 method. Pathfinder's elimination of the d4 hit die makesa uniform, viable alternative for all character classes.
Still, I think something official should be done. The HP roll is the one most house-ruled rule I have ever seen. Whether it was a fixed amount, a "better of two rolls", a minimum, or just DM fiat, no group in my 25 years of gaming has ever just played it straight. I've done RPGA for a few years, so a fixed number doesn't really bother me. I must admit, though, that I had a lot more fun when my PCs had lucky HP rolls.
I'm going to try the d4 method with my group for a few level or two, and see how my group likes it.