I am starting a new game and the players have decided that they would like me to make it a house rule that all characters receive maximum hit points every time they level. They feel that the monsters already have this advantage (untrue), and it takes a lot of pressure off
of the one healer this group has. The characters won't have to stop as often and you don't wind up with a mage that has more hit points than a fighter because of crazy dice rolls. My gut reaction is "no" but I would like to hear other opinions before I decide.
Why not, but then give max Hit Points to your monsters too.
You'll see if your players find this rule so good...
Alternatively you could make them roll, but assure them all monsters will have minimum hit points.
It's really not that bad of a change, especially for smaller than average groups. PCs have more staying power but they don't hit any harder.
I think you could argue that it reduces the need to have as high of a con score because you don't need the bonus HP cushion as much but it's kinda a wash.
The Beta had it where as an option you could add various options to starting HP such as double base at 1st level, con score at 1st, or a racial HD at 1st level. Those changes would improve 1st level durability significantly without needing to drop random rolling.
I'm also firmly in favor of giving PCs the option of going with average score instead of random rolls on HP. That way the Wizard is average 3.5 a level, the cleric and rogue 4.5, and the fighter 5.5 HP a level. If they want to roll they can but they could get a below average result. Many but not all players will play it safe, magical thinkers might get screwed ;)
|
I don't know of the last time I've rolled for hit points in a game. It's usually been either half or half plus 1.
Max hit points hardly sounds like a good way to handle things though, it's extremely draining to keep up with healing people when they get too far ahead of the curve.
It usually ends up working out to the point where instead of having more HP, they've got a burst of temps that aren't really able to be recovered in a reasonable amount of game time at their level.
We ran an interesting campaign that used a point system to determine what you got instead of classes and most people ended up with way too many hit points for the abilities we had to recover them with. Heal is a pretty high level spell and cure moderate wounds just doesn't cut it after a certain point.
The party in question is fairly large (7) and have higher than average stats. They really don't need much more help. And I tend to like those "crazy die rolls". They make GMing fun.
How about letting them roll twice, taking the higher value? That would tend to lessen the chance of an extremely low hit point totals, but still retain the randomness of the die rolls.
I don't know of the last time I've rolled for hit points in a game. It's usually been either half or half plus 1.
Max hit points hardly sounds like a good way to handle things though, it's extremely draining to keep up with healing people when they get too far ahead of the curve.
It usually ends up working out to the point where instead of having more HP, they've got a burst of temps that aren't really able to be recovered in a reasonable amount of game time at their level.
We ran an interesting campaign that used a point system to determine what you got instead of classes and most people ended up with way too many hit points for the abilities we had to recover them with. Heal is a pretty high level spell and cure moderate wounds just doesn't cut it after a certain point.
It's certainly a cost but by the time wands of CLW make their inevitable appearance the ability to heal 5.5 HPs per 15/GP (7.5 GP if you make your own) is hardly a major drain on party resources.
Combat healing is a dead-end strategy, the party should be contributing funds for wands of CLW, so that the clerical wand maker doesn't have to pay for wands out of his own pocket.
|
Max Hit points aren't actually a bad thing. If it encourages your players to fight longer and harder so they can get through a longer adventuring day I'm for it.
As it is I always end up having to house-rule bonus HP for level 1 so that PCs can fight longer. It also means you don't have to be too afraid about throwing in re-enforcements or surprise attacks after the PCs think they've finished adventuring for the day since they'll have that HP buffer to prevent unfortunate TPKs.
I used to have a house rule where you could re-roll certain results of your hit die if the result was too low: 1 on d4, 1-2 on d6 and d8, 1-3 on d10, and 1-4 on d12. These days, however, I just give all characters maximum hit points per level. To balance things, all monsters get maximum hit points, too. I've never had a problem with this in any of my DnD 3.5/d20 games, and it works rather well so far in my current Pathfinder game.
Sure, I would let them, just means you don't have to pull as many punches, or let them know that you will not fudge any rolls since they've got max HP. IRON MAN!
I like the half roll rounded up myself. It's what I usually do for making characters above level 1.
As far as the "being able to adventure longer" the casters will almost always start complaining about spells before the general party is thinking about camping for band-aids...
I've always done 1/2 +1 with max hp at 1st level.
d4=3
d6=4
d8=5
d10=6
d12=7
I make my characters roll, and then if they don't like their roll they can have me roll for them as a second chance. It doesn't always works in their favor, but probably 90% of the time it does. If they got better than average to begin with, they don't ask me to roll.
|
Years ago, I knew a group of gamers in Columbus Ohio, that would take their Hit Die and roll them at the beginning of each scenario, it represented that sometimes you feel like you are at the top of you game, and somedays you full like sh__. Very real life.
I found it rather refreshing actually, but I've never found another group that did this.
(wow has it been over 20 years ago??)
:)
I found for characters- max at 1st level, then happy side of average, works very well.
Be aware that higher then normal hp progression makes healing spells less effective. You might consider maximizing all healing magic, and giving a boost to abilities that heal a fixed amount of hp.
We do max at first level, then roll twice and take the highest for all other levels. Keeps it random, but it also keeps people from getting completely screwed by a bad string of HP rolls.
|
|
Our group does a variation of the roll twice idea. The player will roll, and the GM will roll secretly as well. If the player likes their roll, they keep it - if not, they can take the GM's roll, whatever it is. It makes for slightly above average hitpoints, and is a fun way of doing things. It's fun to watch players agonize over the decision!
the gm for my star wars saga game has us roll one die per level, ie: two die at second etc. i am 7th level now, and rolled 7 dice. it was maddness....but fun. (take the highest roll)
the only time i had hp rolled was in ad&d, 3rd i have max, 4th i will have max.
Interestingly enough, I've been allowing players to take max HP every time they leveled for years (I somehow misread the rules when I first started and thought that was what you did). To my surprise, I found that no one else did this.
Now, when I was little (littler, that is) I was a newbie when it came to DMing, and usually gave enemies extra Hit Points as I saw fit to make the encounter as tough as I desired, because most of the monsters would go down in a few rounds (how anticlimactic!).
Then, when I started playing more by the rules (ironically, while giving everyone max HP), I found my players to be almost too resilient when it came to combat with all their extra HP. They agreed, actually, but didn't want to have to "debuff" themselves from their lordly Hit Point totals. Instead, I just maxed the monsters HP. I've been doing this for years now, and its worked amazingly. Fights are more epic, being longer and drawn out, and players can still soak up more damage (which was great for our Rogue player, who had a hard time not getting hit in combat... it was his first time).
All in all, I WOULD NOT give them max HP without giving the monsters max HP as well, but I've also been raised on longer fights and never played with less HP. So basically, thats all my opinion, but I wouldn't refuse a game that grants max HP to just the players either... I just wouldn't favor it.
Hope that helps :]
One thing to keep in mind, assuming Con is likely to be about the same, rolling hit points tends to keep PCs around average hp (increasingly so the more hit dice you've got). That means the average difference between a wizard's hit points and a barbarians, under PF, is 3 points per die. Giving out max hit points, it is guaranteed to be 6 points per die.
You will tend to see greater differences in hit points if you always give max than if you roll. Two points on the number of sides of the dice nets 1 rolled rolled hit point on average, it nets 2 if the hit points are always maximized.
|
|
Gah, you go through those wands like candy! CLW doesn't do jack for a group of 6 people who are really hurt and when it's gone we can't just pull another like 3 out of thin air in a dungeon. Everyone ends up sitting at a total closer to what they would have been normally.
If your going to max out hit points, I suggest at least doubling the healing rate for natural rest and for rest with a healer about. That might help mitigate some of the pain.
There are definitely greater HP differentials but everyone has a net increase in durability. It's not as if the d6 HD classes are intended to be frontline meatshields after all.
Going with max HP on PCs and monsters does make blast spells even less powerful as they are even less likely to do a significant amount of damage to targets. It also makes summoning creatures even more powerful since they always have max HP.
One possible solution is to just assume that all healing spells and blast spells are assumed to be maximized.
If a 10-dice fireball is always doing 60 base damage/save for half it's more viable than a fireball that averages 35 base damage.
Other spell effects like the number of negative levels from enervation should still be randomized but healing and direct damage should probably receive a slight increase.
Rolling, for me, is part of why I play an RPG. For me, the unpredictable nature of dice excites me. One time I might roll a 2 for hp for my fighter, the next time a 10. That makes the 10 mean something to me and I am pleased by it. If I rolled consistently poorly it would add an element to my character I would enjoy playing, a fighter who might be a bit of a glass jaw. He focuses more on defense. I don't want everything predictable and safe. If I did I would play 4E.
Of course, as they always say though, your mileage may vary. That's just my personal preference.
we do max at first then roll for every other level but you get at least 1/2 max, so a d10 rolled means a 1-5 = 5hp's. It means players who roll poorly still have at least average hp's and they have the excitement of rolling a good number every now and then.
My group has been using a system where you roll the die but if your roll is in the bottom half you get to add half the dice value to your roll (ex. 1, 2, and 3 on a d6 results in a 4, 5 and 6).
So your hp range is 4 to 6 on a d6, 5 to 8 on a d8, 6 to 10 on a d10, and 7 to 12 on a d12. Its better than average, but not max and you still get the fun of rolling each level (and the fighter is still annoyed when he rolls three 6's over three levels).
Been doing this pretty much since the beginning of 2nd Ed. and it keeps the players happy. I just occasionally add hp to monsters in key encounters to keep them interesting.
In the healing department you can simply do the same thing with the d8s (I don't but a buddy who DMs from time-to-time does).
I give max on the 1st HD, then allow re-rolls on 1's for the rest.
We house ruled Full at first plus 6, as per beta, to be more harty at first level. Then the luck of the dice for everything later.
I'm thinking I might, in the case of curing spells, allow rolling 2d4 instead of each d8 in the spell. Sure sucks as a cleric rolling a 1 trying to heal the fighter who is at -1 lol. The top end wouldn't be any different, the min would be 2, and it would more average out to the middle. I dunno, random on the spot idea.
I usually do Max HP for the first N levels, where N is variable depending on the campaign. My monster campaign for example had N = 5, so max HP for the first 5 levels, die roll after that. My normal campaigns usually have N = 1.
As to cure spells, we used to allow healing magic out of combat to do max cure (basically the cleric taking his time to build the spell up and casting it over 10 turns instead of 1). However, once we included the spell compendium, we instead switched over to Vigor spells for non-combat healing. Flat heal rate, and mass lesser vigor is a nice 'heal everyone' same amount spell.
|
|
Its your game. Some variants I would deem "tried and true" are:
> Max hp at 1st. Then re-roll 1s and 2s thereafter.
> Max hp at 1st. Then re-roll only 1s thereafter.
> Max hp at 1st. Then have players roll normally, but the DM/GM also rolls. If YOU (the GM) don't like what they've rolled, and yours is higher, tell them "I rolled for you this time." Also re-roll all 1s.
None of these options have affected power levels, nor disrupted anything over the many years.
Here is a scandalous one (use with discretion):
> Tell players that you don't need to see thier hp rolls. (The numbers tend to be the same anyway for most groups.) Crazy, I know, but players have some sort of 'internal sense' about what hp they think their PC should have, and most will not select max, and most will select a reasonable array of numbers so that at-a-glace it seems above average but not grossly so. (Yes, I know this is scandalous.) Even if you the GM don't trust your players, this is a good exercise to reveal WHO is the least secure player with lower numbers—and you can use this information to enhance your gamemastery to include more "gamist" elements e.g. opportunities for rewards/enhancements/treasures for that PC and more rapidly. Again, please don't argue about this one - try it and see... works some of the time... no one category fits all players I realize. But over the years, I see that some players are "special" and they almost need more power in order to "unlock" their comfort with roleplaying; strange but true. In other words, when they have a ton of hp, some players actually roleplay better since they're willing to take chances, or relax more. Its a strage Maslovian type thing, where until basic safety and security is no longer threatened, the player won't actualize the character. lol
-Pax
i've been maximizing hit points for all creatures, and like how it works -- nobody gets screwed by rolling a 1, and it's fair since it affects pcs and enemies alike.
I use max first level hp, and roll every level as usual. If the total hp are lower than the average hp the character should have, raise hp to that average.
Ex a fighter lvl 11th should have 10+ 5.5 x 10 = 65 hp.
If at level 10 he had 61 and roll 3, raise to 65.
If at level 10 he had 66 and roll 1, keep those 67.
etc.
This way the characters always have at least average hp, and they usually tend to that average as they go up in levels. Though, if they are lucky enough they can have more hp.
|
Here is a scandalous one (use with discretion):
> Tell players that you don't need to see thier hp rolls. (The numbers tend to be the same anyway for most groups.) Crazy, I know, but players have some sort of 'internal sense' about what hp they think their PC should have, and most will not select max, and most will select a reasonable array of numbers so that at-a-glace it seems above average but not grossly so. (Yes, I know this is scandalous.) Even if you the GM don't trust your players, this is a good exercise to reveal WHO is the least secure player with lower numbers—and you can use this information to enhance your gamemastery to include more "gamist" elements e.g. opportunities for rewards/enhancements/treasures for that PC and more rapidly. Again, please don't argue about this one - try it and see... works some of the time... no one category fits all players I realize. But over the years, I see that some players are "special" and they almost need more power in order to "unlock" their comfort with roleplaying; strange but true. In other words, when they have a ton of hp, some players actually roleplay better since they're willing to take chances, or relax more. Its a strage Maslovian type thing, where until basic safety and security is no longer threatened, the player won't actualize the character. lol-Pax
You know - this actually makes more sense than most would expect. This explains exactly the way I know some of my players that I've known over the years would be - would they have been psycho-analyzed.
This is a good approach to draw them out of that shell. Good post.
I don't think it would work now with the groups dynamic I have now - since 4 out of the 5 are truly great roleplayers that really get into the game, but in games past this would have worked splendidly, and going forward I may have to adopt this philosophy if/when I have players that I can identify would benefit from this "scandalous" approach.
Robert
|
|
As to the original point of this thread:
With 7 players - I would think you're going to be hard pressed as it is - especially considering you said they have "better stats" than normal etc.
I feel granting max hit points would only serve to overwhelm the GM and make you work even harder.
As an option to allow for better than avg hit points, but not quite max, allow them to roll their hit points, but always give half the dice + 1 as a minimum.
So there's still a random factor by rolling, but they're not forced to live with a low roll. So a fighter would be guaranteed 6 hit points, but COULD potentially have 7-10 for a given level.
This is how I run my games - with Max hp at 1st level.
Robert
How about letting them roll twice, taking the higher value? That would tend to lessen the chance of an extremely low hit point totals, but still retain the randomness of the die rolls.
I've been doing this in my games for years and years. Really works well - still have teh random element, but bad luck won't make your fighter have fewer HPs than the wizard.
I use max first level hp, and roll every level as usual. If the total hp are lower than the average hp the character should have, raise hp to that average.
Ex a fighter lvl 11th should have 10+ 5.5 x 10 = 65 hp.
If at level 10 he had 61 and roll 3, raise to 65.
If at level 10 he had 66 and roll 1, keep those 67.
etc.
This way the characters always have at least average hp, and they usually tend to that average as they go up in levels. Though, if they are lucky enough they can have more hp.
I usually use something like your system for my PC's. I give them the normal max at 1st level, and then I let them role for each level afterwards. If the level is odd, they either get their roll or half their Hit Die =1. If the level is even, they either get their roll or half their Hit Die.
I have also tried this method of HP rolling. I very loudly tell the players that I am going to the bathroom, and that I wouldn't mind if they were finished rolling for their HP before I got back. That method seemed to work as a fine band-aid to a normal rolling game that just had two levels of suck rolls for every character's HP.
I'm currently a fan of max HP at 1st level, then:
2 D3 for D6 HD
2 D4 for D8 HD
2 D5 for D10 HD
2 D6 for D12 HD
How about letting them roll twice, taking the higher value? That would tend to lessen the chance of an extremely low hit point totals, but still retain the randomness of the die rolls.
Thats what I usually have my group do. Another way is to let them roll but you can't get less than half the die. That way they can roll to try and beat average but won't ever have crappy hp.
Right now my campaign uses max HP per die + Con SCORE at first level and then best of two rolls plus Con Mod after.
I am starting a new game and the players have decided that they would like me to make it a house rule that all characters receive maximum hit points every time they level.
Oh, they have decided, eh?
Well, the voters have decided that they no longer want to pay taxes.
I second the "do it - to every single creature" approach. They'll learn that they'll have to heal just as much damage as before (well, more, since it takes longer to kill the critters) and that their spells and special powers (all the stuff that does/increases damage and only has limited uses per day) are worth less then before.
After all, they said they were okay with this. Or thought it already was like that. It's nice to be prophetic, right?
You don't need to roll HP if you don't want to give them max. Give them average.
Give them the choice of average (round up) plus con bonus or roll.
How about letting them roll twice, taking the higher value? That would tend to lessen the chance of an extremely low hit point totals, but still retain the randomness of the die rolls.
That's cheating the Lady. Either roll and let the dice fall where they may, or use a fixed system. Rerolls and the like are just power increasers.
The party in question is fairly large (7) and have higher than average stats. They really don't need much more help.
7 person party? Go with minimal HP instead, or your fights will last forever! :D
In 1st edition, I used rolling with "half minimum" (actually half+1 for all but fighters), but use normal rolls now (though allow rerolls through a limited Action Point system).
Here's though.
Iron Heroes (a low-magic, gritty d20 variant by Mike Mearls) has a mix of fixed HP and rolling for HP. The traditional hit dice for classes are broken down and turned into 1d4 + the difference between 4 and the maximum possible number i.e. d6 becomes 1d4+2, d8 becomes 1d4+4, d10 becomes 1d4+6, and d12 becomes 1d4+8. This adds a little element of randomness, but also makes sure that each class has a certain minimum number of hit points reflecting each class' toughness. Of course, Iron Heroes doesn't use the standard DnD 3.5/Pathfinder classes and has no magical healing, so some tweaks might be necessary to adopt this to a normal DnD3.5/Pathfinder game.