When I was first introduced to 3.5 the people that taught me how to play (till i bought the book) used a house rule for max hp... pretty much you treat every hp roll as its maximum number. It wasn't till i read through the book that I noticed this was not the rule nor was it even a optional rule, and personally I think its just plain bad. The people I game with started using this rule because the people they used to play with cheated on hp rolls so they just gave everyone max (lol).
What do you guys think of this rule pros/cons (oh and this includes monsters getting max as well)
|
Max HP favors high hit dice creatures over creatures that have lower hit dice but have special abilities. It damages the CR system, but I am not sure it breaks it. Rolling hit points is a gaming convention that goes back to first edition D&D, and has been retained in D&D and Pathfinder since then (unless 4e does something different, I haven't checked). If you are an old school gamer, or learned from old school gamers you probably prefer rolling hit points, a lot of other folks prefer set hp/level (usually 1/2 the classes hit dice or 1/2 hit dice +1). The group I play with currently uses the Max hp house rule for all d20 games, and for the most part, it works out OK. It increases the survivability of PCs and at the same time allows the monsters to hang in there a while longer.
|
To each group their own.
Jerald hits it pretty much on the head. A lot of the APs/Modules also are not written with max HP in mind, instead assuming that characters have average hit points for their level. My own group traditionally uses the "roll twice and pick one" method of HP generation. I modeled it about a year or so back to see what the average HP was for any given character and it's on par with the 1/2 Max + 1 method but adds some variance to the equation. To run at max hit points in these modules means converting monsters (which I get tired of doing) or watching the players tear through combats.
Threadjack
My personal favorite HP rolling method:
1. Roll your HP.
2. If you roll max congrats!
3. If not, subtract one from your max and roll again.
4. If you roll your new max congrats!
5. If not, go to step 3.
When I was first introduced to 3.5 the people that taught me how to play (till i bought the book) used a house rule for max hp... pretty much you treat every hp roll as its maximum number. It wasn't till i read through the book that I noticed this was not the rule nor was it even a optional rule, and personally I think its just plain bad. The people I game with started using this rule because the people they used to play with cheated on hp rolls so they just gave everyone max (lol).
What do you guys think of this rule pros/cons (oh and this includes monsters getting max as well)
Another problem this will cause is that it will make combats longer. At the middle to upper levels, things might get tedious.
I use average rounded up for all HD. d8 means 5.
I do max + racial at first lvl and then make them roll, but I allow them to get one re-roll on the next lower dice, I don't let them pick the higher of the two, if they roll lower they are stuck
We used max HP, but also allowed max healing from spells, as you will notice more down time if the character's HP are low. And if someone hating playing a cleric before based on healing, then good luck unless you make some adjustments.
But in the same respect, our preference was running multiple encounters per session, so it was more combat oriented.
Agreed, but in our campaigns we tend to be low magic, in regards to going to a magic shop to purchase anything you need, even if it is common items like minor potions. We also don't do alot of crafting type activities, or have NPCs available. But you will always run into special situations when modifying components of character generation.
My main intent was just to think what the change may affect down the line in regards to taking damage, healing, etc.
I was once in a 3.5 game where the DM had the hitpoint rule backwards. He thought you rolled hitpoints at level 1 and took max hitpoints at every subsequent level.
I follow the max HP at level 1 and roll HP every level following. Even then, my players have a lot of HP. I always require HP rolls to be done in front of me so I know they're honest rolls, but they still have a lot of hitpoints.
I actually do max HP every level, like the OP. Consequently, I also max all enemy HP. I've done it for several years now, and I haven't noticed anything out of the ordinary; my group prefers longer combats, so we enjoy it.
It would certainly tilt the scales in the players favor if you just maxed their HP and not the monsters, and it would probably skew the CR system to some degree, but hey, do what you like.
EDIT: Gah, didn't read the last part of your post about giving it to monsters as well. Shame on me.
I like (for PCs) maximum hp at level 1, and (maximum-2) at each additional level. Alternately, the player can roll instead of taking (maximum-2), but no whining about the result!
For a new campaign I am planning to start, I have been thinking of instituting a flat HP system. I think max hit die is a bit much, but I want to differentiate HP by hit dice more than one point. I am thinking d6 = 4/level, d8 = 6/level, d10 = 8/level, and d12 = 10/level. Or maybe I'll drop the d12 altogether; it is an aberration in the newly elegant PF setup. (Don't worry, I'll address the Barbarian's rage death problem, and it will all work out.)
EDIT: Dammit Hogarth. That is basically my idea. Ninja'd.
For a new campaign I am planning to start, I have been thinking of instituting a flat HP system. I think max hit die is a bit much, but I want to differentiate HP by hit dice more than one point. I am thinking d6 = 4/level, d8 = 6/level, d10 = 8/level, and d12 = 10/level.
Heh -- I beat your suggestion by 20 seconds!
My group prefers to roll over receiving average hp...but we have a house rule that if you don't like your roll you can have the DM reroll for you (and you keep his/her roll even if it's worse). Works well for us.
As a DM I use average hp for all opponents as I assume this is figured into their challenge rating and I don't really want to mess with that in either direction...with my luck Karzoug would end up with minimum hp, and that wouldn't be a very climactic battle, would it?
M
We use the following:
1D4 hit point no rerolls (not applicable in PF)
1D6/1D8 hit point reroll 1s
1D10/1D12 hit point reroll 1s and 2s
Works well and actual rarely comes up more than once or twice in campaign. Like my current game Level 10 and that was the first time one of the fighter got to re-roll the 1 they rolled.
It's like when I play video games. I save first then level up. If I get a 1 for hps I reload and level up again. I could do till I got max but it gets to be a pain so usually only did it I got 1 or 2 for hit points because probability wise you are unlikely to get that a second time.
My group consistently had back line characters with more HP than front line before we just instituted a max HP policy. Nothing worse than watching the barbarian roll a 1 or 2 3 levels in a row. The hit die is the only randomized thing left in character leveling, and it is used to ballance the classes. Sometimes you don't get average though, and it messes with everything way more than giving max HP. Max HP will probably mess with monsters in an AP, but in other games it allows you to throw more at the party before they are crippled and need to rest. Its only done good things for my game.
I allow any player to choose when leveling. They can take the average roll with no penalty automatically, or they can roll for HP. Choose before rolling. This provides more choice on the player and makes them feel more control over what is happening to their character. They can take a average character if they want, or gamble for something better.
I just go with whatever is rolled (I'm old-school that way I guess).
Things in the past and/or if I'm really telling a pretty tough/grueling tale w/the characters, we'll do a double roll and take the best result. Essentially the player rolls one die, and the GM rolls the other - which ever comes out best is the one we roll with. Honestly, I'm NOT out to get the players, and if everyone wants to run HP a certain way - I'm good with it. I'm more interested in survival of the PC's and getting on with the story. If that means more HP to help 'em move through it, what's the harm?
There are SO many ways to modify encounters as a GM that it's just not that much of a deal-breaker to me. Too easy? Add more reinforcements (or a second wave or whatever). Too hard? scale back a few things - have a convenient "distraction" of some sort catch the attention of "extra" enemies and draw them away - something. It's very, very easy to help/hinder when you run the whole world. ;-)
I do "reroll lower than half"
OR, if you please, d6: 3+1d3, d8: 4+1d4, d10: 5+1d5, d12: 6+1d6.
I like this because it forms discrete partitions, and you can't end up with a Wizard that's tougher than a fighter through fluke chance.
I mentioned before about my proposed campaign method, but here is what my group has done for quite some time now:
Re-roll ALL ones, because getting one hp just plain sucks.
After re-rolling ones; you can challenge the roll, but you must take the second roll (unless it's a one). And of course, max at 1st level.
My group consistently had back line characters with more HP than front line before we just instituted a max HP policy. Nothing worse than watching the barbarian roll a 1 or 2 3 levels in a row. The hit die is the only randomized thing left in character leveling, and it is used to ballance the classes. Sometimes you don't get average though, and it messes with everything way more than giving max HP. Max HP will probably mess with monsters in an AP, but in other games it allows you to throw more at the party before they are crippled and need to rest. Its only done good things for my game.
I'm the guy whose Barbarian always rolls 1's and whose Wizard always rolls 6's. This is why all my front line characters put one of their two best stats into Con -- Period.
It's very, very easy to help/hinder when you run the whole world. ;-)
FTW
We have max hp at 1st, then roll. If they don't like their roll, then I roll and that is what they get. This method has yielded higher than average hp, and the players are happy with it.
In my most recent game, there were concerns over people with "supposedly" high hit dice having rolled low in the past, ending up with results like a Rogue or Wizard having more hitpoints than a frontline character.
The concern was that the hid die was supposed to be a mechanical benefit that balanced the character's other stats, and making it a "chance" thing for something that was permanent made it so the average could easily be missed. Your sample is too small to get a proper averaging of the results.
.
So, this is what I came up with for my current campaign I'm DMing (which should go straight up to 20th level, possibly epic).
Heroes and BBEG Max HD for levels 1-4, then half HD from that point on (a d8 would be a 4). The slightly below average (should be 4.5) is covered by the frontloaded 4 levels of max hitpoints. Even a d6 will end up with slightly higher than average hitpoints by 20th level.
Cohorts, Named NPCs, Mini Bosses Max HD at first level, and then from then on, half HD (rounded normally, so a d8 is 4.5). This gives a small boost to the "important, but not spotlight" characters.
Regular NPCs and Monsters Half HD (d8 = 4.5). Exactly as the Monster Manual has it (making my DMing job easier).
....
For Example
A frontliner with a d10 hitdie would have the following progression (vs the normal max 1st then roll):
5th 45hp (vs 32, ~40% increase)
10th 70hp (vs 59.5, ~18% increase)
15th 95hp (vs 87, ~9% increase)
20th 120hp (vs 114.5, ~5% increase)
So by the time hitpoints are no longer the only/main form of death, the difference is minimal. Meaning spells that were changed in Pathfinder to deal hitpoint damage instead of "instant death" will be largely unaffected. As well as spells like Power Word Stun, which react differently depending on hitpoints.
....
So far, we are 7th level into the game. The bonus hitpoints were noticeable at the levels where they were getting max. They still occasionally risked death (thank goodness for PF's negative Con rule), however since this campaign deals with NPCs quite a bit, the danger shifted slightly from the Hero's survival, to the survival of the important NPCs that were with them.
Now that we are a few levels into the half-hitdie, I'm noticing that combat is becoming fairly normalized. Risk of death still occurs quite readily.
Bosses and Minibosses survive a bit longer as well, which means they get more face time in the game, and are appropriately more scary.
As a DM, I max out every HD of every character/Monster/NPC, unless the story wants otherwise. Level-ups midsessions are fast to do as there are no rolls to do. For skills and feat, it waits after the game for DM approval, but altogether, this ruling helps. While I am generous on such, I am a DM that favors coup-de-graces, narrow passages over cliffs and lava pits, natural hazards and critical hit special effects, such as (You were injured on an important nerve on your thigh, you move a quarter your speed until you are treated, and your dodge bonuses to AC aren't relevant anymore since you can't move as fast as usual)
This way of managing the game does not make players feel like they abuse the game thanks to a large amount of HP, since they see so much occasions where they could die anyway... They develop techniques and strategies to overcome the even tougher monsters, and have a great deal of fun.
Another game I play at my bro's place; He allows 2 rolls for HD and keeps the best... if both these rolls are under the average, the character gets average_rounded_up.
For my homebrew, a character gets their Constitution score + maximum hit points for first level at character creation. After that, you roll as normal. It sounds like a lot, but I play with some lucky/unlucky women on Sundays and a lot happens in my games, even at level 1.
It's very, very easy to help/hinder when you run the whole world. ;-)FTW
Don't forget the first part of that statement where it was explained. But, if you need it spelled out more clearly: the DM controls all elements of the game. If PC's are stomping through unchallenged, the DM can beef up the enemies a bit to challenge. If the PC's are having too hard a go of things, the DM can also moderate things to favor the PC's (ie: reduce HP's, down play strategy, etc, etc).
Essentially, it's the assertion of the "god power" of the DM. When they run the game, they can do anything because they control everything (except PC's, but even certain spells work around that - so, not so much).
Not a big deal, honestly.
Don't forget the first part of that statement where it was explained. But, if you need it spelled out more clearly: the DM controls all elements of the game. If PC's are stomping through unchallenged, the DM can beef up the enemies a bit to challenge. If the PC's are having too hard a go of things, the DM can also moderate things to favor the PC's (ie: reduce HP's, down play strategy, etc, etc).
It's slightly more tricky to adjust things (in a subtle way, at least) if one PC is weak and one is strong. E.g. a party with two fighters encounters a dragon, and one fighter has 24 hp and one fighter has 67 hp; a breath weapon that can challenge fighter #2 would probably cream fighter #1.
My group does a reroll 1/4 rounded up method. Meaning:
1d4 re-roll 1s
1d6 re-roll 1s and 2s
1d8 re-roll 1s and 2s
1d10 re-roll 1s 2s and 3s
1d12 re-roll 1s 2s and 3s
Still allows for some randomness but sort of makes sure the higher HD keep their HP advantage and arent subject to really bad luck for rolls as important as HP.
I've been looking at a house rule that allows for some variation but, at the same time, keeps people on the "right" side of the average in order to maintain survivability (Plus, this completely ignores the whole "Ha! The Barbarian rolled a 2!" thing).
So, I've replaced the standard hit dice with the following rolls:
Sorc/Wiz(d6): 2+d4 (Distribution 3-6, average: 4.5 hp/level)
Rogue/Bard(d8): 2+d6 (Distribution 3-8, average: 5.5 hp/level)
Cleric(d8): 4+d4 (Distribution 5-8, average: 6.5 hp/level)
The(d10)-ers: 4+d6 (Distribution 5-10, average: 7.5 hp/level)
Barbarian: 6+d6 (Distribution 7-12, average: 9.5 hp/level)
I know, Cleric's not in the spirit of the new rules, but it's a throwback to the 20-odd years of gaming during which they were heartier than rogue/bard types, and really, the average is only 1 point. Also, I thought about 4+d8 for barbarians, but it aded back in a randomness that I didn't like.
Anyhow, my 2 cents.
That is as bad as the ability score rolls we used to do...
Base 10 + 1d8!
Range 11-18....
*shrug* To each their own. I don't see how this is worse than the (quite sensible) houserules that crop up in which people re-roll 1s, (or 2s) on their hit die.
Of course, I hate random attributes and therefore always use a point-purchase system. (I think it's dumb to penalize a player because his d6s betrayed him the day we were rolling stuff up.)
|
That is as bad as the ability score rolls we used to do...
Base 10 + 1d8!
Range 11-18....
*shrug* To each their own. I don't see how this is worse than the (quite sensible) houserules that crop up in which people re-roll 1s, (or 2s) on their hit die.
Of course, I hate random attributes and therefore always use a point-purchase system. (I think it's dumb to penalize a player because his d6s betrayed him the day we were rolling stuff up.)
I use point buy right now, but plan on using the suggestion I found elsewhere of everyone rolling and getting to choose any set rolled. So everyone ends up with the best rolled set arranged as they like unless a different one works better for them. Makes it fair across the board.