I used to have my players re-roll d6's on a 1, d8's on a 2, d10's on a 3, and d12's on a 4. It got annoying trying to get people to remember this for some reason, so I switched to roll 2 dice and take the better. Raises the average a little without any fuss.
Hit points!
I have a guy in my group who has 18 CON, is a fighter and has rolled "1" for hit points for levels 2,3,4 and last night 5! He has less hit points then the Wizard (16 CON).
While I agree with what most others have said (I havent rolled for HP in a long time... use PFS rules), your fighter could theoretically still have a respectable amount of HP.
Level 1: 10+4+1 (favored class)
2: 1+4+1
3 1+4+1
4 1+4+1
5 1+4+1
Should be 39 Hp, toss in toughness and it's 44. Low, yes, but hardly something that should be dropped in one hit, though maybe his AC is abysmal, but then again you said he's "mechanically optimized in every way"
This. If a character rolls low for HP consistently, then he needs to consider mitigating that the same way he would if he rolled (or bought) a low Dex and thus had bad AC. Take feats (Toughness). Get a +2 Con belt before getting a +2 Str belt. Use that favored class bonus for HP instead of skills or whatever other option his race gives him.
In my games, I let my players "step" their hit die up or down. Say they have a d8. They can roll a d8, or a d6+1, or a d4+2, or a d2+3, or a d0+4 (i.e. 4). Or they can roll a d10-1, or a d12-2... But if they roll a d12 and get a 1, they actually lose a hitpoint for leveling (training injury?) and if they roll a 2, they don't gain anything (not counting con mod and favored class, of course). Most choose to roll their normal die or step it down one. But every now and then someone steps it up.
The groups I've played with have traditionally let players reroll 1's, but if they get a 1 on the reroll they keep it.
|
Odds of this happening are pretty phenomenally low, so the game can hardly be blamed. It's the risk you take when you roll hit dice.
The GM for my Kingmaker game has us roll our hit dice plus another dice one step down (so the fighter rolls a d10 and a d8) and the player takes the better result. This has given us slightly higher than average HP, but has also saved us from multiple levels of rolling 1's.
My houserule has always been to let players reroll a 1 on hit points any number of times.
I'm sorry, the dice have one's for a reason. Rather than a DM fiat to arbitrarily give him more hit points, just have their next treasure (or opponent) have an ioun stone(+2 con), or a belt, or something. Since he's a fighter, he gets a feat every level, so there's no reason he shouldn't have toughness x2, at least. I just don't see it as a problem that requires a DM's help to solve (except for maybe giving him a con item a little sooner than normally), it should be up to the player to deal with it. If he's NOT taking toughness, he has made the choice to have lousy HP, and should have to live with it.
While I do make lower rolls less likely, I do think you have a good point. PF has multiple remedies for times when the dice give you low values in character generation. Any stat can be increased via magic items and level increases. Hit points can be increased with Con increases and feats.
I hate sounding like an old geezer, but sometimes I have to wonder about why people have so many problems with a little adversity in their gaming these days. I know people used to complain about bad hit point rolls back in 1e days as well, but the game's never had so many built in remedies to compensate for it, and people seem to complain even more.
I hate sounding like an old geezer, but sometimes I have to wonder about why people have so many problems with a little adversity in their gaming these days. I know people used to complain about bad hit point rolls back in 1e days as well, but the game's never had so many built in remedies to compensate for it, and people seem to complain even more.
It's because in the old days, you didn't have internet to be able to see all the complaints (or make your own :)).
Hit points!
I have a guy in my group who has 18 CON, is a fighter and has rolled "1" for hit points for levels 2,3,4 and last night 5! He has less hit points then the Wizard (16 CON). We have a policy that you roll in front of everyone and you get what you roll. The fighter is mechanically optimised in every way, but given his hp's he's just crap. Don't heal in combat the 'experts' say - well without the cleric dumping every thing on the fighter every round he goes down like a sack.
Anyone else have issues with the Elephant in the Corner? 4e fixed this, variations of 3e fixed this (i.e. A Game of Throne), so why does PF still have the random hp rolls? Perhaps a requirement of 'at least' half on any hp roll. Please tell me I've just missed the relevant rule.
The person in question is ditching the character, unless someone can show we have been wrong by rolling hp's and accepting whatever the dice said. Thing is you can't say he did anything wrong, hp's are rolled during play, and with no control.
Thoughts,
S.
My beard and chest hair are going gray as I type this volume, so bear with me.
-back in the good old days of yore, when we had Star Frontiers, Basic D&D, and the new game was d6 Star Wars, we would shrug our shoulders when the random gods of numerical generation would present us something. It would rarely be what we wanted. But we would take it. Can't exactly have it as a game if we all win, all the time, and we all get a beret to wear and a blue ribbon.
Sometimes, there are losers in a game, as in life. If you rolled a 1 at my table for your new level of hit points, tough. Take it, plus your con modifier. Maybe you'll get something good next level. Or maybe instead of buying that shiny +3 bastard sword of ungodly damage you'll invest in some armor that doesn't feel like it was made in China and purchased at Wal-mart.
If you understand that some people know how to take a hit in real life, you will understand it better when your invulnerable rager barbarian rolls a solid 1 on his hit dice. Or even a 12 as a result.
I roll all my named characters. I design them from the bare bones if it is a AP from the 3.5 days of yore. I take the intended skeleton from 2e and bring him up to Pathfinder. Granted, he might have a fungal template on it (Thank you Paizo for showing me the wonders of the Advanced Bestiary) to make him a little more augh! But I don't do anything different than my PC's would expect if I were to run a fair game.
I've had my share of TPK's. I watched last night over 10 hero points get spent. Only two characters in the party have any left. Paizo has made these characters more robust than any other variation of this game. They have made it really difficult for a DM to permanently kill a PC from mid-levels on.
It is the game, people. If you roll a 1 on your level up hit die, and you cannot absolutely take it, at least spent a hero point to reroll that sucker.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
This thread had made me change my mind about rolling hit points. Previously, in my home campaign, I had a policy of "roll twice, take the better result", which made rolling low unlikely:
On a d10:
roll a 1: 1%
roll a 2: 3%
roll a 3: 5%
roll a 4: 7%
roll a 5: 9%
roll a 6: 11%
roll a 7: 13%
roll an 8: 15%
roll a 9: 17%
roll a 10: 19%
median roll: 7.15
However, my policy makes the problem more remote, but doesn't solve it.
Odds of this happening are pretty phenomenally low, so the game can hardly be blamed. It's the risk you take when you roll hit dice.
...that making the problem remote is sort of like how AD&D 1st Edition requires a percentile rolls for extraordinary strength, and to check for psionics. It's rare to have somebody with 18/90 Strength and powerful psionics, but in the cases where that does show up, the liklihood of it happening didn't matter at all. It's still a balance problem.
In this case, a sequence of 1's for hit points may be rare, but who cares? It happened, and now it's keeping the Fighter from being effective in his role.
So I like the idea of a low-end cap. And I think I most like the rule of taking the median roll as the base, so that the odds for a d10 are:
roll a 6: 60%
roll a 7: 10%
roll an 8: 10%
roll a 9: 10%
roll a 10: 10%
Since that makes rolling very high less likely than d4+6, so the characters aren't as likely to get too far above the hit point expectation, either.
|
Another idea that I've had to even out the curve when rolling for HP is to either average two dice or to roll two dice who's total adds up to the hit die.
So instead of rolling 1d6 you roll 2d3
instead of 1d8 you roll 2d4
instead of 1d10 you average 2d10 (round up)
instead of 1d12 you roll 2d6
Haven't tried it yet, but I think the players would like it and it should result in HP gain that was only slightly above average.
|
Rolling for hit points was one of the most traumatic things I remember from OD&D/AD&D days, and it eventually was one of the reasons why I skipped 2nd edition.
You spend all of that time working towards that level and the power boost, and then you finally have to roll hit points, the heart and soul of the system, and you roll a 1. "Don't worry, in a month or two you'll get to roll again." Even if I rolled an 8 it was so stressful it wasn't worth the fuss.
3.0 and beyond we've just used average +1 for everyone. Removes the stress, allows the GM to better gauge challenges. I couldn't imagine playing in a campaign today where hit points were rolled.
You do realize that this is no less of a house rule than if you had used it with 0E, 1E, B/X, BECMI, or 2E, right?
Another idea that I've had to even out the curve when rolling for HP is to either average two dice or to roll two dice who's total adds up to the hit die.
So instead of rolling 1d6 you roll 2d3
instead of 1d8 you roll 2d4
instead of 1d10 you average 2d10 (round up)
instead of 1d12 you roll 2d6Haven't tried it yet, but I think the players would like it and it should result in HP gain that was only slightly above average.
I have my players roll twice and take the average, though I have them round down. I think there’s only been one particularly bad roll (two 1s). Everyone’s pretty close to the expected average of their hit dice, but now rolling max HP when one levels is a bit more special.
I expect awesomeness at level 1 and going forward. It isn't an issue of if we may succeed, instead it's how we'll succeed that is the story laid out before us. A manifest destiny of awesomeness.
---
maddox wrote a game for us to play?
|
I use average HP in my games. If a player wants to roll, then they eat what they rolled. No takebacks. They have to choose - average HP, or rolled HP. Perfectly fair and above board. I even allow the choice on a per level basis: they can roll for one level and take the average the next. Never had any complaints, because the choice is theirs. Of course, I like to minimize luck whenever possible, so I personally almost always take the average.
This is my policy and preference as well. Players should be given the option for average if they want it, and given the option of rolling if they want it; if they roll high, grats! If they roll low, they knew the risk.
On the other hand, if the party Fighter has rolled '1' the last four levels in a row, and the party wizard (taking average every level) now has more hit points, then it's probably ok for the DM to "reset" his rolls to average.
Just don't count on it happening every time - rolling isn't any fun if there's no risk.
|
|
No part of character creation is random in any game i play. It is no more fair or right to roll stats and HP and get screwed over than to roll race and gender.
While I have no problem with this sentiment and the principles behind it, I would like to say that a LOT of fun and interesting roleplay can be had with highly randomized systems of character creation and advancement. The older editions of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay spring to mind. Also, ye old "roll 3d6, in order" method from 1st ed D&D could produce very interesting parties.
|
|
No part of character creation is random in any game i play. It is no more fair or right to roll stats and HP and get screwed over than to roll race and gender.
Having read and considered the replies to my issue, I have to agree with you. Why in PF are hp's random at all or at least no options (like presented for Stat generatio)? Seems an oversight. In terms of 3e birthed rule-sets I have come to really like A Game of Thrones. In "my" prefect world PF 2.0 would use A Game of Thrones as a base rule-set and then add in the awesomeness that is Paizo's touch.
Looks like the fighter in the group will either have to ditch his character or live (or die) with his hp's. I'm not one to house rule, all I can trust is that Paizo (WotC) play tested the game well enough such that the lowest or highest hp's doesn't have a massive unbalancing effect on the game...
In Paizo We Trust.
S.
It's been a long time since I played with standard rolled HD. I've played with 1d6 HD is rolled as 1d4+2, 1d8 = 1d4+4, 1d10 = 1d4+6, 1d12 = 1d4+8
You always end up with above average HP this way. These are supposed to be healthy characters so bad HPs doesn't make sense.
I use this system too. I always liked the fact that the minimum you can get is one shy of the maximum of the Hit Die below you (5, 7, 9), so your Hit Die is more of an advantage.
In Hackmaster Basic, you get to re-roll ALL your HD every time you level up. If your new roll doesn't exceed your old HP total, you keep it. The effect is that HPs tend to even out over time. Low rolls don't hurt as much, but high rolls often only provide a temporary boost.
|
Our rule is and has always been that you can re-roll the 1's.. Nothing that will upset the system, but it makes a huge difference for the fighter/barbarian who rolled 1-2, and nobody else complains :D
We use the same rule, though I've been thinking about refining it perhaps, since classes with lower hit dice have even better chances of maxing their hitpoints than the higher hit die folks with rerolls going on.
Something like:
d6 - no reroll
d8 - reroll on a 1
d10 - reroll on a 1 or 2
d12 - reroll on a 3 or lower. (maybe)
With all the bonuses (Con + Favored Class) we just use a simple method:
1) Max at 1st level.
2) Reroll all 1s when gaining levels.
3) Reroll all 2s if you roll d10 or d12.
Like someone pointed out, even rolling 1s at 5th level with an optimized Con and Favored Class bonus, you could have 39 hit points.
Using my system, at minimum, the Fighter would have 47 hit points.
Or course monsters follow the same rules...
|
|
No part of character creation is random in any game i play. It is no more fair or right to roll stats and HP and get screwed over than to roll race and gender.While I have no problem with this sentiment and the principles behind it, I would like to say that a LOT of fun and interesting roleplay can be had with highly randomized systems of character creation and advancement. The older editions of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay spring to mind. Also, ye old "roll 3d6, in order" method from 1st ed D&D could produce very interesting parties.
Would you find it fun to roll race and gender?
DISCLAIMER: This is just how I play. You may play differently.
I make all of my players roll for hp with no fudging, and I do the same in most of the games I play.
If I, or they, roll a 1, that only increases the character's hp by 1 plus the Con modifier.
Low HP is another character aspect that lends itself to good roleplaying, IMO - a fighter with a glass jaw can be an interesting archetype to play, and with some ingenuity you can find workarounds and tactics that prevent you from taking a dirt nap after every combat.
I would too, but I enjoy reconciling randomly generated character backgrounds as well.
Just a couple of thoughts to add here.
The problem the OP is discussing is a byproduct of rules changes that allowed all characters, not just fighters, to gain bonus HP for exceptional Cons (3.0), all characters to gain bonus HPs for any Con score of 12 or above (3.0) and the move of the arcane casters to d6 rather than d4 while the martial classes stayed still (PF). Needless to say, in older editions, it was very difficult for the wizard to ever have higher hit points than the fighter. Why the changes? Because wizard players whined incessantly about not having enough HP, and designers listened to their whines, so now wizards are encroaching on the high HP territory that used to belong pretty exclusively to martial classes.
It amuses me to hear people trying so desperately to remove chance from a game designed around the mechanic of rolling dice to resolve actions. You can make a similar observation about point buy or people who optimize their characters to be able to autosucceed by taking 10 on all skill checks, thus eliminating randomness. It's as if people don't really want to play a game in which you may succeed or fail. It's more like a judged character creation contest, in which the cleverest designers can guarantee themselves victory without significant risk. I understand why people might enjoy that challenge, but to me it is kind of alien to the core concepts of gaming.
I do hope that most people who are using the various houserules to artificially pump up character hit points are adjusting the difficulty of encounters as well. If not, they are definitely playing the game on Easy mode. And if they are, what's the real point? You can always adjust the game to provide challenge at the power level (including HPs) of the party. Is it really more fun to find that balance and challenge at higher power levels, rather than lower? I would say no, but I'm sure others would disagree.
All that said, because the OP's problem can occur in PF, per RAW, and has occurred in my own campaign, here's my own houserule: If, and only if, a character has below average hit points already for their class, Con and level, and they roll low for HP, they may request the DM roll for them - but they are stuck with the result, whatever it is.
I do hope that most people who are using the various houserules to artificially pump up character hit points are adjusting the difficulty of encounters as well. If not, they are definitely playing the game on Easy mode. And if they are, what's the real point? You can always adjust the game to provide challenge at the power level (including HPs) of the party. Is it really more fun to find that balance and challenge at higher power levels, rather than lower? I would say no, but I'm sure others would disagree.
I do adjust the encounters as well, yes. While this means that the artificially increased power-level of the PCs doesn't actually matter, it does allow the characters to be challenged while the players are happy to have a (more) powerful character :)
Hit points!
I have a guy in my group who has 18 CON, is a fighter and has rolled "1" for hit points for levels 2,3,4 and last night 5! He has less hit points then the Wizard (16 CON).
Thoughts,
S....
Wizard, (all max rolls!) (4+3) *5 = 35
...
Wow. Embarassing memory lapse.
~Slinks into corner.~
My groups re-roll anything less than half of the Hit Die rolled. ie; d10 only 5 and up counts, 4 and lower are re-rolled. I think the idea of any adventurer especially a fighter/barbarian gaining less HP than a wizard is crazy.
As far as playing on "easy" mode? There is alot more to difficulty than having more HP to play with, not to mention some, no wait, probably most people play the game for the experience of playing, and for the adventure and story, not for the sake of difficulty.
My groups re-roll anything less than half of the Hit Die rolled. ie; d10 only 5 and up counts, 4 and lower are re-rolled. I think the idea of any adventurer especially a fighter/barbarian gaining less HP than a wizard is crazy.
As far as playing on "easy" mode? There is alot more to difficulty than having more HP to play with, not to mention some, no wait, probably most people play the game for the experience of playing, and for the adventure and story, not for the sake of difficulty.
Points taken. I would just counter that an appropiate level of challenge is a key game design concept, and important to many people's enjoyment of the game. Might not be important to all groups, but it certainly is to mine. Not that we are playing DeathMatch in which every encounter is a life and death struggle, but the adrenalin rush from the occasional tightly contested battle in which there is a real chance of losing (or at least taking casualties) is something we enjoy.
|
|
It's been a long time since I played with standard rolled HD. I've played with 1d6 HD is rolled as 1d4+2, 1d8 = 1d4+4, 1d10 = 1d4+6, 1d12 = 1d4+8
You always end up with above average HP this way. These are supposed to be healthy characters so bad HPs doesn't make sense.
I use this system as well. It works marvelously for my campaign.
I run my games with the randomness left to the realm of combat, not character building.
We use max Hp at first level and 1/2 max +1 for the rest of the levels (same as Pathfinder Society and LG before it).
I also use a point buy for stats.
I prefer this because nothing annoys a player than having his character be a gimp sitting next to a god, and have this all be due to the dice (I know it annoys the crap out of me).
|
|
...It amuses me to hear people trying so desperately to remove chance from a game designed around the mechanic of rolling dice to resolve actions. You can make a similar observation about point buy or people who optimize their characters to be able to autosucceed by taking 10 on all skill checks, thus eliminating randomness. It's as if people don't really want to play a game in which you may succeed or fail. It's more like a judged character creation contest, in which the cleverest designers can guarantee themselves victory without significant risk. I understand why people might enjoy that challenge, but to me it is kind of alien to the core concepts of gaming.I do hope that most people who are using the various houserules to artificially pump up character hit points are adjusting the difficulty of encounters as well. If not, they are definitely playing the game on Easy mode. And if they are, what's the real point? You can always adjust the game to provide challenge at the power level (including HPs) of the party. Is it really more fun to find that balance and challenge at higher power levels, rather than lower? I would say no, but I'm sure others would disagree...
It amuses me that you would think a simple HP change to allow the GM a stronger handle on his campaign is "...trying so desperately to remove chance..." Maybe you enjoy chaotic games. I much prefer to have a stable environment where a fighter needn't worry about being blown up every fray he joins. To me, your remarks are meaningless as you have assumed way too much of what the other posters' have said.
I do think it should have gone without saying that as a GM you need to alter encounters whether you have house rules or not. Walking through stuff or barely surviving every fight is not fun for anyone. To me it is on the GM to balance the fights. I believe that is why Paizo added APL and the little "+" after it for designing encounters.
BTW, just because I tighten hit point rolls does not mean my entire campaign has chance removed from it.
Trolol.
|
|
In Hackmaster Basic, you get to re-roll ALL your HD every time you level up. If your new roll doesn't exceed your old HP total, you keep it. The effect is that HPs tend to even out over time. Low rolls don't hurt as much, but high rolls often only provide a temporary boost.
This is a very nice idea. I am going to bring it up with my players.
I have my players use 15 point buy, average starting gold for their class, and average+1 hp at every level after first.
Mooks are constructed with 10 point buy and named NPCs get 15.
I used to use 25 point buy, but it strained my suspension of disbelief that the most gifted people in the entire nation just happened to band together to form an adventuring party. If one of them dies, suddenly another one in a thousand type of guy comes to join the group = lame.
In any Paizo adventure path, only the final villain (Karzoug, Illeosa, etc.) gets 25 point buy, and their CRs are adjusted accordingly.
It amuses me to hear people trying so desperately to remove chance from a game designed around the mechanic of rolling dice to resolve actions. You can make a similar observation about point buy or people who optimize their characters to be able to autosucceed by taking 10 on all skill checks, thus eliminating randomness. It's as if people don't really want to play a game in which you may succeed or fail. It's more like a judged character creation contest, in which the cleverest designers can guarantee themselves victory without significant risk. I understand why people might enjoy that challenge, but to me it is kind of alien to the core concepts of gaming.Well, for myself at least, as I said above I'm looking for a "manifest destiny of awesomeness." I specifically dislike challenges. If I have to work hard for the win then I've failed. Now, I know my perspective isn't in the least common, and quite blasphemous to a host of people. I just get off on seeing my characters as a kind of manifestation of the divine will. So because of that I'm not so much playing Pathfinder as a larger meta-game.
Ideally I'd just play over and over again a Gandalf type character. I'm super powerful, but... the narrative requires that I hold myself back in most instances. The narrative in the context of a game is the table full of people and their own individual and collective aspirations. I'm fully aware that if I just walked in as Joe Blow min-maxer powergamer of doom all I'd be doing is spoiling the game for everyone. So the challenge for myself is to have my super awesome moment, while also letting everyone else have their fun.
So when it's really going good for me I've powergamed my character far ahead of most of the people at the table. I then hold myself back, let everyone get into the thick of things, contribute a little here and there, though I do make sure I add plenty of color with roleplaying. Eventually something goes wrong, people start dropping. At that point I...
Appreciate your honesty and your self-awareness in acknowledging that the way you like to play may be unique to you.
That is, of course, assuming you aren't just being subtly sarcastic. If so, you got me.
...It amuses me to hear people trying so desperately to remove chance from a game designed around the mechanic of rolling dice to resolve actions. You can make a similar observation about point buy or people who optimize their characters to be able to autosucceed by taking 10 on all skill checks, thus eliminating randomness. It's as if people don't really want to play a game in which you may succeed or fail. It's more like a judged character creation contest, in which the cleverest designers can guarantee themselves victory without significant risk. I understand why people might enjoy that challenge, but to me it is kind of alien to the core concepts of gaming.I do hope that most people who are using the various houserules to artificially pump up character hit points are adjusting the difficulty of encounters as well. If not, they are definitely playing the game on Easy mode. And if they are, what's the real point? You can always adjust the game to provide challenge at the power level (including HPs) of the party. Is it really more fun to find that balance and challenge at higher power levels, rather than lower? I would say no, but I'm sure others would disagree...
It amuses me that you would think a simple HP change to allow the GM a stronger handle on his campaign is "...trying so desperately to remove chance..." Maybe you enjoy chaotic games. I much prefer to have a stable environment where a fighter needn't worry about being blown up every fray he joins. To me, your remarks are meaningless as you have assumed way too much of what the other posters' have said.
I do think it should have gone without saying that as a GM you need to alter encounters whether you have house rules or not. Walking through stuff or barely surviving every fight is not fun for anyone. To me it is on the GM to balance the fights. I believe that is why Paizo added APL and the little "+" after it for designing encounters.
BTW, just because I tighten hit point rolls does not mean...
Sorry if I offended. Not my intent. My remarks just highlighted a trend I see toward less randomness and more control by the player in the game as it has developed over the years, from character creation to mechanics like take 10. While I personally don't like this trend or find it enjoyable, I fully understand why many others do.
As to whether I like chaotic games - actually, yes. I love the sheer random element of chance, the adrenaline that comes from knowing each roll could fail or succeed dramatically, even if the chance of such failure or success is small. While I don't believe, as I stated earlier, that every encounter needs to be a death struggle that the PCs barely make it out of alive, I definitely don't want "a stable environment where a fighter needn't worry about being blown up every fray he joins". I want that sense of danger. It's key to the fun of being a fantasy adventurer for me. I don't want my characters dying all the time, but I want them to be in danger of dying all the time, and knowing that if I've survived it's been by outwitting and/or outfighting the enemy, and, yes, maybe by being a little lucky.
To each his own. I wish you good gaming, however you like to play.
The groups I've played with have traditionally let players reroll 1's, but if they get a 1 on the reroll they keep it.
This is how we do it -- the gods must have wanted you to take that 1!
-The Gneech
|
|
Sorry if I offended. Not my intent. My remarks just highlighted a trend I see toward less randomness and more control by the player in the game as it has developed over the years, from character creation to mechanics like take 10. While I personally don't like this trend or find it enjoyable, I fully understand why many others do.
As to whether I like chaotic games - actually, yes. I love the sheer random element of chance, the adrenaline that comes from knowing each roll could fail or succeed dramatically, even if the chance of such failure or success is small. While I don't believe, as I stated earlier, that every encounter needs to be a death struggle that the PCs barely make it out of alive, I definitely don't want "a stable environment where a fighter needn't worry about being blown up every fray he joins". I want that sense of danger. It's key to the fun of being a fantasy adventurer for me. I don't want my characters dying all the time, but I want them to be in danger of dying all the time, and knowing that if I've survived it's been by outwitting and/or outfighting the enemy, and, yes, maybe by being a little lucky.
To each his own. I wish you good gaming, however you like to play.
I appreciate your response and apologize, myself, for being so hasty. I just do not understand how I cannot have the struggle every fight even if they have more hit points. It is simply a larger number for me to work with as a GM.
As for your game style, you may want to consider playing an MMO like Dark Age of Camelot. I loved that game with all my heart, and without a doubt, it has the most randomness of any game I have ever played.