|
I've done two things for HP (starting in 3.5):
PCs roll hit points, but d6 hit die re-rolls a 1, d8 hit die re-rolls a 1 or 2, d10 hit die re-rolls a 1, 2, or 3, d12 hit die re-rolls a 1, 2, 3, or 4. This makes the hp spread a bit wider. I didn't like how rogues got 1 more hp than wizards, clerics 1 more than rogues, etc.
The second thing I've done, which I prefer, is PCs get 2 hp less than max (after first level). That way, the spread from d6 hit die to d12 hit die is large enough to matter as PCs level, and melee characters are macho.
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.
To clarify, you still can have that same level of challenge, my point was just that, if you inflate PC hit points via some mechanism such as has been described here, you need to proportionally bump up the opponents to produce the same level of challenge. My secondary point was that, if you accept the first as true, why bother? It's just the same basic experience at a slightly higher power level.
As for Dark Age of Camelot, some of the guys in my group have played, but I personally stay away from MMOs. I have limited time to game, and my schedule rarely gives me the consecutive hours needed for MMOs. It's also a bit different experience that I don't enjoy as much as tabletop pen and paper games.
I was sure I found somewhere in Core or in GMG that it mentioned a half-a-die per level option, maybe in the section on starting characters above first level? But in any case, the GM has the option to work up the monsters that way, so I see no reason why the group in question should be so worried about rolling each time.
Back in the middle of our 3.5 run, I allowed them to roll, but take no fewer than half. In time, that turned out to be yet another exploitable houserule for the cheater we had amongst us to cheat, and overall turned the power of the game up a bit too much for my tastes.
Now, I make them decide up front each level: take half now, or roll the dice and take your chances. But not both.
My rule : if you roll less than average, you may reroll, but must accept the second roll, even if lower.
|
To clarify, you still can have that same level of challenge, my point was just that, if you inflate PC hit points via some mechanism such as has been described here, you need to proportionally bump up the opponents to produce the same level of challenge. My secondary point was that, if you accept the first as true, why bother? It's just the same basic experience at a slightly higher power level.
Because it gives the GM more control over the game. If you take most of the randomness out of the survivability of the players, you can adjust how much damage you want to throw at them. You would only need to do this once, instead of every time for different groups.
Lets take a 4th level fighter with 17 con. The range of my system would allow that player to have 40-52 hit points. The range of the Pathfinder system would allow that same player to have 16-52. At the extremes that is 1 and 1/2 times weaker. At the averages, it is less than 1/2...works when the dice fall on the average - fails miserably when they do not (both too much or too little). One swing from an ogre on an average hit will put the fighter down. Hell, a crit could outright kill him in 1 hit. The rolls will become an annoyance if not a serious impediment. No longer fun for the GM.
Let's not forget to mention that a majority of players would have a nasty morale issue with having to tap dance every fight. Might be fun once or twice. But when a player's character is handicapped in such a fashion, most people will get way down. No longer fun for the player.
I also dislike dice roll dictating my purpose in a party. I may want to play that bulky paladin who can absorb huge amounts of damage and protect my party, but when the dice do not fall the right way and I cannot stand in front of that dragon demanding his attention...well I no longer get to roleplay the way I wanted. No longer fun for the party when said player does not show up again.
Nearly 30 years of playing, survivability has always been an issue. Play as you like, but I feel all outcomes should be based on a maximum of two randoms rather than three.
|
I just fail to see the fun of a fighter that must hide behind the wizard or die or a clinically retarded wizard that cannot cast. No better than rolling that badass warrior i always wanted as a female gnome that MUST were pick bows and sing.
I can see some potential in fully randomizing stats, race and gender then picking a class that fits, but randomness can kill any character you have an idea for faster than a balrog can
|
|
I just fail to see the fun of a fighter that must hide behind the wizard or die or a clinically retarded wizard that cannot cast. No better than rolling that badass warrior i always wanted as a female gnome that MUST were pick bows and sing.
I can see some potential in fully randomizing stats, race and gender then picking a class that fits, but randomness can kill any character you have an idea for faster than a balrog can
That's why I'm surprised the hp's have been glossed over in face of the "build your character" method that seems in favor - for the reasons you outline. I guess in 4e they aren't, so it has been thought about. I wonder why in the context of PF the only thing that happened was an adjustment of the hit dice type - which of course fails to address issues with extremes.
S.
I've always played the game from the perspective that all the players and DM want to have fun. It's not fun if a fighter has really low HP as he gets hammered down too often and can't be as "heroic" as he would like, it's not fun for the cleric to then spend a lot of their actions on healing the fighter, etc. And while there may be roleplaying fun to be had with a weak character, there are limits.
My group has usually used the max HP at 1st level, reroll if under 50% for later levels.
Our current GM (we rotate through the group for each AP), allows max for the first two levels and then take what you roll. Fortunately my fighter has rolled 7 or above each level from 3 to 8.
For our next campaign I am going to suggest an alternative that provides for more HP at lower levels.
minimum posible HP = your HD die type minus your level.
If you roll a score under the minimum for your level then reroll or treat the roll as the minimum possible (the former is more generous, but the latter will still avoid hit point scores that are too low for lower levels). Not sure which option I will push for.
Fighter 1 = d10 with a minimum of 9 (10-1). If you roll an 8 or lower then reroll or round up to 9.
Fighter 2 = d10 with a minimum of 8 (10-2). If you roll a 7 or less then reoll or rund up to 8.
Fighter 9 = d10 with a minimum of 1 (10-9) etc
Rogue 1 = d8 with a minimum of 7 (8-1)
Rogue 4 = d8 with a minimum of 4 (8-4)
and so on.
This way low level characters are proportionally tougher. As they level up their potential HP per new level becomes lower but they are more able to compensate through gear, feats, buffs etc.
|
|
I just fail to see the fun of a fighter that must hide behind the wizard or die or a clinically retarded wizard that cannot cast. No better than rolling that badass warrior i always wanted as a female gnome that MUST were pick bows and sing.
I can see some potential in fully randomizing stats, race and gender then picking a class that fits, but randomness can kill any character you have an idea for faster than a balrog can
The challenge (and fun) of a randomized character creation is NOT to go into the game with the idea of "This is the character concept I want to play" but rather "Hey, I generated all of this random information - what kind of character concept do these numbers point to?"
Think of it in terms of building a model: you can either obtain all the pieces that you need to put together just what you want, or you can go to your box of odds and ends, pull out a bunch of random bits and say "What cool thing can I make out of all this stuff?" It's just a different kind of challenge.
It's also a very "old-school" model for character creation. A lot of older RPG rules feature VERY random PC generation. In the original rules for the Sci-Fi game Traveller, it was possible for your character to die DURING the character creation process! :P
|
|
Actually, I feel the need to expand on the point I made earlier, because I'm not sure how clear I was being.
Back in the bad old days of 1st edition D&D, you rolled 3d6 for each ability score - in the following order: STR, INT, WIS, DEX, CON, CHA. SO I go to my local online random dice roller and I get:
STR 13
INT 14
WIS 10
DEX 14
CON 15
CHA 10
Yay! Above average rolls! Let's call this guy Steve(as in Rogers). With good Str, Dex and Con, Steve could be a fighter easily, and a really good one at that. The fact that he's pretty smart means he would also make an excellent Thief or Elf (back when Elf was a class). Steve is an excellent all-rounder. Could do anything - even multi-class! He's destined for greatness. In fact, he makes a very poor example. :P
So let's try again:
STR 11
INT 8
WIS 6
DEX 8
CON 10
CHA 7
Hah! See - I've obviously rolled up a mook. We'll call him George. Talk about feast or famine! George pretty much has to be an unimaginative fighter, and he probably won't be the most successful one, either. Barely competent. Let's try one more for kicks.
STR 13
INT 3
WIS 12
DEX 10
CON 12
CHA 7
Oy! Look at that 3 in Int - that's gonna hurt! I dub this one Lenny. But these stats are very interesting, actually: Lenny has low Int but high Wis (comparatively). So while his friend George in the previous example has the personality of a bag of hammers, our new boy is probably very aware and in tune with his surroundings and has a lot of emotional awareness, he just has a very hard time articulating it. He may not understand the law, but he knows right from wrong. And he's a big fella, too, by the look of him. In 1st ed. D&D terms, Lenny would actually make a pretty effective cleric, cracks about his intelligence notwithstanding.
Now imagine the three PCs above in the same party. There's a cool roleplay dynamic built right into this trio.
Steve is obviously the leader, ambitious, hyper-competent, probably an idealist. He's always searching for his destiny and always trying to impress the locals with his heroic nature.
George is his lackey, probably cynical, grouchy, possibly lazy, unimaginative, needing Steve to prod him along and possibly making fun of Lenny or otherwise taking advantage of him.
Lenny has somehow gotten it into his head that Steve's quest requires his help, and now he won't leave. His world is black and white: there's good and there's evil, and evil needs to be smashed. Point him in the right direction and he'll bring the hammer down. As far as he's concerned, Steve and George are his friends - especially George, because he "helps him out" with the hard stuff, like managing his share of the loot. Maybe he's intensely loyal, too.
Of course, there are other ways to interpret the stats, but that's where the fun is. Now, obviously this won't work every time - sometimes you just roll up a character you'd rather not play, and then you'd just roll up another (PC mortality was pretty high in 1st edition, anyway). However, eventually you DO find yourself sick of the randomness, and that's why we generally do point-buy today and "roll 3d6 in order" is something that's reserved for goofy one-offs and the nostalgia trips.
But it CAN be a lot of fun, I promise! :P
To clarify, you still can have that same level of challenge, my point was just that, if you inflate PC hit points via some mechanism such as has been described here, you need to proportionally bump up the opponents to produce the same level of challenge. My secondary point was that, if you accept the first as true, why bother? It's just the same basic experience at a slightly higher power level.Because it gives the GM more control over the game. If you take most of the randomness out of the survivability of the players, you can adjust how much damage you want to throw at them. You would only need to do this once, instead of every time for different groups.
Lets take a 4th level fighter with 17 con. The range of my system would allow that player to have 40-52 hit points. The range of the Pathfinder system would allow that same player to have 16-52. At the extremes that is 1 and 1/2 times weaker. At the averages, it is less than 1/2...works when the dice fall on the average - fails miserably when they do not (both too much or too little). One swing from an ogre on an average hit will put the fighter down. Hell, a crit could outright kill him in 1 hit. The rolls will become an annoyance if not a serious impediment. No longer fun for the GM.
Let's not forget to mention that a majority of players would have a nasty morale issue with having to tap dance every fight. Might be fun once or twice. But when a player's character is handicapped in such a fashion, most people will get way down. No longer fun for the player.
I also dislike dice roll dictating my purpose in a party. I may want to play that bulky paladin who can absorb huge amounts of damage and protect my party, but when the dice do not fall the right way and I cannot stand in front of that dragon demanding his attention...well I no longer get to roleplay the way I wanted. No longer fun for the party when said player does not show up again.
Nearly 30 years of playing, survivability has always been an...
Interesting point. Just a couple of thoughts in response.
I know the OP talked about someone who had rolled 4 consecutive 1s for hit points. I understand theoretically that that could happen, but I also know the precise odds of it happening: 1 in 10,000, or 0.01 percent. Do you really need to change the rules to eliminate freak results like that? Not to mention that by eliminating low results, you make the freak results at the upper end of the spectrum much more likely, resulting in the subtle power shift up that I talked about. Remember also that maximum hit points at first level is now a part of the rules rather than a common house rule, so the 4th level fighter's basic hit point range is actually 25-52. Statistically, the great majority of 4th fighters are going to fall between 31 and 46 hit points, a significant, but not really gamebreaking range. Consider also that he could have 4 more hit points from favored class, and could take the Toughness feat for 4 more hit points. So even the weak and weedy one in 10,000 guy could get himself 33 hit points at 4th level without too much effort. Is that really that bad, considering that the generic ogre you mentioned actually has only 30 HP itself Baseline monsters don't get the automatic maximum for their first HD?
Looked at statistically, you've corrected what is basically a non-existent problem. So what it really looks like is that you've just decided to jump up the power of your campaign to have it be more "heroic". Cool. It means you can throw bigger, nastier stuff at your players, which can be fun. My point is that it's all just inflation, and you can have the same level of challenge and fun at lower power levels. PF characters are infinitely more powerful than their 1st edition D&D ancestors. Do you have any more fun playing them than you did then? Some people probably do. Taking away the rosy glasses of nostalgia, to me the experience is about the same. I've always had fun.
And for the record, I LIKE having an ogre being able to one-shot kill a lower-level character with a crit. An ogre is an iconic monster, a 10 foot tall heap of muscle and bad attitude. Logically, if something like that does hit you solidly, you should die (or have a chance of dying, anyway). I don't think lower level fighters should be able to brush ogres aside like so many annoying insects, without fear of having their brains knocked out. But that's a style preference. I understand why people like the higher power levels, allowing them to be legendary heroes almost from the moment they pick up a sword. I just prefer starting at a more modest level and building up to the legendary hero level.
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.
Thanks, and no, not being sarcastic. I guess the best way of illustrating it is via music. Basically I want the emotional content of Karl Kenkins version of Dies Irae, but have it stretched out over a couple hundreds hours of a campaign. A sustained and inexorable advance of good in a world that has grown very dark, with my character have the power and authority to enact its transformation.
The key element of that emotion is a sense of certitude, but not a crazed, subjective and fanatic sense of belief. Instead an objective moral certainty. In the real world we can't have the later, only the former, and thus why I find a fantasy setting as a compelling way to experience that imagined reality.
And it isn't even just the music, the lyrics of Dies Irae are heavy stuff that underscores the day of judgment when good prevails.
Thanks for teaching me something about medieval Latin hymns. Never know when that will come in handy. :P
The challenge (and fun) of a randomized character creation is NOT to go into the game with the idea of "This is the character concept I want to play" but rather "Hey, I generated all of this random information - what kind of character concept do these numbers point to?"
Think of it in terms of building a model: you can either obtain all the pieces that you need to put together just what you want, or you can go to your box of odds and ends, pull out a bunch of random bits and say "What cool thing can I make out of all this stuff?" It's just a different kind of challenge.
It's also a very "old-school" model for character creation. A lot of older RPG rules feature VERY random PC generation. In the original rules for the Sci-Fi game Traveller, it was possible for your character to die DURING the character creation process! :P
+1
I think of rolling the bones this way. It's like Christmas morning. I know I'm getting a present but I don't know what it is. Is it a shiny new dwarven fighter? A sneaky halfling rogue? A haughty human wizard? I don't know until I've rolled the dice and figured out what I can make out of the results. And they are all fun.
And I loved the Traveller character creation rules. They were an entertaining mini-game unto themselves. Today's brand of point buy optimizers would absolutely hate them.
|
|
Looked at statistically, you've corrected what is basically a non-existent problem.
Wrong. It is a problem for many, many people. All you have done with your response is barrel-shot my character. Have you not just forced my character to take a specific feat? What happens if my favored class is not the first class I took? Your entire reply is baseless.
And yes, it is inflation of a sort...the whole point is to give the GM another tool to manipulate his campaign. I promise you, it is easier to handle 2 randoms than 3. Especially when the third number is a significant, concrete number.
This banter between us formed from a specific post by you, deeming people like me and my view of hit points as a problem. With that said, though, I do not think Pathfinder should change the rules of hit points. It is better to be on the low-end of a problem than the high end and let me as a GM alter them as I see fit. It allows both of us to play the way we prefer.
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.
+1
Though the majority of monsters have above average hps as well.
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.
Realistically, the odds do favor him getting better rolls in the future, as well.
Toughness can't be taken more than once anymore... it no longer lists that its effects stack. Without that listing, taking toughness multiple times is pointless.
Also, on the odds favoring him getting better rolls in the future; they favor him no better than they favored him in the past. In events such as dice rolls, previous rolls have no impact on the results of future rolls. The belief that he's due to roll any better because he's rolled nothing but ones so far is Gambler's Fallacy.
I strongly believe that hit points should not be rolled randomly. A static number determined by class, level, constitution, and other bonuses would be a much better plan.
|
Also, on the odds favoring him getting better rolls in the future; they favor him no better than they favored him in the past.Simple statistics FTW.
1 in 10 chance to roll a 1. Odds are that he does not roll a 1. So since he is looking for any number but a 1, the odds are in favour of him getting a better number.
It really does not have anything to do with the previous rolls. Every other number is better and 90% of the time a 1 will not be rolled.
I give a 'DM's choice' roll to anyone who asks me for it in game. Works out pretty well.
Once we get to epic levels, I'm going to make them max all their HD anyways, so it hardly matters.
Looked at statistically, you've corrected what is basically a non-existent problem.Wrong. It is a problem for many, many people. All you have done with your response is barrel-shot my character. Have you not just forced my character to take a specific feat? What happens if my favored class is not the first class I took? Your entire reply is baseless.
And yes, it is inflation of a sort...the whole point is to give the GM another tool to manipulate his campaign. I promise you, it is easier to handle 2 randoms than 3. Especially when the third number is a significant, concrete number.
This banter between us formed from a specific post by you, deeming people like me and my view of hit points as a problem. With that said, though, I do not think Pathfinder should change the rules of hit points. It is better to be on the low-end of a problem than the high end and let me as a GM alter them as I see fit. It allows both of us to play the way we prefer.
My apologies if I gave you the perception that I was attacking the way you play. I really have just two points. First, that if you are inflating character hit points in this way you are effecting the balance of the game and should recognize it and modify encounters to take that into account. Second, that if that is true, all you are doing is reproducing the same level of excitement and challenge at a slightly higher power level. You seem to have acknowledged this second point, and I definitely acknowledge that it's all good if that's the way you want to play. I don't want to even give the appearance I'm judging the way another table plays.
As for your objections to my statistical analysis, I do have to take some issue. I didn't say you had to take Toughness, but it is an obvious remedy if you are cursed by the dice gods when rolling your character's hit points. As for favored class, we were talking about a 4th level fighter with no levels of any other class mentioned. It would be a highly unusual build to take your first four levels in anything but your favored class. You could point out the opportunity cost of using the favored class bonus for hit points rather than skill points, and I would acknowledge that. You can certainly argue with some parts of my analysis and disagree with my conclusions from it, but calling it entirely baseless is a little harsh.
As for the number of randoms to handle. There are so many random factors involved in a living, breathing campaign that keeping or removing the one from hit points doesn't seem to have much impact to me.
All that said, if you and your group like playing with the guaranteed higher hit point levels, I say rock on. Peace and good gaming, brother.
Also, on the odds favoring him getting better rolls in the future; they favor him no better than they favored him in the past. In events such as dice rolls, previous rolls have no impact on the results of future rolls. The belief that he's due to roll any better because he's rolled nothing but ones so far is Gambler's Fallacy.
You're misusing the Gambler's Fallacy. While it is true that what you rolled before has absolutely no impact on what you will roll in the future on any one particular roll, that does not negate the fact that, statistically, over multiple rolls, luck will tend to even out. The more rolls you make, the less you are likely to deviate from the norm.
That simple statistical law is why the house always wins in the end. Almost all lucky and unlucky streaks eventually end given enough iterations. And the odds of any single particular roll succeeding and failing as well as the odds of any series of rolls producing any particular result are knowable.
We use the rules as much as possible, and they say roll your hit-die.
((Also, i believe the 4E fixed HP thingie is stupid, but that my opinion))
Two options we have used most:
° roll 2 dice and use the highest (1's are 1's)
° roll 1 dice, but you can keep re-rolling your 1's.
The way 4E does hit points works, because it was designed into the game mechanics, as to older systems, I finally resolved myself to start off with the lowest hit die, which was the wizard with 1d4 and allow the character to take half for the hit points, i.e. 2 + con mod, then increase that by 2 for increasing hit dice, i.e. 1d6 = 4, 1d8 = 6, 1d10 = 8 and 1d12 = 10. That may not be as big a problem with how pathfinder addresses it currently.
The biggest down side I have seen going towards maximum hit points, is healing spells cannot keep pace. So I modified that to be random in combat, but maximum outside of combat.
But the sysetm is diverse, so you have many choices, so pick one that works.
Mr. Fishy lets his players reroll under half...Mr. Fishy monsters and villians get to reroll half hit dice too, so it balances out. Dead PCs are hard to play. A few extra HP isn't going to break the game.
Don't NPCs - as stat'd - automatically get assigned average HP anyway. Unless the DM goes and does all the rolling instead of using the provided average.
I like the half + half die mentioned earlier. You get AT LEAST average HP. You are AT LEAST always on par with NPCs that way.
Don't NPCs - as stat'd - automatically get assigned average HP anyway. Unless the DM goes and does all the rolling instead of using the provided average.
Although I seldom do it, I actually like the old school method of rolling individual NPCs' hit points, especially mook monsters like goblins.
The reason: It keeps the PCs guessing. Way back when, it was nice having the randomness of some goblins having only one or two hp, and others lucking out and having six or more. Players can't say, "Well, we know this guy will go down in one hit from the fighter, so let's power through for the XP." That guy might take one more hit than you have left in you to drop... and the danger inherent in that situation adds to good dramatic tension. The PCs think a little harder about whether it's to their advantage to fight or run.
Additionally, in most games that I currently run, the players have so much experience with PFRPG that in order to make things challenging, every monster I run has MAXIMUM hit points.
Also, on the odds favoring him getting better rolls in the future; they favor him no better than they favored him in the past. In events such as dice rolls, previous rolls have no impact on the results of future rolls. The belief that he's due to roll any better because he's rolled nothing but ones so far is Gambler's Fallacy.You're misusing the Gambler's Fallacy. While it is true that what you rolled before has absolutely no impact on what you will roll in the future on any one particular roll, that does not negate the fact that, statistically, over multiple rolls, luck will tend to even out. The more rolls you make, the less you are likely to deviate from the norm.
That simple statistical law is why the house always wins in the end. Almost all lucky and unlucky streaks eventually end given enough iterations. And the odds of any single particular roll succeeding and failing as well as the odds of any series of rolls producing any particular result are knowable.
"If a statistician hands you a die insisting that 'any given roll has the same odds of rolling a one or a twenty', it means he's handing you a depleted die in the hopes of taking advantage of you. Don't fall for it!"
— Shamus Young, DM of the Rings
Also, on the odds favoring him getting better rolls in the future; they favor him no better than they favored him in the past. In events such as dice rolls, previous rolls have no impact on the results of future rolls. The belief that he's due to roll any better because he's rolled nothing but ones so far is Gambler's Fallacy.You're misusing the Gambler's Fallacy. While it is true that what you rolled before has absolutely no impact on what you will roll in the future on any one particular roll, that does not negate the fact that, statistically, over multiple rolls, luck will tend to even out. The more rolls you make, the less you are likely to deviate from the norm.
That simple statistical law is why the house always wins in the end. Almost all lucky and unlucky streaks eventually end given enough iterations. And the odds of any single particular roll succeeding and failing as well as the odds of any series of rolls producing any particular result are knowable.
I'm not trying to be defensive, but how am I misusing Gambler's Fallacy? As Mok points out, the sample size is quite small by statistical standards. Perhaps you're referring to the law of Large Numbers?
|
|
My apologies if I gave you the perception that I was attacking the way you play. I really have just two points. First, that if you are inflating character hit points in this way you are effecting the balance of the game and should recognize it and modify encounters to take that into account. Second, that if that is true, all you are doing is reproducing the same level of excitement and challenge at a slightly higher power level. You seem to have acknowledged this second point, and I definitely acknowledge that it's all good if that's the way you want to play. I don't want to even give the appearance I'm judging the way another table plays.
As for your objections to my statistical analysis, I do have to take some issue. I didn't say you had to take Toughness, but it is an obvious remedy if you are cursed by the dice gods when rolling your character's hit points. As for favored class, we were talking about a 4th level fighter with no levels of any other class mentioned. It would be a highly unusual build to take your first four levels in anything but your favored class. You could point out the opportunity cost of using the favored class bonus for hit points rather than skill points, and I would acknowledge that. You can certainly argue with some parts of my analysis and disagree with my conclusions from it, but calling it entirely baseless is a little harsh.
As for the number of randoms to handle. There are so many random factors involved in a living, breathing campaign that keeping or removing the one from hit points doesn't seem to have much impact to me.
All that said, if you and your group like playing with the guaranteed higher hit point levels, I say rock on. Peace and good gaming, brother.
First point, I do not agree with your assessment of inflating hit points. Many of these systems described above keep people around the norm. For instance, taking half holds to the averages, and one assumes most people would eventually fall into the averages.
How is that system inflating?
Second point, what if everyone in the group rolled maximum hit points via your system by chance? Nothing was "inflated", yet you are telling me your encounters would stay the same? Answer yes and you validate my ending point. Answer no and, well, you would be lying. It is those times that the numbers fall strangely outside the norms that things become difficult for a GM.
My one and only point is ---> The largely random numbers used for a concrete number eventually will affect someone in a negative way.
It is a problem. Deny it as you will, but as a GM I would rather create encounters, memorable npcs, and wickedly evil schemes than juggle an ever-changing balancing act, especially if I am running more than one campaign. Sh*t gets confusing after a while.
Do you really not see that a few bad rolls makes one character exceptionally weaker when compared with the rest of the group?
* Edited to change paragraphs and a few word choices.
So silly of me, the answer to everything these days is to "google it."
So from this one particular example of a d6 being rolled, it wasn't until around 400 rolls that the law of large numbers kicks in and the average becomes consistent.
Looking at the chart, when look at the part that is 20 rolls and under, its a chaotic mess. The derivation isn't huge, but still... rolling for hit points is icky.
Hmm... that is an interesting bit of information. So if 400 rolls is when the averaging finally starts to kick in, how does that affect a campaign in general, say with d20 rolls? If you end up rolling a d20 roughly 25 times per session, then it's going to take roughly 16 sessions to have the averages of rolls coming out. In PFS you're leveling every three sessions, so that's in your 6th level when your d20 luck is going to start evening out. I don't know... I'm no statistician.
Oh, you'll feel the tendency toward the mean long before 400 rolls. Try it. Try rolling sets of 20d6 and record your averages. They may range around a bit between 2.5 and 4.5, but they'll be pretty close to 3.5 with the highest frequency - assuming fair dice.
|
That would be an interesting question to ask, one that I have no idea how to figure out. Statistically, how big of a set of rolls are needed to reliably see the average emerge on a consistent basis?
The thing you're talking about is called the central limit theorem. Basically, given a random number generator of basically any distribution, the CLT tells us that if you take enough independent samples, the distribution of those samples will be normal. Thats why when you roll a d20 (a unifomally distributed random number generator) and make a histogram of the rolls, it looks normally distributed with an average about 10.5.
25 samples is usually enough to see the effects of the CLT. Obviously, more is better, but a trend should emerge once you hint 25. I don't remember the justification for the number 25, whether that was good enough for the classes I took or good enough in general. However, you can try it yourself and see the results. CLT is one of those mathematical theories that proves common sense.
-Skeld
25 samples is usually enough to see the effects of the CLT. Obviously, more is better, but a trend should emerge once you hint 25.
It seems to me that 25 or any number would only apply to random numbers generated in a particular sized set. If I roll a d4 a bunch, it will likely 'average out' sooner than if I roll a d100.
|
|
25 samples is usually enough to see the effects of the CLT. Obviously, more is better, but a trend should emerge once you hint 25. I don't remember the justification for the number 25, whether that was good enough for the classes I took or good enough in general. However, you can try it yourself and see the results. CLT is one of those mathematical theories that proves common sense.
-Skeld
25 is not nearly enough. Around 400 is the right answer.
One other thought for all of you, each roll you record makes a difference for the ones afterward - specifically because there is a low cap on your opportunities to roll. If your first roll is a 1, you have less of a chance to at least make the average, the same goes inversely for rolling max. This is probably one of the two reasons why RPGs have added the max hit points rule for first level.
After much reading on statistical analysis for variable numbers, I am thinking about going with the "roll two dice and average them system". It keeps closest to the heart of hit points and lessens the chance for extremes.
|
The problem is not the dice rolling it is how you look at it. To me this looks like a great opportunity for a quest. The fighter has obviously been cursed with poor health. Perhaps there is a great healer or an oracle or a legendary ring of wishes that should be sought out to solve this situation.
I think we sometimes forget that we are playing a fantasy game, not optimizing a computer program (no offense to the pages of statistical analysis that preceded my post). If your fighter has lame hp don't try to figure out how to fix the system, use the system that is already there to fix the hit points.
|
|
The problem is not the dice rolling it is how you look at it. To me this looks like a great opportunity for a quest. The fighter has obviously been cursed with poor health. Perhaps there is a great healer or an oracle or a legendary ring of wishes that should be sought out to solve this situation.
I think we sometimes forget that we are playing a fantasy game, not optimizing a computer program (no offense to the pages of statistical analysis that preceded my post). If your fighter has lame hp don't try to figure out how to fix the system, use the system that is already there to fix the hit points.
Finally, someone with a valid point from the other side.
I like it!
The problem is not the dice rolling it is how you look at it. To me this looks like a great opportunity for a quest. The fighter has obviously been cursed with poor health. Perhaps there is a great healer or an oracle or a legendary ring of wishes that should be sought out to solve this situation.
We are trying to figure out ways to prevent the disease, not treat the symptoms.
I think we sometimes forget that we are playing a fantasy game, not optimizing a computer program (no offense to the pages of statistical analysis that preceded my post). If your fighter has lame hp don't try to figure out how to fix the system, use the system that is already there to fix the hit points.
"The system that is already there"? Your solution is a subjective role-playing one. It does not exist in "the system." There is nothing in "the system" to fix the problem.
|
|
Why am I not surprised that you have taken my comment too literally! Pathfinder is a role...playing...game! Not a roll...playing...game. Hopefully you can think non-critically for long enough to understand.
The game includes numbers and mechanics but it is not about numbers and mechanics. To say that a role playing solution to a problem based on random number generation is not a solution is just silly. Look at the game you are playing.
I suggest that you go out and procure some dice that only role 3's and 4's so that you can have perfect averages every time you roll stats and then get some 20 siders that only roll 10 and some 8 siders that only roll 4, etc. Or just use the elite array for stats or use the PFS system for hit points...sheesh there are a million solutions out there but don't try to tell everyone that Pathfinder isn't about role-playing!
This thread asked for solutions to a situation involving low hitpoints. It did not ask for statistical lectures that help no one.
|
|
Why am I not surprised that you have taken my comment too literally! Pathfinder is a role...playing...game! Not a roll...playing...game. Hopefully you can think non-critically for long enough to understand.
The game includes numbers and mechanics but it is not about numbers and mechanics. To say that a role playing solution to a problem based on random number generation is not a solution is just silly. Look at the game you are playing.
I suggest that you go out and procure some dice that only role 3's and 4's so that you can have perfect averages every time you roll stats and then get some 20 siders that only roll 10 and some 8 siders that only roll 4, etc. Or just use the elite array for stats or use the PFS system for hit points...sheesh there are a million solutions out there but don't try to tell everyone that Pathfinder isn't about role-playing!
This thread asked for solutions to a situation involving low hitpoints. It did not ask for statistical lectures that help no one.
Pyrrhic, without a doubt, you have given us something to think about. I concede the fact that there are ways around this problem without changing a rule only because of your previous post. Do no feel that your solution was not appreciated.
On the other hand, I do agree with Cartigan when he wrote, "We are trying to figure out ways to prevent the disease, not treat the symptoms."
One other thing about your post as well, Pyrrhic, Pathfinder is not exclusively role playing. So you may want to reconsider adding the word "just" to the sentence: "The game includes numbers and mechanics but it is not (just) about numbers and mechanics." If you did actually mean what you typed then you may want to reconsider Pathfinder for something like Amber.
|
|
Yes, you are of course correct and I obviously should try to not be so sensitive. You can't have a game without rules. I was using the term "role playing" very broadly to mean the actual playing of the game which includes the dice rolling and strategy (character creation included) as well as the story telling and player interaction. I was not trying to separate the two, only express that you have an in game solution to the problem at hand and that there is often an in game solution to these kind of "mechanical" problems. In my opinion the flaw here is not in the system because there are many ways built into the system to correct the problem...and by the system I mean the game in its totality.
Of course, this does not solve the "problem" that you can be unlucky when rolling hp just like you could roll 5 "1's" in a row in the very first encounter of the campaign miss every attack, fail every save and get killed. Is the combat mechanic thus broken as well?
The game is based in part on rolling dice. I will not argue statistics because it is not my thing but sometimes dice roll well and sometimes they don't. If you take that out then it is not the same game. Fortunately, at least from my perspective, there is a genie over the next hill in the forbidden swamp. He can't take the D20's out of Pathfinder but he can fix my hit points.
|
|
Of course, this does not solve the "problem" that you can be unlucky when rolling hp just like you could roll 5 "1's" in a row in the very first encounter of the campaign miss every attack, fail every save and get killed. Is the combat mechanic thus broken as well?
No.
The problem with your example is that those are independent rolls that mean something only once. Roll a one on an attack and a save 5 times is meaningless for the next chance as your opportunities are in theory endless and not concrete. Hit points on the other hand stay with you indefinitely and your chances of evening out those first, very few numbers is substantial worse.
Also, rolling five 1s on a d10 in a row is a 1-in-100,000 chance, d8 is 1-in-32,768, and a d6 is 1-in-7,776. Rolling five 1s on a d20 in a row is a 1-in-3,200,000 chance. I would say the differences are rather significant.
Lastly, you have your party to back you up if you fail a few rolls.
Unfortunately, your comparison falters several times.
Try again.
Of course, this does not solve the "problem" that you can be unlucky when rolling hp just like you could roll 5 "1's" in a row in the very first encounter of the campaign miss every attack, fail every save and get killed. Is the combat mechanic thus broken as well?No.
The problem with your example is that those are independent rolls that mean something only once. Roll a one on an attack and a save 5 times is meaningless for the next chance as your opportunities are in theory endless and not concrete. Hit points on the other hand stay with you indefinitely and your chances of evening out those first, very few numbers is substantial worse.
Also, rolling five 1s on a d10 in a row is a 1-in-100,000 chance, d8 is 1-in-32,768, and a d6 is 1-in-7,776. Rolling five 1s on a d20 in a row is a 1-in-3,200,000 chance. I would say the differences are rather significant.
Lastly, you have your party to back you up if you fail a few rolls.
Unfortunately, your comparison falters several times.
Try again.
I've seen 3-7 natural 1s rolled in a row by a party before. Since I use DM's choice, I've not seen bad rolls for hp stick, although no one has rolled as poorly as straight 1s. Statistics aren't everything.
However, I disagree that low hp rolls mean something more than once while poor saves and attacks mean something only once. Both of them can mean something for the rest of the character's life. And in both cases, you have your party to back you up.
While I like my system of hit points, because I like high survivability of my characters, I like PV's suggestion as well, and if it so happened (statistically more possible than a streak of 7 natural 20s) that my fighters were hp deficient, I think a quest would be how I fix things.
|
|
However, I disagree that low hp rolls mean something more than once while poor saves and attacks mean something only once. Both of them can mean something for the rest of the character's life. And in both cases, you have your party to back you up.
Would you like to give us some examples instead of just voicing an opinion?
And I too agree with you on PV's premise of a fix.
However, I disagree that low hp rolls mean something more than once while poor saves and attacks mean something only once. Both of them can mean something for the rest of the character's life. And in both cases, you have your party to back you up.Would you like to give us some examples instead of just voicing an opinion?
And I too agree with you on PV's premise of a fix.
It's not a fix if it doesn't fix anything.