|
Raising an old thread from the dead... I've been thinking about another possible solution.
While I see where people are coming from in trying to avoid random rolls permanently weakening PCs, I still like to retain an element of randomness in determining hit points. For my players, rolling for HP is one of the "thrills" that they enjoy about the game, and provides a basis for characterization when they roll a weak barbarian, a tough sorcerer, etc.
So how about reducing the randomness of the roll? How about producing a bell curve across the range of probability, instead of a flat line?
So for example, a character with a d12 hit die will roll 2d12, then divide the total by two. If the end result includes a half hit point, then roll high/low to determine whether it rounds up or down.
I like this, because it minimizes extremely overpowered and underpowered characters, while retaining some of the "fun" of rolling.
|
|
Another thing about this concern (sorry, I like to think about math... hence my avatar!):
The problem of characters having an unusual number of HP for their character basically exists only for the first several levels... because once they have 10+ hit dice everything tends to average out. Then, their CON score is the main factor "defining" whether they're strong or weak in the game world.
|
Not sure what you mean? What if someone is a 3rd level barbarian and has 30 HP? How can a roll be "higher than current HP"?I remember this thread!
I think the best rule for HP I've heard is 'Reroll hit dice at each new level, keep roll if roll is higher than current HP'.
Because you could roll 32 on 3d12?
Edit: You're not counting Con bonuses in that, are you? Because those get added after HP rolls are determined.
I think he means that when that 30hp 3rd level barbarian reaches 4th level, he rolls 4d12 for his hp and keeps that roll if it's better than the 30 hp he's already got.
Because you could roll 32 on 3d12?
Or even 36! :)
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 exactly what I do, too.
|
|
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 exactly what I do, too.
I like that. Maybe my "bell curve" can be another choice for them:
1. Average HP for the conservative (I guess I would roll high/low to determine whether to round up or down)2. 2d*/2, then roll high/low
3. d* for those who like to live dangerously ;)
This allows for maximum player choice.
However, I personally would prefer not to let the players take out randomness completely. Call me an evil DM ;) YMMV.
|
|
I think he means that when that 30hp 3rd level barbarian reaches 4th level, he rolls 4d12 for his hp and keeps that roll if it's better than the 30 hp he's already got.
I think my only concern is someone not getting ANY HP for a new level by rolling under what he rolled the previous level. More tweaking is required I think. Maybe just reroll each die that is under the max.
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.Are you sure the wizard's not cheating.
Fighter, as described 10 + 4 + 4*5 = 34
Wizard, (all max rolls!) (4+3) *5 = 35
That's one lucky wizard.
***
Addressing your post. I've rolled hp forever. Sure 1s suck, but never had a problem. Recently a PC has suffered a fate similar to your fighter. It did make play problematic for him. I've instituted a soft "1/4 hp minimum per level" . I haven't set anything in stone yet. But a series of 1s is a killer.
You have to figure in that the wizard is probably taking favored class +1 hp every level, and probably has the toughness feat (+3 hp at first then +1 hp every HD over three) and likely took a toad familiar as well (another +3 hp). By level 5, the aforementioned add up to an extra 12 hit points.
You have to figure in that the wizard is probably taking favored class +1 hp every level, and probably has the toughness feat (+3 hp at first then +1 hp every HD over three) and likely took a toad familiar as well (another +3 hp). By level 5, the aforementioned add up to an extra 12 hit points.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.Are you sure the wizard's not cheating.
Fighter, as described 10 + 4 + 4*5 = 34
Wizard, (all max rolls!) (4+3) *5 = 35
That's one lucky wizard.
***
Addressing your post. I've rolled hp forever. Sure 1s suck, but never had a problem. Recently a PC has suffered a fate similar to your fighter. It did make play problematic for him. I've instituted a soft "1/4 hp minimum per level" . I haven't set anything in stone yet. But a series of 1s is a killer.
Our group still rolls hp, but we're all a bunch of old timers anyway.:P
But seriously, between favored class, toughness, and so forth there are a lot of opportunities for a player to overcome such deficits. Also we always go max hp at 1st level, and if a player has a real string of bad luck with rolls, I'll let them reroll or take the average.
I had a character who kept getting 2's on HP rolls (cruel luck because we were allowed to re-roll 1's!) Became an unplayable joke by about 4'th level. My brother rolled up a 15th level monk, and out of 14d8, got about ten 8's, and a 7 or two.
I stopped using dice for things that will affect a character for a long time. Max HP at level 1, then happy side of average after that. Easy.
The way I figure it, if your going to allow re-rolls, or whatever, why roll dice in the first place?
I do con buffer rerolls. If you have a Con mod of +1, you reroll 1s. If you have a +3, you reroll 1-3s.
Yes, it means Con 20 gets max HP on d6 HD, Con 24 gets max on d8s, 28 for d10s, 32 for d12s.
Yes, I do it for monsters as well, especially NPC classed or "boss" monsters (which half the time have enough con to get the max HP).
Quick and dirty method for recalculating HP is to bump the HD average by .5 for every point of Con Modifer. So a d8 (average 4.5) with a +3 con is a reroll average of 6 (+1.5), plus the normal con mod = 9hp per HD. Easy math.
Makes for longer, less anticlimactic "boss fights", and players haven't complained because they can see the objective reason for it (notably, nobody has rolled less than 12 con since I implemented this).
This house rule is Standalone, but is complemented by my Pain Saves, Death Threshold, and Point Buy Ability Ups houserules.
|
I give out "action cards" (homebrew) every game to players who show up on time.
They can use the cards during game for specific boons, or they can use the cards to re-roll hit points. One re-roll per card. Pretty much everyone uses a card if they roll below average. This ensures that the PCs have enough hit points, are able to do heroic things (though not too much, since they need to keep some for hit points), and show up on time.
|
|
Random HP can be a problem. I wouldn't underestimate the concern for this fighter--someone plays a fighter to fight, and with well below average HP, that becomes a much riskier prospect. And it diminishes the fun.
The problem is that, unless you roll stats, few other rolls have as much impact as that bad HP roll. Miss an attack? No big deal. Roll low damage? Try again next round. Fail a skill check? The adventure isn't derailed. Fail a save against a death effect? Yeah, that's as much of an impact.
Here are two methods I've used.
1. HP at each level after first are 2 less than max. So wizards get 4 HP per level, rogues and clerics 6, fighters 8, and barbarians 10. It maintains a nice difference between classes, but yeah it leads to high HP.
2. Characters with d6 hit dice re-roll 1's; d8 re-roll 1's and 2's; d10 re-roll 1-3; d12 re-roll 1-4. It brings the averages up for higher hit dice (which I like).
I rolled a 4 for my 2nd level of inquisitor last night. I'm running him as a greatsword wielder, so this hurts a bit (just a little though). What hurts more is that the druid rolled an 8. Now I have to hide behind him! ;)
(Before anyone chimes in, yeah I've got Toughness and the extra HP for favored class, but still more HP is always better, no?)
|
|
I like my "bell curve" method because it results in an average that is still in line with the written rules: for a Barbarian, 2d12 divided by two, with a high/low roll to determine whether to round up, still results in the average of 6.5.
Being a new GM, I don't want to stray too far from the overall power balance between PCs and monsters that is established by the Core Rules, but then again YMMV.
We roll. My rule is if you don't like your roll you can ask me to reroll it for you but you have to keep my roll, even if it's worse. The player's will usually have me reroll for them if they get less than half of max on the dice because I'm *usually* pretty lucky with my hit dice rolls. It has messed them up only a couple of times. Everyone seems pretty happy with this situation. I guess if they roll a 1 and I roll a 4 then it seems like a pretty good improvement...maybe even feels better than if they had rolled a 4 themselves.
M
Stuff
I've never liked rolling for hp. I've been giving max hp at 1st level and 75% of your max hp every level after. So Barbarians get 9 hp, Fighters 7.5, Rogues 6, Wizards 4.5. (round down).
I do average rounded up. If I'm not going to be rolling for ability scores, I cannot comprehend why I would want to roll for hit points. In any case, it seems to me that natural variations in hit point totals should be a function of Constitution and the extra randomness is superfluous.
|
I have to say that that player is a real trooper. Sounds like an unfun character to play. The game is supposed to be fun. Rolling less than half your hit die is is not fun.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!
Yeah, props to the player.
I think I'd have 'accidentally' died and rolled a replacement by now.
Toyed around with the idea of having player reroll all their hit dice after every rest. So a bad roll was no more than a simple rest away to fix.
It also explained some Fighter-types having "off-days".
However, I decided that unless something is going to be changing as often as underwear (or more often, depending on that stanky barbarian), it shouldn't be random. Rather, hitpoints should be a measured boon, not a "chance" at having a good roll.
Hitpoints are especially bad at that, since the range of difference between (most) characters are only 2 points (3.5 to 5.5, not counting barbarian's d12). So a "fighter's good hitpoints" over the course of 19 rolls can quite easily be worse than a class that should be less (such as a wizard). Considering most games will probably see only between 7 to 15 rolls too, the odds of "correcting bad luck" gets pretty low.
In the most recent game I GM'd, I had the players gain fixed hitpoints. Full HD for the first level (actually, couple levels because they were short a player, and didn't want the other options for making up the difference, like cohorts), and half HD for the rest.
In contrast, any major NPCs had the same progression (and mooks had the typical half hitdice).
*Edit*
On the flipside, when I'm a player I don't bat an eye when the DM makes us roll normally for hitpoints.
So really, it's not that big a deal overall for me (as it's never gotten as bad as the OP), but if I have control over the situation, I prefer having hitpoints be a static measurable bonus.
Points as I see it:
- Normal rolling has a large deviation, especially for those classes who are penalized the most by bad rolls.
- Low rolls hurt more for those classes who need HP the most.
- Rolling is fun to some degree, static HP is a little bland, creates only small differences between chars/classes.
- At lvl1 you want higher HP than average. (normal = maximized rolls)
- There is no law of large numbers drowning out bad results, so you will see bad results aplenty.
What I want:
- Deviation less of an impact for those chars who are penalized the most by bad rolls. (but deviation still present)
- Higher threshold for characters that depend on HP the most, but not increased maximum. (no rolling 1 or 2 when you can go as high as 10)
What I don't really care about:
- average going up
Proposed solution:
- Every character gets 1d6 HP/lvl.
- d8 classes get +2 HP/lvl, d10 +4 HP/lvl, d12 +6 HP/lvl. (room to play with +x so we can give one class (1d6+3)/lvl)
- Toughness turns xd6 pool into xd8 pool. (retroactive, new total must be higher than old)
- Race might give a small number of extra HP at lvl1.
Basic idea is: bad rolls are worse than good rolls are good.
|
|
Proposed solution:
- Every character gets 1d6 HP/lvl.
- d8 classes get +2 HP/lvl, d10 +4 HP/lvl, d12 +6 HP/lvl. (room to play with +x so we can give one class (1d6+3)/lvl)
- Toughness turns xd6 pool into xd8 pool. (retroactive, new total must be higher than old)
- Race might give a small number of extra HP at lvl1.Basic idea is: bad rolls are worse than good rolls are good.
I like this idea. Iron Heroes has a similar method. I wonder if the change to Toughness is a bit much, though.
|
|
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).
That is precisely why I effing hate roll-ups for initial stats and for leveling. You have no ability to factor anything whatsoever, and even if you're Mr. Lucky who keeps rolling 10s while someone else is rolling 1s, you feel like a total heel who doesn't deserve it.
I've always thought it strange that given hit points are critical to the warrior classes that they have the potential to get feeble hit points. Hit points to these classes are treated as class features, but really a d12 versus a d8 is just the potential to roll more. Its no certainty and I've seen many a warrior struggle after rolling rock bottom for hit points. I've even seen fighters take toughness just to keep pace with rogues!
We've been doing full HP for the first three levels to give the higher hit point classes a decent HP base and its helped reduce the lethality of low levels from hot run of rolls from the DM.
I think if I was do redesign things I'd switch to every class having d6 for hit dice, but with +X where X is determined by the class. For classes that currenly have d8 HD X would be 2 so they'd have d8+2 given them a minimum of 3 and maximum of 10. The d10'ers X is 4 given them a range of 5-10 and for d12'ers X is 6 giving them a range of 7-12. For wizards and sorcerer types X is zero so there is no +X.
|
For me, the randomness is part of the fun. The guy's got a good Con, so he's pulling at least 5 HP per level. Is he choosing the extra HP for favored class? Has he considered the Toughness feat? Combat Expertise? Dodge? Using a ranged weapon? He's had an outstanding run of bad luck, but he's still got lots of ways to compensate. I don't see any reason to DM fiat yet, but I'm getting more and more old school as I age.
+1
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).That is precisely why I effing hate roll-ups for initial stats and for leveling. You have no ability to factor anything whatsoever, and even if you're Mr. Lucky who keeps rolling 10s while someone else is rolling 1s, you feel like a total heel who doesn't deserve it.
It can suck if you planned on making a tank style fighter, but there are other fighter builds that can be done, and most DMs that I've played with allow a reroll or have other ways of compensating for it.
I, and many others, personally like the fact that you can't completely plan out a character and that there is at least some randomness involved. The given example is an extreme case that can come up, and the DM needs to be willing to be a bit flexible for such cases, but for most of the cases that skew to average, it makes for a lot more organic feeling characters when you let the dice have some say in the what the stats end up being. A lot of people these days are so focused on having the "perfect" stats that they never even consider other possibilities for what the character could be.
|
|
I think if I was do redesign things I'd switch to every class having d6 for hit dice, but with +X where X is determined by the class. For classes that currenly have d8 HD X would be 2 so they'd have d8+2 given them a minimum of 3 and maximum of 10. The d10'ers X is 4 given them a range of 5-10 and for d12'ers X is 6 giving them a range of 7-12. For wizards and sorcerer types X is zero so there is no +X.
Wow, and I think JrK came up with the exact same idea, too. I like this.
It's interesting that the majority of posters here are houseruling how they determine hit points.
It seems that the current system of rolling HPs is another holdover from Gygax's "first draft" of the game (OD&D), and the original idea of D&D being a more casual, luck-based experience. I would support the next iteration of Pathfinder (MANY years down the road!) defaulting to the system BQ and JrK have suggested. My method has the present advantage of being compatible with the current power level of the game, but admittedly the math is more complicated than it needs to be. This method would make sense in a systemwide overhaul that applies the same rule to NPCs and monsters.
For "old schoolers," Pathfinder could also suggest to GMs other options ("Method 1", Method 2", etc.), just as they do now with how we roll ability scores.
I wonder if the change to Toughness is a bit much, though.
Well on average it is only 1 point/lvl more, equal to what Toughness gave originally. :) The higher total is the real kicker, but that should make toughness an interesting choice.
DM informed us: HP is rolled, anything less than half is rounded up to half. We didn't question it... :)
|
|
We always take the average rounded normally (that is up, on a side note we also ignore the rules and round everything else normally as well, that is, .5 rounds up). One of the advantages of this is it makes it easy to audit character sheets. At any point in your characters history it is easy to calculate what his hitpoints should have been, without having to have kept a running total of what your hp rolls were for the last X levels.
Pardon my perhaps-noobish question, but why would you need to track the history of a player's HP in Pathfinder? Perhaps to track level drain in older versions of D&D? But in PF aren't we just operating with negative levels now, which penalize a player a standardized 5 HP each?
DM informed us: HP is rolled, anything less than half is rounded up to half. We didn't question it... :)
I find this sort of thing interesting, because it is mechanically equivalent to stuff like 1d4+4 for d8 and so on. Why not change the rolling system to something similar anyway?
It's interesting that the majority of posters here are houseruling how they determine hit points.
Well, people who house rule hit point determination are more likely to be interested in this thread, and thus to post in it.
DM informed us: HP is rolled, anything less than half is rounded up to half. We didn't question it... :)I find this sort of thing interesting, because it is mechanically equivalent to stuff like 1d4+4 for d8 and so on. Why not change the rolling system to something similar anyway?
I'd be okay with it. Really, I'm okay with anything that says a "1" is not allowed. lol
DM informed us: HP is rolled, anything less than half is rounded up to half. We didn't question it... :)I find this sort of thing interesting, because it is mechanically equivalent to stuff like 1d4+4 for d8 and so on. Why not change the rolling system to something similar anyway?Actually, the two are not equivalent.
Assuming he rounds fractions down, Loaba's system results in possible rolls of:
4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
... for a d8. while your system results in possible rolls of:
4, 5, 6, 7, 8
His averages out to 5.25, while yours averages out to 6.5.
That Elvenshae guy is just kinda smart, dammit.
|
|
Rolling for HPs in my group is part of the excitement. The amount of HPs rolled each level is part of who the character is. Barbarian rolls a 1 at level 3, the player usually finds a reason his past experiences in the last few months of gametime has hurt his ability to sustain damage and the opposite is true when that 12 is rolled. Successive bad or good rolls defines the character as much as the other mechanical choices the player makes. A little bit of randomness is fun in my eyes. But every group's different. We've been doing it this way for as long as we've played together (quite a long time). Any other way would seem strange.
Actually, the two are not equivalent.
...
Haha yeah, I figured that out while doing dishes (the philosopher's golden time of day), but after that didn't bother editing. The weight on the lower rolls seems a little off to me though, I'd want to avoid rolling a 4 as likely as rolling a 5,6,7 or 8. Though on the other hand it is a good way to prevent too many high rolls.
I'm glad I posted though, this stuff makes me think some more about my house rule stuff.
No complaints, power-gamers and optimizers are happy; purists have yet to complain as the "real" fights take slightly longer and feel more epic.
It is something I've been considering, longer fights (in terms of rounds) is interesting. One possible issue: damage spells are weaker, SoL spells are stronger.
I removed an attempt to start an edition war.
|
|
I had a DM tell me max HP per level, I went with it because he's the DM, but I hated it, it's lame. The only houserule I've seen that doesn't make me want to vomit is players either choose to roll (and they accept what they roll even if it's one) or take the average (and they make that choice before they roll).
I may play under your houserule for HP but just know that in the back of my mind I think it's terribly lame and pathetic that you can't deal with low rolls. I feel that way whenever I see a reroll ones rule, whether it's for stats, HP, attack rolls, what have you. My contempt will actually grow if the rule increases the #s you can reroll, you say I can re-roll 2s and 3s, well why don't you just pop out the binkie and bib and you can push me in a stroller.
Even if the game is challenging and fun, a part of me will always feel like the character is a cheat that wouldn't have existed in an adults game.
Maybe that comes across inflamatory, and the DM who makes the rule may never know my feelings about it beyond a simple, "can't we just use regular rolls, no? Okay." but that's what I think and how I feel about it.
And I would never commit suicide ingame over rolls, and think anyone who would sepuku a character over something like several HP is too low or I have a 14 as my max stat aren't mature enough. Even if its something I'd never say in game.
You are coming from a player perspective and yes, are coming across as "inflammatory" though I wouldn't have used as polite of a word for it personally. As a player you can tell yourself that playing a minimum HP character with no stat over 14 somehow makes you superior to the other players who "need" to have a 16 or higher and average or better HP but, it is a style preference, nothing more.
Wanting an "adults" game is fine, understandable even assuming you are yourself an adult. Having had the majority of my experiences focused around my FLGS, which had an "all are welcome" policy for games in the store,...
Wow you're fast as I deleted that within 2 seconds of posting it as it was just getting tired of hearing nothing but we re-roll etc. and I knew it was just a b!+%+y rant that I needed to get out of my system after reading the thread. and for the record, I rarely get to play, I'm pretty much a career DM which is why from my player perspective I hate it so much as when I finally get to play I have some DM tell me use the dice but I'm gonna hold your hand.
|
|
Rolling for HPs in my group is part of the excitement. The amount of HPs rolled each level is part of who the character is. Barbarian rolls a 1 at level 3, the player usually finds a reason his past experiences in the last few months of gametime has hurt his ability to sustain damage and the opposite is true when that 12 is rolled. Successive bad or good rolls defines the character as much as the other mechanical choices the player makes. A little bit of randomness is fun in my eyes. But every group's different. We've been doing it this way for as long as we've played together (quite a long time). Any other way would seem strange.I honestly have not seen someone role-play Hit points. They are too abstract. A particularly low or high Constitution, of course, but never HP. It's a necessary component of the tactical simulation that is combat.
I've seen and experienced the highs and lows rolling hit points causes. From my experiences, the joy of a very good hit point roll simply isn't worth the complaints and bargaining that I always end up seeing from the terrible rolls. And the adoption of a houseruled system just causes further confusion.
It wouldn't exactly call it roleplaying HPs as coming up with an in-game explanation as to why the character progressed slowly or quickly on the HP track when the roll was made.
Example: Barbarian rolls a "1". Player says "well I guess that disease I contracted a couple weeks ago took more out of me than I thought" or "I've hated the food here in the Mwangi, look at me I'm all skin and bones." Usually it's something fun or silly like that to provide an in-game explanation.
At my table complaining and bargaining doesn't happen with HPs because there's an established social contract that we've had regarding HPs since we started playing. Of course there's disappointment with a low roll but it's usually evened out over time anyways.