|
I'm not sure how you can disagree with actual play experience for my group. Your experience can be different than mine and I have no doubt you've had issues with players being upset about HP rolls but at our table it has never been issue for my group. No one has ever said to me "My 2nd level fighter would have lived if I had rolled better for my HPs this level." We take the game mostly seriously but not ourselves very seriously so leveling is never tainted by a low HP roll.
I disagree with the point you are trying to make through those experiences but, you are correct, I should have been more clear in that regard.
You believe that rolling as per the standard rules adds something positive to your game, I disagree. And many of those who agree to continue to roll for hit points, still need to modify the the rule to suit their game. This is where I see a problem.
Rolling well in this game IS fun; whereas rolling poorly is not always so. During a game rolling poorly can add twists and force positive changes to characters or players. Rolling poorly on hit points does not ADD anything positive to a game. You have said yourself that rolling is exciting for your players but, at best rolling poorly is an outwardly neutral experience. I case its been awhile since you've rolled abilities, I know it has been for me, rolling very poorly on a permanent aspect of your character sucks. It can make playing the character you wanted to play very difficult, if not impossible in some systems.
Point buy has addressed this problem in ability scores; why should the plethora of house rules listed here be necessary to alleviate this problem?
An imaginative player can have fun with poor HP rolls as they can with rolling a poor fort save vs. disease. Upthread I had shown examples of how characters have done that in my game.
We roll 4d6 drop the lowest as well. If we have poor rolls we are disappointed at first and then come up with a character that explains it and we play that guy. I've had fun playing less than optimal statted characters, trying to figure out how to survive in a profession they were genetically not pre-disposed to work in.
In the end it's a matter of taste. If others enjoy a different system for HP creation and ability score creation that's great. I'm not going to tell them its bad-wrong-fun. My group is definitely a let the die-fall-where-they-may type of group that likes things difficult.
|
An imaginative player can have fun with poor HP rolls as they can with rolling a poor fort save vs. disease. Upthread I had shown examples of how characters have done that in my game.
We roll 4d6 drop the lowest as well. If we have poor rolls we are disappointed at first and then come up with a character that explains it and we play that guy. I've had fun playing less than optimal statted characters, trying to figure out how to survive in a profession they were genetically not pre-disposed to work in.In the end it's a matter of taste. If others enjoy a different system for HP creation and ability score creation that's great. I'm not going to tell them its bad-wrong-fun. My group is definitely a let the die-fall-where-they-may type of group that likes things difficult.
+1 I don't see rolling low HP as a bad thing, more as an opportunity to have a unique character, a fighter that is reckless in combat ignoring others attacks rather than trying to dodge them, or a guy who although he has never been sick a day in his life, has a glass jaw. These are opportunities to have fun with the system, not a flaw in it.
When I use the point buy system I always drop one stat to an 8 or 7, for fun, flavor, and the extra points :)
So there ya go.
|
|
+1 I don't see rolling low HP as a bad thing, more as an opportunity to have a unique character, a fighter that is reckless in combat ignoring others attacks rather than trying to dodge them, or a guy who although he has never been sick a day in his life, has a glass jaw. These are opportunities to have fun with the system, not a flaw in it.Hello again,
You just described a character with high Con and low Dex and a character with average to low Con and great fortitude. These are choices players made for those characters, they are intended and were something the player was interested in doing.Very high or very low hit point rolls can invalidate those choices you listed. What fun is that?
Or a character with high con and low hitpoints since they're abstract and since their's more than one way to skin a cat.
|
|
You have shown examples of good players laughing off a bad situation. They showed maturity not enjoyment, as far as I interpreted the examples you gave.
Poor stats can be very fun to role-play, they create flavor and challenges. I am no fan of power gaming and over-optimization; But, a character with less than 10 in every stat constitutes a re-roll, not a challenge. But, in an attempt to stay on topic I'm going to avoid discussing ability score generation (I try to be flexible in my own games for their generation and happily use a number of different systems). I was using point buy as an example of a core system that allows for flexibility in character generation and avoids the pitfalls of very poor rolling for a permanent aspect of a character.
I honestly think your misunderstanding what I'm trying to get across. Challenges are necessary, difficulty is fun, players who have to think creatively to overcome a challenge will enjoy the game more.
Hit points are a means to an end, nothing more. They are they to allow a character to survive a hit, some classes are designed to survive more hits and they have been balanced around this fact. Forcing a player to use a fighter who's hit points are equal to...
Dude there's no forcing involved. This is how we've played forever. We like playing this way. That's what you're not getting. People like playing the game in different ways. I don't enjoy point-buy. I don't like getting half my HD plus Con or rolling twice or the myriad of other things I've seen suggested in this thread. I'm glad others do though and I'm sure not trying to force them into my way of thinking on it. I'm just explaining what my group does and why we enjoy it. I gain a level, roll a 3, add my Con bonus and maybe my +1 for favored class, tell myself I need to start traning more because I feel like I'm not gaining the most out of my physical talents and then ask my fellow party members if they are interested in finding those lizardmen that have been causing so much trouble south of here.
|
|
Lastknightleft,
It could be but, if those are character concepts for a player, particularly good or bad rolls on hit points will still invalidate those concepts. Where as my examples are ingrained in the players choices for the character, low hit points hurt the first concept and high hit points invalidate the second.
No those aren't concepts, their what became of something that developed in game. Maybe we play differently, but my concept only goes so far as the start of the game then I let what happens to my character determine what he becomes. Those are both ways of describing the character the OP was talking about. Hit points are abstract, involving not just the ability to take damage but shifting away from the blade turning a lethal thrust into a knick. Hence a character who's never been sick in his life but has a glass jaw can be exactly what the OPs character described. As rolling a one for every level from one to 5 nets you 32 HP. He can also be a guy who charges recklessly into combat ignoring the fact that his enemy is stabbing him viciously, hence he only has 32 HP so he goes down faster because he doesn't take the time to avoid those lethal thrusts. Another way to look at it is that your character just never learns from his mistakes so that while his skill with the blade improves his lack of learning leaves him still falling in combat as he just never thinks to defend himself the way others with similar experiences would.
Low HP do not invalidate a character, a players rigid unwillingness to adapt to the changes that the game dictate are the only thing that invalidates a character. Now if you go into the game from the time you start playing and you have an exact plan for everything that's going to happen to your character, and you can't change that plan because you are unwilling to, then that's something you can talk to your DM about, but it's not a flaw in the system, and it's not something that invalidates a character.
What if you want to play someone, I dunno, competent, that can meaningfully contribute to the team in the fashion originally imagined?
Depends on the group. If none of your PCs have a single ability score under 16 or else they're "not competent," then that's a MUCH different baseline from a campaign in which PCs roll 3d6 for abilities in order, for example. Some groups use a 15-point buy; others a 25-point buy; still others roll 1d6+12 for stats. All of these are major differences that dwarf a few lousy hp rolls in comparison.
My group rolls 4d6, drop the lowest. Therefore none of our PCs can "meaningfully contribute" to the all-16-or-above groups above. But guess what? They don't have to. They only have to contribute to their OWN group.
And if a few bad rolls for hp somehow negate Toughness, Con bonus, favored class bonus, false life, belts of mighty Con, and so on and so forth? Then that says something about the specifics of the group for which that is true -- not something about the game as my group plays it.
And if a few bad rolls for hp somehow negate Toughness, Con bonus, favored class bonus, false life, belts of mighty Con, and so on and so forth? Then that says something about the specifics of the group for which that is true -- not something about the game as my group plays it.Reread the example - we're discussing a 5th-level fighter who's got 32 hit points, already including a large percentage of the stuff you're talking about. I didn't follow the exact calcs on the 32, but it looks a lot like 32 = 10 + 4 [Die rolls] + 5 [Favored class] + 5 [Toughness] + 8 [Con; should be 10].
He's decided to describe this as a character who runs into combat heedless of the damage he's taking - which is great and all, but it still means you're playing a Fighter with Wizardesque hit points and are going to die really, really easily. [Avg. Wizard: 6 + 4 * 3.5 + 5 [Con] = 25; up to 30 if favored class]
Moreover, False Life works just as well on the guy who isn't permanently gimped on his survivability. Yes, you could spend an inordinate amount of resources making the guy who sucks into a guy who's baseline competent; or you could spend the same resources turning a guy who's baseline competent into a force to be reckoned with.
And, instead of being "forced" into taking Toughness in order to not suck, the player who does nothing more than roll slightly better can take something actually fun, like Power Attack or Combat Expertise or Improved [Whatever]. Meanwhile, you're still patching up the holes that random chance shot into your character concept.
I can understand that many players don't like having to adjust to such circumstances, and for those players, finding a group that handles hit point dice differently than in the example above is probably something to look for. Some players do enjoy that kind of challenge, though, and the fact that they can see their character ultimately develop in a more organic, unplanned manner. For these people, the number of hp is not as important as how they got them, and while most will still be disappointed with low rolls, they simply find ways to minimize the impact and move on.
It may invalidate some concepts, but real life has a way of laying waste to the best laid plans, and for those who like that particular element of life in their games, rolling hp is one of the few truly random things that the game still has. For those that don't like that randomness, or wish to contain it slightly to ensure a particular feel to their character/game, it is simple enough to come up with a quick and easy solution to bypass the issue and move on to what they want to focus on.
Personally, the rolling of the dice is one of the things that makes the game interesting to me, so I enjoy the feel of it and accept that being willing to gamble for the really good results also means the chance of getting the really bad results. It comes down to how willing people are willing to accept and work with the chance of failure. Some people don't really enjoy their successes as much if it just handed to them; others prefer to not have any risk whatsoever. That's why it's important to find a group of like-minded gamers who can agree on what needs house rules and what doesn't.
For a character of average constituation to be put in the same rank of ability to take damage as a Con 7 wizard is not appropriate to any playstyle.
It is not appropriate to any play style you would play, but there are many who are willing to accept that situation because such scenarios come up all the time in real life, and some people like that level of unpredictability in their games. Not all do, but enough do to make it a valid play style.
I instituted a house rule that seems to be well received by my group. The characters roll 1 die smaller and then add 2. So a fighter would roll 1d8+2 while a wizard would roll 1d4+2. This way it is still random, the max hp Is not increased but players are guaranteed at least 3/level.
If you honestly believe that allowing an "average" character to have an average chance of survival for thier class is cheating, then so be it.
It's not about allowing an average chance for the average person to survive, it's about how much risk you are willing to accept to to have a chance at being the above average individual.
People who automatically use the max amount on the hp dice are automatically above average with no risk attached to it. People who use the average value basically accept that they will never truly be the extraordinary hero they could be if they risked rolling, but also have the comfort of knowing that they will at least be competent in their chosen field. People who use modified rolls accept some risk, but maintain what they feel is a minimum level of competency. People who just roll and take the results accept full risks for potentially great rewards.
None of these styles are good or bad by themselves; it must be up to the group, and even the specific campaign, as to what is acceptable for both risk and reward. Every player, group, and even campaign is going to have a different idea of what is, and is not, appropriate.
As a DM for a PBP game here, I gave the players two options for handling hp, and I will probably do so again in any other game I run. They could take average or roll. That way, they could decide how much risk and reward they were willing to accept for their character. I put the burden of choice on them, making sure they understood the ramifications of each option. Some rolled and some took the average, both groups seemed to be satisfied with their choice; I probably would have rolled personally, but I gave the option for the safe and average route or the riskier route that also had a potentially better payoff because I knew that not everybody is as comfortable with risking low hp as I am.
I think we're missing the balancing factor with player rolled HP. In my opinion as long as you roll randomly for Monster HP, the suck factor can be migrated by a Dragon with well below average HP because as the GM you rolled a lot of 1s on HP. If you're not rolling for monster HP, but are rolling for character HP, you're putting characters at an immediate disadvantage.
Monster HP is calculated as average hp, shouldn't players?
As I pointed out earlier, it doesn't make sense for random HP when the rest of the character process when advancing levels is static. You don't roll randomly for skill points every level. Certainly this would be reasonable considering that maybe your character didn't learn many new things this level. Why keep one aspect static and another dynamic?
Playing D&D as a 'game' instead of as an 'experience' stopped being viable when we lost the ability to make a character in 5 minutes, regardless of starting level. Now when a character dies it can take the rest of the gaming session to make a new one, sometimes longer, especially if you're trying to make a specific type of character.
It's fun to reminisce about the good old days of random character creation but I wouldn't want to live there anymore.
I can see the appeal in fixed HP at each level - whether it be max or some other calculation.
I see the game divided into two aspects - PCs interacting with the world around them and "bookkeeping".
Interacting with the world around them is where randomness comes in - both in the choices they make and the die-rolling that determine the outcome of those choices - attacks, saves, skill checks etc. That is where the fun of rolling high comes in, ribbing another player who fails a save, celebrating the critical hit that finally downs the BBEG, etc.
"Bookkeeping" stuff is purely an internal thing - all the choices are made by you and no outside factor influences your choice (barring some form of DM determination/house rule). With the ability to massively customise a character through stat point buy, feats, skills, huge range of character class options, why should HP be the only part of that process that is random? All the choices available in Pathfinder character generation and development means you have a virtually unlimited capacity to build a character exactly how you want them to be.
Sure, a fighter who rolls poorly on HP at each level could balance that out by buying CON boost items, taking Toughness etc, but they won't have the freedom to customise their character in the same manner as another fighter who rolls well on HP and doesn't have to chew up feats and resources just to be "average".
In my groups we do straight rolling for HP. Sometimes players are lucky, sometimes not. Over time, things even out. Tell your players to suck it up. Even if the player has rolled ones at each level, he has obtained 5 HP per round due to his 18 CON.
Which doesn't help if their CON is not 18......
You can actually still make a functional character in 5 minutes, provided they have no spellcasting. They may not have every feat chosen, or every skill selected, or their entire wealth spent, but they can still function well enough in simple combats and roleplaying situations. If you want to make a specific type of character, or a spellcaster, it can take a little longer, but is still doable for all except the hyperspecialized builds. If you really want one of those, and you think you might need it, come to the game with the character already half built with all the specialized things and stuff from other allowed material already written down. Leave enough flexibility to be able to make adjustments, and you should be fine.
I personally like certain factors to be random and certain factors to not be. I don't like completely random, but I find entirely static and nonrandom character creation and leveling to be just as boring. I as person have significant control over how and when I develop, but there are still many aspects of my development, especially when it comes to the physical aspects, that I can't control. Rolling for hp, but not skill points, reflects this fairly accurately. I can choose whether or not to learn, and even the dumbest adventurer is going to be paying at least some attention to this area, but I cannot control how well my body is going to heal after a major injury, or more likely for adventurers, many major injuries. Even with magic, the body still reacts in largely unconscious ways that is at least partially predetermined by genetics and past activities beyond an adventurer's control.
The monster HP is a good point, but I disagree that rolling for characters and giving monsters average puts the characters at a disadvantage. PCs are typically going to have an advantage in gear, tactics, and available resources for the generic enemies so having the monsters consistently have an advantage in hp isn't that big of a deal; in fact, in can help restore the balance against a particularly effective combat party. Named opponents are supposed to be tougher, so as long as the CR is about where it should be, an extra 5 hit points/hit dice probably isn't even going to be noticed if both the players and the DM are using tactics and the environment to their fullest.
And so, if the character, in my head, is a doughty fighter who can stand against a horde or marauding orcs and never blink, rolling double-1s for my 2nd- and 3rd-level HP gains rather puts a chink in that, wouldn't you say? I mean, at that point, I'm gaining, essentially, Wizard or Commoner HP.
Hiding behind a shield and praying I don't get tagged isn't the way I envision the character.
Nothing unique about this. Dnd is a game played with dice, and the dice can screw with character concepts. For better or worse that's a feature of dice games, not a bug.
The concept of the doughty fighter who then tosses a couple of 1s on hit dice; the concept of the brave fighter who tosses a couple of 1s on his first pair of saves vs fear; the concept of the charming socialite rogue who throws a couple 1s on his diplomacy checks and comes off as an uncouth lout.
My fighter with Bravery, Iron Will, and Improved Iron Will, who believes that courage for its own sake is more valuable than life, running like a little girl from a dragon's fear aura is not the way I envision the character either, but if I roll low on that Will save, that's what will happen. It's just the way Dnd goes.
Nothing unique about this. Dnd is a game played with dice, and the dice can screw with character concepts. For better or worse that's a feature of dice games, not a bug.
The concept of the doughty fighter who then tosses a couple of 1s on hit dice; the concept of the brave fighter who tosses a couple of 1s on his first pair of saves vs fear; the concept of the charming socialite rogue who throws a couple 1s on his diplomacy checks and comes off as an uncouth lout.
My fighter with Bravery, Iron Will, and Improved Iron Will, who believes that courage for its own sake is more valuable than life, running like a little girl from a dragon's fear aura is not the way I envision the character either, but if I roll low on that Will save, that's what will happen. It's just the way Dnd goes.
The difference is that rolling a 1 on HP affects you for your entire career. Rolling a 1 on a saving throw won't. Even if that fail ultimately means you die, you can still get rezzed - a fighter who dies from low HP is going to continue to have that problem post-rezzing.
I prefer the dice to "screw" with character performance out in adventureland, not screwing with the character concept.
DnD is a game based around rolling dice but we can still choose what aspects of the game are subject to that randomness. Why don't we randomly roll to see which stat you can apply your level 4 stat boost to? Why not roll to see if we can allocate skill points to a particular skill?
Without answering those specific rhetorical questions, the general answer from the non-random hit point camp is that there are certain character choices you make at specific intervals, namely levelling up, where the player has a range of choices to make. Why should every choice bar one be completely non-random?
Why should every choice bar one be completely non-random?
Because there are players who, without at least some randomness, would play the exact same character over and over and over and over and over and over, etc. This may be fun for that player, but can get old with the rest of the group. I know the point of the game is to have fun, but it also needs to push the players out of their comfort zone at least occasionally for them to grow. Having one aspect of the character is enough to do that, and shouldn't be a problem to a skilled player. Yes, it can screw with specific character concepts, but without it, leveling up becomes nothing more than an exercise in math, except for spellcasters, who have to choose new spells.
Like point buy, static hp has a purpose, and depending on how you view the stats to interact with each other and how you view character creation in general, that purpose may enhance or weaken one's interest in playing. If a particular group feels that it helps, than they are of course free to use that option, but many groups and players prefer at least some random aspect to character creation and development. I am seeing many people in this thread completely dismiss those players who are trying to explain why they like that aspect, and that bothers me a bit. Not everyone has to agree with it, but people should at least be able to respect it as a valid way of playing the game.
Because there are players who, without at least some randomness, would play the exact same character over and over and over and over and over and over, etc. This may be fun for that player, but can get old with the rest of the group. I know the point of the game is to have fun, but it also needs to push the players out of their comfort zone at least occasionally for them to grow. Having one aspect of the character is enough to do that, and shouldn't be a problem to a skilled player. Yes, it can screw with specific character concepts, but without it, leveling up becomes nothing more than an exercise in math, except for spellcasters, who have to choose new spells.Like point buy, static hp has a purpose, and depending on how you view the stats to interact with each other and how you view character creation in general, that purpose may enhance or weaken one's interest in playing. If a particular group feels that it helps, than they are of course free to use that option, but many groups and players prefer at least some random aspect to character creation and development. I am seeing many people in this thread completely dismiss those players who are trying to explain why they like that aspect, and that bothers me a bit. Not everyone has to agree with it, but people should at least be able to respect it as a valid way of playing the game.
Given the huge range of character options available in Pathfinder, if a player wants to continually play the same type of character then I suspect the degree of randomness used in levelling up and character creation isn't going to change their choice.
Levelling up is never an exercise in maths - you have a choice of feats, skills and class.
I don't particularly mind what system is used, but I'd rather leave the randomness to the fun stuff - adventuring, solving puzzles, combat and the like.
For me, HP has very little to do with health or physical well being. It's about being able to take the rigors of combat. It about being able to have your armor dented in and your body knocked around, but still continue to fight onward. As you progress in levels you grow used to it. A fighter who stands the line again the horde of orcs has more experience with it than the wizard standing behind him. As soon as that wizard starts getting more HP every level than the guy who's taking the blows, it makes no sense, in game and out. Does Adrianne have more HP than Rocky? Is it even possible? If you play PF it is. If you roll dice for HP it is.
Skill development is as completely random as HP. Just because you practice hiding all day long, doesn't mean you've actually gotten better at it. Just because you've been studying to speak orcish, doesn't mean you actually learned how to speak it, let alone also learned more about a dozen other skills. Sure sometimes it can happen, but most of the time you only get better at one or two things. At least to the point of significant change, which each point in a skill represents. Mental attributes are as unlikely or likely to increase as HP.
It's a game, not a life experience, players don't need to grow because of it. Should I play the Hat instead of the Car in Monopoly so that I can grow as a person? Real life is for growing, games are for entertainment.
I haven't met any groups that have switched to static HP that are dying to return to random rolls (with the exception of a one shot for the fun of it). Let's not assume that those who are using random die rolls have tried something else and then returned. I liked rolling for Ability Scores before I learned that you don't have to . . . no going back.
|
|
He can also be a guy who charges recklessly into combat ignoring the fact that his enemy is stabbing him viciously, hence he only has 32 HP so he goes down faster because he doesn't take the time to avoid those lethal thrusts. Another way to look at it is that your character just never learns from his mistakes so that while his skill with the blade improves his lack of learning leaves him still falling in combat as he just never thinks to defend himself the way others with similar experiences would.What if you want to play someone, I dunno, competent, that can meaningfully contribute to the team in the fashion originally imagined?
In what way can he not contribute competently, he has fewer HP so he needs to be more careful in HP management, that's it. If the only way you can have fun playing this game is to think of a static concept that is unwilling to adapt to the changes in the game then more power too you. I've seen lots of characters at level 5 with HP in the mid 30s which is where this characters HP is. They managed to contribute just fine, maybe the problem isn't with the game system, maybe the problem is with the way you play. And hey, nothing wrong with that, you can make houserules to fix the game to your playstyle, but don't tell those of us who do this kind of stuff and play in games where we see this kind of stuff all the time that the character is invalidated.
I haven't met any groups that have switched to static HP that are dying to return to random rolls (with the exception of a one shot for the fun of it). Let's not assume that those who are using random die rolls have tried something else and then returned. I liked rolling for Ability Scores before I learned that you don't have to . . . no going back.
I can't say anything on the static hp part as I haven't been in any group that uses it exclusively, but I have seen many groups try point buy and decide it wasn't for them. A fighter may be more used to taking a hit than the wizard, but after about a dozen near fatal wounds, it is entirely possible that even magic doesn't really heal the body back to what it would have been without those wounds. Skills are much more of a conscious choice, with a different limiter built in to factor in how much an individual can functionally learn at any given time. Assumptions are dangerous both ways, as many people who use static values have never seriously tried a campaign that used actual rolls.
I think the biggest issue is that some people play this game for pure entertainment, some purely for the challenge of combat and dealing with whatever the DM throws at them, and most fall in between somewhere. If you are playing purely for entertainment, than random anything on your character sheet is often seen as a nuisance. On the other hand, other people, even other people who play purely for entertainment, look at point buy, static hp, and other similar things as creating boring, manufactured characters with no soul to them. It comes down to what people look for in the game, and what they feel meets that criteria. Some people like a degree of randomness; others want to be able to play very specific character concepts, in which case randomness of any kind in determining any of their stats is an unwelcome intrusion. Neither is right or wrong, but in the same group, such differences can be problematic if not recognized and dealt with.
I as both DM and player personally like the randomness of rolling stats and hp, but for those not as comfortable with the risks, I am willing to give them the ability to go the safe, average route. If the player wants the higher numbers, though, they have to be willing to accept at least some risk of getting low numbers. My personal experience is that most players are much more excited about the high numbers when those numbers are actually earned. Low numbers are more difficult to work with than high numbers, but without risk of failure, massive success and power doesn't feel like massive success and power to many, it is simply feels like the bland norm.
I don't play the superheroes version where the PCs are automatically more powerful than everyone else just because they are PCs. Some people do, and for those type of people, using only point buy and static hp makes sense. As I said before, some of my current players rolled for hp when they leveled, some took the average. I doubt any of them would have seriously complained if they had to do the unselected method, and I have done both methods without complaint, but for those players that have a definite preference that they simply aren't willing to compromise on, they need to select their games and DMs they play with accordingly.
|
|
They sounded like summary concepts for a character, interesting ones honestly. I might have to flesh those out....Back to the point though.
I completely agree with how you describe hit points but, what in the Op's character background made him that way? What choice has he made in-game to support this weakness? Yes, his character can change to meet these changes but, its forced. I can honestly understand that can really take away from the fun of what was obviously intended to be a different character. Consequences during gameplay are great, they keep players involved and keep the world from feeling static. Arbitrary changes are frustrating and detract from immersion.Your focusing on the low end though, if a player want to make a character of average health and constantly rolls max, his character is changing due to factors outside of those he made in-game. He can have is character adapt to those changes but, like I said above, it's still a forced change.
Low hp invalidates that concept nothing more; please don't make me out to be something I'm not.
I'm supporting player choices and a player's ability to see those choices in the character they make, and the system's ability to aid or detract in that regard. Planning a character from 1-20 is unnecessary and I'll advised for any game I'd ever play in or run. Character growth is good, as i stated above.
On the other hand, I am not supporting "teh best buldz evr" and I am not telling anyone what make a character "viable" or "best".edit: BTW if you simply misspoke then you can ignore the last bit; hate to be unnecessarily defensive. Otherwise, it stands.
Which is why I don't mind when a DM lets people choose to take the average HP before/instead of rolling (I do hate rules like, roll but if you get less than average take the average, or roll, but if you get a low # re-roll etc. either chose not to roll, or accept that you might get a low roll, don't say I want the chance at high HP but won't accept low HP), that way if a player doesn't want to be whim to arbitrary changes then he doesn't have to be. And I want to respond to you seperately because I find your points more interesting and written less confrontationally, without automatically dismissing low HP characters as invalid. I'll be honest my first posts here which I immediately deleted after posting because I knew that reading this thread was getting under my skin and making me more inflammatory than I want to be maybe soured my chances at talking about this, but I've played in games where DMs forced us to take max HP because that's just the way he played. I don't mind if a DM says "If you don't want to roll, just take the average." that way players who want to risk having low or high HP can, while those who worry about their concept being gimped by low HP can play it safe. What I don't like are methods to force the average up, or rerolling low rolls, or removing rolls altogether, etc. etc.
And I'm not claiming that if a person doesn't want to risk low HP rolls it must mean they play "teh best buldz evr" my bad for sounding that way, I just really dislike when I feel coddled by houserules that only really exist to prevent bad outcomes for everyone. Then again, I like grittier games as well, so my playstyle preferences may be coloring my perceptions.
|
|
For a character of average constituation to be put in the same rank of ability to take damage as a Con 7 wizard is not appropriate to any playstyle.It is not appropriate to any play style you would play, but there are many who are willing to accept that situation because such scenarios come up all the time in real life, and some people like that level of unpredictability in their games. Not all do, but enough do to make it a valid play style.
+1
I don't mind if a DM says "If you don't want to roll, just take the average." that way players who want to risk having low or high HP can, while those who worry about their concept being gimped by low HP can play it safe.
This is what I did, and it completely eliminated all problems. Those willing to accept the risk had the opportunity at being truly great, while others were content settling for a known, set quantity that they knew was less than max.
|
|
I haven't met any groups that have switched to static HP that are dying to return to random rolls (with the exception of a one shot for the fun of it). Let's not assume that those who are using random die rolls have tried something else and then returned. I liked rolling for Ability Scores before I learned that you don't have to . . . no going back.
Hi, I'm a DM/player who likes to use random rolls for HP and stats, my group had another DM/player who used pointbuy/max HP per level and also wanted players to start out at mid level to skip all those low levels that are no fun. My group quickly asked for me to take back over DMing.
I've known lots of players who find point buy horrible, they think its static and creates cookie cutter characters. I haven't had as many discussions with players about HP systems, which is why I got involved in this thread to begin with, but I'd be willing to bet they felt the same way about static HP growth. In fact I'm going to institute that houserule that before rolling my players can choose to take average HP, but that if they roll they have to take whatever the dice lands on, no re-rolls. And we'll see how many of them choose to just take average, I'm willing to bet they'll all still roll.
In fact I'm going to institute that houserule that before rolling my players can choose to take average HP, but that if they roll they have to take whatever the dice lands on, no re-rolls. And we'll see how many of them choose to just take average, I'm willing to bet they'll all still roll.
My DM has this house rule. We all still roll. If he said average +1....I'd still roll.
Rolling dice is fun. And we have decided that humor, entertainment, and cleverness outweigh a good build every time. Of course we aren't the most hardcore. We rarely plan feats much in advance, unless there's somethine we're going for specifically.
I've had a fighter roll a 1 twice in a row on hp. That was rough. Lucky that the next two levels were high rolls. I'm not anti-point buy or anti-static hp fundementally, but I certainly prefer rolling instead. But then again, we rock the 3d6 for ability generation and then houserules for ability score increases.
In all fairness, I don't use class HP at all. I use humanoid HP + a class bonus. It raises the low HP classes up a little and lowers the high HP classes down a little, but the class bonus offsets it. I just makes more sense to me that way. Same with increasing small characters speed to 30. Goblins/Kobolds, speed 30, Halflings/Gnomes, speed 20. Makes no sense to me, but I'm sure others it does.
Some people like random character generation, others don't. There's still people who like THACO. I don't like CMB/CMD. And the great thing is, it makes no difference at all, because whatever system is used, it's the GMs job to make it work. Fun is had, or players move on. Such is life.
On a side note: cookie cutter characters aren't created by stats and abilities, but by personality. Two identical characters played by two different players, will look and act completely different. This is easily discovered when you run games at conventions using pre-gens. That's not to say that they don't 'feel' the same when you look down at the character sheet. I have a player in one of my games who uses identical stats and usually plays a rogue, but each of her characters is completely different.
On a side note: cookie cutter characters aren't created by stats and abilities, but by personality. Two identical characters played by two different players, will look and act completely different. This is easily discovered when you run games at conventions using pre-gens. That's not to say that they don't 'feel' the same when you look down at the character sheet. I have a player in one of my games who uses identical stats and usually plays a rogue, but each of her characters is completely different.
I personally agree with this, but many players, especially newer ones, don't fully understand this, so replacement characters if the original one dies end up looking and feeling almost exactly like the one that just died, with the only one or two notable differences.
I personally agree with this, but many players, especially newer ones, don't fully understand this, so replacement characters if the original one dies end up looking and feeling almost exactly like the one that just died, with the only one or two notable differences.
I also agree with this. And that's a benefit of the randomness. When you first start playing tabletop it can be hard to grasp the robustness of the system. The idea that you can do nearly anything you can imagine. Having random stats and random hp rolls really helps new players branch into new concepts because the rolls change and you can't just make a carbon copy.
In some ways I feel like randomness benefits newer players more than point buy, and point buy benefits seasoned players more. I still like the randomness for my own characters however, it's always nice when you plan for low hp or abilities and roll well, opening up possibilities you didn't expect.
Off topic:
We've found that a houserule that we found on these forums is a great method for abilitiy score generation. We roll 3d6, then give point buy points at every level. You can spend these points at any level to increase an ability score of your choosing, higher scores cost more to raise. This allows for randomness at creation, which we like, but also doesn't screw your character if you roll a 4 or a 5.
I personally agree with this, but many players, especially newer ones, don't fully understand this, so replacement characters if the original one dies end up looking and feeling almost exactly like the one that just died, with the only one or two notable differences.I also agree with this. And that's a benefit of the randomness. When you first start playing tabletop it can be hard to grasp the robustness of the system. The idea that you can do nearly anything you can imagine. Having random stats and random hp rolls really helps new players branch into new concepts because the rolls change and you can't just make a carbon copy.
In some ways I feel like randomness benefits newer players more than point buy, and point buy benefits seasoned players more. I still like the randomness for my own characters however, it's always nice when you plan for low hp or abilities and roll well, opening up possibilities you didn't expect.
I agree.
The difference is that rolling a 1 on HP affects you for your entire career. Rolling a 1 on a saving throw won't.Nothing unique about this. Dnd is a game played with dice, and the dice can screw with character concepts. For better or worse that's a feature of dice games, not a bug.
The concept of the doughty fighter who then tosses a couple of 1s on hit dice; the concept of the brave fighter who tosses a couple of 1s on his first pair of saves vs fear; the concept of the charming socialite rogue who throws a couple 1s on his diplomacy checks and comes off as an uncouth lout.
My fighter with Bravery, Iron Will, and Improved Iron Will, who believes that courage for its own sake is more valuable than life, running like a little girl from a dragon's fear aura is not the way I envision the character either, but if I roll low on that Will save, that's what will happen. It's just the way Dnd goes.
Of course it will. When that "brave" fighter abandons his friends to flee in terror from that dragon, and then when the fear effect ends, are you going to play him pretending nothing ever happened?
|
|
On a side note: cookie cutter characters aren't created by stats and abilities, but by personality. Two identical characters played by two different players, will look and act completely different. This is easily discovered when you run games at conventions using pre-gens. That's not to say that they don't 'feel' the same when you look down at the character sheet. I have a player in one of my games who uses identical stats and usually plays a rogue, but each of her characters is completely different.
For the record while I prefer rolling stats (often times I don't even re-order them) I'm fine with point buy, I was stating the complaints from the players when I suggested we use point buy since I wanted players to be able to make their characters at home and I didn't know them well enough at the time to trust them with rolls I couldn't confirm. Those were the responses I got, and while I do think that point buy can lead to somewhat cookie cutter stats, cookie cutter stat arrays =/= cookie cutter characters. Give me the same stat array 3 games in a row you'll see three vastly different characters from me.
Because there are players who, without at least some randomness, would play the exact same character over and over and over and over and over and over, etc.So what?
If they're having fun, who does it actually hurt?
You apparently forgot to read the next line. Just because that player is having fun, that kind of behavior is very good at ruining things for everybody else at the table.
You apparently forgot to read the next line. Just because that player is having fun, that kind of behavior is very good at ruining things for everybody else at the table.Because there are players who, without at least some randomness, would play the exact same character over and over and over and over and over and over, etc.So what?
If they're having fun, who does it actually hurt?
No, I read it. It just doesn't make any sense.
One of our players loves to play hard-hitting melee combat chicks. She hardly ever plays anything else, regardless of the system we're using - MERPs, Rolemaster, 2E AD&D, 3.X D&D, PF.
Her playing a "type" has certainly never impacted my fun at the table, and I can't imagine any way in which it could.
If that works for your group, that's great, but in many groups most players don't like to be typed that way or having to deal with someone who refuses to play anything else, ever, for any reason, accept for the one type of character, regardless of whether or not it fits with the rest of the party.