a house rule my gm institutes and our other GMs like, the first 3 levels are maxed. this is to prevent players getting screwed by rolling 1s on the first levels. after that you are on your own. just thought i would share with others.
I do either max and then half, or max all the way. What's fun about leaving your character's viability to chance? Nothing, IMO.
I just tell my players if you roll a 1 or a 2 for hp you can re-roll.
I used to just let them re-roll 1s but pathfinder seems to have boosted the hp values across the board.
|
I just use the PFS average, round up. I've been on both sides of the die, having the rogue with 28 HP at 8th level and the fighterish with 100 by 11th (both had 12 con, btw, and this was 3.5, so no favored class). Suffice to say, one was survivable only because he was an archer, the other was too unstoppable a tank.
HP are just too important to regulate to dice rolls, IMHO.
he rules tell you to take max on your level 1 hp roll, so I do that.
I see a LOT of complaining about hp rolls, but what people never seem to realize is that if you roll enough dice (for example, 20?) you will almost always get a reasonable average.
For example:
Go to D&D's official online dice roller and roll 20d8, representing rolled HP for a cleric, rogue, etc. over his full career. The average d8 roll is 4.5, so by 20 levels his average rolled HP should be 90. I'm going to show you the first 10 values I rolled.
78, 72, 118, 112, 80, 88, 110, 99, 97, 104
I thought these numbers were all pretty fair. 72 was a tad low, but only to the point where I would complain if I was a major powergamer. These differences become much less important in the scope of things when you add CON, Toughness and Favored Class bonuses. Let's take the same rolls and assume the presence of 1 CON, Favored Class Bonus (HP) and Toughness:
138, 132, 178, 172, 140, 148, 170, 159, 157, 164
In the end rolling for stats can make you a tad weaker or stronger, but in most cases it's not a huge deal.
|
|
The issue is, you don't always have the luxury of 20 rolls. If you're a level 3 fighter with favored class and con +1 and roll a 1 and 3, you're front line with 20 HP at 3rd. Now you have to mess up your build and maybe toss on toughness to have some survivability, but in the short term you are pretty messed up.
That's a lot to regulate on a roll a level; basically making characters potentially unplayable on a fluke.
In my games, you get average rounded up for all levels (including 1st) plus a one-time bonus equal to 5(=average of 1d8, which is the humanoid HD) plus all relevant bonuses you get for HD. So for the purpose of determining the number of HD, you count as if you had one radial d8 HD (but that doesn't grant you any other bonuses, like maximum caster level, effective level for spells like holy word, attack bonuses, save bonuses, max skill or anything else).
The boost on level 1 means you start a bit tougher than normal, and the fixed values mean bad luck won't screw you over. I don't hold with pseudo-chance methods where you roll but bad results are ignored somehow.
In the other groups, the GM give you max for level 1 and 3/4 for following levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We take max at first level and top half of die on following levels. If you roll a 1-4 on a d8, re-roll till you get 5-8. It makes for higher HP totals as well as leveling out the HP between classes, so that a wizard, for example, is percentage-wise where he should be compared to the fighter.
he rules tell you to take max on your level 1 hp roll, so I do that.
This isn't Chess. What the rules say isn't always the ideal way. Roleplaying games thrive on house rules.
I see a LOT of complaining about hp rolls, but what people never seem to realize is that if you roll enough dice (for example, 20?) you will almost always get a reasonable average.
That sounds quite condescending.
The problem is, "almost always" just isn't good enough. Statistics say a lot of things (like that there are 2.27 popes per square kilometre of Vatican City), but statistics won't help those who happen to be unlucky.
Plus, while it is true that the chances that the rolls will average out for 20 levels, a lot of the action happens before level 20. If you happen to roll a couple of ones for the first (rolled) HD as a barbarian, you might end up squishier than the lucky bastard of a sorcerer who got all sixes.
And then you might not make it to level 4, not to mention 20.
This game isn't an arena PvP MMO where you "level" your character using some more or less trivial way to the maximum level and only then look at what the character can do. The journey is more important than the destination.
For example:
Go to D&D's official online dice roller and roll 20d8, representing rolled HP for a cleric, rogue, etc. over his full career. The average d8 roll is 4.5, so by 20 levels his average rolled HP should be 90. I'm going to show you the first 10 values I rolled.78, 72, 118, 112, 80, 88, 110, 99, 97, 104
Those numbers are virtually meaningless. What matters is the line-up, i.e. what numbers are rolled at each level.
That 118 might be ones and twos for the first 5 levels, with the character dying before he ever reaches those juicy eights that bring the total up to such a nice number.
I thought these numbers were all pretty fair. 72 was a tad low, but only to the point where I would complain if I was a major powergamer.
Again with the veiled insults against those who don't share your opinion.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
HP progression is a funny thing.
I've seen lots of threads that dealt with it (either directly or as a tangent/subtopic), and I've learned something:
There is apparently a substantial portion of the player base which believes two things:
1) Rolling is better than a standardized HP progression, because the randomness is fun.
2) It's good to apply a number of safety measures (such as re-rolling low numbers), because the randomness is not fun.
There are of course people out there who hold to only one of those two beliefs, but (at least from what I've seen around here), they're a minority compared to the people who somehow manage to hold both of those opinions.
I can't help but chuckle at that. :)
Here's an alternative. Start with max at level 1, and then at each level thereafter, use this system, based on the hit die type you should be rolling at that level.
d12 = d12, d10, d8, min 6
d10 = d10, d8, d6, min 5
d8 = d8, d6, min 4
d6 = d6, d4, min 3
So, what this means is, if your upcoming level is one that grants you a d12 hit die, then you roll a d12, d10 and d8 all at the same time and take the highest result. No matter what, if none of the dice is higher than 7, you automatically still get a 6.
On d12 you have a 50% chance of getting over a 6, on d10 you have a 40% change of getting over a 6, and on d8 you have a 25% chance of getting over a 6. All in all, you have a lot of chances to get over a 6. And, still, if you don't, you still get a 6.
And so on for the rest of the dice.
Nobody gets lower than half hit points after first level, and almost everyone gets considerably more.
|
My DM lets us reroll the dice once, but we must take the result of the second roll, even if worse.
I still laugh when I think about the barbarian who got 6 on his dice and decided to reroll, only to get a natural 1 on his d12.
I laugh less when I think that the same thing happened to me on a d10 which I rerolled because of a 4, only to get a 1.
We've testing a new variant now. Max on first level, after that you roll your full hit dice at every level up - if it exceeds your previous, you get that. So at 1st level, a fighter has 10 hit points. At 2nd, he's got 10 or the result of 2d10. At 3rd, it's the previous or 3d10.
It's random, but not AS random.
But we like randomness. We not only randomly set our ability scores, but we also roll to increase them at level up (every even level, choose one ability score; if 3d6 > your natural, unmodified ability score, increase it by one).
We've testing a new variant now. Max on first level, after that you roll your full hit dice at every level up - if it exceeds your previous, you get that. So at 1st level, a fighter has 10 hit points. At 2nd, he's got 10 or the result of 2d10. At 3rd, it's the previous or 3d10.
This is interesting. So, let me see if I understand it.
At 2nd level, you roll 2d10, and if you get a result lower than 10, you stick with 10. So, you have a 55% chance of staying at 10hp. But, you have a 5% chance at 20 hp and a decent chance of something in between.
At 3rd level, you roll 3d10, and, if you were unlucky and only had 10hp at 2nd level, you might still be stuck because you stand a decent chance at rolling 10 or less; however, your average roll will be 13.5, so, you'll probably actually have at least 14 hit points. And, there's a one in a thousand chance you'll have 30 hit points.
At 4th level, you roll 4d10. Now, even if you had only 10hp last time, you stand a very good chance at rolling better than that now. However, you could get unlucky, and you might still end up rather low. But, the average at this point is 18. So, you stand a very good chance at your hp being in the 20s. You have a tremendously low chance of having anything over 30, but it's possible.
And, the higher level you go, the better the odds that your hit points either remain the same as they were (because you rolled well at some point in the past) or that you have average hit points.
This is an interesting solution to the problem of high level characters having too many hit points while allowing a nice combination of "swingy-ness" and survivability at low levels.
Cool.
a house rule my gm institutes and our other GMs like, the first 3 levels are maxed. this is to prevent players getting screwed by rolling 1s on the first levels. after that you are on your own. just thought i would share with others.
One of my old GM's used to give you max HP at level 1 and then you also immediately would get your 3rd level HP roll. Then at second level you would get your second level HP roll. When you leveled to 3rd you got no HP roll (since you got it at level one).
Made for some better survivability, course he was a killer GM too so wee needed it.
There is apparently a substantial portion of the player base which believes two things:
1) Rolling is better than a standardized HP progression, because the randomness is fun.
2) It's good to apply a number of safety measures (such as re-rolling low numbers), because the randomness is not fun.There are of course people out there who hold to only one of those two beliefs, but (at least from what I've seen around here), they're a minority compared to the people who somehow manage to hold both of those opinions.
I can't help but chuckle at that. :)
Same for rolling ability scores. "We totally don't use point buy because that's for power gamers" "So what do you do?" "We roll 4d6, dropping the lowest, and roll 12 scores, getting the 6 highest. Everything under 10 is re-rolled, and if your total scores aren't at least +10, you can reroll the whole thing!"
I think in at least some cases, it isn't about pseudo-luck, it is about power-gaming. People want to have super-awesome characters with several 18s or really high HP rolls, and they want to justify it with being lucky, but they don't want the possibility of bad luck to go with the good luck.
And even if it's not about power gaming per se, it's a double standard: Good luck is fun, bad luck isn't, so we'll use a system where good luck can happen but not bad luck.
I did it, too, for a little while, until I realised that I was just kidding myself, so I put my money where my mouth was.
It might not mean no multiple 18s, but I've found characters can be plenty overpowered without them. ;-)
We've testing a new variant now. Max on first level, after that you roll your full hit dice at every level up - if it exceeds your previous, you get that. So at 1st level, a fighter has 10 hit points. At 2nd, he's got 10 or the result of 2d10. At 3rd, it's the previous or 3d10.This is interesting. So, let me see if I understand it.
At 2nd level, you roll 2d10, and if you get a result lower than 10, you stick with 10. So, you have a 55% chance of staying at 10hp. But, you have a 5% chance at 20 hp and a decent chance of something in between.
At 3rd level, you roll 3d10, and, if you were unlucky and only had 10hp at 2nd level, you might still be stuck because you stand a decent chance at rolling 10 or less; however, your average roll will be 13.5, so, you'll probably actually have at least 14 hit points. And, there's a one in a thousand chance you'll have 30 hit points.
At 4th level, you roll 4d10. Now, even if you had only 10hp last time, you stand a very good chance at rolling better than that now. However, you could get unlucky, and you might still end up rather low. But, the average at this point is 18. So, you stand a very good chance at your hp being in the 20s. You have a tremendously low chance of having anything over 30, but it's possible.
And, the higher level you go, the better the odds that your hit points either remain the same as they were (because you rolled well at some point in the past) or that you have average hit points.
This is an interesting solution to the problem of high level characters having too many hit points while allowing a nice combination of "swingy-ness" and survivability at low levels.
Cool.
This reminds me of the old Wizardry games. This drove me nuts as I recall, but it's certainly a viable option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My house rule is simple:
At level one, instead of getting the max of your HD and your con bonus, you get max of your HD and half your Con score. This results in about +5 HP for each character, and lets Wizards actually survive.
At level up, you roll your HD twice and keep the higher score.
Thoughts?
My house rule is simple:
At level one, instead of getting the max of your HD and your con bonus, you get max of your HD and half your Con score. This results in about +5 HP for each character, and lets Wizards actually survive.
At level up, you roll your HD twice and keep the higher score.
Thoughts?
sounds decant. the only issue would be the barbarian with an 18 or 20 cons having over 20 hp at first level.
sounds decant. the only issue would be the barbarian with an 18 or 20 cons having over 20 hp at first level.My house rule is simple:
At level one, instead of getting the max of your HD and your con bonus, you get max of your HD and half your Con score. This results in about +5 HP for each character, and lets Wizards actually survive.
At level up, you roll your HD twice and keep the higher score.
Thoughts?
That is the most extreme case, and one of the benefits of being the only core class with d12. So I just accept that is the case.
There is apparently a substantial portion of the player base which believes two things:
1) Rolling is better than a standardized HP progression, because the randomness is fun.
2) It's good to apply a number of safety measures (such as re-rolling low numbers), because the randomness is not fun.There are of course people out there who hold to only one of those two beliefs, but (at least from what I've seen around here), they're a minority compared to the people who somehow manage to hold both of those opinions.
I can't help but chuckle at that. :)
Same for rolling ability scores. "We totally don't use point buy because that's for power gamers" "So what do you do?" "We roll 4d6, dropping the lowest, and roll 12 scores, getting the 6 highest. Everything under 10 is re-rolled, and if your total scores aren't at least +10, you can reroll the whole thing!"
I think in at least some cases, it isn't about pseudo-luck, it is about power-gaming. People want to have super-awesome characters with several 18s or really high HP rolls, and they want to justify it with being lucky, but they don't want the possibility of bad luck to go with the good luck.
And even if it's not about power gaming per se, it's a double standard: Good luck is fun, bad luck isn't, so we'll use a system where good luck can happen but not bad luck.
I did it, too, for a little while, until I realised that I was just kidding myself, so I put my money where my mouth was.
It might not mean no multiple 18s, but I've found characters can be plenty overpowered without them. ;-)
Hehe.
I do like methods that allow for everyone at the table to benefit from one person's luck, though. For instance, a stat rolling method where you sum up your stats and everyone gets to add to their total to match up with the highest roller.
You could do something similar with HP rolls. When someone levels, have everyone at the table roll a hit die, and they get the highest result.
Back in 3.0 we had a house rule that if you rolled a 1, you got max the next level.
which was all great. Except I kept on rolling 2s :(
in pathfinder (and in DnD) in the groups I am playing now. we always take half +1. so a fighter gets 6hp per level without extras added yet. This works rather great as I always tend to roll low :P
|
In my games, you get average rounded up for all levels (including 1st) plus a one-time bonus equal to 5(=average of 1d8, which is the humanoid HD) plus all relevant bonuses you get for HD. So for the purpose of determining the number of HD, you count as if you had one radial d8 HD (but that doesn't grant you any other bonuses, like maximum caster level, effective level for spells like holy word, attack bonuses, save bonuses, max skill or anything else).
The boost on level 1 means you start a bit tougher than normal, and the fixed values mean bad luck won't screw you over. I don't hold with pseudo-chance methods where you roll but bad results are ignored somehow.
In the other groups, the GM give you max for level 1 and 3/4 for following levels.
Sort of like having a level of Commoner, to represent your childhood?
"I was a poor turnip-farmer, till I joined the army! Made a MAN of me!"
The group I roll with uses the following:
d4, re-roll 1
d6, re-roll 1 and 2
d8, re-roll 1,2,3
d10, re-roll 1,2,3,4
d12, re-roll 1,2,3,4,5
This way the the rog or mage will have no chance at having more hp then the tank and you get to be a tuff guy hero no matter how things turn out. Max at first level as well.