As I was walking to class, I pondered over the fact that one of the barbarian's advantages is their d12 hit die, but the swinginess of a linear probability curve can really negate that advantage. Thus I thought about giving them a hit "die" of 2d6 instead, which led to the idea of doing this to all classes. Thus, a hit die of 1dX would be replaced with 2d(X/2), leaving us with the table:
1d6 - 2d3
1d8 - 2d4
1d10 - 2d5
1d12 - 2d6
This gives hit points a more bell-curve-like distribution, with an average result move likely than an extreme one. The other most notable change is the average roll goes up by 0.5 HP.
What do people think?
Or you could have a house rule to roll twice and take the higher roll? :D
In my friend's game, he has us roll until we have a result of 50% or higher, which is generous.
We use Iron Kingdoms hp
d6=d4+2
d8=d4+4
d10=d4+6
d12=d4+8
Minium is around average and no one has had an issue with it yet.
In effect it tends to go this way for us as well - at least 50%.
Of late we just went with 100% at L1, then 75% per level onwards, round down.
We use Iron Kingdoms hp
d6=d4+2
d8=d4+4
d10=d4+6
d12=d4+8Minium is around average and no one has had an issue with it yet.
Oh, I think I like that very much. That does mean that squishy d6 characters would get the short end of the stick, getting "only" 50% or more of their max possible HP, while a Barbarian would get at least 75% each level. Considering their combat roles, that's probably fine, but maybe something like this would work too:
d6 = d4+2
d8 = d5+3
d10= d6+4
d12= 2d4+4
(note: d5 is d10/2, rounded up)
It's a little more complicated than your system, but each one ranges from 50% up, so all classes are equal in this regard. The only kink is that the 2d4 makes a bell curve for the Barbarian, so he's more likely to hang around that 75% range than get his 100% HP or "minimum" of 50%.
Yeah, I've pretty much always allowed PCs to take Average HP instead of rolling if they like. Since average always has a .5 on the end, I alternate rounding up and down.
We use Iron Kingdoms hp
d6=d4+2
d8=d4+4
d10=d4+6
d12=d4+8Minium is around average and no one has had an issue with it yet.
hmm
d6 average = 3.5
d8 average = 4.5
d10 average =5.5
d12 average = 6.5
vs
d4+2 average = 4.5
d4+4 average = 6.5
d4+6 average = 8.5
d4+8 average = 10.5
So using that system
d6 classes get an average of +1 hp/level
d8 classes get an average of +2 hp/level
d10 classes get an average of +3 hp/level
d12 classes get an average of +4 hp/level
This gives warrior types a major boost if that's what you're going for.
If you want the averages to remain the same it should be...
d6 = d4+1
d8 = d4+2
d10 = d4+3
d12 = d4+4
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I much prefer Pathfinder to D&D 4th edition, I do like 4th's change to static rather than rolled hit points.
- First, because I dislike having random elements in character generation. There's plenty of randomness once the game starts.
- Second, because in my experience, character sheet rolls (Attributes, HP, etc.) are the most likely to provoke cheating.
- Third, because I feel that any rule which is consistently house-ruled by a majority of players is a rule that should probably change.
While I much prefer Pathfinder to D&D 4th edition, I do like 4th's change to static rather than rolled hit points.
- First, because I dislike having random elements in character generation. There's plenty of randomness once the game starts.
- Second, because in my experience, character sheet rolls (Attributes, HP, etc.) are the most likely to provoke cheating.
- Third, because I feel that any rule which is consistently house-ruled by a majority of players is a rule that should probably change.
For all these reasons I would just use the non-random hp advancement option presented for PF Societies in any games I might run.
While I much prefer Pathfinder to D&D 4th edition, I do like 4th's change to static rather than rolled hit points.
- First, because I dislike having random elements in character generation. There's plenty of randomness once the game starts.
- Second, because in my experience, character sheet rolls (Attributes, HP, etc.) are the most likely to provoke cheating.
- Third, because I feel that any rule which is consistently house-ruled by a majority of players is a rule that should probably change.
Fourth, sometimes you get a player that seems to be a luck vampire and always rolls extremely well on everything while everyone else starts rolling poorly. For all these reasons I would just use the non-random hp advancement option presented for PF Societies in any games I might run.
I do agree with all these points. Ability scores should be point-buy, and HP should be static based on class and other factors not dependent on die rolls. People should have complete control over their character's development.
Which makes me think, there should be races that gain additional max HP per level as a racial ability on top of their class HP progression. (Something like a Dwarf might get 1 additional HP per level, for example. Not saying we should incorporate this now.)
I've used a few different methods of hit point generation:
1) Average
2) Max
3) Roll and take your chances
4) Roll but you get at least average
5) You roll and the GM rolls and you take whichever you choose but you don't know my result
6) If you don't like your roll, you can reroll but you must use the next lowest die size. This was attempted by only 1 player who was playing a barbarian. He rerolled to the point of flipping a coin. He never rolled higher than a 2. I haven't used this house rule since. As funny as it was, it was not good for the character
7) d4= d2+2, d6=d3+3, d8=d4+4, d10=d4+6, d12=d6+6
Right now, I allow them to roll or take the average whichever is better. Most of the time, average is what they've ended up taking.
One of the problems with hit point rolls is that it is a single result that affects your character for all levels of play. At most, you will have 19 rolls and the higher die size you use, the more it hurts when you roll the lower numbers. It's hard watching or being the front-liner who has less than average hit points try to fill his role.
While I much prefer Pathfinder to D&D 4th edition, I do like 4th's change to static rather than rolled hit points.
- First, because I dislike having random elements in character generation. There's plenty of randomness once the game starts.
- Second, because in my experience, character sheet rolls (Attributes, HP, etc.) are the most likely to provoke cheating.
- Third, because I feel that any rule which is consistently house-ruled by a majority of players is a rule that should probably change.
Fourth, sometimes you get a player that seems to be a luck vampire and always rolls extremely well on everything while everyone else starts rolling poorly. For all these reasons I would just use the non-random hp advancement option presented for PF Societies in any games I might run.
I do agree with all these points. Ability scores should be point-buy, and HP should be static based on class and other factors not dependent on die rolls. People should have complete control over their character's development.
Which makes me think, there should be races that gain additional max HP per level as a racial ability on top of their class HP progression. (Something like a Dwarf might get 1 additional HP per level, for example. Not saying we should incorporate this now.)
Technically, there are races like the dwarf that do this. Any race that grants a bonus to Constitution is effectively giving 1 additional hit point at each level.
|
I had an idea for a feat that would allow players to do something like this. It would have been something like...
When you gain hit points at each level, (including this one), roll an additional number of your hit die equal to your CON modifier (minimum 1) and take the highest result.
Possibly with Con 13 as a prereq. Just making it a rule of how leveling up works would free up a feat slot for HP-conscious characters.
just roll 3dN and take the middle one.
