I give the option to either roll or take the average.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We roll a d4 and add the difference based on class. Then add Con scores.
For example:
Barbarian (d12) = 1d4 + 8 + Con
Cleric (d8) = 1d4 + 4 + Con
Fighter (d10) = 1d4 + 6 + Con
Wizard (d6) = 1d4 + 2 + Con
We figure this way a fighter, who constantly exerts himself physically will never gain fewer hp for a level than his bookish wizard counterpart.
This ends up giving most characters hp on the higher side of average (and much more likely to roll max). I think this is pretty okay given that we like heroic games with terrifying BBEGs.
Getting hit with Disintegrate and dying round one = lame
Getting hit with Disintegrate and surviving to beat the BBEG in the end = epic.
We have the option to roll or take averages, but always choose to roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my games we do average rounded UP:
d4=3
d6=4
d8=5
d10=6
d12=7
So a 3rd level Barbarian with 18 CON would have:
12 (1st level) + 14 (2nd & 3rd level) + 12 (CON modifier) = 38 HP.
I hate randomly rolling for HP... it diminishes class HD and the value of CON. Having fixed increases based on class HD is the way to go, in my experience.
When I'm playing during a game (such as leveling up) I roll the hit points. When I make a pre-made character, such as those you often see me posting on the forums, I give them 3/4 of the maximum variable, round up.
For instance, a 10th-level fighter with 18 Constitution would have...
10 Max HP @ 1st level
68 3/4 HP for the next nine levels (round up)
40 for Constitution modifier
10 Favored class bonus (optional)
10 Toughness (optional)
...118 to 138 HP.
NPCs always get the average if I have anything to say about it.
We've experimented with different ones. We've
1) Rolled randomly (Edit: it was choose average, rounded down, or roll if you felt lucky, taking whatever you got)
2) Used a completely different formula altogether that I can't remember, but is a linear progression that boosts lower levels and diminishes higher levels (we didn't get to high levels that time, though; short adventure)
3) Die average, rounded up
4) Die average, rounded down, but with Toughness as a bonus feat.
In the future, I'm going to recommend we go with the method used for NPCs, which is die average, keeping the fractional part.
In all of the above cases (edit: except #2), max HP at first level.
Overall, it would appear that we prefer formulas.
I always use average hit points, regardless of the way the rest of the group does it. I also always use the elite array for my stats (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) instead of rolling, even if the rest of the group doesn't. There are no dice rolls in my character generation.
I use the same number fixed HP per HD that is used in Pathfinder Society. I've found that this simply allows me to plan encounters more easily without having to worry over yet another level of disparity between characters. It's the same reason why I use point-buy for ability scores now instead of rolled stats.
Plenty of room for potential inequality/imbalance where builds and not-so-impartial d20s are concerned. For the sake of fairness I see little reason to compound the issue further.
Roll for hit points. Player can reroll once if the result is below a certain number (based on class). For example, a barbarian gets a reroll if he rolls less than six, fighter less than five, etc. Have to keep the reroll, even if it's lower. DM also allows burning a hero point for a reroll.
My group rolls HP, but if the result is less than half the die highest number, then it count as if it had rolled half.
eg.: If a fighter rolls lower than 5, it counts as if he had rolled a 5. If he rolls higher, then he uses whatever number he rolled.
My DM gives max hit points at all levels. But he gives NPCs and monsters max HP as well.
When I DM, I normally just declare no rolling, everyone take their average (fractional, rounded down but recalculated each level) HP.
We have the option to roll or take average in the game I play in. If you roll you reroll 1's.
More often than not, we use some kind of rolling system, but often a more forgiving system (e.g. "if less than 1/2 max, take 1/2 max" or "roll 1d4+4 instead of 1d8").
When I GM, I let people take "max HP - 2" each level. Or they can roll if they really really want to, but then no whining is allowed.
I use homebrew HP rules.
Everyone gets base hp equal to Constitution score. For each level (including first) character gets HD based value plus Constitution modifier.
d6 grants 4+Con hp per level
d8 grants 6+Con hp per level
d10 grants 8+Con hp per level
d12 grants 10+Con hp per level
I have to admit, I'm loving all the ideas out here.
I'm boring: We roll, and I let them reroll 1's, because getting a 1 on your hit points just stinks.
Roll, if you roll below half you can take half.
In my campaign, we use max hp at level 1, then for each level, PCs receive a fixed number of hp (plus Con mod) base don their hit die:
d6 = 4 + Con mod
d8 = 5 + Con mod
d10 = 6 + Con mod
d12 = 7 + Con mod
PCs therefore always have better-than-average hp.
I calculate NPC and monster hp normally (average hp/die). This gives the PCs more of an edge.
Averages in my game, most of the games I play in though use straight rolls.
we just roll
as a barbarrian im quite scarry when i roll but i do have lucky rolls most of the time tho :-) i would burn a hero point for it tho
Max at first level, then roll but keep half die if you roll below that.
The higher of the roll or the average (rounded up - so 4, 5, 6, or 7).
Monster and NPC hit points vary. I tend to use average-rounded-up per die, with big threats getting 65% to 75% or more of max, or rolled like PCs.
Last campaign I ran, max HP for all PCs, NPCs and monsters. Made Hit Dice type more meaningful, removed the chance that someone with less CON then you had more HP just because they rolled better, and made fights less likely to end on round 1.
I do max at first and then allow the players to select either average rolled up or open roll and take your chances.
When I play, I do what ever the GM says.
In my games, both the players and I roll the appropriate die, however my roll is hidden from them. They then choose if they will take their result, or take a risk on taking mine.
In general I find that they will keep their result on an average roll, but anything lower and they'll take the risk. A couple of them have been happily surprised when they decide to take mine after only getting an additional 2 hp from a d10 or d12, and have found that they're getting maximum.
In PFS play everyone uses max HP at first level and average HP for each level you advance.
I'm curious how people handle HP in home games mostly for PCs but also for monsters and animal companions.
We take average, with the option to roll it. Most of us just take the average though. It's a safer bet and doesn't risk you rolling badly a few levels in a row (which hurt you worse than a few good rolls helps).
I like consistency as well, so more exotic Hp generation methods based on HD aren't that useful to me (I'd just use them on my NPCs and it would just result in inflated HP all around).
I all the games I play, we roll twice and take the better roll.
The only time this rule has been different is one game where you could roll twice and take the better result, but if you rolled lower than the average HP per level, you got the average.
Keep rolling until you either roll above half or roll half twice. That's generally how the DMs around here do it.
I have always liked half + roll half.
D6= 3 + 1D3
D8= 4 + 1D4
and so on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the games I run and the game I'm playing in it's max HP per HD for both PCs and NPCs (and monsters).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Max hit points for NPCs and PCs at all levels.
My DM gives max hit points at all levels. But he gives NPCs and monsters max HP as well.
When I DM, I normally just declare no rolling, everyone take their average (fractional, rounded down but recalculated each level) HP.
I'm curious how that plays out, aside from lengthening combat. Do you find it difficult to get healed up to full hit points? Do you take more risks? Does combat get boring after a certain point?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the games I run and the game I'm playing in it's max HP per HD for both PCs and NPCs (and monsters).
Ditto- makes calculations easier and makes fights last longer. Both are things I desire as a GM.
We have a system where you count as having rolled half your HD, with an additional +1 at odd numbered levels. It works pretty good and you get a nice little bump by the time you hit level 20. Otherwise, we just go ahead and count as having rolled the maximum for your HD; which is great in some of the higher powered campaigns.
We roll twice and take the better number. Expected value works out to be about 60-66% of max, depending on the range of the die. Makes those 1s particularly unlikely since we both have to roll it for the PC to be saddled with it.
I use average hit points for most monster, but I roll named NPCs.
I use a fairly PC-friendly system, where they reroll if its less then half the max die result. 1-2 reroll on 1d6 up to 1-5 reroll on a d12. I also have a fairly large group (6-7) so my monsters use a 75%max hp base instead of average.
I'm in the roll, minimum 1/2 camp for my players. I use average for monsters/NPCs I adjust or create on the fly.
Last game I ran, I had max hp at 1st level (as usual) and 3/4 HD at all other levels. This meant that for the d6 and d10, odd and even levels gave different hp values.
I also allowed the option to roll, but I intentionally tried to make it a horrible idea by forcing someone to keep what they rolled (except reroll 1's) both to give the illusion of choice and because I enjoy punishing stupidity.
*devil face*
But I have a smart group, they all went for the fixed hp.
...................
I wouldn't be opposed to max hp either, I was just worried so much hp could have unforseen consequences on stuff like the value of direct damage spells. Definitely has to be fixed and more than half, though. Otherwise, you trivialize the benefit of a high HD. I've seen a ~18 Con d4 (D&D 3E) HD Sorceror with better hp than the d12 HD Con 12 Barbarian before, thanks to random good/bad luck on HD rolls, I do not wish to ever see it again.
Rolling is a total turn off... I've avoiding joining games because of it, and when I do join, I restrict my character choices to classes with low HD anyway and/or ranged characters. No way in hell am I playing a melee warrior in a game with random HD rolls.
I introduced the choice between taking a true average or rolling for HP years ago, and all of our group's GMs have adopted the same practice (although one still uses the "round down" average instead of a true average).
What is a true average? You round down on odd levels and round up on even levels. So if you have a d8 and take the true average through level five you'll get the following HP values:
Lvl 1 - 8
Lvl 2 - 5
Lvl 3 - 4
Lvl 4 - 5
Lvl 5 - 4
etc...
This gives (other than level 1) an average of 4.5 HP per level, which is the true average.
If a player chooses to roll for HP, they get whatver they roll.