I think tradition and the term "hit die" are the only reason that anyone would even consider rolling a character's hit points. In the absence of those influences, the natural approach would be to take the factors that go into determining hit points (constitution, class, and level) and simply calculate them the way we do other derived attributes.
If you think about it, rolling for hit points makes about as much sense as rolling for BAB increases (say, 1d3-1 per level for a fighter, for a simple example).
The rolled hit points are meant to reflect your character gaining the ability to withstand damage and such via training and adventuring.
One fighter might have trained to gain 7 HP more resilience while his brother the Barbarian might have only trained enough to get 6 HP more. (Note: this is before CON Mod.)
What do you mean inhumanly frail? A Human wizard can have a 2 CON Mod.
Let's see 3 HP Max dies at -14...
that what 17-18... Hmm my CR 1 Kobold Rogue that I commonly use early on can deal 20 damage with his dagger in a single round.
Whoops I thought you meant Con score.
Anyways, that's pretty much working as intended as far as I'm concerned. I like to encourage other forms of problem solving other than combat and one of the ways I do that is to make combat more lethal.
The rolled hit points are meant to reflect your character gaining the ability to withstand damage and such via training and adventuring.
One fighter might have trained to gain 7 HP more resilience while his brother the Barbarian might have only trained enough to get 6 HP more. (Note: this is before CON Mod.)
But that training would be better reflected by feat choices -- one fighter takes Toughness, while the other takes (say) Weapon Focus.
The other problem with the training argument is that it is purely a matter of luck -- the player who gets the lower roll gets nothing in compensation (since he was presumably learning something else if it wasn't how to become physically tougher).
Hey, I am just quoting something I read on the theory behind the design of the older editions. Apparently the disparity do time luck is the fact that one of them chose to spend less time training and more time on something else.
@lordzack: I am the same way. Though I prefer leaving as much of the system alone as possible. his is Why I rarely use the System blocks for Kobolds, Orcs, & other 0 racial HD races and choose to build my own.
Though from now on I will probably be encouraging Averages.
I've settled in to the pattern of giving players (for level 2 and up; level 1 is always max) the option of half+1 or rolling (rerolling 1's once), and they can choose which they want at each level. At any given level I usually have half the players choose one, and half the players choose the other. I personally like it because it balances out the comparative risk vs reward factors nicely. For those who don't like the risk of rolling, they get a perfectly satisfactory boost, but it's not the biggest that can be had, and those who accept the risks of rolling are rewarded with a higher potential boost to counteract the possibility of the lower potential boost. In the end, both sides are happy that they are able to shape their character however they see fit. The fact that they can make the decision independently each level means that over the course of a campaign, it's likely that ultimately both methods will be sued to some degree, and thus the characters mirror a balance of luck and specific training that I find makes for a better character overall.
As for NPCs and monsters, it varies on the specific circumstances. Important NPCs I will generally treat as PCs for many purposes, including HP and stat generation. Others depend on their role, the encounter, and what I am trying to convey through their use. Just recently, I used goblins in three different scenes that were all part of one larger encounter. Each set of goblins had slightly different hp, equipment, and other stats to reflect their role in the overall encounter. The stupid shock troop grunts used stats that would befit someone stupid enough to volunteer, or be voluntold, for that role. The leaders also clearly stood out from the general rabble, which followed, aside from various equipment changes, the stats in the bestiary. Those mostly minor differences, along with differences in tactics, helped me to differentiate the different phases of the encounter. If it's a quick wilderness encounter, I usually stick with the basic stats of the creatures involved and find other ways to make the encounter interesting.
Wait... is it even possible to get anything less than a 3 in a stat for a PC?
For NPCs I always follow the NPC building guide in the CRB. It is so easy...
So I went back and looked at the lest few campaigns just for fun. Out of the six different players, only two rolled their HPs. Four of them just did the average plus con bonus (I give the players the choice).
The real interesting part though is that in the end, the 16 characters played by the six were not that different. They all fell in about an average total.
So what I see is that unless I do some "adjusted rolling (reroll if less then average, roll larger die etc) in the end the charcter ends up close to the average anyway.
Just thought I would share.
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?
It's been a lowish-level game with a small party (four) for a while, so healing wasn't much of an issue - it mostly prevented a single crit from killing a PC. The main issue was that we didn't actually have a party healer for a while. Doing all our healing from levels 1-6 with the ranger's wands of cure light wounds was ... interesting.
As for take more risks, my barbarian and the party ranger did survive a 500 ft fall... Though to be fair, that was accidental. Turns out feather fall is no use if you fall into an antimagic field. :) It was a great story.
Combat's not especially long, since my barbarian and the ranger are the frontline combatants and we tend to whittle down opponents' HP frighteningly quickly anyway, even though neither of us are especially optimised.
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.
Players in ours get an advantage in that you either take the average OR what you roll, whicever is better. For monsters and non boss npcs its average for all HD.
Oh yeah and max at Lvl 1 for all PCs.
Wait... is it even possible to get anything less than a 3 in a stat for a PC?
Not via point-buy, but it's possible if you use rolled stats.
We let the dice fly :) for a new (1st level) character I let players re-roll once if it comes in under half.
You make them roll HP @ Level 1!?
Yes. A new character, as I indicated, gets half or more at level 1. After that it's the roll of the dice. I've been doing it that way for many years. Maximium hp at first level was a design decision made recently. My game is... older. Giving them half+ at first level has been my house rule for the last 30 odd years or so... about when I switched to that new fangled AD&D (1E). I was considered a softy in that regard :D Before that it was straight up rolls.
I think tradition and the term "hit die" are the only reason that anyone would even consider rolling a character's hit points. In the absence of those influences, the natural approach would be to take the factors that go into determining hit points (constitution, class, and level) and simply calculate them the way we do other derived attributes.If you think about it, rolling for hit points makes about as much sense as rolling for BAB increases (say, 1d3-1 per level for a fighter, for a simple example).
Hit points are not intended to be a derived characteristic. It reflects a lot of factors some of which are random (luck) and some of which aren't (Con). Therefore it has a range set by die to reflect facors such as class, Con, and luck. BAB is reflected by level because it's not random, but the result of experience, not random factors (the die roll in combat encompasses the randomness of combat as it happens). It makes every bit as much "sense" this way as to have it as a derived characteristic. Ymmv.
In my local game, I have my players just roll for HP the way it's described in the book.
My online game, though, since EVERYBODY there was having horrible luck on HP rolls and was becoming incredibly squishy, I instituted a rule for them where they roll HP, then if (and only if) it's less than average, they get to roll again, taking the better result. The past 3 levels they've almost all rolled bad enough to take the reroll every level.
For player characters, I have them do the full hit die at level 1 (plus their CON mod), then roll their hp (plus their CON mod) for subsequent levels.
For NPCs, I usually use the default average hp method for standard monsters, but roll hp (including level 1 hp) for unique NPCs with class levels.
Wait... is it even possible to get anything less than a 3 in a stat for a PC?Not via point-buy, but it's possible if you use rolled stats.
I guess this is one of the changes from 3.5
@R_Chance: It is more of just a strange thing for me to have read.
I like having the max at first and the "cushion" of average every level with the chance for more. Some of the answers I've seen make me think those games are either particularly lethal for some and not for lucky others. My group likes to be somewhat balanced with eachother, so what happens if you roll every level and one guy gets 3 per level as a fighter and the other guy gets 8 per level as a paladin for instance? At 20th level one frontline guy has 60 hp the other has 160. How is that balanced? in my games where everyone gets average or better it's not uncommon to see a 20th wizard with say 120 hp and a 20th level fighter with 190 or 20th barbarian with 210. It is a pretty balanced method that keeps players feeling confident and thus happy, still somewhat random but generally not so much as to create huge discrepancies. I also favor this method for not being a "cookie cutter" method where you make a 1st level character and know exactly what your stats and gear will be every level as in 4th ed. dnd.
Wait... is it even possible to get anything less than a 3 in a stat for a PC?Not via point-buy, but it's possible if you use rolled stats.I guess this is one of the changes from 3.5
@R_Chance: It is more of just a strange thing for me to have read.
Nope it's exactly the same as it was before. All you have to do is roll a 3 or 4, and have a racial penalty.
Nope it's exactly the same as it was before. All you have to do is roll a 3 or 4, and have a racial penalty.Wait... is it even possible to get anything less than a 3 in a stat for a PC?Not via point-buy, but it's possible if you use rolled stats.I guess this is one of the changes from 3.5
@R_Chance: It is more of just a strange thing for me to have read.
Actually, the copy I have access to is the First Printing 3.5 PHB. It stats the minimum for a Humanoid creature is 3 in all stats.
In every other printing it became only Intelligence that can't be dropped below 3 for Humanoids.
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 + ConWe 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 sometimes do the same but use 1D6 with +0 for 1D6 HD, +2 for 1D8 HD, +4 for 1D10 HD, and +6 for 1D12 hit die.
We sometimes do the same but use 1D6 with +0 for 1D6 HD, +2 for 1D8 HD, +4 for 1D10 HD, and +6 for 1D12 hit die.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 + ConWe 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.
I'm going to have to try this style of system.
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 roll for hp, reroll one's. So you at least get 2 HP a level from your dice. I like having some randomness to HP's but at the same time i don't like the old days of being 4th level and having 5 hit points.
=Dan
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, nothing beats playing a AD&D game as a Thief character with 1 HP.
We roll at my table.
PC's get max
NPC's get half
BEEG's get max
Minions get half
everything else gets random roll's
Ludicrous. anyone getting less than the average for their level is giving the advantage to the NPCs/monsters, that is an antagonistic approach to GMing making it a game of hehehe lets kill a PC, instead of the mostly impartial referee player relationship the game is meant to be.
Ludicrous. anyone getting less than the average for their level is giving the advantage to the NPCs/monsters, that is an antagonistic approach to GMing making it a game of hehehe lets kill a PC, instead of the mostly impartial referee player relationship the game is meant to be.
If they're rolling hp, and if the roll is actually random, some levels they'll roll high, some levels they'll roll low, some levels they'll roll average. On the whole, their average HP per levels should still generally work out to be average, but it's probably going to be more of a bell curve with occasional outliers at either end of the hp spectrum.
Average hp for a level 10 fighter with 10 CON (10+[9x5.5]): 59
(Do you still use 5.5 for average hp generation of PCs? I did it like an NPC except with 10 hp at level 1.)
Five samples of random hp for a level 10 fighter rolling (and 10 hp for level 1):
Random hp for a level 10 fighter with 10 CON:
Random hp for a level 10 fighter with 10 CON:
Random hp for a level 10 fighter with 10 CON:
Random hp for a level 10 fighter with 10 CON:
Random hp for a level 10 fighter with 10 CON:
Of course no fighter in their right mind is going to take 10 CON, but it was done at 10 CON for simplicity since they'll all get the same bonus from CON anyway regardless of average hp or rolled hp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Conundrum: My games carry an "I don't pull any punches" warning. Is that antagonistic?
@wolf : yes we use the 5 hp odd 6 hp even level rule same as monsters,I like this as a minimum for PCs.
@Azaelas : If you are actively trying to gain advantage over the players rather than striving for being an impartial referee, than I would say yes that is antagonistic. Your only job is not to "kill the PCs". nor should it be "Give them easy fights and tons of treasure to keep them happy whether I like it or not". The sweet spot here is MIDDLE GROUND as with EVERYTHING ELSE IN LIFE.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Conundrum: I have my Encounters use realistic tactics. for the most part I can just write down what the Monsters/NPCs are going to do and put them on auto-pilot.
That being said every roll is done in the open.
Usually 1-3 PCs will fall in the course of a story arc(5-10 levels). But my players love it. Heck, they live by the motto: "An entertaining defeat is better than a boring victory."
That is also why they don't care about optimization. And have around 3+ back-up PCs...
We roll, but 1s do not count. If you get a one, roll again.
Good on you Azaeleas, sounds great.
Hmm, nothing beats playing a AD&D game as a Thief character with 1 HP.
The thrill, THE THRILL!
Hmm, nothing beats playing a AD&D game as a Thief character with 1 HP.The thrill, THE THRILL!
Oh yeah. Especially when the Wizard accidentally catches you in their spell...
and Good on me what? What sounds great?
@Azaleas: I presume they meant your "realistic" tactics, and your players emphasising challenge over optimisation.
@Azaleas: I presume they meant your "realistic" tactics, and your players emphasising challenge over optimisation.
Hmm, talk about spacing out.
They actually figured out a good way to use Monks it is kinda strange.
They actually looked at me like I was crazy when I mentioned using averages.
Oh characters DEFINITELY die in my games also. I just like to give them a fighting chance, sometimes the dice just don't go the players way and I don't like to fudge and they don't like me to either. Our hp method works fine and the game is still often VERY challenging for them. Also I find it to be the same when it's my turn to sit as a player and let someone else GM. After all, the same statutes apply whether one of us is GMing or playing.
I like that one pretty well, I think that basically ends up being about what my group gets anyway, this is just more consistent from level to level.
We like random rolling. Simply for the fact that I have 2 wizards that have very different HP amounts. This leads them to play the characters differently.
Ironically the one that has rolled a 1 for HP for the last 5 levels actually is the most survivable one of the party of 6.