I'm about to start running a new Pathfinder campaign, and I've been giving some thought to how hit points are generated.
Pathfinder assumes that most NPC's have very average hit points; there seems to be some variance, but for example, many monsters with a d8 hit die seem to have 4 or 4.5 hit points per die.
Many monsters seem to have much higher hit dice than their CR, as well as healthy sources of additional hit points from Constitution (or Charisma in the case of undead), bonus hit points from type (constructs), or the Toughness feat.
Characters are assumed to have maximum hit points at level 1, and then roll each hit die at subsequent levels. In the past, I've been very generous about re-rolling low hit die results, but I recently watched a GM in action who was very strict about it. He might let you re-roll a "1", but only once.
Our Fighter, who ended up with several low hit die rolls, was very put out by this, and there was grumbling all around the table (save for our Ranger, who never seemed to roll lower than a 7 for the entire campaign).
The GM's theory was that, if you are generous with hit die rolls, then the balance of the game shifts- the players are now more survivable than the core rules presume, and this affects the difficulty of encounters.
On paper, at least, this seems to be a credible theory. Certainly, if you started to roll monster Hit Dice, more durable monsters make encounters harder simply by being able to deliver more damage to the party (which can quickly lead to unwanted TPK's).
My question, then, is what is the best method to determine hit points? Assume average die rolls? Stick with strict hit die rolling?
What happens if you just maximize hit die rolls? How much easier or harder does the game become?
On a similar note, what happens with higher point-buy, when players feel they can place more points in Constitution?
Just wondering if anyone else overthinks these things like I do.
And if they do, thanks in advance for any responses!
I once played a barbarian with a good con who ended up with the lowest HP in a party where the rest were d8 classes.
I wonder if anyone has ever tried rolling 3 4-sided dice for barbarian hit points or 2 for the d8 classes? Maybe a d6 and a d4 for d10 classes? This removes the possibility of rolling a 1, but also makes it statistically harder to get a Max score.
I agree with the GM in question, allowing rerolls makes characters more durable than the rules assume.
However, you're also right that a series of poor rolls can be frustrating for a character. I encourage you to just not roll dice for hp and assume average rolls. Since the split is uneven, take the "high" value on odd levels and the "low" value on even levels.
I just use variable for everything, characters and monsters alike. The retraining rules lessen the impact of bad HP rolls provided there's time between major campaign events. For fast-paced adventures with little downtime, I borrow a magic item from one of my favorite roguelikes--a potion that rerolls your hit points from scratch.
Just for the purpose of discussion, how about averaging multiple dice? In example, if you have a d8, roll 4d8, sum, and divide by 4, and round (to the nearest)? You have the same range of outcomes but it is much more clustered towards the average. The more dice you roll, the more likely you are to stay towards the average.
You could also always round up instead of to the nearest, which makes getting a 1 much less likely, but doesn't make getting max that much more likely (compared to rolling average).
I've GMed for groups and played in groups where every player would roll hp.
Back in the days, e. g. a wizard would be allowed to reroll on a "1", a rogue and cleric on "1" and "2" and a fighter "1", "2", and "3".
With my latest group every class gets half her max hp per die (5 if d10, 4 if d8 etc.) plus CON bonus, favored class bonus, feat.
My thinking behind this is that it a) removes the hassle of rolling and re-rolling, b) prevents player frustration if confronted with (constant) low rolls, and c) makes encounter planning for me easier as I know each player's hp based on level alone (interestingly every single player has picked CON as her highest [or second highest] stat...).
Ruyan.
An idea a friend and I tossed around:
Randomize HP after every rest. Figure a way so that longer rests grant more HP, up to the maximum (maybe +1 per HD per extra X hours or something?). Significant bad guys would be granted max HP (they seem to die way too quickly in our group), but not lesser foes.
There are some caveats with this, however. Empirical testing would have to be done to see how it works out. Anyway, just an idea for spit-balling. The "roll every day" part without all that other stuff might be interesting.
I prefer to just have players take average hp per level. Most don't argue about it.
Having high hit points does not have nearly as large a magnitude impact on a character as having significantly below average hit points does.
I do average HP as well; max at 1st level, average-round-up at every level thereafter.
As a dm I always let my players roll two dice, reroll 1s, take better. I like increased durability of characters. I can land really hard hits on them without worry too much about their dying. If the fighter could stand a 30 hp hit and laugh, then he go worried when the healer can't cure so much. Remember: cures always heal the same amount, whether the target hp are. So, I can set situation where my players face various encounters in a single day at progressive lowered hp. The first couple of encounters leave them with some meaningless scars, but the 3rd or 4th leave them really near to the danger zone, or even beyond. High hp means you don't need to hold your punch.
The group I'm playing with now switched from rolling to 1d3+3=d6 , 1d4+4=d8 , 1d5+5=d10, 1d6+6=d12
I think I've always played max HP every level, but after Ultimate Campaign came out with its training rules I think I'm inclined to just roll HP RAW and encourage players to take down time and train up their HP.
I definitely prefer fixed hit points. The PFS formula (half maximum lus one for every level beyond 1st) is excellent even for non-PFS games. There is no reason but tradition to actually roll hit dice.
You can also let individual players decide for themselves.
I myself prefer average per level, but I once ran a campaign for a group that prefered to roll.
Compared to PFS I didn;t see much of a difference. Tactics, party build, and class builds made a bigger difference.
So I just tell people: max at first level, then every level choose roll and keep or half die plus one.
|
We're using the following variable system along with the Ultimate Campaign's "retraining" hit points option (if you can afford it).
You get one reroll if the below numbers are rolled for your hit dice and are guaranteed at minimum one above the highest reroll number. For example, if a cleric player rolls a 1 or 2 on hit points, he gets one reroll. If he rolls a 2, he gets 3 hit points for that level and we move on.
1d6: Reroll 1
1d8: Reroll 1, 2
1d10: Reroll 1, 2, 3
1d12: Reroll 1, 2, 3, 4
So far, the players aren't being gimped, and we've restored the notion of hit point rolls counting given they can affect play style. On the other hand, there has to be some generosity for bad rolls, because in Pathfinder, a character who rolls several 1s on hit points won't last too many levels. Older editions, less of a problem (20th level characters generally had less than 100 hit points).
The fairest (to your players) method is the average (half +1) system since characters advance based on the choices of the players. However, if you're a bit old-school, variability has its perks so long as you account for the notion the systems are not the same, as much as we might like aspects of them to be.
