Our gaming group is fairly generous when it comes to hit points; everyone gets maximum at first level and then you can re-roll when you level up, but have to take the second result even if it is lower. However we've had situations where, particularly with arcane spell casters, level after level they roll a 2 on a d6 followed by a 1 on the re-roll or something similar. Given that these classes tend not to have a high Constitutions it stacks up quickly when you have 3 or 4 bad rolls over a few consecutive levels.
Do any groups out there take a look at total hit points every once in a while and adjust for the characters that are severely behind or something similar. There's obviously a certain amount of randomness to the game, but missing four attack rolls in a row is a far cry from getting minimum or close to minimum hit points over three or four levels when you don't have that many to begin with. It just seems to me that players have complete control over every other aspect of the levelling process, but when it comes to hit points (arguably one of the most important parts of it) they're completely at the whim of the dice. I'd definitely like to see if any other groups have noticed this and/or how they handle it.
If your group does retraining: https://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCampaign/campaignSystems/retrai ning.html#hit-points
Some great advice and we've used the retraining rules, but I never noticed the hit point options under that system. Thanks to everyone.
We used to have the option of taking half your hit die (rounding down) or rolling, whichever you prefer. If you roll, we would let you reroll any 1's. That later morphed into take half your hit die (rounding up) or rolling, your choice (with the no 1's allowed rule still in place).
I played a bard who rolled terribly for his hit points while the others rolled like gangbusters (or used DM bonuses to gain max hit points for the level, ala hero points but not quite). Most of the bard's career he had the lowest hit points in the party and the next nearest character had 50% more hit points than he did. Thankfully he was an archer and didn't get picked on too much.
Now we just say roll hit points and you are guaranteed at least half your hit die (round up). That way there is still variability but you don't have terrible hit points. Most of the party is relatively close to one another in hit points, with the exception of the dwarven fighter who has rolled rather well and has the highest CON in the party.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We play a game called "Your roll, or mine."
The player and the GM each roll for HP (rerolling any 1's). The GM rolls in secret so the player doesn't know the result. Then the player looks at his/her roll and tries to decide if they want to accept it, or take the GM's roll.
It adds a little drama.
-Skeld
I like drama and I love rolling dice when it's important, but it seems that after few bad levels and you're in an extremely precarious situation. When you get into mid- to high-levels that hit point "deficit" can mean instant death on a single blow saving throw or enemy crit.
|
|
I like drama and I love rolling dice when it's important, but it seems that after few bad levels and you're in an extremely precarious situation. When you get into mid- to high-levels that hit point "deficit" can mean instant death on a single blow saving throw or enemy crit.
To my knowledge, we've never had a character with a chronic HP shortage due to low rolls. If that ever happens in my group, I'll address it with retraining or something.
-Skeld
We had a level-appropriate summoner at full hit points fail a save against a banshee's wail and go from full to completely dead.
|
|
We had a level-appropriate summoner at full hit points fail a save against a banshee's wail and go from full to completely dead.
That happened to me in a campaign years ago (3e). My fully rested/healthy Ranger Leroy Jenkins'd into a room ahead of the party and got wail of the bansheed to death.
-Skeld
It wasn't even Leroy Jenkins, it was the banshee opening a door and hammering the party when they weren't expecting it. Still I'd hoped that Pathfinder had gotten away from save or die situations, hence the question on hit points.
We do a little above average. Because luck can make your character really crappy or way above average.
Same reason why we use point buy instead of rolling.
We usually go if you're a mage you re roll 1-2-3.
I personally dislike rolled hit points. I much prefer average rounded up. Less chance for dice hate to affect the rest of the character's career.
As for retraining, that takes money. Assuming even shares, that means the person paying for the training has less to spend on equipment so they still lag behind.
PFS average (ie: rounded up average).
In 3.5, I once had a dwarven warmage (a sorcerer w/ a d6) who never rolled below 5. And she had a feat that let her use CON for her magic, with predictable results. I don't think I've ever played a PC quite that buff before or since... But it's given me a very sour taste for PCs who hit the opposite side of the bell curve -- and I don't mean just mine. It seems unfair to everyone. If I went w/ a flat value rather than a rounded one as GM, I'd probably go w/ the die-1.
A friend I've played with built a chart, first for the standard die, and then after some player persuasion, for the die reflecting a "reroll 1s" rule. The chart distributed the average HP over 20 levels, so the d8 column added up to 100 HP from 1st to 20th level. But it was front-loaded; the first 2 or 3 levels got full values, while the last 2 or 3 levels got 2s. I actually didn't care for a system of diminishing returns, but it certainly was helpful to be guaranteed not just average but great rolls in those first few levels.
We play a game called "Your roll, or mine."
The player and the GM each roll for HP (rerolling any 1's). The GM rolls in secret so the player doesn't know the result. Then the player looks at his/her roll and tries to decide if they want to accept it, or take the GM's roll.
This is the "Deal or No Deal" version of my normal group's rule (& the one I've been using as GM). What we do is simply say that the player & GM can both roll, rerolling 1s, and the character flat-out gets the better of the two. For some reason known only on the Outer Planes, the GM almost always rolls better -- to the extent that if I'm playing, I don't even bother anymore rolling my own die, but if I'm GMing, I can almost certainly top a player's bad roll! Crazy.
Once the statistician loftily dismisses any sort of Outsider twist to die rolls, I wanted to know what the average of "roll 2 dice, rerolling 1s, & pick the better one" is. My darling husband just brute-forced an answer of 6-1/7. Can anyone tackle the same problem w/ 3 dice systemically & easily?
Now we just say roll hit points and you are guaranteed at least half your hit die (round up). That way there is still variability but you don't have terrible hit points. Most of the party is relatively close to one another in hit points, with the exception of the dwarven fighter who has rolled rather well and has the highest CON in the party.
Our group uses d3+3 for d6, d4+4 for d8, d5+5 for d10, and d6+6 for d12 when rolling hit points. With the single roll, everyone is guaranteed minimum half their class's max hit points.
Assuming that I understand correctly that dosgamer's minimum is the average rounded up, I'm thinking that given a *lot* of d8 rolls, dosgamer's group would have 5 times the 5's as each of 6, 7, & 8 -- while ckdragons's would get an even spread of 5, 6, 7, & 8. hmmm.
The actual average on a d8 is 4.5, or 5 if you reroll 1s.dosgamer's rule would produce an average of a hair under 6.
Our group's rule (barring statistically inexplicable interventions) ends up averaging a hair over 6.
Meanwhile, ckdragons's rule should produce an average of 6.5 -- looking good!
I just checked; this rule in fact gives an average of 1 under max for a d6. Up in the drafty rafters, the die does have more room to flex, but even so a fighter isn't going to get less than the wizard's max, no matter what, while the barbarian has to outdo the egghead. I like it!
[Text editing mode locked on ... Good night!]
Lady-J, it was evidently as OP as it felt at the time. At least, the Advanced Race Guide was PF's chance to implement it as a Dwarf feat. They didn't take it. :(
My group always offer half the HD +1
OR
You roll and what you roll is what you get.
We also maximize the first two levels if hp to stop unlucky variance from being too punishing.
|
We've done quite a few different styles of gaining hit points, the most common methods are either accepting the fate of the dice or simply taking the average number on the hit dice +1.
A few other methods that I've liked in the past are:
Roll 2HD then half the total, rounded down/up (GM's choice).
Roll 1HD + number of party members.
Roll a heal check with DC 15, on a success you gain 2HD that level (only usable on every 3rd level).
awww gess ill just have to stick with using cha for fort saves and hp then
Whoa! That got my attention! How?
Recently started a game and the party have just hit level 2, I have decided to give them all max HP each level. They are suspicious that I am going to throw all kinds of danger their way.
Which of course I am :D
Wahhh! I ran downstairs this morning to go check my 10th-level sorceress & my husband's 10th-level bard. They're both half-orcs w/ CON 16, so I thought they'd be way up there for HP. Mine is somehow below average even for the base "roll one die, reroll 1's" method, assuming full HP at 1st. His is above average for that method, but below for rolling two dice & picking. I don't know what went wrong, but we can't fix the past...
I sure intend, however, to suggest ckdragons's method to our GM for the future -- and to implement it in the game I GM. It also is nice to have a method that guarantees a barbarian the sense of being conanesque when he looks over at an egghead wizard. Thank you so much!
I simply give my players full HP - but the opponents get the same. It has quite a few effects:
1) Prolongs battles. Offensive builds have a harder time to take down foes within 1 round, so they are more likely to get into trouble.
2) Emphasizes HD. A barbarian with their d12 greatly profits from such a ruling, it has less effect on d6 casters.
3) Discourages Con. +2 Con score still gives you +1 HP, but it's a relatively smaller increase now. The same applies for the +1 HP FCB. Still both choices (solid Con and +1 HP FCB) are useful.
4) Rewards PCs more than NPCs. Given that monsters get very high Con scores later on, the relative change by full HD will be smaller than for PCs with their Con scores.
5) NPC classes are boosted. An orc warrior 1 can become quite a threat - but officially it's still CR 1/3.
If you reroll or roll plus static bonus, you might encounter such effects too, to a lesser extent.
Beside that, I do not think rerolls should be granted by the GM on a case by case basis. That's too prone to favoritism or capricious decisions. PCs are the property of players, and a GM should have no power about their basic numbers (e.g. maximum HP).
RaizielDragon, who'd have thought that the internet might be your friend? (What can I say, I remember the first pocket calculater.)
FYI, hamete virtual dice server seems to be more helpful if you reroll 1's. Unfortunately, it only gives the average for up to 100 rolls at a time. Still, lots of simple clicks gives you a pretty good idea. "3d6, reroll 1's, drop the two lowest" turns out to have an average above 5 "by a hair," and only rarely fell below 5 when averaging 100 rolls.
[Added: Khudzlin, I swear your ever-so-helpful post wasn't there when I started writing this. Did I fall asleep mid-typing? It's possible... Thank you soooo much for the hard numbers! I'll be sure to tell my husband he was off by 1/49. Or maybe not. :D ]
I still think I'll go with ckdragons's system. Thank you again!
For a lot of games I'm involved in, the hp rolling method is roll twice, take the better result each level after first (which is max). It still leaves in some nice variability which allows a character to develop in unexpected ways as they advance, while also making the dreaded 1 hit point considerably less common.
One factor I always remind players if they feel they're being excessively unlucky is that PF (and the 3e family) have many ways to mitigate bad stats and hit points through stat-boosting magic items, stat increases via leveling up, and feats. That may interfere with some long term character building plans, but sometimes you have to adapt to the situation as it evolves.
What does rolling hit points represent in the game world anyway?
Rolling dice in combat represents the randomness of real time events. Nobody seems to have a problem with this.
Rolling for stats represents the genetic lottery of a randomly born individual. The main problem with this for many of us is that adventurers are not randomly selected from the population.
But rolling for hit points? The factors that go into determining how tough a character is in combat are already factored into the hit die size and the modifiers that get added to each hit die. I could see it making some sense if it were a daily roll (with a good roll meaning that you woke up feeling great and a poor roll meaning that you don't feel so good today), but for most of the history of D&D and Pathfinder, hit die rolls are one time events not connected to anything that is "real" to the game world.
I like rolling but making sure you get at least above average HP.
It gives the player the fun of possible having max hp, but not giving it to them. It favor those with higher hit die. A barbarian will always get minimum 7 HP per level for example. But it doesn't give them full power, so FCB and CON still matters.
It's the same reason why I disliked Middle Earth Role Playing Game, the level of randomness in that game was astonishing.
You could be level 50 and still get killed by a level 1 if they got lucky.
Utterly off-topic alert
become undead is how undead rely on cha instead of con for hp and fort saves
Wow, that must cut into your social life! What sort of undead do you play? Does your GM let you be aligned Good?
We like to play heroes, so we have decent numbers, but aren't just going at max.
We use the greater of these for the base hp increase on level up:
1). Class HD roll OR
2). 1/2 of the HD rounded up (taken from PFS method).
Since a PFS Wizard gets 4 points on a d6, the roll in our methodology basically only counts on a 5 or 6, and will not be saddled with a 3 or less.
Since a PFS Barbarian gets 7 points on a d12, the roll basically only counts on a 8 - 12, and will not be saddled with a 6 or less.
This does increase the hp numbers slightly, so you would think it makes Constitution, Toughness, and FCB for hp less important. However, the monsters in our campaign have hp approaching maximum since we have a sizeable home game in number of players. If you want to go toe-to-toe with these enemies, avoiding low hp rolls on level up for our characters is pretty much a requirement.
My group's used max hit points per die for years now, and most of us couldn't imagine rolling for hit points. It makes everyone a little less fragile (monsters included), and keeps combat from ending in one round at higher levels.
We use the average HP rule. I'm of the opinion that no part of character creation or advancement should be random. So, point buy for stats, average HP rule.
My group lets us size the HD up and down with a mod to maintain average. A d6 can become a d4+1, a d3+2, a d8-1, etc. this does let you size down to all the way to average. The risk on this system is that if you size up, the value before con mod is now allowed to go below 1. I.e.: sizing the die up could get you no hp, or even lose it if you go crazy.
Of course, it can also let you roll a d20 for your HD if you do it right. Our group had a barbarian who could, and did, size up his HD and gain the actual d20 roll as his hp. Got him a lot of HP before that campaign was done.
The bane of my gaming.... Im terrible at it! :((
In one of my campaigns, our bard happened to roll very poorly nearly every level. at level 11 or 12, he was a good 25-30 HP behind the oracle, with only a +1 con mod difference. i gave him an extra 20 just so he wasn't so squishy. He was starting to become a liability to the rest of the group because of how much healing he required.