[3.5] Houserule: Max HP

[Bugbeartrap]

In my current campaign, my DM has a houserule that you roll HP until the number on the dice is greater than half (half+1 rounded down). I'm playing a caster and I realized that this really helps me out because the least I could get was a 3 on d4, I could only win. It seems that this rule helps me out more than the melee types, because they have a much greater range of outcomes each level. Especially if a melee-type and a caster-type have similar CON scores, the HP are going to be a lot closer than when using the usual method.

Then I started thinking: Wouldn't benefit the high hit die classes if everyone just recieved max HP at every level. It would benefit melee types much more than casters because then they are insured that their large hit die are going to good use. I thought this might even help with monsters. Usually the DM just uses the average number of hitpoints, but that is in the middle of what they could have. PC's aren't likely to have average hitpoints why should monsters? I haven't looked into it to deeply, but I don't think it would break any part of the game because it seems to only give melee types a helping hand (who could usually use it).

[Mooch]

When DMing I use both max HP for the PCs and max HP for the mobs, which in my opinion is needed if you have any decent sort of damage dealer in the group let alone an optimized one

I haven't had any significant problems and neither have any of the other DMs that play with out group (we all do this)

[Dairun Cates]

Range is mostly the reason. The averages are intended to by 1 point apart for each hit dice up. So, at level 10, a fighter is supposed to have about 20 more HP than a wizard, not counting con bonus. A bard is supposed to have 10 more than a wizard. The way you do it, the bard has 20 more than a wizard and the warrior has 40 more than a wizard. It scales poorly. The difference between each class becomes way too wide... Can you imagine that Barbarian with 60 whole HP more than the wizard BEFORE con modifier?

[Ceaon]

The problem I see with this is that it makes monsters even tougher to beat for non-casters, since all they can do is chip away at the huge amounts of HP they now have, while casters think: hey that guy has a lot of HP, I'll throw a save-or-die at it.
So while "PCs gain max HP" would be a boon to non-casters, "PCs and monsters gain max HP" would be a boon to casters.

[Myou]

Both of my DMs do this too.

[Dairun Cates]

The problem I see with this is that it makes monsters even tougher to beat for non-casters, since all they can do is chip away at the huge amounts of HP they now have, while casters think: hey that guy has a lot of HP, I'll throw a save-or-die at it.
So while "PCs gain max HP" would be a boon to non-casters, "PCs and monsters gain max HP" would be a boon to casters.

Pretty much what I was hinting at put in better words. With an experienced party, it make the wizards more batman and nerfs the fighters. With a non-experienced party, it makes the wizards weaker. The issue essentially is that your hp is going to scale, but the damage isn't (unless you're going to cap damage too, which is going to cause some REAL problems).

[Otodetu]

Max hp sounds like a bad idea in general.

It also makes blaster type casters alot weaker (more hp's means more spells required)

[AslanCross]

I find that max HP on monsters makes encounters less of pushovers if a party contains one or more Tome of Battle characters. The thing with ToB characters is that they're not as easy to tire out as casters, because their maneuvers refresh every encounter. Thus, they tend to use a lot of their strongest maneuvers first, ending encounters quickly.

I avoid using max HP for PCs. They have enough delusions of invulnerability as it is.

[Riffington]

Look again at your DM's houserule.
Wizard: d4, reroll all 1s and 2s. Thus, you have an average of 3.5 Hp/level instead of 2.5/level. An increase of 40%.
Fighter: d10, reroll all 1-5. Thus, you have an average of 8/level instead of 5.5/level. An increase of 45%.
So if you don't factor in the impact of Con, the fighter benefits more than you from your DM's houserule. If you do factor it in, it probably becomes fair to everyone. Except, of course, to the monsters.

Now, you can boost the average CR of what you face, which is fine.
If you boost the monsters' HP, then it makes save-or-X even more powerful over damage than it already is. Just boost all monsters' saves a bit and you're good.

[Yahzi]

max HP at every level.
I do this in my game, for players and NPCs, and it works great.

[Zergrusheddie]

Max HP would be useful if you were more along the lines of "Combat Players" rather than "RPG Players." More HP means there will be less emphasis on Roleplaying and more emphasis on stabbing.

I've always done it as max for first three levels and than minimum half (rounded down). We are currently playing it to where you add your Constitution score to your HP at level 1 (Retroactive), max HP at level 1, and than minimum half on the following rolls. Taking the Grace System from Book of Experimental Might, whatever we roll is considered 'Grace' and it automatically heals after an encounter. It makes Clerics a little less essential and lets them not have to be so concerned about Post Battle Triage.

[aje8]

On monsters:

Basically just hurts the Fighter. Wizard's don't roll to hit. They make YOU roll to NOT die. Fighter takes more swings....Wizards don't care.

Thus, don't do it. Wizard is powerful enough as it is.

More Hp for the PCs? It's a fine idea.

Wizards: HP? Who cares? You can talk to me when you can hit me when I'm invisible, flying and have respawning images, who are also invisablie.

Fighter: I can hit things for longer, yeah!

Helps the fighter, thus it's a fine rule.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I always give max HP for PCs, and either 75% per die or max for monsters depending on the PCs' damage capabilities and the significance of the opponent. The difference between d12s and d10s is more significant, and the d4s are a lot better off than with any other method. Blaster-type spells do have less impact, but they're the weakest type of spells anyway and the people I play with mostly stick to melee for damage. I and everyone I play with really like this method, and it's never caused us any problems.

[Ascension]

I have a tendency to bar any resurrection magic aside from the crapshoot that is Reincarnate in an attempt to make death a bit more meaningful. I'm highly considering giving Max HP to the party the next time I do this... they deserve to be a bit harder to kill when death means a new character... or a raid on heaven/hell.

[EagleWiz]

Max hp for Monsters: As said below, nerfs the non casters
Max Hp for the Party: Unless the adventurers are all/most new/not very deadly/noncasters, they shouldnt need max hp.

[Zaq]

The game I just started running (2 session in so far) uses the "max HP for players and monsters alike" rule, because I feel like having low HP means a greater risk of someone being useless, in one of two ways.

1) Oops, the monster went first and got a crit/rolled perfectly/got a lucky sneak attack/etc., just stay down there for a while and we'll patch you up when the combat is done. Hey, while you're waiting, why don't you go get the pizza?

2) Oops, your buddy went first and got a crit/rolled perfectly/etc., and now we don't need you to use your big guns.

Either way means less fun. Max HP means that everyone, player and monster alike, is going to have a better chance to use their big tricks before either croaking or being rendered obsolete. (I should mention that no one in my group is playing with many save-or-lose effects, which are indeed a concern.) I can also feel a little bit better about giving monsters flashier attacks, surprise rounds, and so on, without worrying about the "eenie, meenie, minie... you. You don't get to play this combat. Roll for stabilization." effect. Furthermore, it makes the players with limited resources have to think a little bit more instead of using a maneuver every single round, always fully augmenting their powers, and so on.

It's not for everyone, and if there's a real save-or-lose heavy player, it definitely tilts the balance in their favor (as though it wasn't already. Silly wizards...), but it means that everyone's going to have a chance to shine in almost every battle, and there's fewer wham-bam-splat effects on either side. So far, I like it.

[monty]

1) Oops, the monster went first and got a crit/rolled perfectly/got a lucky sneak attack/etc., just stay down there for a while and we'll patch you up when the combat is done. Hey, while you're waiting, why don't you go get the pizza?

Yeah, that sounds right. In our Heavy Gear game, one of the characters took two deep wounds around the end of the session before last, so he's going to be recovering for an in-game month. He spent most of yesterday getting food for the GM, both because he had nothing better to do and because he didn't want to be punished any more.