PDA

View Full Version : Rolling for Hit Points



Deepbluediver
2011-11-27, 05:52 PM
Does anyone actually like to roll for HP every level?

I admit that my playing experiences are limited to a very insular group of people, many of whom learned how to play from each other and the DM's frequently ended up as players in each others games, so the shared attitudes might have rubbed off somewhat.
But every single game had some sort of house-rule that took the randomness out of HP generation, and none of the players every really complained about that.
The two most common variations where 1/2 max HP possible from your HD+ your Con modifier or 1/2 max HP+1+Con modifier. (along with just straight max-possible HP for one particularly deadly campaign)

I have to say that rolling for HP was one of the few things that always irked me, and for which my distaste has never wavered. It seems like that on one end, really great HP rolls for your Wizard or Sorcerer are rarely the determination between life and death, while a few bad rolls can send your Fighter diving off the weak end of the balance chart. And for some less-sturdy classes (ranger, rogue) they can make simpy staying alive a painful struggle.

If I where to ever DM a campaign, I would probably assign a flat-base rate of HP gain per level, depending on class, to which you then add your Constitution modifier to determine HP changes.
However, I acknowledge that my D&D experiences are comparatively limited to some of you, so can anyone offer their thoughts on such a system? Have people tried things like this before and found them to be annoying? Tedious? Easily breakable?
Is there any reason I shouldn't be so quick to discard the HP roll at every change of level?



Just for example, I'm thinking of base-HP rates something like this:
Wizard- 4
Sorcerer- 5
Bard- 6
Monk/Rogue- 7
Ranger/Druid- 8
Fighter- 9
Barbarian- 10

(I stuck with the core classes cause that's what I'm most familiar with)

Lord Ruby34
2011-11-27, 06:05 PM
Eh, I avoid rolling for HP whenever I can. My RL group just takes the max every level, and it works out fine. We also have death at negative con score, and that mattered just last session when the rogue hit -10. So our campaigns might be a bit too high powered for what you're asking.

jiriku
2011-11-27, 06:06 PM
My groups typically allow the player the choice of taking average or risking the die roll. Most players take the average, but some players really get their joy from uncertainty and luck, and prefer the die roll.

The numbers you're quoting are quite high. Be aware that inflating hit points will make certain classes and builds much less effective than before, especially those that are dependent on damage as their only means of defeating enemies in combat.

Lord Ruby34
2011-11-27, 06:18 PM
What Jiriku says is true, higher HP means damage matters less. That's why monsters generally don't get the benefit of my house rule. Just anything with class levels in PC classes. This leads to more fights each day, or just more challenging fights. But everyone can take a hit or two at least.

Rapidghoul
2011-11-27, 06:40 PM
I have my group roll for hit dice at every level, but I allow them to take half the max if they roll low. That way no one gets too far behind because of unlucky rolls and ending up with tanks with less HP than casters.

For example, if the group's bard (HD 6) rolls a 1 for their next level, they treat that as a 3. If the fighter (HD 10) rolls a 4, they treat that as a 5. If they roll above half (bard gets a 5, fighter gets a 10, etc.) then they just take that.

Zakaroth
2011-11-27, 06:48 PM
In my games First level is maximized and after that partially fixed and partially random. This works as followed:
d4 > 2+1d2
d6 > 2+1d4
d8 > 3+1d5 (use D10/2)
d10 > 4+1d6
d12 > 6+1d6

Although, I like Rapidghoul's way as well.

Lvl45DM!
2011-11-27, 06:54 PM
Yeah we always roll but you're allowed a reroll if you get a one. If you get two ones, well suck it, the dice don't lie.
It does create some interesting scenarios. A level 6 ranger with 17 con and 33 hit points (This is 2nd Edition btw). My fighter/thief only had 45 at level 5 as well. Really changed our roles in the party the ranger became much more focused on archery and flanking and my guy got into lassoing and garroting people then slitting their throats

Thomar_of_Uointer
2011-11-27, 07:11 PM
When I make characters, I always give them half hp per hit die after first level (so d6 is 3.5, d10 is 5.5, etc etc.) Most GMs allow it.

Generally, I tell my players to give themselves maximum hit points per Hit Die (so that I can throw tougher monsters at them.)

Deepbluediver
2011-11-27, 07:49 PM
My groups typically allow the player the choice of taking average or risking the die roll. Most players take the average, but some players really get their joy from uncertainty and luck, and prefer the die roll.

The numbers you're quoting are quite high. Be aware that inflating hit points will make certain classes and builds much less effective than before, especially those that are dependent on damage as their only means of defeating enemies in combat.


What Jiriku says is true, higher HP means damage matters less. That's why monsters generally don't get the benefit of my house rule. Just anything with class levels in PC classes. This leads to more fights each day, or just more challenging fights. But everyone can take a hit or two at least.

Those are both good points I'll keep in mind. I intentionally made the HP high, because while melee characters seemed to benefit or suffer more from extreme dice-rolls, I also like the pathfinder version of arcane casters that didn't drop dead every time a gnoll looked at them cross-eyed.

In my experience, having low HP didn't seem challenging, just un-fun. There always seemed to be better ways to make the game challenging than worrying because you where never more than 2 rounds from death. Plus, having high HP let us make riskier but more heroic-style plans (or just charge into battle, without spending half an hour working out the order of combat). Still, I understand that not every group has the same preferences.


All that being said, I really like Zakaroth's version (base plus some dice-roll) which seems like it would eliminate the risk of crippling-ly low HP, while still including an element of randomness.

NeoSeraphi
2011-11-27, 08:27 PM
Every game that I've played in or DMed, we rolled for hit points, (max hit points at first level though), but if your result was a 1 or a 2,you were allowed to reroll until you got 3 or higher. This kept sorcerers, wizards, and rogues alive longer, and also made sure that fighters and barbarians had a more solid chance of keeping their hit points at the top of the charts without a few unlucky rolls.

By removing the 1 and 2 from the equation, the percent chance for each other individual roll goes up, so a fighter would have a 50% chance of rolling over half his maximum hit points per level, instead of only a 40% chance.

In my 2 years playing D&D, I've never played a single game where we didn't roll for hit points.

Yitzi
2011-11-27, 09:26 PM
Whenever considering randomness with regard to rolls, the key thing to keep in mind is the law of averages (or, if you're more mathematically inclined, the Central Limit Theorem.) A level 11 fighter will indeed be a bit low-powered if he has an average of only 4 on his 10 hit die rolls for a total of 50 before CON (because the first is max), but the chances of that (or worse) happening are {does a bit of calculation} roughly 1 in 20. For seriously worse stuff, like all 1s and 2s, the chance is far lower. (The probability doesn't go down exponentially, but rather quite a bit faster.)

Of course, that's once you've got a decent number of hit dice. When you've only got 3 hit dice, more variation (as a percentage of the total) will happen, but that's what that first full die is for.

bloodtide
2011-11-27, 11:15 PM
Yes, we always roll for Hit Points, always.

This is one of the 'top ten problems' with a lot of modern games; they give the characters too many hit points to make them superhuman. It gets even worse with Storyteller DM's, who are telling a story more like a novel/tv show/movie. It gives a great sense of false danger. The character with a lot of hit points can take 'a lot' of hits and the DM can have a truly false epic struggle. That way a character could fight and take a lot of damage, but both the player and the DM know(wink, wink) that the character would never die and ruin or end the story.


Hit points can balance a game out much more then anything else. You have a 12th level druidzilla...with only 22 hit points.

You will see post after post on boards like this about 'over powered characters', and one of the things right at the heart of that is too many hit points.

Seerow
2011-11-27, 11:23 PM
I like rolling for HP. I don't like measures that remove the randomness completely, as it makes everyone samey. On the other hand, I don't mind things that attempt to weight things more towards the average. Things like d4 = 1d2+2, or roll your hit die twice, take the best result. However I don't like measures like "reroll 1s and 2s" because that weights things towards the lower hit dice, making higher HD less valuable [if you want rerolls, reroll anything below average is more acceptable. So d4 can reroll a 1/2, d6 can reroll 1/2/3, d8 can reroll 1/2/3/4, etc].



Hit points can balance a game out much more then anything else. You have a 12th level druidzilla...with only 22 hit points.


Does this actually happen? I mean minimum rolls for a 10 con Druid gets you 19 hit points. Say it's a con 8 druid, so he rolls a 1 or 2 8 times, and 3 3 times. The chances of that happening is roughly .000079%. Roughly a 8 in 10 million chance of rolling that poorly. And then the Druid on top of that hasn't picked up any +con item (which brings the chancels to somewhere along the lines of 1 in a billion to still be that low with 10 con and is impossible with 12), isn't using any hp boosting buffs.

Lord Ruby34
2011-11-27, 11:30 PM
Eh, in my experience my players have needed every single one of their maximized hit points to survive. Even with our rule of dead at negative Con score.

Although HP amounts do feel shocking similar (130, 130, 130, 125, 115 atm), but that's because it seems like the people with the lowest hit-dice have the highest Con score.

It really depends on what works for your group.

Lord Vukodlak
2011-11-27, 11:48 PM
I tend to take average unless there is some house rule to mitigate the results of rolling low.

In my own campaign the rule is at level up you can choose to mulligain completely to average hit points. Undoing not just one roll but all previous rolls.

jiriku
2011-11-28, 12:14 AM
Personally, I'm a big fan of combats, at all levels of play, in which serious opposition can drop you in 1 or 2 rounds if you give them an invitation to do so. A big pad of (houseruled) hit points makes players feel that the DM is stacking the deck in their favor, which often leads to players believing they're entitled to win even if their playstyle is lazy and sloppy. Yuck.

If anything, I'll fall on the opposite side of the track, houseruling more aggressive falling damage rules and more/better damage-improving feats for monsters and martial classes. When combats are deadly, everyone brings their A game to the table, and it's far more heroic and impressive when a PC throws himself into the breach, because everyone at the table knows that he's taking a real risk.

Kenneth
2011-11-28, 12:26 AM
Yes, we always roll for Hit Points, always.

This is one of the 'top ten problems' with a lot of modern games; they give the characters too many hit points to make them superhuman. It gets even worse with Storyteller DM's, who are telling a story more like a novel/tv show/movie. It gives a great sense of false danger. The character with a lot of hit points can take 'a lot' of hits and the DM can have a truly false epic struggle. That way a character could fight and take a lot of damage, but both the player and the DM know(wink, wink) that the character would never die and ruin or end the story.


Hit points can balance a game out much more then anything else. You have a 12th level druidzilla...with only 22 hit points.

You will see post after post on boards like this about 'over powered characters', and one of the things right at the heart of that is too many hit points.

I do not understand this.. I am a storytelling MD, after all i feel that is what D&D (and all RPGs) is all about telling a stoty via a game and through its ruleset.


I don;t think you are actually meaning sotry telling MDs but DMs who like to never kill players, or DMs who fudge dice results.

I woudl lean towards you re-evaluating what you think a storytelling MD does and does not do.

Ive never fudged dice or let teh players have a false sense of danger.. every combat they were in was as deadly as if they had 20 HP or 2000 HP. Just becuase I enjoy a good tale and liek to bring my players into it and create an entire saga around them and the world, does not mean that I am going to force them to stay alive at all times.


again.. I insist that you accept that what you really meant was not 'even worse are storytelling DMs' but "DMs who fudge rolls and refuse to kill PCs"

its werid, out of all the many posts and thread ive been involved in here this is only the 2nd one to really upset me, even the whole 'what is up with the rogue' thread where the first 4 pages was everybody making fun of myself for my mis-typing never got me upset, weird how that works.

nolispe
2011-11-28, 12:57 AM
Yes, we always roll for Hit Points, always.

This is one of the 'top ten problems' with a lot of modern games; they give the characters too many hit points to make them superhuman. It gets even worse with Storyteller DM's, who are telling a story more like a novel/tv show/movie. It gives a great sense of false danger. The character with a lot of hit points can take 'a lot' of hits and the DM can have a truly false epic struggle. That way a character could fight and take a lot of damage, but both the player and the DM know(wink, wink) that the character would never die and ruin or end the story.


Hit points can balance a game out much more then anything else. You have a 12th level druidzilla...with only 22 hit points.

You will see post after post on boards like this about 'over powered characters', and one of the things right at the heart of that is too many hit points.

That's silly. The first bit is just agressive and inflamatory, the second bit is, as shown above, completely and utterly wrong, and the third bit is a horrible misunderstanding.
The most powerful characters tend to be the ones with the least hitpoints - hitpoints actually don't matter at any serious op level.
I feel like at this point I should challenge you to a duel where I play a character with one hitpoint and you have infinite HP to prove my point, but that never goes anywhere.

Oh, and /\: Yeah. It's a stupid post. I'm fairly sure he's just having a bad day.

Shpadoinkle
2011-11-28, 01:30 AM
I use this.

- At level 1 you get max HP (as standard.) At level 2 you roll for HP normally.
- At level 3 (and every level hereafter), you reroll all your present HD and take the result if it's higher than your current HP. THEN you roll your HP for your new level (a fighter3/cleric4 going from level 7 to 8 would roll 3d10 and 4d8, and if the result is higher than his current HP total it becomes his new HP total. Then he rolls HP for his 8th level as normal.)
- Your CON modifier applies to everything as standard.

Kane0
2011-11-28, 01:55 AM
Ive only DM'ed once, but we use this houserule:

Level 1 always gets max HP
After level one you roll as normal, but if it is below average you can opt to take average then add your Con bonus as usual, as if you rolled average.

This takes the I'm too squishy part out while still keeping a bit of randomness and not giving everyone max HP every level and ruining the fun.

bloodtide
2011-11-28, 02:21 AM
I do not understand this.. I am a storytelling MD, after all i feel that is what D&D (and all RPGs) is all about telling a stoty via a game and through its ruleset.


I don;t think you are actually meaning sotry telling MDs but DMs who like to never kill players, or DMs who fudge dice results.

I woudl lean towards you re-evaluating what you think a storytelling MD does and does not do.

Ive never fudged dice or let teh players have a false sense of danger.. every combat they were in was as deadly as if they had 20 HP or 2000 HP. Just becuase I enjoy a good tale and liek to bring my players into it and create an entire saga around them and the world, does not mean that I am going to force them to stay alive at all times.


again.. I insist that you accept that what you really meant was not 'even worse are storytelling DMs' but "DMs who fudge rolls and refuse to kill PCs"

its werid, out of all the many posts and thread ive been involved in here this is only the 2nd one to really upset me, even the whole 'what is up with the rogue' thread where the first 4 pages was everybody making fun of myself for my mis-typing never got me upset, weird how that works.

First, I'm not attacking storytelling DM's or even safety DM's. If that's the way you like to play, that's fine with me. My problem comes from the DM's that are storytellers/safety ones, and they endlessly complain about how powerful the players are and how their campaign is ruined every game. And they just put there fingers in their ears when you tell them that a 5th level character with 65 hit points is too strong for the setting they have made.

And a lot of Storytelller DM's do fall into the cinematic trap. When you watch any work of fiction, you know the main characters will never die. But to enjoy the fiction, you pretend you don't know that and sit back and watch as if any second a character might die. And a lot of DM's plot there games that way. And it's fine, except when the DM starts to complain about 'uber characters that win every encounter'.

More hit points simply give storyteller and safety DM's more wiggle room. They don't have to fudge rolls or such when every character can take 50 some points of damage at 4th level.

It's an accepted fact that 3x combat only lasts less then five rounds....in a storyteller/safety game. This is partly as the character's are over loaded with hit points(and more so as they are all superhuman with at least one ability of 18, and no ability under 15, except the one dump stat).

And it's not like rolling for HP's automatically gets you low HPs, you could roll high numbers.

Kenneth
2011-11-28, 03:47 AM
ok,, dude you are really starting to perturb me to no small degree..


I have never (nor have any other of the DMs i have ever played with -which alll but 1 were sotrytelling DMS, and ive been doing this since '87....) ran aroudn with people with 5 18s and 1 15 liek you claim.. infact WE HATE charatcers liek that and want some faults in our charatcer.. we are the guys who RP flaws and not just take them for free feat cheese..

in all the decades ive e playing RPGs i have only once EVER not rolled HP and that was during the lcoal gamesho oweners PF cmapign ( which sucked btw and was prob teh worse campaing ive ever played i quit half way through becuase of the bad decisions he made on the game and waqs just not man enough to say 'ok i made a mistake, lets forget that ever happened?"
Ive alwasy roleld Hp.. and talk abotu stats.. try straight 3d6 in order? yeah.. thats how i did for my first oh.. idk.. 6 or os characters...

It is an accepted fact in 3rd ed PERIOD that combot lasts around 4 rounds or so. if you do not know that you need a firming grasp on the whole rule set

i would laothe to ever play a game with you, you gaming style sounds the exact oppsite of what I fidn enjoyable in any RPG..


for me i play an RPG to escape and live out a cool idea for a few hours a week. like for instance 'hmm i wonder wat it would be like if I was a revered priest of a diety of death and life and the cycel of rebirth. so i make that character and try my best to just do what a priest would do in that circumstance taking from my real life expercnes and random readings to make what I hope would be correct assumptions.

you game to me sound just like numbers, pluses. minuses and borign stuff
combat would be liek hell for me

here is a difference

Stroytelling combat " i swing my sword as i sidestep to the right and follow up with a leg sweep kocking the hobgoblin off balance for my dagger to plung into his tomach

your comabt i would guess ' rolled a 4 for my sword ..missed rolled a 20 ..confirming.. 16.. ok i crit with my dagger . dmg is 5

gehs that is why i enjoy storytelling way of playing.. also for me at leats storytelling allows one to be an iconic fantasy archetype even though the actual 3rd ed rules don't allow it. CASE IN POINT! a paladin should be a scary MO FO when up aganist evill instead the paladin is one of the weakest classes in the game.

with storytelling the paladin gets a HUGE boost by being able to do things that in novels, other literature and movies do, tha for lack of brains by WoTC are not able to do with the 3rd ed rule set

Roderick_BR
2011-11-28, 05:36 AM
My group used a simple rule: Roll the dice for HP as normal, but you never stay at less than half the hit dice. For example, a fighter rolls 1d10. If he rolls anything bellow 5, he'll stay at 5. If he rolls anything 6 or above, lucky!
We just avoid characters too weak. (for the record, we re-roll all 1s during char gen, using roll 4d6, drop lowest method, trashing the rolls if the total gets too low, and checking closely characters "too powerful".)

Yitzi
2011-11-28, 07:26 AM
This is one of the 'top ten problems' with a lot of modern games; they give the characters too many hit points to make them superhuman. It gets even worse with Storyteller DM's, who are telling a story more like a novel/tv show/movie. It gives a great sense of false danger. The character with a lot of hit points can take 'a lot' of hits and the DM can have a truly false epic struggle. That way a character could fight and take a lot of damage, but both the player and the DM know(wink, wink) that the character would never die and ruin or end the story.

That's not how I plan to DM as a storyteller DM...if there's a TPK, then I just start the story over again.

motionmatrix
2011-11-28, 09:43 AM
My regular group rolls twice, reroll 1's, take highest. If its a particular nasty campaign reroll 1's and 2's. No one has ever complained of hp ever being too low, but we have never felt like we can stand there forever.

In one particularly nasty campaign, we took half hit die every level. Very difficult campaign for everyone. :smalleek:

However, first level is always maximized hp.

Veklim
2011-11-28, 10:06 AM
I've got a really simple houserule which covers this problem. Simply put, you can't roll less than your Con mod for HP, so if you've got a +3 con and you're rolling a D4, on a roll of 1 or 2, you gain 3 instead, for a total of 6. Means a D4 class can max out their HP every level, as long as they have +4 Con (only happens occasionally in my campaigns but is funny when it does). Also means that people who are going out of their way to have extra HP via Con can usually get a reasonable average.

Tyndmyr
2011-11-28, 10:48 AM
ok,, dude you are really starting to perturb me to no small degree..


I have never (nor have any other of the DMs i have ever played with -which alll but 1 were sotrytelling DMS, and ive been doing this since '87....) ran aroudn with people with 5 18s and 1 15 liek you claim.. infact WE HATE charatcers liek that and want some faults in our charatcer.. we are the guys who RP flaws and not just take them for free feat cheese..

I don't think anyone claimed that at all. And that last line is bordering on stormwind....

Also, the typos are making my eyes bleed. May I suggest utilizing firefox, etc, which has automatic spellcheck?


It is an accepted fact in 3rd ed PERIOD that combot lasts around 4 rounds or so. if you do not know that you need a firming grasp on the whole rule set

i would laothe to ever play a game with you, you gaming style sounds the exact oppsite of what I fidn enjoyable in any RPG..

5 rounds is about an upper limit on combat. I would put the average at 2-3 rounds.

I will also flat out say that D&D is NOT primarily a storytelling medium. It will create a story, to some degree, but it's not particularly suited to TELLING a story you've already thought up. Many other systems are much better suited to this role.


for me i play an RPG to escape and live out a cool idea for a few hours a week. like for instance 'hmm i wonder wat it would be like if I was a revered priest of a diety of death and life and the cycel of rebirth. so i make that character and try my best to just do what a priest would do in that circumstance taking from my real life expercnes and random readings to make what I hope would be correct assumptions.

you game to me sound just like numbers, pluses. minuses and borign stuff
combat would be liek hell for me

I direct you to the Stormwind fallacy. You just made it.


here is a difference

Stroytelling combat " i swing my sword as i sidestep to the right and follow up with a leg sweep kocking the hobgoblin off balance for my dagger to plung into his tomach

your comabt i would guess ' rolled a 4 for my sword ..missed rolled a 20 ..confirming.. 16.. ok i crit with my dagger . dmg is 5

So...you don't roll at all? That seems like a notable part of playing D&D.

Either that, or you're substantially misrepresenting what's happening.


gehs that is why i enjoy storytelling way of playing.. also for me at leats storytelling allows one to be an iconic fantasy archetype even though the actual 3rd ed rules don't allow it. CASE IN POINT! a paladin should be a scary MO FO when up aganist evill instead the paladin is one of the weakest classes in the game.

with storytelling the paladin gets a HUGE boost by being able to do things that in novels, other literature and movies do, tha for lack of brains by WoTC are not able to do with the 3rd ed rule set

Such as what? If you're adding in substantial house rules such as sweeping class changes, I suspect that your game is resembling D&D fairly little, and thus, experiences from playing it are likely less applicable to other people not playing your game.


In answer to the original question, fairly often. When DMing, I allow a choice between average hp or rolled hp. Choice comes before rolling, first HD is always maxed.

Seerow
2011-11-28, 10:57 AM
Eh, in my experience my players have needed every single one of their maximized hit points to survive. Even with our rule of dead at negative Con score.

Although HP amounts do feel shocking similar (130, 130, 130, 125, 115 atm), but that's because it seems like the people with the lowest hit-dice have the highest Con score.

It really depends on what works for your group.


I guess, it's really just not something I'd find interesting. Even with vastly different con mods, those numbers are all going to be pretty similar. When you add on top of that the fact that HP is going to be inflated a lot (level 20 character going from 135 HP to 240 HP is a huge leap)


I use this.

- At level 1 you get max HP (as standard.) At level 2 you roll for HP normally.
- At level 3 (and every level hereafter), you reroll all your present HD and take the result if it's higher than your current HP. THEN you roll your HP for your new level (a fighter3/cleric4 going from level 7 to 8 would roll 3d10 and 4d8, and if the result is higher than his current HP total it becomes his new HP total. Then he rolls HP for his 8th level as normal.)
- Your CON modifier applies to everything as standard.

This I actually really like. It weights HPs towards the average, with a chance for improvement. I may snag this.


My regular group rolls twice, reroll 1's, take highest. If its a particular nasty campaign reroll 1's and 2's. No one has ever complained of hp ever being too low, but we have never felt like we can stand there forever.

In one particularly nasty campaign, we took half hit die every level. Very difficult campaign for everyone. :smalleek:

However, first level is always maximized hp.


I've got a really simple houserule which covers this problem. Simply put, you can't roll less than your Con mod for HP, so if you've got a +3 con and you're rolling a D4, on a roll of 1 or 2, you gain 3 instead, for a total of 6. Means a D4 class can max out their HP every level, as long as they have +4 Con (only happens occasionally in my campaigns but is funny when it does). Also means that people who are going out of their way to have extra HP via Con can usually get a reasonable average.

Both of these fall into the trap that I mentioned in my previous post: Weighting things in favor of low HD classes.

Yora
2011-11-28, 11:01 AM
We almost always use rolling, but anything that is lower than half the maximum of the unmodified roll is increased to half the maximum.
When you roll a 1, you roll again.

arguskos
2011-11-28, 11:06 AM
I pretty much always roll. I actually ask my DMs if I can roll instead of taking average, which I hate. I like the element of randomness in my games. I will, on occasion, permit a reroll if a player is getting hosed on HP (if you roll a 1 on a d8, d10, or d12, and were already below average, I'll give you a second shot usually).

Level 1, I give my PCs max, just because I run pretty lethal games (and level 1 isn't that safe ANYWAYS) and they need the boost. After level 1, you roll, like brave and stupid men (thanks Dirk and Guido! :D).

Cieyrin
2011-11-28, 11:26 AM
My groups tend to do either average, average+1 or roll health, occasionally rerolling 1s if the DM is feeling generous that day. If you're not as steadfast as you would like to be, you learn to adapt and change tactics to use what resources you have effectively, just like if the party is lacking a tank or another role. It makes the party think about how to overcome challenges, instead of breezing through it like you can see the next save point ahead.

Rapidghoul
2011-11-28, 01:30 PM
For players who really, REALLY hate their d4 or d6 hit dice, I offer this as a solution: If they take Improved Toughness as a feat (thus putting a big investment in the give-me-hp fund), I bump up their hit dice one step (from d4 to d6, d6 to d8, etc.) but remove the extra 1 hp per level.

This actually isn't a huge difference. Since I give half hp to minimal rolls, this still gives the +1 hp per hd (half d4 is 2, but half their new d6 is 3), meaning in the end the feat actually gives either +1 or +2 hp per die. But to a player with a d4, rolling a d6 instead seems like a huge advantage. If they already have a d12 hit die, the feat functions normally.

bloodtide
2011-11-28, 02:18 PM
I have never (nor have any other of the DMs i have ever played with -which alll but 1 were sotrytelling DMS, and ive been doing this since '87....) ran aroudn with people with 5 18s and 1 15 liek you claim.. infact WE HATE charatcers liek that and want some faults in our charatcer.. we are the guys who RP flaws and not just take them for free feat cheese..

Just so you know, this does put you in the minority of players. Most players will demand at least 18 and no scores less then 15 to play any character. And almost no one would play a character with a 10 or less in anything. To a lot of players they must be superhuman or the game is 'no fun and boring'.



It is an accepted fact in 3rd ed PERIOD that combot lasts around 4 rounds or so. if you do not know that you need a firming grasp on the whole rule set

It only lasts 4 rounds or so with high hit point super characters and safety storytelling DMs. And as this is a lot of people now-a-days, it is see as 'everybody'.



you game to me sound just like numbers, pluses. minuses and borign stuff
combat would be liek hell for me

here is a difference

Stroytelling combat " i swing my sword as i sidestep to the right and follow up with a leg sweep kocking the hobgoblin off balance for my dagger to plung into his tomach

your comabt i would guess ' rolled a 4 for my sword ..missed rolled a 20 ..confirming.. 16.. ok i crit with my dagger . dmg is 5

gehs that is why i enjoy storytelling way of playing.. also for me at leats storytelling allows one to be an iconic fantasy archetype even though the actual 3rd ed rules don't allow it. CASE IN POINT! a paladin should be a scary MO FO when up aganist evill instead the paladin is one of the weakest classes in the game.

with storytelling the paladin gets a HUGE boost by being able to do things that in novels, other literature and movies do, tha for lack of brains by WoTC are not able to do with the 3rd ed rule set

So are you talking about Homebrew stuff here? Like Waksu? A paladin can do anything(like they cast wish) if they describe it good?

Guess I'll add my Definition--Storytelling High HP Variant DM: A storytelling DM is there to tell a story(exactly like an author/writer). They think up of a story, and want to share it with the players by forcing them to experience it. They are not really playing the game by the rules, they are telling a story, so anything that gets in the way of the story must be dealt with. They love the high hit point variants as they can pound on the characters more, with no fear of the character dying and ruining the story. After all, no (main) characters can die in a story. So with high HP's a character can take 50 points of damage, but still have 20 or so left. This gives the false sense of drama, as the character can feel 'almost dead'. But if they rolled for HP's every level they would only have 33 HP's and then that first 50 damage would have killed the character.

Kenneth
2011-11-28, 02:52 PM
I direct you to the Stormwind fallacy. You just made it.
.



I still stand by the argument that this is a fundamental difference between old school (basic D&D: 1 race/class, AD&D: very limted multi-classing) vrs new school (I buy a book and there is a class in their and I want it gimmie gimmie). The trend I see is old school = roleplayers, new school = optomizers.

Note to New school people: Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much about optomizing.
Okay, that's it.

I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.

where is the stormwind fallacy in what i posted? I did not say that at any point in my post that my bent towards roleplaying was exclusive to rolling dice or that becuase ii roleplay that I cannot 'optimize' (i am using quotations here becuase what some popel think is optimization and what other consider optimization are different things, for imnsatcne i don't really feel that a fighter taking power attack is optimizitation, but others do)



So...you don't roll at all? That seems like a notable part of playing D&D.
.

hmm I should have been more clear on this I was hpign that teh example were good enough but it seems that I failed getting my point across..

In teh storytellin version of combat of course dice are rolled, its just you actually describe what you are doing instead of just rolling dice and saying wether you succedd or not and how much dmg you did.

here is the new improved version .. i hope.


here is a difference

Stroytelling combat " i swing my sword as i sidestep to the right(rolled a 4) and follow up with a leg sweep kocking the hobgoblin off balance for my dagger to plung into his tomach(rolled and 20 and a 16 to cofirm for 5 dmg)

your comabt i would guess ' rolled a 4 for my sword ..missed rolled a 20 ..confirming.. 16.. ok i crit with my dagger . dmg is 5

SpaceBadger
2011-11-28, 03:45 PM
Just to throw another option into the discussion:

I started RPGing w D&D Basic, then AD&D 1st Ed, then didn't play at all for a long time. When I introduced my sons to RPGing a few years ago, we used GURPS. That didn't give the "D&D" feel that I wanted, so last year we switched to Pathfinder. Converting GURPS characters to Pathfinder, we decided to keep the GURPS HP based on ST. Now when we make new Pathfinder characters, 1st level HP for any humanoid w class levels is Str plus Con bonus. That makes 1st level characters a much better chance to survive, and doesn't make a big difference at higher levels as characters leveling up get added HP according to their class.

Deepbluediver
2011-11-28, 04:09 PM
whoa, I didn't realize what a hot-debate topic this was for some people. Still, I love all the different ideas for determining HP. I guess more people out there have given this serious consideration than I thought.


With regards to my original post, I've mostly played low-power campaigns, so a few bad rolls didn't usually get the chance to average out to something acceptable. Still I can understand why some players take issue with effectively doubling the health of a 20th level character. I can see myself using almost any of the options that reduce the randomness without eliminating it entirely.

Also, in my mind, having a lot of HP doesn't need to make combat feel less dangerous. As I mentioned, most of my experience is in lower-level campaigns, so Resurection spells and the like wheren't easily available to the players. Although we didn't die very often, everyone still worried about what would happen if we did. When 3/5ths of your party can bring the dead back to life at will, death is less of a concern, wether you've got 10HP or 100.

If you are in the kind of group that lets you replace your dead half-orc barbarian "Thorgashor" with a new half-orc fighter named "Thorgashus" then I guess death probably won't mean much to you, but I don't think it's only the hardcore roleplayers who can form attachments to a particularly well-crafted character, and don't want to see their character sheets hit the garbage pail every other encounter.

Maroon
2011-11-28, 05:40 PM
hmm I should have been more clear on this I was hpign that teh example were good enough but it seems that I failed getting my point across..

In teh storytellin version of combat of course dice are rolled, its just you actually describe what you are doing instead of just rolling dice and saying wether you succedd or not and how much dmg you did.
Yes, well, if my players didn't tell me what they were trying to do I wouldn't let them roll the dice, but that doesn't make me a storyteller GM. I don't tell stories at the table, I referee. Players can tell stories if they want, but it's not getting their characters anywhere until they decide to play the game.

Speaking of the game, I've established that PCs roll all hit dice each time they advance a level. First level, they roll one hit die. Second level, they roll two hit dice and see if they beat their old hit point total. I feel it's closer to the original intent of rolling hit dice.

Lord Vukodlak
2011-11-29, 01:51 AM
It only lasts 4 rounds or so with high hit point super characters and safety storytelling DMs. And as this is a lot of people now-a-days, it is see as 'everybody'.


I dare you to count the number of rounds your combats last. I'm betting its three or four rounds. I've been in all kinds of campaigns, from low power to high power. And three or four rounds is typical. Hell I found three rounds for an encounter typical in other systems.



Guess I'll add my Definition--Storytelling High HP Variant DM: A storytelling DM is there to tell a story(exactly like an author/writer). They think up of a story, and want to share it with the players by forcing them to experience it. They are not really playing the game by the rules, they are telling a story, so anything that gets in the way of the story must be dealt with. They love the high hit point variants as they can pound on the characters more, with no fear of the character dying and ruining the story. After all, no (main) characters can die in a story. So with high HP's a character can take 50 points of damage, but still have 20 or so left. This gives the false sense of drama, as the character can feel 'almost dead'. But if they rolled for HP's every level they would only have 33 HP's and then that first 50 damage would have killed the character.

Your argument has some major holes. A story telling DM could just as easily track the PC's hp and AC themselves and fudge rolls behind the DM screen.
A DM who pulls no punches may give the PC's an edge on hit points because they're tough with the encounters.

Seerow
2011-11-29, 01:59 AM
I dare you to count the number of rounds your combats last. I'm betting its three or four rounds. I've been in all kinds of campaigns, from low power to high power. And three or four rounds is typical. Hell I found three rounds for an encounter typical in other systems.

Interestingly, games that try to make combat last longer are typically derrided for being too slow or sluggish. (for example 4e makes a typical monster take 4 hits to kill, and puts you against 4 of the monsters, with ~60% chance of hitting them, for a total of 16 hits needed to win, about 27 attacks, which will take 4 players roughly 7 rounds. But that's 3 rounds longer than most people like their combats running so people complain about it being slow)

Yitzi
2011-11-29, 03:27 AM
Yeah, it needs to strike a balance so it's not long enough to be boring, but not rocket tag either.

lunar2
2011-11-30, 12:46 PM
I used to play extra long sessions (8 a.m. to 7 P.M., break for lunch) so we ran max HP games. Everyone has max hp, even the monsters, so we'd have longer encounters. The casters were blasters and buffers, so that helped, too. We also ran high point buy. I've actually seen a sorcerer double up on a time stop/DB fireball nova, and the encounter still take 12 rounds after that.

lunar2
2011-11-30, 12:47 PM
I used to play extra long sessions (8 a.m. to 7 P.M., break for lunch) so we ran max HP games. Everyone has max hp, even the monsters, so we'd have longer encounters. The casters were blasters and buffers, so that helped, too. We also ran high point buy. I've actually seen a sorcerer double up on a time stop/DB fireball nova, and the encounter still take 12 rounds after that.

Veklim
2011-11-30, 01:45 PM
Many of my combats end up as 'combat sequences' anyhow, short bursts of combat (usually 2-3 rounds), followed by bigger and/or smaller followup encounters. I find multiple waves of unusual challenges make for a better RP/Gameplay experience, so everyone wins....and I can always throw in an extra wave or two if the group seem to be getting cocky..... :smallbiggrin:

Yitzi
2011-11-30, 07:04 PM
I've actually seen a sorcerer double up on a time stop/DB fireball nova, and the encounter still take 12 rounds after that.

Admittedly, a time stop/DB fireball nova isn't all that impressive against canny enemies; if time stop (which has variable duration) ends before it goes off, the enemy can throw it back at you, and if time stop ends after it goes off the fireball is wasted. And if you place your detonation times to ensure that one will go off at the right time, the nova loses the vast majority of its punch.

lunar2
2011-11-30, 07:44 PM
Admittedly, a time stop/DB fireball nova isn't all that impressive against canny enemies; if time stop (which has variable duration) ends before it goes off, the enemy can throw it back at you, and if time stop ends after it goes off the fireball is wasted. And if you place your detonation times to ensure that one will go off at the right time, the nova loses the vast majority of its punch.

we never played with a DM screen or secret rolls for anything, so everyone knows how long the time stop is going to last. besides, I don't remember if it was that particular sorcerer in that particular campaign, but Rods of Maximize weren't exactly rare in our casters' inventories.

Lord Vukodlak
2011-11-30, 07:51 PM
Using a rod of maximization on time stop is just silly. Now a rod of extending. That is the cheese.

Yitzi
2011-11-30, 08:51 PM
Actually, rod of maximize is superior for the DB nova trick.

Lord Vukodlak
2011-12-01, 03:01 AM
Actually, rod of maximize is superior for the DB nova trick.

Hmm maybe or maybe not.
A rod of empower, greater and a rod of extending greater is cheaper then a single rod of maximization greater. You can then extend the time stop giving you 4-10 rounds. You can use the extra time how you see fit until there are five or less rounds remaining in the time stop. (such as casting wall of fire, acid cloud, cloudkill or other duration area effect spells).The duration is listed as random not unknown to the caster.

You can then empower three delayed blast fireballs instead of maximizing two and casting another unaugmented. Which on average will net you slightly more damage. Additionally you could use the two remaining uses in the extending rod to extend the delayed blast fireballs. Which will let you delay it more then 5 rounds, letting you get off potentially more firepower. (ie extend 3 rounds to six, 4 rounds to 8.)

hushblade
2011-12-01, 05:25 AM
The problem I have with max HD is that it devalues CON. A wizard with 14 CON gets almost double HP compared to 10 when rolling, but only gets a 50% increase if HD are maxed. It also makes things like a necropolitan template unbalanced(guaranteed 12 HP/level) You'd need 30 CON to beat that HP progression with rolling.

Yitzi
2011-12-01, 09:45 AM
Hmm maybe or maybe not.
A rod of empower, greater and a rod of extending greater is cheaper then a single rod of maximization greater. You can then extend the time stop giving you 4-10 rounds. You can use the extra time how you see fit until there are five or less rounds remaining in the time stop. (such as casting wall of fire, acid cloud, cloudkill or other duration area effect spells).The duration is listed as random not unknown to the caster.

When something is given as random, and it isn't said that the caster knows it, then presumably the caster doesn't know it.

Of course, I agree that even extending alone is superior to maximize if the caster will know the duration anyway; the sole reason that maximize works so well for the DB fireball trick is that you know how much longer it'll be.

Pyromancer999
2011-12-01, 12:17 PM
What I do is I give twice max at 1st level, and have them roll at every other level. However, since my group is cursed by the die gods when they roll for HP, I give them 3 rolls each time.

legomaster00156
2011-12-01, 12:29 PM
At every level, I give my players a choice between taking half of their max HP (for example, 5 for the Fighter, 4 for the Cleric, etc.) or rolling. It's worked out so far.

Veklim
2011-12-01, 05:35 PM
When something is given as random, and it isn't said that the caster knows it, then presumably the caster doesn't know it.

I've always thought that too, but I do allow my players a spellcraft check to try and identify the duration remaining on any spell they can observe. As long as they've got detect magic active (or some other way of observing the spell/effects) they make a spellcraft check equal to 20+spell level, if successful, they know how long the spell has left.

killem2
2011-12-02, 09:13 PM
I think the option to reroll on any number lower than your CON modifier is fair enough, do any of you think so?

Seerow
2011-12-02, 09:26 PM
I think the option to reroll on any number lower than your CON modifier is fair enough, do any of you think so?

Wizards get max HP every level, Barbarians can still get screwed and roll a 3rd of their max HP. Yeah, totally fair.

killem2
2011-12-02, 09:34 PM
Wizards get max HP every level, Barbarians can still get screwed and roll a 3rd of their max HP. Yeah, totally fair.

Your wizards put high scores in con? What are you rolling to start for stats where a wizard can afford to get a CON modifier? 7d6 take top 3?

No different than those saying, reroll on a 1, and I figured if players are doing stats accordingly, it should balance, this is on the basis I suppose of the 3d6, or even a 5d6 drop 2 without the rest of the high power char descriptions.

No need to be snarky, its home brew, and I asked an innocent question.

Seerow
2011-12-02, 09:48 PM
Your wizards put high scores in con? What are you rolling to start for stats where a wizard can afford to get a CON modifier? 7d6 take top 3?

No different than those saying, reroll on a 1, and I figured if players are doing stats accordingly, it should balance, this is on the basis I suppose of the 3d6, or even a 5d6 drop 2 without the rest of the high power char descriptions.

No need to be snarky, its home brew, and I asked an innocent question.

Con is typically a Wizard's second stat. Even in a 25 point buy you can afford an 18 primary 14 secondary, with some to spare for dex (Wis, Cha, and Str are all dump stats that the wizard doesn't mind dropping to an 8). With a higher point buy, 16 con is easy. If you're restricted to core races, your two main options are human and dwarf, since there's no core races with an int bonus. So 14 con is basically assured, 16 is pretty common, and 18 isn't impossible to see.

Treblain
2011-12-02, 10:52 PM
Yeah, the only reason the 'squishy' classes in D&D 3.5 ever have low CON is because the player thinks they're supposed to have a low CON. Once you understand the game better, no one dumps CON, especially not casters. The ability to pump your Constitution trivializes class hit dice in general.

killem2
2011-12-08, 05:04 PM
Hp alteration #2:

Allow players to take the maximum HP bonus of their HD + con bonus every 5 levels.

so at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th, a rogue with a con score fo 18 would get 10 more HP at those levels with no rolling needed.

A barbarian would get 16. and so on.

Synovia
2011-12-09, 01:58 PM
In my games First level is maximized and after that partially fixed and partially random. This works as followed:
d4 > 2+1d2
d6 > 2+1d4
d8 > 3+1d5 (use D10/2)
d10 > 4+1d6
d12 > 6+1d6

Although, I like Rapidghoul's way as well.

I do similar.

You divide your dHP in half (IE, d8->4). You get that hp, and then roll dThat.

IE, d8 = 4+d4. D12 = 6+d6.

My d6-d10 would get a little more hp than yours, but similar.

Tyndmyr
2011-12-09, 02:12 PM
where is the stormwind fallacy in what i posted? I did not say that at any point in my post that my bent towards roleplaying was exclusive to rolling dice or that becuase ii roleplay that I cannot 'optimize' (i am using quotations here becuase what some popel think is optimization and what other consider optimization are different things, for imnsatcne i don't really feel that a fighter taking power attack is optimizitation, but others do)

You implied heavily that having weaknesses made you better at roleplaying. Your emphasis on hating high stat chars, 'storytelling' DMs, and implication that there are "you guys" and the other sort...the sort who have high stat chars and don't RP flaws and the like....this all adds up to you having a rather clear bent toward your way being somehow better for roleplaying.

High stats, low stats, how well a char is RPed depends on the player, not the numbers.


hmm I should have been more clear on this I was hpign that teh example were good enough but it seems that I failed getting my point across..

In teh storytellin version of combat of course dice are rolled, its just you actually describe what you are doing instead of just rolling dice and saying wether you succedd or not and how much dmg you did.

Oh. Well, that's all well and good(and quite normal, I might add), but how does this make rolling superior to point buy? I'm pretty sure you can use point buy and still describe your attack flavorfully.


here is the new improved version .. i hope.

here is a difference

Stroytelling combat " i swing my sword as i sidestep to the right(rolled a 4) and follow up with a leg sweep kocking the hobgoblin off balance for my dagger to plung into his tomach(rolled and 20 and a 16 to cofirm for 5 dmg)

your comabt i would guess ' rolled a 4 for my sword ..missed rolled a 20 ..confirming.. 16.. ok i crit with my dagger . dmg is 5

Meh. That's still six obviously misspelled words and a grand total of one capital letter for your actual punctuation. In fact, I don't see any changes at all. Did you just copy and paste it? I don't mean to be dismissive, but when the presentation is really lacking, it weakens your argument a great deal.

Your central argument is already pretty weak, though. Adding descriptive language is already in the rulebook, it's in common practice, and it's not in any way unique to your style of play. It does not support rolling over point buy or other stat gen methods at all.

Synovia
2011-12-09, 02:21 PM
Just so you know, this does put you in the minority of players. Most players will demand at least 18 and no scores less then 15 to play any character. And almost no one would play a character with a 10 or less in anything. To a lot of players they must be superhuman or the game is 'no fun and boring'.

I've never been in a game where there was a single character like that.


Yeah, usually there's one 18, but "no scores less than 15"? Thats absurd.


I think your "most" isn't the same as the rest of ours.