Hitpoint Increases - Alternate Rulings?

[mr_odd]

Recently, one of my players brought up how he thought characters with a D10 or D12 for health kind of get screwed over when it comes to max hitpoint increases. We are playing straight how 5th edition rules, you may roll for hitpoints or take the average rounded up. My friend/player's argument was that anyone with a D6 or D8 could simply take the average and be fine, while a martial character with a D10 or D12 is practically forced to roll. The difference in average between a D6 and D10 is 2. That means a wizard has slightly less hitpoints than a fighter, a class who is supposed to tank (depending on the kind of fighter you are playing). Since martial characters practically have to roll to have a gap in hitpoints between lower hit die characters, they have a large chance of rolling low. This happened to two of my players, who rolled either minimum or close to it. Now at level two, casters have more hitpoints.

That was his argument, and I kind of agree with him. I read on the Playground that there was an alternate way of advancing maximum hitpoints (something along the lines of half average + half hit die I think), but I cannot find any mention of it in the PHB or the Googles. Does anyone know this alternate rule, and where I can find it?

[MaxWilson]

Recently, one of my players brought up how he thought characters with a D10 or D12 for health kind of get screwed over when it comes to max hitpoint increases. We are playing straight how 5th edition rules, you may roll for hitpoints or take the average rounded up. My friend/player's argument was that anyone with a D6 or D8 could simply take the average and be fine, while a martial character with a D10 or D12 is practically forced to roll. The difference in average between a D6 and D10 is 2. That means a wizard has slightly less hitpoints than a fighter, a class who is supposed to tank (depending on the kind of fighter you are playing). Since martial characters practically have to roll to have a gap in hitpoints between lower hit die characters, they have a large chance of rolling low. This happened to two of my players, who rolled either minimum or close to it. Now at level two, casters have more hitpoints.

That was his argument, and I kind of agree with him. I read on the Playground that there was an alternate way of advancing maximum hitpoints (something along the lines of half average + half hit die I think), but I cannot find any mention of it in the PHB or the Googles. Does anyone know this alternate rule, and where I can find it?

I don't understand the argument. In what sense is a d12 hit die barbarian "practically forced to roll"? I.e. in what way does rolling improve the situation? You can't change the fact that the mean value of a d12 is 6.5, so by rolling you are actually decreasing your total HP. Why is this desirable?

[Easy_Lee]

Some kind DM's allow players to take the higher of their roll and the average roll (rounded up). So a barbarian could roll 4 and gain 7 one level and roll 9 and gain 9 the next. That's one semi-popular method.

[Safety Sword]

Some kind DM's allow players to take the higher of their roll and the average roll (rounded up). So a barbarian could roll 4 and gain 7 one level and roll 9 and gain 9 the next. That's one semi-popular method.

Or, you can, you know, use the established rules of the game.

You make a choice and live by the sword, so to speak.

[Easy_Lee]

Or, you can, you know, use the established rules of the game.

You make a choice and live by the sword, so to speak.

I didn't say "use this", I said some DM's do. OP asked for alternate methods and I provided one that's been posted here before.

[Ehcks]

Or, you can, you know, use the established rules of the game.

You make a choice and live by the sword, so to speak.

One of the other established rules of the game is that whatever the DM says, goes. And who's going to turn down a few extra HP if their DM allows it?

[Safety Sword]

I didn't say "use this", I said some DM's do. OP asked for alternate methods and I provided one that's been posted here before.

No need to get defensive.

Have you considered that using your system that the smaller hit dice classes actually benefit too?

It isn't going to make much difference in the grand scheme of things.

And as an aside, if my barbarian player was complaining about the wizard's character sheet, I'd tell him to stop and get on with it.

[Slipperychicken]

I'd suggest doing a few games with the normal rules.


a martial character with a D10 or D12 is practically forced to roll.

Not really. The suggested value gives 6 or 7 hit points. It's actually 0.5 better than average. I wouldn't suggest rolling, since while an above-average roll is decent for melee, sufficiently bad HD rolls can be a death sentence.

Also, wizards have a lot less hp, since the difference at level 1 is 4 (both d6 and d10 taking the max), and then the 2 hit point difference is multiplied across every level after 1. Additionally, fighters may have better con than wizards because it's more important to fighters. Only a very unlucky fighter would have lower hitpoints than a similarly-statted wizard.

[Doug Lampert]

I don't understand the argument. In what sense is a d12 hit die barbarian "practically forced to roll"? I.e. in what way does rolling improve the situation? You can't change the fact that the mean value of a d12 is 6.5, so by rolling you are actually decreasing your total HP. Why is this desirable?

Presumably he's forced to roll in the sense that someone doesn't understand statistics.

Not rolling is on average +0.5 HP/level for every class. All else being equal (which it isn't) this is more of an edge for low HD classes, as 4 rather than 3.5 is a larger percentage increase than 7 compared to 6.5, but BtB EVERYONE is on average better off to take the set amount.

In any case the Barbarian's greater toughness is mostly in that he has resistance to damage much of the time, the fighter's is in that he gets extra HP back every short rest. The extra HP on top of those is just gravy.

[Safety Sword]

One of the other established rules of the game is that whatever the DM says, goes. And who's going to turn down a few extra HP if their DM allows it?

Of course. If you get a freebie roll and get the best of both worlds no matter the results, you would. Reward without risk.

It's a game of chance, there should be a consequence for the choice you make (not only negative consequences). If you choose to roll and get a low number, that was your choice. If you get a high number you certainly wouldn't have a problem with it. If you take the above average hit points offered for your hit dice, also your choice.

[Easy_Lee]

It's a game of chance, there should be a consequence for the choice you make

According to you. Many people don't like to play games with their HP, which is why the expertise method is suggested in tgd PHB. Rolling with advantage, reliant hp (the one I re-posted), or other methods are all just as valid if the DM wants to use it.

The OP didn't ask for a lecture on living by the sword, he asked for alternate methods. You're off-topic.

[BranMan]

How would the math work out if I were to give my players advantage on their hp rolls? Would that make a big impact?

[Safety Sword]

Many people don't like to play games with their HP, which is why the expertise method is suggested in tgd PHB. Rolling with advantage, reliant hp (the one I re-posted), or other methods are all just as valid if the DM wants to use it.

The OP didn't ask for a lecture on living by the sword, he asked for alternate methods. You're off-topic.

Of course you can do whatever you like in your games.

The OP has a player who decided to roll for hit points twice and had bad luck. So they want to justify a new hit point system because clearly this one is broken (with those 2 points of data). I'm just pointing out that there isn't really a need to reform the system because of 2 bad dice rolls.

If all PCs have above average hit points I think you'll actually worsen the game. You'll certainly have to re-balance monster hit points with the same method to keep it consistent. Or monsters can take average or weapon damage rolls after the roll is determined.

[Chaosvii7]

An alternative I've been toying with is removing the average HP rule and instead making starting hit points use your con score instead of the modifier. It frontloads you at first level(let's assume that monsters obey the rule too though so it's about as balanced) and makes it so that everyone is forced to roll, thus ruining fun for everybody. And as we know, the objective of D&D is to make sure nobody has any fun ever.

Alternatively, just use the starting HP change and keep average HP rules, it still helps the tankier characters more and takes the sting away from them being more inclined to take the average for HP.

[MaxWilson]

How would the math work out if I were to give my players advantage on their hp rolls? Would that make a big impact?

Average value with advantage:

d6: 4.47
d8: 5.81
d10: 7.15
d12: 8.49

It inflates the importance of hit dice relative to CON bonus, which will help the Barbarian more than the Wizard even if the Wizard invested equally in Con (which he probably didn't).

[Safety Sword]

...and makes it so that everyone is forced to roll, thus ruining fun for everybody. And as we know, the objective of D&D is to make sure nobody has any fun ever.

I like the cut of your dice bag.


Average value with advantage:

d6: 4.47
d8: 5.81
d10: 7.15
d12: 8.49

It inflates the importance of hit dice relative to CON bonus, which will help the Barbarian more than the Wizard even if the Wizard invested equally in Con (which he probably didn't).

Of course those that decide to roll can still get two bad rolls. This is an average. Meaning the expected result over a large sample size. When you roll for hit points you have a sample size of one. Bad things can and will still happen if you haven't made your devotions to the dice gods.

[pwykersotz]

I have a method that my players like that I mentioned in another thread. Take half your hit die, roll the other half. It looks like this:

D6 HD: 3+1d3
D8 HD: 4+1d4
D10 HD: 5+1d5
D12 HD: 6+1d6

This obviously provides more HP than usual, and it also keeps swingy rolls from giving the Barbarian fewer hit points than the Wizard. Also, people like to roll dice, so it lets them keep on rolling.

[Knaight]

That was his argument, and I kind of agree with him. I read on the Playground that there was an alternate way of advancing maximum hitpoints (something along the lines of half average + half hit die I think), but I cannot find any mention of it in the PHB or the Googles. Does anyone know this alternate rule, and where I can find it?

A few options have been presented already. That said, not rolling is always statistically better by default, and the health differences are often pretty substantial. For a d4 class, the formula is 1+3(level), for a d12 it is 5+7(level). Picking level 10 for easy math, that's 31 and 75 HP on average before constitution gets involved. Here's the expanded list, looking at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20.
Formulae:
d4: 1+3(level)
d6: 2+4(level)
d8: 3+5(level)
d10: 4+6(level)
d12: 5+7(level)


Hit Die
Level 5
Level 10
Level 15
Level 20


d4
16
31
46
61


d6
22
42
62
82


d8
28
53
78
103


d10
34
64
94
124


d12
40
75
110
145

[Galen]

I method I devised long ago, and was received well by my players, is this:

Roll your hit die normally. If you don't like the result, you can roll the next lower die; repeat until you get a result you like or drop all the way to 1d2.

So a barbarian rolls 1d12, and if he doesn't like the result, he can reroll with a d10. If he still doesn't like it, d8, etc.

Sometimes it did get ridiculous though:

Rolled d12, got 5. Didn't like it, rolled d10, got 4. Didn't like it, rolled d8, got 3. Didn't like it, rolled d6, got 2.... etc.

[Knaight]

I method I devised long ago, and was received well by my players, is this:

Roll your hit die normally. If you don't like the result, you can roll the next lower die; repeat until you get a result you like or drop all the way to 1d2.

So a barbarian rolls 1d12, and if he doesn't like the result, he can reroll with a d10. If he still doesn't like it, d8, etc.

This seems really interesting - I wouldn't use it for hit dice, but I'm contemplating playing around with it as a core dice mechanic somewhere. Do you know the probabilities involved here? Coding this in AnyDice is a bit above my head, and doing it by hand is just ugly.

[mr_odd]

So does the PHB have alternative rules? Someone in the "Breaking Bad Habits" thread said something about 5e having their own alternative rule.

[MaxWilson]

So does the PHB have alternative rules? Someone in the "Breaking Bad Habits" thread said something about 5e having their own alternative rule.

The only PHB options are to roll or take the average (rounded up).

[Pex]

I'm generous with hit points. I use the following:

d12 - roll 1d6 + 6

d10 - roll 1d6 + 4

d8 - roll 1d4 + 4

d6 - roll 1d3 + 3

The d10 formula does allow for a 5 total, which is below the recommended. However, over the levels enough 3-6's will be rolled to compensate. 1d4 + 6 could work, but that overcompensates with a minimum 7. That's not necessarily a bad thing, just something to note.

[Mellack]

I know this has been said already, but I want to support this point. The idea that you are "forced" to roll because you get a d12 is wrong. The barbarian is getting more than the wizard and probably has a better Con score too. What they were really saying is they thought they should have an even bigger difference between them and the Wiz. They decided to take a chance that they could beat the odds and failed. That is not a fault of the system, that is a fault of their perception of hp. Barbarians can get resistance, and heal more during rests. Their hp total is not the complete story.

(As an aside, how people can invest themselves in a game based on dice rolling and not grasp probability confuses me.)

[MaxWilson]

As an aside, I think it's a bit of a pity that wizards now get d6 instead of d4, and rogues get d8 instead of d6. I would prefer it otherwise.

[Knaight]

(As an aside, how people can invest themselves in a game based on dice rolling and not grasp probability confuses me.)

It makes sense to me. Sure, the dice mechanics in question here are really simple, but I can easily think of RPG mechanics where calculating the probability is a nightmare. For instance: If you roll 10 ten sided dice, what is the probability that 3 of them will all land on the same number, and another 2 will all land on the same number, which includes the possibility of 5 rolling on the same number? This is a roll that could actually happen in some systems (ORE games mostly), and calculating the numbers involved actually takes a decent amount of probability knowledge, particularly if you're not just brute forcing it.

[Easy_Lee]

(As an aside, how people can invest themselves in a game based on dice rolling and not grasp probability confuses me.)

Probably the same way people can invest themselves in an MMO without learning to make friends.

[Gurka]

well, if you and your players really feel that it's a problem, you can either allow all players to roll and take the better of the die roll or average.

The other alternative is to give everybody the Durable feat (or the portion which makes your minimum HP roll double your CON modifier).

Although I haven't really considered it a problem, I rather like the idea of simply making that a standard rule at my table (or at least a regular option) since we tend to play high scale, very challenging (and very lethal) games. This way it still rewards the ones who invest heavily in CON. I can't see it being the kind of feat that anybody actually takes on a regular basis, on it's own merits though. Nobody has taken it in any of the games I've done so far.

[BRKNdevil]

Probably the same way people can invest themselves in an MMO without learning to make friends.

which annoys the crap out of me. Anyways, I currently let my players roll hp the way easy lee describes it earlier. Honestly doesn't make much a difference game balance wise. But thats because all the fights they go in, everyone they fight has a decent grasp at tactics unless it could lead to a less then fun character death.
A fun character death would be against a mini boss or such.

[Gurka]

Probably the same way people can invest themselves in an MMO without learning to make friends.

Friends? Why would I make friends with the voices that live in my computer? It's not like they're real people!

[pwykersotz]

Friends? Why would I make friends with the voices that live in my computer? It's not like they're real people!

As one of the voices, I can confirm this.

[JFahy]

A slightly-complicated system that we used up to mid-teen levels that didn't cause disaster:

* When you level you can have average hit points, or you can roll.
* Once per character, you can reroll a hit die.

Helps characters to not get a lame hp increase in their first 2-3 levels, when it matters most,
but in the long run gently encourages players to take the average number.

[Rezby]

(As an aside, how people can invest themselves in a game based on dice rolling and not grasp probability confuses me.)

It's not instantaneous. I've been playing dice-based tabletop games for... 7 years (ish, I only started partway through my freshman year in high school). I didn't really get a firm grasp on probability and how it actually works until some point during college (which I entered 3 years ago).

There's a lot of young players, for whom probability is a completely foreign entity.

And there's just that not everybody has a head for numbers. Some people just don't like it, or care to learn anything about it at all, and still have plenty of fun role playing and watching monsters die, even without a firm grasp of the math underlying the mechanics of the system they're playing - and that is one hundred percent acceptable. DnD is meant to be playable for anybody, not just us math nerds.

On topic, I personally prefer averages and so have most groups I've played with, so we always just did average, rounding up.

Though I think I will now take the earlier method of half the die's max + rolling the half-die for stronger characters and apply that to the game I am running. When in doubt, rule on the PCs side and make em stronger is my general rule of thumb. Encounters can easily be adjusted for. (Obviously, I'm still banning broken things, ie Pun-Pun. But I do let em be stronger, more heroic.)
Ie a d8 HD gets 4 + 1d4, d6 gets 3 + 1d3, d10 gets 5 + 1d5, d12 gets 6+1d6. This guarantees a minimum of 'average' with an actual average of ~3/4 max. Which is perfect imo.

[MarkTriumphant]

The other alternative is to give everybody the Durable feat (or the portion which makes your minimum HP roll double your CON modifier).


From memory, so I could be wrong, but isn't this minimum only related to how many HP are regained when spending hit dice after a rest, not on rolling for hit points?

[Gurka]

From memory, so I could be wrong, but isn't this minimum only related to how many HP are regained when spending hit dice after a rest, not on rolling for hit points?

I thought it affected both, but I don't have my book in front of me. If it is only for regaining lost HP, then it's even less valuable than I thought. Situationally useful perhaps, but with the tight budget most characters are on feat wise...

[Tenmujiin]

I thought it affected both, but I don't have my book in front of me. If it is only for regaining lost HP, then it's even less valuable than I thought. Situationally useful perhaps, but with the tight budget most characters are on feat wise...

From the book: "When you roll a hit dice to regain hit points"

[Joe the Rat]

If you want an argument on why the player is off on his logic, see what happens when you reverse the situation:


Recently, one of my players brought up how he thought characters with a D10 or D12 for health kind of get screwed over when it comes to max hitpoint increases. We are playing straight how 5th edition rules, you may roll for hitpoints or take the average rounded up. My friend/player's argument was that anyone with a D6 or D8 could simply roll and be fine, while a martial character with a D10 or D12 is practically forced to take the average. See, a D6 hit die character has a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 1, which is 3 points below the given average. a D12 hit die character has a 1 in 6 chance of rolling 1 or 2, 5.5 points below the given average. Rolling low puts them further behind the set average than an equally unlucky wizard.

The dice roll both ways.

If you want to go with rolling, and don't want it to turn into a lesson in probability, there are a lot of clever ideas here for safer rolls. But anything you do to help beef up the meat walls will beef up the squishies as well - though generally to a lesser degree. My group is fairly hardcore when rolling for hit points, but we do reroll 1s, because rolling minimum sucks. I'm considering replacing a roll of one with the average when we get to the level up.

Also, don't forget that the meat shields also tend to have higher CON (flat bonus modifier), higher continuous AC, and early class features that increase their not-so-squishyness (second wind, rage damage resistance).

[Person_Man]

Rolling for hit points is a trap, and its always been a trap.

If the player rolls low, then their character can be much more likely to die, and the player (irrationally) feels cheated and/or begs the DM for a house rule.

If the player rolls high, then their character can be much less likely to die, other players can feel like the rules are stacked against them (man my Wizard is totally getting squished), and it becomes a lot more difficult for the DM to balance encounters.

I hate this particular D&D tradition, and always have.

[Gurka]

How about this then, to make (hopefully) everybody happy:

Everybody rolls D6's for HP...

If you're a D6 class, then it's just D6+CON

D8 classes roll D6+2+CON

D10 classes to D6+4+CON

D12 classes roll D6+6+CON

Max HP doesn't increase any, but average increases a lot for the higher HP classes, without inflating much for lower HP classes.

[Selkirk]

Rolling for hit points is a trap, and its always been a trap.

If the player rolls low, then their character can be much more likely to die, and the player (irrationally) feels cheated and/or begs the DM for a house rule.

If the player rolls high, then their character can be much less likely to die, other players can feel like the rules are stacked against them (man my Wizard is totally getting squished), and it becomes a lot more difficult for the DM to balance encounters.

I hate this particular D&D tradition, and always have.

yeah it really sucks..after fighting thru hard slogs and having a feeling of accomplishment-to have everything left to chance on something important like hp is just junk. my group has been taking average by necessity but this steals some of the fun...it begs the question-why even have hit die? why not just hps per level? the rolling for hp system practically demands (for survivability reasons alone...much less heroic visions of your char) that you take average...

[jkat718]

yeah it really sucks..after fighting thru hard slogs and having a feeling of accomplishment-to have everything left to chance on something important like hp is just junk. my group has been taking average by necessity but this steals some of the fun...it begs the question-why even have hit die? why not just hps per level? the rolling for hp system practically demands (for survivability reasons alone...much less heroic visions of your char) that you take average...

Two reasons, I think:

Rolling dice is fun.
Random generation allows for more variety between characters, especially in 5e, where equipment is less special and stats are closer (this is also a reason why starting packages now have options).

[Easy_Lee]

yeah it really sucks..after fighting thru hard slogs and having a feeling of accomplishment-to have everything left to chance on something important like hp is just junk. my group has been taking average by necessity but this steals some of the fun...it begs the question-why even have hit die? why not just hps per level? the rolling for hp system practically demands (for survivability reasons alone...much less heroic visions of your char) that you take average...

That's why I'm a fan of the Reliable HP method (roll, treat anything below average as average). Players still get to roll, so hit die make sense and two barbarians don't always have the same number. But nobody ever ends up with less HP than they should have. I'd rather my players have more HP (so I can hit them harder) rather than less (so I can barely hit them at all without killing them).

[Selkirk]

Two reasons, I think:

Rolling dice is fun.
Random generation allows for more variety between characters, especially in 5e, where equipment is less special and stats are closer (this is also a reason why starting packages now have options).



and i agree i like rolling dice too. but rolling for hp is more nerve wracking than fun...a good result means i feel like my level really means something. a bad result feels like a wasted level.

and random die actually spoils variety for my party...imagine the barbarian fighter who rolled 3 hp for 2 levels in a row ^^;. so everybody takes average. results in more sameness and less of the heroic character (hey we all want to be conan not groo :D).

[jkat718]

and i agree i like rolling dice too. but rolling for hp is more nerve wracking than fun...a good result means i feel like my level really means something. a bad result feels like a wasted level.

and random die actually spoils variety for my party...imagine the barbarian fighter who rolled 3 hp for 2 levels in a row ^^;. so everybody takes average. results in more sameness and less of the heroic character (hey we all want to be conan not groo :D).

Yeah, I agree with you, but those were just (what I think) WotC's reasons behind rolling for gained HP (besides the fact that "it's always been this way"). As for the nerve wracking-vs-fun aspect:


That's why I'm a fan of the reliant HP method (roll, treat anything below average as average). Players still get to roll, so hit die make sense and two barbarians don't always have the same number. *snip*

If you use a method with higher average HP (such as Easy Lee's reliant HP method), you get the good without the bad, thereby removing the tension. Lee also mentions an impact on variety. While it is true that the difference is meager (particularly between two characters of the same class), it make be the difference between the level 3 Barbarian with 48 HP that wades into battle with no worries and the level 3 Barbarian with 26 HP that uses strategic uses of his Rage-granted damage resistance to survive heavy combat. Many people would think that the former is more fun, but some people might enjoy the tactical challenge of a low-health tank. I, for one, think it should be the player's prerogative to choose a challenging character (that might hurt other PCs), rather than the dice's, but the book at least give the option for either method.

[Easy_Lee]

(such as Easy Lee's reliant HP method)

Just so we're clear, I didn't come up with the method, I just named it (meant to say Reliable HP, similar to Reliable Talent). I like it so I can send bigger, meaner stuff at the players without worrying about one-shotting someone who rolls bad.

[MaxWilson]

yeah it really sucks..after fighting thru hard slogs and having a feeling of accomplishment-to have everything left to chance on something important like hp is just junk. my group has been taking average by necessity but this steals some of the fun...it begs the question-why even have hit die? why not just hps per level? the rolling for hp system practically demands (for survivability reasons alone...much less heroic visions of your char) that you take average...

HPs per level is an option. I always take it. It simplifies planning for one thing, and reduces the number of stats you have to remember. (I like it when I can write all of a character's crunchy stats in one line of text.) Plus, it's better than rolling, from a probabilistic standpoint. If HP per level rounded down instead of up I might have a dilemma, but since it rounds up, what's not to like?

[jkat718]

Just so we're clear, I didn't come up with the method, I just named it (meant to say Reliable HP, similar to Reliable Talent). I like it so I can send bigger, meaner stuff at the players without worrying about one-shotting someone who rolls bad.

Yeah, I know. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clearer.

[Person_Man]

Two reasons, I think:

Rolling dice is fun.
Random generation allows for more variety between characters, especially in 5e, where equipment is less special and stats are closer (this is also a reason why starting packages now have options).



So I get why people (especially my old school gamer breathern) like randomly generated stuff. It's tradition, it gives the game a much different feel, some players liked to face really big random challenges or get really big random rewards, and so on. But I still disagree.

1) It is run to roll dice. But I typical play a single PC for months or years. Rolling a small number of dice to determine whether or not that character how viable that character is can lead to terrible consequences. Again, if I roll poorly on his hit points he's probably going to die through no fault on my part and I have to abandon my character concept (or come up with an ersatz clone, hand wave the similarities, and hope he rolls better). If I roll really well I now have a major advantage over other players who didn't roll as well. And this issue not just when all of the players roll randomly, it occurs when ANY of the players roll randomly and their results are significantly below or above average. (Though to be fair, I will fully admit that rolling dice to determine the ability scores and/or hit points for a one-shot game does add to the challenge/fun. Occasionally players should be pushed to try something different).

2) More variation? You mean that Player 1 can play a viable Barbarian with lots of hit points but Player 2 can briefly play a Barbarian that's highly likely to die quickly because he has very few hit points? That's not really giving players more options or choices. That's just giving Player 1 a strait up better character because of a few random die rolls. Also, players get different ability scores, and can choose from 9+ races, 12 classes, dozens of subclasses, dozens of Feats, a dozen-ish backgrounds, and (depending on their class/level) a hundred-ish spells. That's a HUGE amount of variation for a roleplaying game.

[jkat718]

Block of text that's right above this.

Again, I agree with everything you're saying. I like the option to take average, and will encourage my players to do so. I'm just trying to come up with possible reasons that Wizards included rolling.

[Easy_Lee]

Again, I agree with everything you're saying. I like the option to take average, and will encourage my players to do so. I'm just trying to come up with possible reasons that Wizards included rolling.

I think the reason for including rolling is tradition. Similarly, the average rule probably came from "a lot of tables house rules it", kind of like how a lot of tables house ruled breaking up your move between attacks so fighters wouldn't have crazy feat taxes.

[Galen]

I agree with Person_Man. When I did use random hp systems, I was jumping hoops to assure they don't accidentally result in a PC getting bad roll (see my previous post). Since then, I thought to myself, "if you don't like bad rolls so much, why not just eliminate them?", and now any group I DM just takes average.

[Selkirk]

Again, I agree with everything you're saying. I like the option to take average, and will encourage my players to do so. I'm just trying to come up with possible reasons that Wizards included rolling.

yeah i think it's a good discussion. sadly, i think the reason wotc went with rolling hp is that it's the way it's always been in d&d. but they should have put in something to compensate for very low rolls. a path or mechanic to make low hp rolls at least palatable-either a mechanical benefit or narrative logic. maybe the barbarian who rolls low hp gets some sort of minor feat..that way you could actually play the low hp barbarian in a meaningful way. but as it stands..average hp is the only route that makes sense (low hp tanks will get steamrolled for no other reason than die rolls...).

and reinforces the unfortunate-dumb luck will determine how effective your chars will be (particularly at low level). at levels 1-4 (and probably beyond) one low hit die roll is the difference between a tpk and a hard won fight. the worst part is that it removes skill from play-a very skilled player will struggle mightily to make a low hp fighter work while a less skilled player with a high hp fighter will breeze thru most encounters. the sting of low hp is fierce :smallmad:

[Morukai]

Call me weird, but I think the system is just fine the way it is already.

It's got stability for those who crave it (the average), and risk for those who like to live dangerously.

[Person_Man]

Its worth noting that helping players with cruddy rolls via house rules only solves half the problem. Sure Bob the Barbarian won't end up with terrible hit points. But if he ends up with insane near max hit points, its just as difficult to balance unless everyone in the party has high hit points. And even then, adding monsters or whatever to balance out the difficulty just ends up making much more "swingy" encounters, since more monsters means more attack rolls, which adds to the randomness of the results.

[Doug Lampert]

I agree with Person_Man. When I did use random hp systems, I was jumping hoops to assure they don't accidentally result in a PC getting bad roll (see my previous post). Since then, I thought to myself, "if you don't like bad rolls so much, why not just eliminate them?", and now any group I DM just takes average.

Agreed:

We have roll methods suggested like, "roll the die and take the higher of the roll and average round up", "roll twice and take the higher result", "roll d6+6 rather than d12", ext... All ways that are guaranteed to average higher than the no-roll method.

If rolling is so great just because "people like rolling" then there shouldn't need to be ANY adjustment of the roll! You get a method you like, other people get reliability. The PHB method is EXCELLENT if the reason for rolling is an actual preference for randomness, given that 12 HP level 3 fighters won't last long the actual averages in play will be similar and everyone gets what they want; in a typical game, over the long run, everyone gets similar power (yeah, a couple of high or low rolls at low level make a difference, but by high level the % difference from average will be small)...

But the purpose of rolling, and this is pretty much explicit in the original post, is to have higher values, not random values, HIGHER VALUES! The Barbarians were rolling because they "needed" more HP.

And when they roll low they expect the GM to "fix" this, because they didn't roll because they wanted random, they rolled because they wanted more, and the rules aren't working for them for more!

If rolling is to have a random element for HP rather than simply to have MORE HP, then why all the effort to assure it can't actually give a lower value? The main objection to "roll with advantage" was that it could still give a low value. The HORROR!

This isn't rolling because rolling dice is fun (if you find die rolling by itself fun I suggest Yahtzee myself). This is die rolling because die rolling gives higher scores. The desire is higher HP, not randomness.

This is easy to fix. You can just give higher HP. It doesn't require a die roll at all. When players make it OBVIOUS they want a higher power level, raise the power level, either start at a higher level, or otherwise boost everyone. It's your game after all.

I recommend starting at a higher level myself. This edition was pretty well designed for it and you're working with the rule system you've chosen rather than rewriting it and hoping you can balance everything else on the fly.

[Safety Sword]

Agreed:

We have roll methods suggested like, "roll the die and take the higher of the roll and average round up", "roll twice and take the higher result", "roll d6+6 rather than d12", ext... All ways that are guaranteed to average higher than the no-roll method.

If rolling is so great just because "people like rolling" then there shouldn't need to be ANY adjustment of the roll! You get a method you like, other people get reliability. The PHB method is EXCELLENT if the reason for rolling is an actual preference for randomness, given that 12 HP level 3 fighters won't last long the actual averages in play will be similar and everyone gets what they want; in a typical game, over the long run, everyone gets similar power (yeah, a couple of high or low rolls at low level make a difference, but by high level the % difference from average will be small)...

But the purpose of rolling, and this is pretty much explicit in the original post, is to have higher values, not random values, HIGHER VALUES! The Barbarians were rolling because they "needed" more HP.

And when they roll low they expect the GM to "fix" this, because they didn't roll because they wanted random, they rolled because they wanted more, and the rules aren't working for them for more!

If rolling is to have a random element for HP rather than simply to have MORE HP, then why all the effort to assure it can't actually give a lower value? The main objection to "roll with advantage" was that it could still give a low value. The HORROR!

This isn't rolling because rolling dice is fun (if you find die rolling by itself fun I suggest Yahtzee myself). This is die rolling because die rolling gives higher scores. The desire is higher HP, not randomness.

This is easy to fix. You can just give higher HP. It doesn't require a die roll at all. When players make it OBVIOUS they want a higher power level, raise the power level, either start at a higher level, or otherwise boost everyone. It's your game after all.

I recommend starting at a higher level myself. This edition was pretty well designed for it and you're working with the rule system you've chosen rather than rewriting it and hoping you can balance everything else on the fly.

All the Yes.

As I said before this whole thread is about someone who rolled badly twice and now regrets rolling. There was another option and it's to take an above average number of hit points each level. It's actually probably the most balanced it's ever going to get.

I don't like the attitude that people take that randomness is fine as long as you always get above the average. That's fundamentally flawed.

[ProphetSword]

Wait...so people are now upset that you roll randomly for hit points, which sometimes produces low numbers equally as often as high numbers? But, at the same time, they don't want to take the average which gives them a set amount of hit points per level (and eliminates the random element); because, they don't like that wizards now get more hit points than they used to and it doesn't make them feel like a strong in comparison?

I think they need to suck it up and get over it, personally.

But, one option for alternate hit points, since it's what the thread is about is to just give every character maximum hit points per level. Then, just adjust the encounters up as though there were an additional character in the party. That might work.

[Vogonjeltz]

In any case the Barbarian's greater toughness is mostly in that he has resistance to damage much of the time, the fighter's is in that he gets extra HP back every short rest. The extra HP on top of those is just gravy.

Is this an oblique reference to Second Wind?

For my money, I prefer to have characters live dangerously and roll for hp. It adds to the fun.

[Safety Sword]

Wait...so people are now upset that you roll randomly for hit points, which sometimes produces low numbers equally as often as high numbers? But, at the same time, they don't want to take the average which gives them a set amount of hit points per level (and eliminates the random element); because, they don't like that wizards now get more hit points than they used to and it doesn't make them feel like a strong in comparison?

I think they need to suck it up and get over it, personally.

But, one option for alternate hit points, since it's what the thread is about is to just give every character maximum hit points per level. Then, just adjust the encounters up as though there were an additional character in the party. That might work.

You pretty much nailed it. Clearly we need to have an alternative method of "rolling" hit points that doesn't allow you to roll a low amount of hit points. Because... well, that's where I'm confused...

[Easy_Lee]

You pretty much nailed it. Clearly we need to have an alternative method of "rolling" hit points that doesn't allow you to roll a low amount of hit points. Because... well, that's where I'm confused...

Nobody said we need one, the OP asked for one. What part of that is hard to understand?

[Safety Sword]

Nobody said we need one, the OP asked for one. What part of that is hard to understand?

It's not hard to understand. What's hard to understand is the need people feel to facilitate bad ideas. That's where the real crazy lies.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

[MaxWilson]

Nobody said we need one, the OP asked for one. What part of that is hard to understand?

The OP asked whether there was one in the PHB or somewhere official. (See posts #1 and #21.) The answer to his question is "no."

[Safety Sword]

The OP asked whether there was one in the PHB or somewhere official. (See posts #1 and #21.) The answer to his question is "no."

Are you suggesting that Easy_Lee lead this thread off-topic?

Surely the world will rip asunder and the universe come apart if this is true! :smallamused:

[MaxWilson]

Are you suggesting that Easy_Lee lead this thread off-topic?

Surely the world will rip asunder and the universe come apart if this is true! :smallamused:

No, I'm not talking about posters, I'm just correcting a false statement that caught my eye. I don't care who led the thread off topic.

[Easy_Lee]

Funny we should mention the OP, actually, since he hasn't posted in this thread since the first page. I'll take that to mean mr_odd's question is answered. Thus the continued discussion, wherein one person mentions a house rule and others attack that house rule as if they have a say in it, is every bit as pointless as it seems.

One parting comment before I bow out: just because some tables use alternate rules doesn't mean those rules affect you, and it certainly doesn't mean you need to attack them for it. Next time you find yourself criticizing someone's house rule, perhaps it's best to reread and see if they actually asked for criticism.

Because unwanted criticism is a leading cause of thread derailment.

[pwykersotz]

All the Yes.

As I said before this whole thread is about someone who rolled badly twice and now regrets rolling. There was another option and it's to take an above average number of hit points each level. It's actually probably the most balanced it's ever going to get.

I don't like the attitude that people take that randomness is fine as long as you always get above the average. That's fundamentally flawed.

You are focusing on the wrong element here. It's not just about the randomness. It's about playability as well. These aren't ideologists who are promoting "TRUE RANDOM!!!" and then crying foul when the average drops, these are players who like a smidge of random chance in their character generation.

Take half-roll half provides both a psychological and a playability buffer. At minimum, you'll get .5 above average for your HP. When examined in the context of the system, the player feels good that he'll always be useful, and he's correct. The roll is for those who find yet more static numbers to be boring. It's like the Rogue who knows he can open the lock, even with a 1. But he rolls anyway because he wants to exult in beating the DC by leaps and bounds.