[Pathfinder] Houserule HP rolls

[Pyron]

Hello,

I'm a new DM, and about to start a new campaign, and I want some feedback on hit point generation when the player's level up. I debating whether to allow static hit point increase for every level or just allow the players to roll.

If I go with the static hit point increase, My thoughts are:

1d6 HD get +4 HP per level
1d8 HD get +6 HP per level
1d10 HD get +8 HP per level
1d12 HD get +10 HP per level


My thought process is that with the play schedule, it could be about a month between sessions. So, I don't want to bog down the session with player's leveling up - I would rather it be done between sessions. What my previous DM done in the past was that he'd email the HP rolls when we ask them, and I found that to be very insufficient. Because, as a player, I would want to do all the level up 'homework' in sitting and that can't always happen if I'm waiting.

Now that I'm in the driving seat, I want to be more efficient in that area. If I do the static increase, I want to give some a little extra from the half of the class's hit dice just to help out the melee type. Wizards and rogues don't see too much of a benefit, but I think using the half-hit dice hurts the fighters and barbarians.

So, my questions are: 1) Would this HP generation rule be too powerful. Or, 2) Would I be better off just allowing the player's roll their own hit points between sessions.

[Dienekes]

Too powerful? It depends on your players optimization level. But technically giving them: 4, 5, 6, and 7 would be a fair average, and I don't see 3 hit points a level messing up the balance curve (besides most of the high hit point classes could use a boost, though hit points aren't really what they're in need of, but whatever)

Better off? Hard to say, it depends if you trust your players. It's ok to say no to that, and really, no one should have a problem with getting above average hit point rolls each level. I'd say go for it.

[Morcleon]

So, my questions are: 1) Would this HP generation rule be too powerful. Or, 2) Would I be better off just allowing the player's roll their own hit points between sessions.

1. Nope. It's a lot easier to boost the damage of your monsters a little if you feel the players are too resilient, but it's really awkward to accidentally one-shot one of the PC because of low HP.
2. I dislike rolling for HP (and stats) since it randomizes balance between characters and unlucky rolls can create a very squishy character who won't be able to survive without lots of work from the player.

[Honest Tiefling]

I would say, if your party is the type to roll stats and find the gamble fun, don't use this houserule. If they prefer point buy and have horror stories of rolling stats, yeah, this is a great time to use this house rule.

As for difficulty, I've been in groups that used it and...Really, it just makes the characters more reliably durable. No one is awkwardly flimsy, and everyone can take at least one solid punch. As mentioned before, it makes it so characters are not marked for death, and harder to accidentally one-shot someone. I strongly urge it in groups where people get attached to the PC's as well, where rerolling the PC entirely is not as enjoyable.

[AzraelX]

1) Would this HP generation rule be too powerful.
It shouldn't. I've played in campaigns which used +3/4 HD per level, and that works out pretty well. If you get a final HP with a decimal after it, you just round down (not rounding down for every level, just the total value). Your values are pretty close to that.


2) Would I be better off just allowing the player's roll their own hit points between sessions.
Can't say I enjoy this. Even when I get good rolls, the game is less fun because someone else in the party ended up with a bunch of bad rolls, so now the character is contributing less to encounters and the player is having less fun. When I know another player isn't enjoying the game, it reduces my enjoyment as well.

The only way I could see rolling HP working (in a campaign where the characters aren't considered completely disposable/temporary) is if you reroll any result that's below average (and keep rerolling until it's not below average). You'll still get an unfair disparity between players, but at least it's less likely to cost them their life.

[137beth]

I use half-max hit-points (except at first level when they get max hit-points), so you'd be giving out more hp than me.

However, I know of games in which people use max hit-points on every hit-die, so you are still within the realm of 'reasonable' hit-point totals.
(I mainly run 3.5, though I doubt the situation would be noticeably different in pathfinder.)

[StreamOfTheSky]

Definitely do static for hp, otherwise the HD are nearly meaningless. I've been in games where the sorcerer (d4 HD, this was 3E) had more hp than the Barbarian because of unlucky rolls for the Barb and the Sorcerer having a higher Con score (being single ability dependent is awesome!).

I do full first HD, then 3/4 for the rest. So 3 on a d4, 4.5 on a d6, 6 on a d8, 7.5 on a d10, and 9 on a d12 (for the .5's, they round down until you get a 2nd .5, then it becomes another hp). Pretty close to yours.

[Sacrieur]

Yeah it doesn't make sense to me that you roll for HP.

You can use any fractional value you want. The most common is 1/2 or 3/4, depending on how high powered you want your characters to be. You can also adjust the difficulty and how long fights last through this method. Increasing the static value for HP means that PCs are harder to kill and decreasing it means they're easier to kill. You may adjust stats for monsters accordingly, as well, through this method.

It gives the DM another tool to adjust the overall difficulty of a world without having to worry as much about CR. Very useful for open game worlds where not a lot of the content is pre-generated and it can be too easy to under CR or over CR your encounters.

[StreamOfTheSky]

1/2 vs. 3/4 isn't any more "high powered." The difference to a wizard is negligible, just half an hp per level (for 3E, where they have d4). But it makes all the difference in the world to fighters, barbarians, and so on.

It works much better if you nerf cleric and druid to d6 HD and bump rogue to a d8 (if playing 3E....PF did that already) and Monk and Ranger (again, PF did it for Ranger already) to a d10.

But in any case, giving the martials enough hp to do their job isn't high-powered.

EDIT: Definitely have the monsters play by the same rules here. I give all my NPCs the 3/4 hp, too. The only exception I make is for pets (like animal companion) and summons. Those get stuck with the half hp in their stat block. Just another little way I try to make the martials more balanced w/ the casters. Ever so slightly.

[Sacrieur]

1/2 vs. 3/4 isn't any more "high powered." The difference to a wizard is negligible, just half an hp per level (for 3E, where they have d4). But it makes all the difference in the world to fighters, barbarians, and so on.

It works much better if you nerf cleric and druid to d6 HD and bump rogue to a d8 (if playing 3E....PF did that already) and Monk and Ranger (again, PF did it for Ranger already) to a d10.

But in any case, giving the martials enough hp to do their job isn't high-powered.

I'm guessing that when they designed the system, they expected 1/2 HD to be the balance. I think they expected martials to pump Con, making up for their slightly higher HP. Giving 3/4 HD over 1/2 HD gives a Barbarian an extra 3 HP per level, which is like having a +6 boost to his Con score (at least for HP). Of course I agree that martials really aren't given enough to do their job right so what I consider "high powered" would be max HP every level and 3/4 to be the sweet spot.

But hey, that's just my feelings on the matter. Maybe it should be maxed out because really martials do need that boost.

---

I think the more disturbing thing is that you can roll from a 1 - 12 for a Barbarian's HD. It encourages fudging dice rolls or just plain cheating or gives lucky players unfair scrutiny.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Except it works out the opposite, because a Barbarian needs high Strength, then decent dex to make up for their lack of full plate, and also need a decent wisdom because their will save is awful and you don't want to be turned against the party. So he can't afford a super high Con.

Meanwhile, the Sorc or Wizard just needs their casting stat. Dex is nice for initiative and AC, but they can use spells to make up for any lack there. And with miss % and mirror image, AC is less of a concern in general, not to mention they're not expected to tank hits in the first place. Beyond that...all they really need is Con, which handily also boosts their Fort saves.

So in practice, the caster almost always has a higher Con than the martial, or at worst an equal score.

Going from 6.5 to 9 is a 2.5 increase, but yeah, that's the idea. A bump in HD should be worth more than a +2 Con, in terms of hp. That makes it meaningful. I try to avoid max hp, because it does reach a point where you're just discouraging blasting spells altogether in favor of save or lose, which is already a problem to begin with. 3/4 is usually enough to make HD matter, without making blasting spells pointless.
(I do think non-damaging spells that debuff or win a fight should have a sliding scale of save penalty and the ones that literally win the fight should require failing 2 or more saves, but that's a whole other topic. Just always amazed me that for the same save DC I could burning hands a group or color spray them.)

[Pyron]

I want to thank everyone for their input. I think I will bring this house rule during my session and ask for the player's input. However, I prefer static HP increases over rolling because it saves time during the level up process, and it prevents players from being disheartened if their barbarian rolls a 2.