Rolling d10 for hit points in a point buy world

[silvadel]

It just seems strange to me that at a time when many campaigns use point buy systems to balance the players(taking luck out of the character generation process) almost EVERYONE still rolls hit points, allowing odd rolls to produce a 35 hit point base level 9 warrior in the same party as one with twice the base hit points....

Really the worst thing that can happen to you is to roll a 1 on your hit point roll (or a 2 if your gm lets you re-roll 1s). Do that a few times and you can end up with a character significantly underpowered to the rest of the group.

And from a GM standpoint, you also have the issue of the character who rolls all 7s and 8s on their priest and has almost twice as many hit points as the poor-rolling party fighter-type.

At any rate -- even at fairly high levels (say 12th) the difference between the 10th percentile on d10 hit point rolls and the 90th percentile is more than 8 con points.

[Inane-Fedaykin]

I really can't see anyone complaining if you decide to take an average instead of rolling.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

This is the very reason why my group plays with max hp for players and monsters alike. Takes the bs out of the system.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Just like I prefer point-buy, I prefer taking average HP... I see it get used a lot, too. Rolling a few 1s and 2s for HP can really ruin a melee character's life.

[RobotsITP]

My DM gives me the option of either taking half plus one (take the maximum for the hit die total divide that in half and add one to it, so a d10 would give you 6 hit points automatically)
or having a roll off where both the DM and player roll and you take the better of the results.

Both ways tend to get pretty good results
the half plus one is more steady and secure.

But I would have to agree that rolling poorly anytime for hit points can really be crippling


Andy

[Roland St. Jude]

I would suggest that:

1. Fewer people use point buy than you (and many others) assume.
2. More people who do use point buy do either average, 3/4, max hp, or some other stabilizer than you (and many others) assume.

That's just based on what I've read and games I've seen. I have no actual surveys data to back this up. Of course, this being the internet, that's par for the course. :smallwink:

[MrNexx]

We use 3/4 HP for all but the 1st HD. For everyone. So, dragons, undead, and barbarians get 8 HP for every HD past 1st.

[Stephen_E]

After 1st lev (which is always Max) we tend to use Roll, but if you roll below average you take average rounded down.
Example Fighter -
Rolls 1-5, gets 5.
Roll 6-10, gets the roll.

So you get varibility but you can't get screwed.

Stephen

[Tengu]

I think random HP is an absurd concept, just like random stats - a relic of the neolithic times when RPGs were little more than boardgames with the DM instead of a board, yadda yadda, you've probably seen me rant about this at least three times. I'm glad that in NWN you have point buy and max HP at each level (in NWN2, in NWN1 you can reroll your HP gained at levelup as many times as you want so it is basically max HP, unless you're very impatient).

[Dausuul]

My group mostly uses average hit points, although if you really want to roll the DM will usually let you.

[F.L.]

Statistically speaking, on a d4 hit die for instance, you have a 50% chance of beating the average, and a 25% chance of getting less than the average, and a 25% chance of matching the average per level, so you're better off rolling. Now, the statistical edge drops off as your die size increases, so barbarians (Unless they like d12s) are probably better off taking the average. As for whether it makes for a good game, it's a delicate balance between consistent believability and interesting variation, as to whether rolling or always getting the same hps is better.

[ArmorArmadillo]

One of the things that the DMG gets dead on is the fact that poor hit points hurt you more than good hit points help.
Generally the possibility of a great HP roll isn't breaking, but there is a potential for a poor character.

I think the best option, and the one I use, is allowing players to reroll all natural ones (Although they must keep duplicate 1's.) It only ups the average HP by about .33 per level, but it prevents the really tragic series of nat 1's.

[Jacob Orlove]

Statistically speaking, on a d4 hit die for instance, you have a 50% chance of beating the average, and a 25% chance of getting less than the average, and a 25% chance of matching the average per level, so you're better off rolling.
Statistically speaking, that's wrong. The average of a d4 is not 2, it's 2.5. That's why you see a lot of people do as 2 hp, then 3, then 2, etc.

Likewise, the Barbarian would get 6, then 7, then 6, and so on. That way, you're awarding the true average value.

[ArmorArmadillo]

Statistically speaking, that's wrong. The average of a d4 is not 2, it's 2.5. That's why you see a lot of people do as 2 hp, then 3, then 2, etc.

Likewise, the Barbarian would get 6, then 7, then 6, and so on. That way, you're awarding the true average value.

That's actually the basic method for using static hit points; it's also the method used to determine the hp of monsters in the MM.

[Stephen_E]

I think random HP is an absurd concept, just like random stats - a relic of the neolithic times when RPGs were little more than boardgames with the DM instead of a board, yadda yadda, you've probably seen me rant about this at least three times. I'm glad that in NWN you have point buy and max HP at each level (in NWN2, in NWN1 you can reroll your HP gained at levelup as many times as you want so it is basically max HP, unless you're very impatient).

So you'd be a big fan of the Deck of Many Things.:smallbiggrin: :smalltongue:

Stephen

[Tengu]

So you'd be a big fan of the Deck of Many Things.:smallbiggrin: :smalltongue:

Stephen

I personally think the Deck is too bland. Too much "you gain/lose X items/experience/money", too little craziness.

[Cybren]

I think random HP is an absurd concept, just like random stats - a relic of the neolithic times when RPGs were little more than boardgames with the DM instead of a board, yadda yadda, you've probably seen me rant about this at least three times. I'm glad that in NWN you have point buy and max HP at each level (in NWN2, in NWN1 you can reroll your HP gained at levelup as many times as you want so it is basically max HP, unless you're very impatient).

Max HP however further skews the balance of power away from classes dependent on doing damage, as the damage done is still rolled.

[ranger89]

I would suggest that:

1. Fewer people use point buy than you (and many others) assume.

Hear! Hear! Non-random ability scores, hit points, etc. takes all the fun out of the game for me and my group. I seriously would rather not even play than play with a point-buy.

But if hell froze over, somebody held a gun to my head, and small children would die if I didn't use a point-buy in my game, then it would make perfect sense to use average HP. Why randomize one key aspect of a character and not the other?


I think random HP is an absurd concept, just like random stats - a relic of the neolithic times when RPGs were little more than boardgames with the DM instead of a board, yadda yadda, you've probably seen me rant about this at least three times.

Frankly, IMHO, it's not much of game if the dice aren't invovled. Guess it's a good thing we're not at the same gaming table. :smallwink:

[Tallis]

I like the random element, but I allow my players to roll 3 dice for HP and take the best, so average hit points in my games are skewed higher. Practically elimimates the risk of getting multiple low rolls for a character.

[Matthew]

Bah. I'm all for rolling Hit Points on the PHB in time honoured tradition (though once I let a new Player off when his Fighter rolled a 1 at Level 2 and then imposed the 1 at Level 5, which actually resulted in average Hit Points as he'd rolled particularly well after that initial 1). I don't use Point Buy either. If you're not going to roll Hit Points why bother rolling for Weapon Damage? Just set it to the max.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

I have my players use max hp because I run brutal games. Encounters are determined by one's actions, not CR. If you walk into a cave who's entry is littered with charred corpses and find yourself staring up an ancient red dragon's nose, well that's your problem. Next time, don't count on kid gloves.

[Matthew]

I do the same, but I have never seen the need to increase Hit Points on account of Player stupidity...

[Rachel Lorelei]

I have my players use max hp because I run brutal games. Encounters are determined by one's actions, not CR. If you walk into a cave who's entry is littered with charred corpses and find yourself staring up an ancient red dragon's nose, well that's your problem. Next time, don't count on kid gloves.

...but with many creatures, there is no way to tell what their CR is. The ogre could have ten Barbarian levels. Those bones could belong to the victims of a Young Adult Red Dragon, which would be a perfectly appropriate challenge for a party that the Old Red Dragon who could equally well have left those bones would kill with fire.

[Bosh]

I use average HPs in the games I DM. I am very leery about playing games that aren't point buy with HP averaging. D&D is unbalanced enough without letting dice decide who gets the most powerful character.

[HidaTsuzua]

Heck in my D&D games we use the old system! Your first HP roll isn't maxed, but random as well. Fighters with 1 hp are great to watch in play.

[Gralamin]

Bah. I'm all for rolling Hit Points on the PHB in time honoured tradition (though once I let a new Player off when his Fighter rolled a 1 at Level 2 and then imposed the 1 at Level 5, which actually resulted in average Hit Points as he'd rolled particularly well after that initial 1). I don't use Point Buy either. If you're not going to roll Hit Points why bother rolling for Weapon Damage? Just set it to the max.

I personally offer someone the ability to roll or take average, and they cannot change their choice.
I'm thinking of allowing a fighter to roll for damage, or take average as well...

[Matthew]

I personally offer someone the ability to roll or take average, and they cannot change their choice.
I'm thinking of allowing a fighter to roll for damage, or take average as well...
Sounds consistant to me. I recently considered allowing a Character to add his BAB to the Die to 'fill up' any empty points. [i.e. a Fighter 7+ who rolls 1 on 1D8, actually gets 8].

[Hadrian_Emrys]

...but with many creatures, there is no way to tell what their CR is. The ogre could have ten Barbarian levels. Those bones could belong to the victims of a Young Adult Red Dragon, which would be a perfectly appropriate challenge for a party that the Old Red Dragon who could equally well have left those bones would kill with fire.

That's the trick. It screws metagaming all the hades. Gimpy the Goblin could be a chump or he could TPK your whole crew. You have to play the game with with some sense to survive. Every encounter is like stumbling across a lone white rabbit. It could just be a rabbit. Odds are it is just a rabbit. Is it just a rabbit or is it THAT rabbit? My players eat the fear up and come back for more. :smallamused:

[Diggorian]

My players roll and get that result or the rounded down average of the die, their choice.

Takes the some of the suckage out of low rolling and I dont feel the need to pull punches.

[silvadel]

Thing is though that in general -- rolling everything or rolling nothing is fairer than hybrid systems...

IE the more purely random elements you have, the more likely it is for things to balance out...

That is why random hit points affect campaigns where you use point-buys more harshly than they affect campaigns where you roll your attributes... Half of the characters who roll poor hit points had good stats which tend to compensate... The other half also have poor stats and tend to die off permanently (or are abandoned as helpless) and re-rolled.

[adanedhel9]

To me, the purpose of point buy is to remove the luck factor from an important, but statistically small, step in character creation. Other people might see it differently than that, and so their views on average vs. rolled hit points may differ.

I would say that if you use point buy with the above in mind, average hit points should be an obvious continuation. After all, over the course of a campaign (using the default rules), you'll actually roll less dice deciding on hit points than on ability scores, meaning that a single bad roll will affect your HP more than a single bad roll would on your ability scores (of course, the same applies to good rolls as well, but nobody complains about those ('cept maybe the DM)). The importance of these HP rolls, however, is quite a bit less than the importance of the ability score rolls... however, I think it's still important enough to "tip the scales" in favor of control over luck.

As a DM, however, I nearly always roll, especially if I'm creating several creatures of the same type. This provides a little bit of variation in the otherwise identical critters, which I seem to think is important. Even if the players rarely notice the difference.


I personally offer someone the ability to roll or take average, and they cannot change their choice.

How did this turn out for you? I did this once, and everyone rolled. I would've expected someone to take the average, but no.

[silvadel]

Given a choice between average and rolled -- just about nobody will take average... This is mainly because a character with really bad hp is disposable or has pity taken on them making the "average" for rolled at least 1 hit point higher than the average of the die rolls.

[Gralamin]

Given a choice between average and rolled -- just about nobody will take average... This is mainly because a character with really bad hp is disposable or has pity taken on them making the "average" for rolled at least 1 hit point higher than the average of the die rolls.

Ah, But I don't give the pity when they roll. At first they rolled, almost everyone does. But those with bad luck? they want to take the average eventually.

[Zel]

At some point you have to slow down and realize that the game is fundamentally based on chance. Which of these are acceptable and which are absurd? What is the difference between then?

Point buy for character gen.
Predetermined Hit Points.
Allowed to take 10 on skill checks in all situations.
Allowed to take 10 on attack rolls.
Damage rolls are replaced by average.
Saving throws are always 10 plus save score.

In my opinion, if you used the above rules the board game part of D&D wouldn't be as fun. The reason it is entertainment instead of work is due to the random nature of combat (and to a lesser degree character generation).

Call me old fashioned but I like to roll dice and get excited about which numbers show up on top.

[Renegade Paladin]

1.) We roll 5d6 drop two lowest for stats.

2.) We roll two hit dice per level (one for the player, one rolled by the DM) and take the better result.

This results in high-powered but still random characters. Point buy sucks the fun out of it. :smalltongue:

[ranger89]

I use average HPs in the games I DM. I am very leery about playing games that aren't point buy with HP averaging. D&D is unbalanced enough without letting dice decide who gets the most powerful character.

Hmm... Bosh's post really illustrates something I feel needs to said. Whenever issues like point-buy vs. organic rolling comes up, it seems to me that there are two schools of D&D players:

Type I: Those that want the most powerful character on the table. If another character in a Type I game is better stat-wise, a Type I player does not enjoy playing as much. If all character's are equal stat-wise, the challenge is finding ways to make their character better through other aspects of the game like builds, magic items, etc.

Type II: Those that view "flawed" (e.g., low HP) characters as nothing more than a roleplaying opportunity. It does not matter if other characters in a Type II game are better stat-wise. The challenge is finding ways to make the flawed character just as good as the non-flawed character... or not if that's how the Type I player wants to play that character.

That's a very simplified description of both types but I think it captures the essence. Neither group is better than the other and neither group is wrong. It's just two very different styles of play that affect every aspect of how that player plays the game. The problem is that whenever issues like this thread come up, the two styles of players clash. Type I and II players are never, ever going to agree.

Sorry if I'm hijacking this thread but I've stopped reading/posting another D&D forum that will remain nameless because Type I and II players just yelled at each other. What do others think? Am I off base?

[Reel On, Love]

Come the hell on, rolling a bunch of 1s doesn't make you a "flawed character", it makes you DEAD. And it really sucks when you're the tank. If you want to make a flawed character, then dump your freakin' CON; otherwise, rolling HP just has the potential to be a huge pain.

I don't like it, at any rate. Although we used it the last game I was in... I didn't like it then, and I still don't.


And the Type I and Type II stuff is, eh... you're exaggerating. Both positions, and the seriousness.

[ranger89]

Come the hell on, rolling a bunch of 1s doesn't make you a "flawed character", it makes you DEAD. And it really sucks when you're the tank. If you want to make a flawed character, then dump your freakin' CON; otherwise, rolling HP just has the potential to be a huge pain.

Thank you for illustrating my point so nicely. I had a Dwarf Fighter/Cleric years ago that despite having a solid CON (14 or 15, I think), he had a relatively very low HP total. Level after level, I continued to bomb my HP rolls (1s, 2s, maybe a 3). Despite his low hit point total, I thoroughly enjoyed playing him throughout the entire campaign. Others in my group still joke about "Rogan the Glass Jaw". For us it was fun. For you, the same character would have obviously been "a huge pain".

So do you still think I'm exaggerating about there being to types of players?

[Falrin]

1) Reroll ones.

2) Divide the HD. 1d8 = 2d4. This gives a more average total & bumps it up a litlle.

3) Give all a d4. d6=d4+1, d12=d4+4

4) Roll twice, chose the better.


Just remember: Higher HP = Bad for Blasters & Melee (this is not good)
It doesn't matter if a Fighter has more hp a confusion will still ruin his fight.



5) A long shot but: Use less hp.

D4 = D3
Half

Less hp (now we're there) looks a good thing to me. The game will be deadlier, wizards will need to invest more in protection, Con Modifier will have more impact & Combat Healing will become more important. You'll need to slow down on the 4 encounters / Day.


On Bad Hp rolls:

Yes, it kills you. You can't play a tank with only 1 & 2 rolled. A rogue, maybe. A wizard has a chance, a cleric should cast more, but not the meatshield. As a fighter, you will get hit , you will get crit and you will die if your HP is to low for your ECL.
High CR monsters are build to do huge amounts of damage because they only survive for so long.

Take the troll: CR 5.

Lets assume once in the adventure your fighint troll at least one gets a 2claw hit on your fighter.
That's 35 damage.

A Low hp 5th LvL 14 con fighter has: (10)+2 + (1+2+1+2)+8 = 26 hp.
I'm afraid to tell you're dead.
And that troll has regeneration, reach & a bite attack. I find it strange they Did'nt gave it a Power Attack.

The same goes for a Power attacking Orc Barbarian, A Large Earth Elemental, ...

[Dausuul]

Hmm... Bosh's post really illustrates something I feel needs to said. Whenever issues like point-buy vs. organic rolling comes up, it seems to me that there are two schools of D&D players:

Type I: Those that want the most powerful character on the table. If another character in a Type I game is better stat-wise, a Type I player does not enjoy playing as much. If all character's are equal stat-wise, the challenge is finding ways to make their character better through other aspects of the game like builds, magic items, etc.

Type II: Those that view "flawed" (e.g., low HP) characters as nothing more than a roleplaying opportunity. It does not matter if other characters in a Type II game are better stat-wise. The challenge is finding ways to make the flawed character just as good as the non-flawed character... or not if that's how the Type I player wants to play that character.


Thank you for illustrating my point so nicely. I had a Dwarf Fighter/Cleric years ago that despite having a solid CON (14 or 15, I think), he had a relatively very low HP total. Level after level, I continued to bomb my HP rolls (1s, 2s, maybe a 3). Despite his low hit point total, I thoroughly enjoyed playing him throughout the entire campaign. Others in my group still joke about "Rogan the Glass Jaw". For us it was fun. For you, the same character would have obviously been "a huge pain".

So do you still think I'm exaggerating about there being to types of players?

Obviously there are two types of players, those who prefer randomized stats and those who prefer non-randomized. That's basic set theory. (I suppose there's a third group, those who don't care, but that group is pretty small.)

However, like a lot of people on the randomized side, you are mischaracterizing those of us who like our stats non-random. It's not about "wanting the most powerful character on the table," it's about party balance and being able to play the character you want to play. If I want to play the party tank and charge into battle in the front lines, it's going to make my life a lot less fun if I get knocked out in the first couple rounds of combat, every combat, because I have squat for hit points. Then I get to sit out the rest of the fight twiddling my thumbs while everyone else does stuff. Maybe you're okay with that. I get bored.

Moreover, we don't like having our character overshadowed by someone else's--or overshadowing someone else's character. We don't like feeling like a fifth wheel, nor do we like making other people feel that way. I have scrapped characters before because they were so powerful they put everyone else in the party in the shade. Point buy makes it less likely that simple luck of the dice will make one player a god and another player suck. It doesn't address the other sources of imbalance, of course, like some classes being way more powerful than others, but a lot of us want to fix those too...

If I wanted the most powerful character on the table, I'd argue for stat rolling. Then any time I rolled lousy stats, I'd design my character to be as fragile as possible and pick fights with every monster we met until I died and got to roll a new character. The whole idea of point buy systems is that nobody's character is more powerful than anyone else's.

I can actually see the appeal to rolling stats. There's some fun in taking whatever peculiar combinations the dice hand out and building a character with them. But in practice, the nature of D&D is such that I'd rather just build on a point-based system.

[Jayabalard]

Statistically speaking, that's wrong. The average of a d4 is not 2, it's 2.5. That's why you see a lot of people do as 2 hp, then 3, then 2, etc.

Likewise, the Barbarian would get 6, then 7, then 6, and so on. That way, you're awarding the true average value.Many people don't carry the .5 from level to level... they just round it down every time. So for them, the average hp does indeed wind up as 2, not 2.5.

[firepup]

I always allow max HP they could get on the first level, makes the party not so easy to squish like a bug. Every level afterwards they have to roll. Of course games like gurps fix this by having you have to burn points on HPs... of course that's also d6 instead of d20. And only four main stats compared to six.

[Jayabalard]

Obviously there are two types of players, those who prefer randomized stats and those who prefer non-randomized. That's basic set theory. (I suppose there's a third group, those who don't care, but that group is pretty small.)Actually, there's quite a bit of overlap between those sets; people who like some randomized stats and not others, as well as the group that you have in parenthesis. The language your using seems to be claiming that these are disjoint sets, and since they're not, that's not "basic set theory"

This is not the way that he's dividing people who play RPGs. While he uses the exaggerated points to show the differences, The division is more "cares about having a powerful character or balanced character (not a weak character)" people vs the "couldn't care less whether their character is horribly weak" people. Dividing people into those groups does not depend on whether you like to generate random stats or use point buy/max hp.

He doesn't even claim that one side is better than the other, just that some people are going to enjoy playing one way, and others will enjoy playing the other.

back to using his types:
"Moreover, we don't like having our character overshadowed by someone else's" ie, cares about how powerful you are in relation to the other characters = Type 1

"Despite his low hit point total, I thoroughly enjoyed playing him throughout the entire campaign." ie, does not care about relative power levels = Type 2

[ranger89]

However, like a lot of people on the randomized side, you are mischaracterizing those of us who like our stats non-random. It's not about "wanting the most powerful character on the table," it's about party balance and being able to play the character you want to play.

Thanks for defining the non-randomized preferring much better. I was trying to characterize the group and definitely feel short. I should have had a second cup of coffee before posting.

But the point of my post was that I can't stand it when a topic turns into a "you're wrong and I'm right" flame war between the two groups that view and play certain aspects of the game very differently and subsquently will never agree. One of the earlier posts in this thread had that vibe so I decided to speak my peace.

[Stephen_E]

I'm a good example of the halfway between the two types mentioned.

I prefer rolled stats. You take the stats and try and make the character you want. Poor stats are often more character defining than the good stats.

I dislike pure rolled hps, because having come up with a melee concept, crap hp rolls don't simply challenge, they can completely destroy your concept.
If the Wizard has more hps than the Barbarian you're a pretty sorry looking Barbarian.

Essentially for me, rolled stats challenges you how you design your PC.
Unmodified rolled hps takes control of your character creation away from you.

Stephen

[Falrin]

Note there is a difference between rolling stats, using point buy and getting to chose between a few different sets.

I prefer the last one:

Rolled stats: Some casters will walk around with 18 in mental stat & Con, Some fighters have to stick with 14 in there physical stats.

The worst for this are the Paladin/Monks/Other MAD-syndrome classes.
Hey, I would like to play a paladin this game:
Rolls stats; 18 16 12 10 10 8 Well, maybe not.... I think I'm going for that druid again.

In point buy casters ALWAYS have 18 in there casting stat and try to get vy with the rest.

If you give sets that Paladin could chose a 16 14 14 13 12 10 for example. He'd still have the needed cha & wis + combat stats.

[MrNexx]

I tend to agree, Falrin; a major weakness of the system, as it currently stands, is lack of MAD on core casters.

http://rpg-crank.livejournal.com/9751.html

[Manave_E_Sulanul]

I tend to give people the choice between 28/32 (campaign specific) Point Buy or Roll, able to re roll one "1". It tends to keep both type of people happy (duh) and is good for several of my players who always want to play a character who suffers from MAD.

[Jarawara]

I like that MAD idea, Mr. Nexx, and I think I'll work to develop it further.

I've also looked into using the Bard as the base for all Wizard classes too, thus reducing the number of spells flashing around.

I'm also seriously considering redefining the recovery rate of spells a Wizard gets - as in, right now, it's number of spells per day, but I'm thinking of making it number of spells *per week*. That would surely make the wizard consider holding some spells in reserve, if it won't be till next Friday that he can cast it again! (Major problems with the idea, though, so it'll take much more thinking.)

*~*

But back to the original topic, I'm firmly in the point-buy camp, plus I give averaged hit points per level, rounded up (and have since the early 90's, even had my own point buy system back then too).

However, part of my reasoning is based on the average level of play in my campaign.

In a typical D&D campaign, if you roll crap for hit points, you have to play smart and roleplay scared, and are subject to being the brunt of all the jokes (Biff the Easily-Bruised Barbarian?)... for maybe a level or two. And that probably translates (in at least some of the games I've seen played) for maybe just a few sessions, then the law of averages brings you back up to par with the rest of the group. I've not seen a 15th level Barbarian to which low hit points has ever been a concern.

But I have a low level campaign with slow level advancement. I mean, *really* slow advancement. I've been running my online game since late 2001, every Saturday, for 10-12(!) hour sessions each time, and we're only half-way through fifth level right now. And I'm seriously considering using the E6 system recently posted on the boards here, effectively capping the levels at 6th.

If the player got a low hp roll early on, then she's looking at *years* of being behind the rest of the group. If she got two bad rolls in a row, then she's gimped for half a decade or more!

So, if you're running fast level advancement, well into the high levels, then rolling for hit points every level is just a minor risk, quickly recovered from. But in slow level advancement, one single roll could devastate your character for the rest of the campaign. No single roll should ever have that much effect, short of the die that kills the character. (Heck, even dying is far easier to recover from than a bad HP roll in leveling.)

That dynamic might be affecting some of the responses here, without them even recognizing it. For those who oppose averaged die rolls, do you typically run high level games, or stay in the low levels? Same question to those who want averaged HP - slow level advancement in your games, or fast?

[Merlin the Tuna]

If you're not going to roll Hit Points why bother rolling for Weapon Damage?Mmm, I love it when they ask easy questions.

Here's your one-word answer: histograms.

Rolling a d6 for HP and a d6 for weapon damage have the same average -- 3.5. The key difference here is that a character is by all odds going to make a crapton more weapon damage rolls over the course of his life. All things considered, the character isn't going to have a statistically large enough sample size to assume that he's got anywhere near average HP. Conversely, a character that's even making attack rolls will make them what, 30 times more often than they roll for HP? If you're going to draw a similarity to maximizing a damage roll, the closer one would be to max the effects of Cure spells, and nobody's advocating that. (Except for those pesky Radiant Servants, but no one likes them anyway.)

This has been reflected well in some situations where damage has been simplified to a certain degree. One of the delve articles (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060929a) mentions this; when a dragon pulls out a breath weapon that deals 18 dice worth of damage, the game gets slowed down, and you're not going to get as much variation out of the roll anyway. As a result, it makes sense to consolidate the brunt of the damage while still leaving a bit of wiggle room for randomness. As the article mentions, it's fun to drop that brick of dice on the table once, but it quickly becomes annoying as you sit around and tally your damage while trying to keep track of which damage dice belong with which attack dice, and similar issues.

Then there's the issue that damage rolls are supposed to help model the hectic, chaotic nature of the battlefield, whereas HP rolls model how well you bulk up in the off-season. The former lends itself well to a randomized abstraction, the latter not so much.

And when specifically referring to weapon damage, there's the matter that ultimately, weapon damage becomes largely insignificant in damage calculations. You've got strength bonuses -- often one and a half times -- power attack bonuses, weapon enhancement bonuses, favored enemy/sneak attack/weapon spec/skirmish/etc. and everything else piling on top. It's why the greatsword is the best weapon early in the game, and the falchion overtakes it later on. HP, on the other hand, draws from your Con bonus, and... that's pretty much it. The rolls always make up a sizeable percentage of your total, unlike damage.

[Matthew]

I think you misunderstand me Merlin_Tuna, I'm not talking about probability spread. I'm saying that if you really want to reduce the effects of probability in your game, don't use Variable Damage either.

[Edit]
Funnily enough, I tally up damage on D6's rather quickly, I have noticed over the years; must be a result of my War Gaming days. I don't find it slows down the game at all.
Also, a note on Hit Points. I have generally found that over the course of six Hit Dice I find it very common for people to roll very close to average. Just anecdotal, I know, but typical of my experience of such things.

[Merlin the Tuna]

I think you misunderstand me Merlin_Tuna, I'm not talking about probability spread. I'm saying that if you really want to reduce the effects of probability in your game, don't use Variable Damage either.*Gasp!* Underscores? You fiend!

At any rate, I covered that to some degree, as well; variable damage makes a certain amount of sense as an abstraction, as it models a dynamic scenario. Leveling up doesn't occur mid-battle; it occurs while you're resting, you're practicing, or whatever. There isn't anyone resisting your leveling up, hence we don't roll to see if BAB, saves, or class features improve. It's something that simply represents logical growth of the character within a world wherein people can rise to such levels of power. Rolled HP breaks that norm, showing erratic growth and implying a degree of resistance where none should be.

Furthermore, I think you're totally missing the overall point. I'm a fan of reducing probability as a factor in rolling for HP, and I'll take point buy or an array over rolling any day. That doesn't mean that I want probability to be a non-factor in my games; if that were the case, I'd be writing a book instead of planning a campaign.

In a story, it doesn't matter that Caramon is everything Sturm is and then some when it comes to usefulness, that Superman is objectively better than Supergirl, and so on and so forth. Writing a story is not an inherently cooperative activity wherein every character needs a time to shine. RPGs, on the other hand, involve people who have vested interests in individual characters.

As a result, it's wise to seek a level of equality; if characters are getting outclassed by their companions, the players tend to get frustrated and stop playing. That's why there's always so much talk of balance, and why people get frustrated when they see something and feel its overpowered -- that sort of thing can throw off a group dynamic. And so I say again, people in stories -- or real life for that matter -- are not created equally. Some come from better families, some have genes that make them smarter, some have genes that make them bigger, and so on. But there's no fun to be had in modeling those probabilities. Rather, leaving it to chance smacks the entire cooperative fantasy gaming idea in the face. No longer are we starting from even ground and building characters as we wish them to be; again we're handed an essential part of what we are and told "Eh, work with it."

Hence, far-reaching probabilities like rolling for stats have no place in my game. I want to see my players try to succeed at crushing the golem, disarming the trap, or resisting the dominate. I don't want to see them try to succeed at being born.

[Arbitrarity]

:vaarsuvius: I'm sorry, you failed our minimal requirements to be born. Therefore, you must die. This selection is for the good of the adventuring population. Seriously. How did you make it this far?

:thog: Awwww...


Don't be mean to those rolling low stats. Support adventuring eugenics.

:smallbiggrin:

[Matthew]

I dunno, I have just never really encountered this problem. It's probably a result of not playing 3e overmuch where Attribute Spreads and Hit Point Totals seem vastly more important as you rapidly progress through levels.

The way I see it, random Hit Points and Attribute Spreads are a fun aspect of the game, I've certainly never had anyone leave because of them. On the other hand there are limits within which I am happy to operate. In the unlikely event that somebody did roll two 1's for their Hit Points I might be inclined to allow a reroll and store up that 1 for later.

Honestly, though, this whole 'balance' aspect has never struck me as a particularly convincing argument. I've never had anyone complain about relative power within the group, but then I do take measures to control some aspects.

[Edit]
Merlin_the_Tuna
Merlin the Tuna

Hmmn...

[Foolosophy]

This is the very reason why my group plays with max hp for players and monsters alike. Takes the bs out of the system.

full hp for everyone really screws over blaster mages and melee damagers and helps making save or suck/die casters become even more powerfull.

[Rare Pink Leech]

When I DM, characters roll their hit points, but if the roll is lower than the average dice roll, then I let them take the average roll. The only real reason for them to roll is to see if they can get better hit points.

[MrNexx]

I'm also seriously considering redefining the recovery rate of spells a Wizard gets - as in, right now, it's number of spells per day, but I'm thinking of making it number of spells *per week*. That would surely make the wizard consider holding some spells in reserve, if it won't be till next Friday that he can cast it again! (Major problems with the idea, though, so it'll take much more thinking.)

Steal from 2nd edition.

Rather than have all spells prepared in an hour, make it 10 minutes/spell level. That way, they can still CAST the same number of spells per day, but refilling a high-level wizard takes time... days, in fact.

[Dausuul]

Steal from 2nd edition.

Rather than have all spells prepared in an hour, make it 10 minutes/spell level. That way, they can still CAST the same number of spells per day, but refilling a high-level wizard takes time... days, in fact.

Alternatively, take away the whole concept of spells and abilities "refreshing" after a fixed amount of time (or make that time really long, like a month). Instead, give everyone a fixed number of "renewals" of their per-day abilities each level. Say, you start at 1st level with 3 renewals, gain +3 at 2nd level, +4 at 3rd, +3 at 4th, +3 at 5th, +4 at 6th, et cetera.

Since you're supposed to have 13.3333 encounters per level, and rest once every 4 encounters, this matches up. Make sure each renewal takes 5 minutes or so, to prevent people using them mid-combat.

Of course, you will need a way to address the issue of all-day buffs. Perhaps allow any spell or ability with a duration of 24 hours or more that's used on a willing target to last until your next renewal, and allow multiple uses of the same spell or ability to stack up to 24 (so three castings of mage armor by an 8th-level wizard would qualify).

[Zincorium]

While I generally like point buy systems, that mostly goes for things where point buy is the character creation system, like BESM, and for things that are a series of realistic tradeoffs (battletech).

Lately I've generally given generous rolling as the first option (4d6, drop lowest, reroll 1's usually) and if that's not cool, I do allow point buy, but almost no one chooses that in practice. Rolling just seems to create a more organic, less extreme character, and players with a bunch of 12-14 scores appear to have a tendency to be happier in the long run over one 18 and a bunch of 8-10s.

As far as hit points, max at each level for everyone. Just seems to make the larger hit dice more meaningful, a barbarian has 8 more than a wizard with the same con when using full dice, whereas in rolling, the differences in average is only 4, not much better than the toughness feat.

The increase in bruiser's hit points is balanced out by the fact that their damage isn't quite as meaningful as the monsters also have more hit points.

As far as I can tell, the downside is that wizards are even more of a 'glass cannon' (high offensive, but very fragile) than usual, but I tend to discourage the power four anyway.

[Dhavaer]

players with a bunch of 12-14 scores appear to have a tendency to be happier in the long run over one 18 and a bunch of 8-10s.

I find it odd that you seem to be using this in support of rolling; this is the reason I vastly prefer point-buy. :smallconfused:

[goat]

I'd say point buy actually supports rolling HP better than rolled stats.

Given the choice, people are unlikely to choose having a low Con. Unless they're trying to completely min/max a character with serious MAD issues, they're generally going to try and stick enough points in there to get a bit of a bonus.

On the other hand, with rolled stats - ESPECIALLY if you enforce order-rolled=order-applied - Con could come out hideously low, making rolling your HP more dangerous.

[UserClone]

I feel strongly that a point-buy system combined with average (beyond 1st level) HP is the way to go. It is what I use when I DM.
The reason is that between the 19-point spread on attack rolls, skill checks, saves, and the (slightly less random) damage rolls (i.e. 4d6 for a Scorching Ray), D&D has a variable enough feel to abstractly similar to the myriad random-chance occurences (i.e. "the sun was in my eyes") that can occur in real combat/courtly intrigue.
Why should a character's base stats be random? Why should (s)he be punished for a lifetime if he rolled a 6 that one time on 4d6? No, I think creation starts with deciding what you want, then statting it out yourself, rather than, "live with what you got." Is dice more realistic? Probably. But if I wanted true realism, I wouldn't be playing in a fantasy RPG.
All that having been said, I do allow my players the choice of rolling stats if they prefer to. but once they have rolled stats (unless they have rolled under the minimums in the section of Core books on Scrapping bad scores) they are stuck with em'. Also, they may choose to roll HP or take average-.5, whichever is higher. I've never had a single complaint.

[Zincorium]

I find it odd that you seem to be using this in support of rolling; this is the reason I vastly prefer point-buy. :smallconfused:

The people in my group don't roll 18's and 10's for each stat, so that's probably why. They generally roll in the 11-16 range with a few deviations. Personally I don't roll well at all and rarely have even a single 16 and two to three stats below 10, and I'm cool with that. What point buy allows that rolling won't is specialization and putting the maximum amount of points in the stats you need and dumping the others completely. With rolling you have a limited range of numbers, which are usually at least a point or two away from the extreme.

I'm not saying that point buy causes misapportioned stat allocation, but people who are going to do so can to a much further extent given greater control. Eating the 3 points per increase and or getting a racial bonus is common from what I've seen.

Lastly, I have the temptation to break the system and I have to constantly struggle to keep from trying to sneak cheese past the DM. This is why I tend to spend most games on the other side of the screen where competing with players is expected.

[Orzel]

My current group does HP based on BAB. Each level that it increases, you get max HP. If not, you roll.

We do 26 point buy but all but 1 point is done for us. We choose with group of numbers we want and place them on the abiliites of our choosing. Then ad 1 to on of the scores.

I think the group are:

1) 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 - Elite
2) 18, 14, 13, 8, 8, 6- For 18 builds
3) 14, 14, 14, 11, 10, 10 - For MAD class
4) 17, 17, 10, 11, 5, 5- Crazy builds

Keep people from playing monks.

[Matthew]

I think that there are many varying expectations of Dungeons & Dragons and that these inform our perception of what is 'good' when it comes to randomisation within the game. Here are some tenative categories, a particular player might be a mixture of several:

1) Character before Dice. This sort of player wants to be able to make a Character he has imagined and wants that Character to mechanically conform to the idea he has.

2) Dice define Character. This kind of player rolls the dice and then uses the results as inspiration to create his Character. He expects the dice to continue to define his Character during the course of play.

3) Fair's fair. This kind of player wants to have a Character equal to those of his fellow players and does not trust the dice to be fair.

4) Story before Game. The game is secondary to the story being told. To this player the death or defeat of the party is a failure on the part of the game, players or Dungeon Master.

5) Game defines Story. To this kind of player the results of the game are the story, regardless of outcome. The potential for failure through mischance is part and parcel of the challenge.

6) Tactical War Game. To this sort of player, Dungeons & Dragons is like a War Game and should be balanced with that in mind. All participants should be able to contribute a similar amount to every challenge at every level and every challenge should be calibrated to be defeatable, given that X number of resources are intelligently expended.

Just some thoughts.

[Mike_G]

I think that there are many varying expectations of Dungeons & Dragons and that these inform our perception of what is 'good' when it comes to randomisation within the game. Here are some tenative categories, a particular player might be a mixture of several:

<stuff>

Just some thoughts.


I think this is a very fair observation. Many of these threads tend to take on the "There's two kinds of gamers. The ones who do it randomly, as God intended, and those filthy scum who use point buy," or the reverse. Oh, it's usually phrased better, like "People who care about the character, and people who aren't necessarily Satanists, but do have a need to be mechanically optimized, and can't stand anyone being more powerful than they are," but the bias is usually very apparent.

This is a nice, nonjudgmental way of looking at differing philosophies of character generation.

I'm a point-buy, average hp man, since I've played with some very unequal parties, (Sorcerers with more hp than the Ranger, PC's with no rolled stat below 16, in a party with a guy whose best stat is a 17) and that can kinda blow, in my opinion, but I don't think either approach is inherently more 'right.'

[CasESenSITItiVE]

there's a large difference between random hit points and random stats. you get to roll your stats once, and therefore are stuck with any unlucky rolls. but you roll hit points every level up, allowing the law of averages to come into effect. i would personally rule max on first level, simply to avoid ending up with 1 hp to start off with, but depending on how long the campaign lasts it should be aproximately average in the end anyway

[Dausuul]

there's a large difference between random hit points and random stats. you get to roll your stats once, and therefore are stuck with any unlucky rolls. but you roll hit points every level up, allowing the law of averages to come into effect. i would personally rule max on first level, simply to avoid ending up with 1 hp to start off with, but depending on how long the campaign lasts it should be aproximately average in the end anyway

Even if you roll a flat 3d6 for each, there are 18 die rolls involved in your stats. If you adventure all the way to level 20, there will be at most 19 die rolls involved in your hit points. Since very few campaigns last anywhere near that long, and players may change characters over the course of the game, hit points are actually more likely to be unusually high or low. The fact that your stat rolls all take place at once while your hit point rolls are spread out across a period of months (or years) doesn't change the probabilities.

[fusama]

Random elements tend to average out over time. For example, a typical player will have many many damage rolls to roll, giving plenty of time for things to average out. On the far other end of the spectrum you have ability scores which are rolled just once (or 6 rolls depending on how you want to count it). The rolls don't average out over time, the potential variance between players is huge. Which is why so many DM's use point buy. HP rolls are in the between those two but I see them on the side of not having enough rolls for the randomness to tend towards average, and thus should be stabilized.

Edit: point already made. teach me to reply before reading all the posts

[Matthew]

You know, strictly speaking, there's nothing preventing you rolling up multiple Characters and choosing the one you want to use...

[Charity]

Only the DM Matthew, I wouldn't allow it as I have met a player or two whom would abuse such an option with a ream of characters.

With DM's whom prefer rolled characters, I have yet to find one that won't allow at least one reroll of manky stats, and even if they do not, all one needs to do is charge every opponant and make sure you've insulted the cleric recently.

[Gundato]

Personally, I am not really a fan of all this "It isn't fair, we need less random stuff"

It is the fault of both the GM and the players. The players tend to think they are playing an MMO and feel the urge to min/max as much as possible. The GM tends to view the party as their enemies. Wizard got 5 1's in a row? Okay, don't send the entire goblin party after him, send one or two, have the rest get "bogged down" by the front line. Remember, YOU are the GM, YOU are the one controlling the enemies.

Personally, when I GM, I basically offer players a choice. They can either point-buy or roll (their choice, but once they pick they are stuck), and they can either do the average HP (rounded down) or roll for HP. People who want to RP can RP. People who insist on "optimizing" can "optimize"
The party tends to not be too unbalanced.

[Dausuul]

Personally, I am not really a fan of all this "It isn't fair, we need less random stuff"

It is the fault of both the GM and the players. The players tend to think they are playing an MMO and feel the urge to min/max as much as possible. The GM tends to view the party as their enemies. Wizard got 5 1's in a row? Okay, don't send the entire goblin party after him, send one or two, have the rest get "bogged down" by the front line. Remember, YOU are the GM, YOU are the one controlling the enemies.

Personally, when I GM, I basically offer players a choice. They can either point-buy or roll (their choice, but once they pick they are stuck), and they can either do the average HP (rounded down) or roll for HP. People who want to RP can RP. People who insist on "optimizing" can "optimize"
The party tends to not be too unbalanced.

Here we go again. Preferring point-buy does NOT make you less of a role-player, it just means you prefer more control and less random imbalance in character generation. In my experience, the worst munchkins consistently prefer stat rolling to point buy because stat rolling offers so much more potential for abuse.

[Skjaldbakka]

An HP system that I think is really neat, being used in a PbP game starting up soon. Take Max HP at first level, and then each level, you roll your HP. If your new total is greater than your old total, than you keep it, otherwise, you retain your former HP total. I have no idea what this would wind up looking like statistically though.

[Dausuul]

An HP system that I think is really neat, being used in a PbP game starting up soon. Take Max HP at first level, and then each level, you roll your HP. If your new total is greater than your old total, than you keep it, otherwise, you retain your former HP total. I have no idea what this would wind up looking like statistically though.

I assume that by "roll your hp" here, you mean roll all your Hit Dice, including the ones for levels previously earned.

Interesting system... it would certainly help alleviate the long-term impact of rolling low on your hit points. Might be a little weird at first, though; if a fighter gets 1s and 2s on their first two levels, then rolls 9s and 10s at fourth level, that character's hit points could shoot up by well over 20 in a single level.

[Matthew]

Only the DM Matthew, I wouldn't allow it as I have met a player or two whom would abuse such an option with a ream of characters.

With DM's whom prefer rolled characters, I have yet to find one that won't allow at least one reroll of manky stats, and even if they do not, all one needs to do is charge every opponant and make sure you've insulted the cleric recently.

Heh, heh. *Takes tongue out of cheek* Actually, here's a twist on that idea. How about if you rolled up multiple Characters and then the DM chose which one you played? That's essentially what happens anyway, since he can veto any Character you bring along...

[ArmorArmadillo]

Heh, heh. *Takes tongue out of cheek* Actually, here's a twist on that idea. How about if you rolled up multiple Characters and then the DM chose which one you played? That's essentially what happens anyway, since he can veto any Character you bring along...

Usually when I begin a game, I want to play a specific character, not one of 3.

[Charity]

Well Matthew, I have toyed with the idea of rolling up all my players characters for them... they give me the character concept and I do the work.
Oddly enough this isn't to avoid folk having uber characters, that's not that hard to do by limiting content a bit (OK loads), but rather because I have a couple of players whom are seriously poor at making effective characters, and I hate seeing them struggle.

I'm glad however that I didn't as one of them is just begining to come good, it's not often you get to see a genuine pigs ear to silk purse transformation, I wouldn't have missed it for the world.


^ I'd just be happy to get an opportunity to play, *grumble moan... the youth of today... don't know their born... cardboard box in middle of road... etc*

[AtomicKitKat]

Here we go again. Preferring point-buy does NOT make you less of a role-player, it just means you prefer more control and less random imbalance in character generation. In my experience, the worst munchkins consistently prefer stat rolling to point buy because stat rolling offers so much more potential for abuse.

To be fair, I don't think he was saying Point-Buy or Stat-Rolling preferences lead to superior/inferior RP. That last line sounded to me like more of a general "If they want X, they can have X. If they want Y, they can have Y", without any real correlation to the paragraph above it.

[mudbunny]

For the next game that I am playing, here is the stats method that I will be using (stolen from from a post by justisaur on rec.games.frp.dnd)

1. stat 1 Roll 4d6v1, re-rolling if total is less than 9 (Stat 1)
2. stat 2 Subtract result from 27 (Stat 2)
3. stat 3 Roll 4d6v1, re-rolling if total is less than 7 (Stat 3)
4. stat 4 Subtract result from 25 (Stat 4)
5. stat 5 Roll 4d6v1, re-rolling if result is less than 5 (Stat 5)
6. stat 6 Subtract result from 23 (Stat 6)
7. Adjust any two stats by +1 or one stat by +2, no stats higher than 18 before racial adjustments

[Sleet]

I think that there are many varying expectations of Dungeons & Dragons and that these inform our perception of what is 'good' when it comes to randomisation within the game...

This is a really good analysis. Different people play the game in different ways - it's best to make sure everyone knows what other people are expecting when they sit down at the table together.

[Gundato]

To be fair, I don't think he was saying Point-Buy or Stat-Rolling preferences lead to superior/inferior RP. That last line sounded to me like more of a general "If they want X, they can have X. If they want Y, they can have Y", without any real correlation to the paragraph above it.

Indeed. Neither is mutually exclusive. I don't force people to roll specific stats, I just let them roll 6 values and set them. Hell, I don't even mind letting them tweak the rolls a bit (just so long as they don't start to act like munchkins). And I have RP'd quite a few point-buy chars.
But, when you get right down to it, the main argument for rolling is "I can RP anything" and the main argument for point-buy is "I don't want any weaknesses that I didn't give to my character". Not always true, and not always so cut and dry (since a lot of obscene builds only work with rolling), but I feel comfortable saying that.

[Jothki]

Hit point gains on level up are essentially a class feature. Those of you that play Rogues, how would you feel if instead of rolling xd6 every time you do a sneak attack, you instead just roll once whenever your sneak attack improves, and add that number to a fixed damage bonus that is consistently applied?

[Matthew]

Usually when I begin a game, I want to play a specific character, not one of 3.

Well then, this idea wouldn't be suitable for you.


Well Matthew, I have toyed with the idea of rolling up all my players characters for them... they give me the character concept and I do the work.
Oddly enough this isn't to avoid folk having uber characters, that's not that hard to do by limiting content a bit (OK loads), but rather because I have a couple of players whom are seriously poor at making effective characters, and I hate seeing them struggle.

I'm glad however that I didn't as one of them is just begining to come good, it's not often you get to see a genuine pigs ear to silk purse transformation, I wouldn't have missed it for the world.

Yeah, many things about D&D seem highly dependent on the group your are playing with. Saying that, I almost always do Character generation during an initial session, so everyone gets to contribute and discuss the impact of the group dynamic. In the other instances, I am either using pregenerated Characters or having a one on one Character generating session. Never unsupervised, that's for sure.


This is a really good analysis. Different people play the game in different ways - it's best to make sure everyone knows what other people are expecting when they sit down at the table together.

Thanks. Yeah, I think expectations are a really big deal for RPGs in general. There's no 'one true way' to play an RPG, but people certainly have their peferences.


Hit point gains on level up are essentially a class feature. Those of you that play Rogues, how would you feel if instead of rolling xd6 every time you do a sneak attack, you instead just roll once whenever your sneak attack improves, and add that number to a fixed damage bonus that is consistently applied?

Sure, but it's a Variable Class Feature. If you want to make it fixed, make it fixed, it's not really a big deal either way.

[Irreverent Fool]

Heck in my D&D games we use the old system! Your first HP roll isn't maxed, but random as well. Fighters with 1 hp are great to watch in play.

A man after my own heart. My first character ever was a human fighter with 18/98 strength and 1 hp.

[Charity]

A man after my own heart. My first character ever was a human fighter with 18/98 strength and 1 hp.

Nooo
That was the worst thing about 1st/2nd Edition, I am not one of these ooo 3rd edition has all the answers types, but 1 HP fighters are a rubbish idea. How the hell did they survive their training? How are they going to survive 1st level?
It's a waste of the players time generating such a fragile character, an orc will kill them with a single blow, heck a bee sting will knock them unconcious.

[Ikkitosen]

Glass-jawed fighters FTL (that's "for the loss" not "faster than light" btw (that's "by the way" not "bite this walnut" fyi (that's "for your information" not "fart, yawn - inhale!", just so that you know))).

[Matthew]

Heh, I don't think I can ever recall having rolled Hit Dice at Level 1 (though I suspect I did the first time I played). I do recall at some point discussing rolling Hit Points anew at the beginning of every Adventure, but I don't recall if that was part of a published version of the game or a proposal in Dragon Magazine.

[Kiero]

Frankly, IMHO, it's not much of game if the dice aren't invovled. Guess it's a good thing we're not at the same gaming table. :smallwink:

So just because they're not involved in chargen and character advancement, it's "no longer a game"? That's absurd.

[Orzel]

Stuff like Lvl 1 Fighters with 1 hp is why my group makes HP based on BAB. If I have full BAB, I wants all my HP. We don't roll for skill points and caster level, why does my barbarian have to suffer from bad rolls?

That would be funny though.

"Sorry, tails. No caster level for you."
"Rolls for skill points. d8 for da rogue. coins for everyone else... Looks like Sami is the only one with more than 1 base skill point."

That would raise the importance of attributes.

[Matthew]

Stuff like Lvl 1 Fighters with 1 hp is why my group makes HP based on BAB. If I have full BAB, I wants all my HP. We don't roll for skill points and caster level, why does my barbarian have to suffer from bad rolls?

That would be funny though.

"Sorry, tails. No caster level for you."
"Rolls for skill points. d8 for da rogue. coins for everyone else... Looks like Sami is the only one with more than 1 base skill point."

That would raise the importance of attributes.

Are we talking 'Averages' here or Full Hit Dice? If Full Hit Dice, do Monsters get the same deal? Averages I can understand, but Full Hit Dice just make no sense to me, as it exaggerates one of the core annoyances of the game to my mind.

[ranger89]

Frankly, IMHO, it's not much of game if the dice aren't invovled.


So just because they're not involved in chargen and character advancement, it's "no longer a game"? That's absurd.

The key phrase in my post was "in my honest opinion". I was simply stating my personal preference. If I am not rolling RAW stats, HP, etc., I personally do not find the game very enjoyable (i.e., "not much of game" since games are supposed to be fun). So how is my personal preference absurd?

Everyone is free to play the game however the like. As long as they and their fellow tablemates are having fun, that's all the really matters.

[Charity]

Crikey I hope its averages, imagine 8th level Barbarian = 136HP, that would utterly nessesitate the use of will save or lose spells on melee characters... or banning clerics... Talking of clerics it would take their entire spell set just to fix up the Barbarian.

[Orzel]

Are we talking 'Averages' here or Full Hit Dice? If Full Hit Dice, do Monsters get the same deal? Averages I can understand, but Full Hit Dice just make no sense to me, as it exaggerates one of the core annoyances of the game to my mind.


This is how we do it
If your BAB increases this level you get 75% of your HP from HD, if not 50% HP. The Toughness feat makes 3 HD of your choice give full HP.

Monsters get the same deal.

[Matthew]

So... rounding up or rounding down?

[Orzel]

Down. What is the "rounding up" you speak of?

d12= 9/6
d10= 7/5
d8= 6/4
d6= 4/3
d4= 3/2

All those toughness (3) get annoying fast.

[Kiero]

The key phrase in my post was "in my honest opinion". I was simply stating my personal preference. If I am not rolling RAW stats, HP, etc., I personally do not find the game very enjoyable (i.e., "not much of game" since games are supposed to be fun). So how is my personal preference absurd?

Everyone is free to play the game however the like. As long as they and their fellow tablemates are having fun, that's all the really matters.

My point is that even if dicerolls are happening normally in play, just not during the downtime activities of chargen and advancement, it suddenly stops being a game?

[Matthew]

Down. What is the "rounding up" you speak of?

d12= 9/6
d10= 7/5
d8= 6/4
d6= 4/3
d4= 3/2

All those toughness (3) get annoying fast.

Seems like Fighters are getting the shaft to me, but I would have to run the numbers to be sure. Still, an interesting system.

[Orzel]

Yeah. No one has any d10 HD. But it's not to bad. A fighter/pally gets 6 more base HP every 4 levels over clerics/druid/monks. Rangers love it (is playing ranger/barb).