PDA

View Full Version : D&D 3.x Other Flat HP instead of Hit-Dice; what do you use?



Deepbluediver
2017-08-22, 10:52 PM
To cut to the chase- I've decided I don't like using dice to determine how much HP you get every level. I'm not sure when it got started exactly but IMO it's the bad kind of random- the kind that you have minimal control of and can permanently screw-over your character just because chance. In D&D most characters with a small HD don't really care because they have ways to mitigate it, but the larger the HD the larger a variance you get as well, and a few poor rolls could really leave your front-line character hurting.

The last time I raised this point I had a whole thread where we discussed various options and eventually I settled on one I could live with that basically split each HD in half and made the new minimum increase the old average. So a d4 became d2+2, a d12 becaome d6+6, etc. And it worked out better for a while, but in the end the fundamental problem is still there. I've never played 4th or 5th edition, but from a quick glance at the SRD it would seem they are still using HD in 5th edition, although WotC seems to have eliminated the d4 at least. Obviously there's an element of chance in most aspects of tabletop-games, but why this? Why do we use a die to determine improvements in HP but not things like skill points, saves, spells, or other class abilities?
[/rantover]


I'd love to swap out the HD for something like a flat increase, where every level you get a fixed amount of HP plus whatever your bonus is from Con, sort of like you do for skill points. I've been rolling this problem around in my head for while and I haven't yet been able to come up with an alternate distribution I really like. So I'm hoping that the forum can talk through some stuff with me and hearing other people's feedback will help me settle on something. Feel free to mention any other systems from other games you've used and what you liked or didn't like or what problems and benefits they had.


Option 1: 3/4/5/6/7 (or 2/3/4/5/6 or 4/5/6/7/8 etc)
This version basically just replaces the HD with the rounded-up average. Or rounded down or rounded-up-a-lot. Whatever.
I guess it seems fair, mostly, but on an emotional level I just can't bring myself to like it for some reason. Somehow saying that a class gets 7 HP per level instead of 6 doesn't feel as dramatic as going from a d10 to d12, even though objectively it's the same thing.
Also, I'm not sure about balance. 2 HP per level doesn't seem like enough, but 4 might be to many. Obviously in RAW 3.5 most casters don't care about HP because they have enough tricks to avoid ever getting hit, but ideally I'd have a system where the lowest HP level would not want to be in melee combat, about could survive long enough to avoid the only two outcomes being "never take a hit" and "die instantly".
Also also, there's a certain amount of relativity going on here. In the 2/3/4/5/6 example a Barbarian might be getting 3 times as many HP each level as a wizard, while in the 4/5/6/7/8 version he's only getting twice as much. Sure he's getting more HP overall, but does the relatively smaller difference matter to players? Maybe it's just me who thinks about things that way.

Option 2: 4/6/8/10 (or 3/5/7/9, etc)
But there's only 4 numbers there! Yes, let me explain.
One thing I was considering was this- combining the d10 and d12 classes into one HD set, essentially giving them the same HP each level. This is because as you go up in HD size the relative difference becomes less. A d4 is for casters and a d6 is for rogue-likes, but all d10 and d12s are pretty much frontline melee combatants. What's the benefit of making some of them more beefy than others?
On average (not including Con bonus) the increase of going from a d4 to a d6 means you get 40% more HP. However going from a d10 to a d12 means you only get about an 18% increase in average HP. So is it really necessary to have 5 different levels of HP? Can we make do with 4?

Option 3: 3/5/7/10 or 4/7/10 or 4/6/8/10/12 or something else entirely.
I've got a 4/7/10 dynamic going on with some of my other homebrew that I really like, for skill points and spells (technically 0/4/7/10 in that latter case) and I really like it because I feel it gives a good breakdown between minimal, moderate, and maximum competence. I'm just not sure it finely divides things enough for HP.
Everything else that's on the board seems to have a mix of benefits and problems problems like odd progression or balance issues. But I'm open to whatever people have to suggest.



So let me know what you think or what you prefer or how your GM does it.

Temotei
2017-08-22, 11:11 PM
For most of our games, our group rolls for HP, and if the number is below half the die size, you get half the die size (d4=2, d6=3, d8=4, d10=5, d12=6).

The splitting one seems to do something similar but higher-power.

I think HP per level should partially be determined by how hardcore the campaign is. If you're going for high-powered, just give everyone their maximum HP, for example.

nikkoli
2017-08-22, 11:24 PM
All of us around my table just use the max hp per level so barbarians get 12, fighters 10 wizards would get 4 etc, then you add Con and such.
Edit: like Temotei said high powered games can use full HD. Also 4e your up is con score + a flat number at 1 then a flat increase each level. And the size of the flat numbers is derived from your class.

Knitifine
2017-08-23, 12:15 AM
Flat HP has always been used in my games. Rolling HP is for games where your character doesn't matter, which I'm not interested in.

There are two metrics I've used and they seem to work more or less the same.

Method 1 (Fair)
Level 1: Max Dice
Levels Beyond 1: 1/2 Dice (including the .5, which is only counted when ticking down HP once it produces a whole number).

Method 2 (Generous)
Level 1: Max Dice
Level Beyond 1: 1/2 Dice, Rounded Down + 1.

Deepbluediver
2017-08-23, 12:48 AM
I think HP per level should partially be determined by how hardcore the campaign is. If you're going for high-powered, just give everyone their maximum HP, for example.
I guess you could do that, but then you could do the same thing for nearly every resources: spell slots, abilities, skill points, gold, etc. I think I'd rather have characters with a fixed power-level, and let GMs adjust the setting around them as necessary.



All of us around my table just use the max hp per level so barbarians get 12, fighters 10 wizards would get 4 etc, then you add Con and such.
How does that work out for you? I know melee-types tend to stack Con more than wizards, which probably increases the difference, but do people not feel TO overpowered? Like, is there still an element of danger?


Edit: like Temotei said high powered games can use full HD. Also 4e your up is con score + a flat number at 1 then a flat increase each level. And the size of the flat numbers is derived from your class.
I know people complained about a lot of things in 4e, but was the HP system one of them?



Flat HP has always been used. Rolling HP is for games where your character doesn't matter, which I'm not interested in.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that- would you care to elaborate?


Method 2 (Generous)
Level 1: Max Dice
Level Beyond 1: 1/2 Dice, Rounded Down + 1.
It seems like you'd get the same thing just by saying "1/2 Dice, rounded up".

Jormengand
2017-08-23, 07:25 AM
After maximised first-level hit points, I just use the average, rounding down holistically rather than individually (so a wizard would get 4, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, etcetera).

Knitifine
2017-08-23, 08:06 AM
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that- would you care to elaborate?Quick edit, seems I was in a hurry when I wrote my post.

"Flat HP has always been used in my games. Rolling HP is for games where your character doesn't matter, which I'm not interested in."

nikkoli
2017-08-23, 08:20 AM
I guess you could do that, but then you could do the same thing for nearly every resources: spell slots, abilities, skill points, gold, etc. I think I'd rather have characters with a fixed power-level, and let GMs adjust the setting around them as necessary.



How does that work out for you? I know melee-types tend to stack Con more than wizards, which probably increases the difference, but do people not feel TO overpowered? Like, is there still an element of danger?


I know people complained about a lot of things in 4e, but was the HP system one of them?


In our games monsters that aren't mooks also get max hp, we also build mountains of monsters that are a little more, viable, than some of the monster manual critters. I love 4e. I started with it and then moved back to 3.P because that's what all my friends like. I know a good portion of what people didn't like is that all the classes have a more video game/mmorpg kind of power style, I've never seen anyone directly say the hp system is bad.

Zombimode
2017-08-23, 08:28 AM
I'd love to swap out the HD for something like a flat increase, where every level you get a fixed amount of HP plus whatever your bonus is from Con, sort of like you do for skill points. I've been rolling this problem around in my head for while and I haven't yet been able to come up with an alternate distribution I really like.

Just for the record, there is a "correct" way of doing this, meaning how it is done for Monsters and NPCs: your hit Point total is the rounded sum of your hit dice averages + HD*con mod + misc Bonus. PCs and other "elite" NPCs/Monsters maximize the first HD.

Deepbluediver
2017-08-23, 01:13 PM
A lot of people mentioned the "Max HP at first level" which is something else I don't think I really like. I realize that this rule is in place because 1st level characters tend to be unusually squishy and not every wants to run a high-mortality universe, but I feel like it adds a temptation to dip a high HD character for your first level. Sort of like the "4 times skills points" encourages someone to dip a level of rogue. I know that not a lot of people do this because most melee types have either a d10 or 12 anyway, and for casters their spell levels are a lot more valuable than HP, but it still bugs me on an emotional level.

In my own homebrewed setting part of this is dealt with by just starting off every adult humanoid at 3 HD; adolescents have 2 HD and children have 1 HD. (babies have 1 HP and an AC of "its dead, you monster") Starting everyone off at 3rd level solves a LOT of issues, such as accidental 1-hit kills, spell-slots per day, and a dearth of interesting encounters for 1st level heroes, but I also recognize not everyone wants to build their world that way.

Anyway, I dealt with some of these issues for skill points by doing away with the "4 times" modifier at first level and instead giving everyone a fixed amount at character creation. So making a 1st level Rogue would get 10+8+Int skill points, and a 1st level Fighter would get 10+2+Int skill points. Then at second level the Rogue just gets 8+Int and the Fighter gets 2+Int and away we go.

Now I'm considering doing something similar with HP, saying that at first level everyone gets their normal level-up amount plus a stat bonus. Sound workable? What numbers do you think sound good?



After maximised first-level hit points, I just use the average, rounding down holistically rather than individually (so a wizard would get 4, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, etcetera).
That's workable, I guess, I'm just not sure I like the ever-changing pattern. One of the things I'm going for here is simplicity.


"Flat HP has always been used in my games. Rolling HP is for games where your character doesn't matter, which I'm not interested in."
I'm still not exactly sure what you mean by "games where your character doesn't matter". When I was in college we did a lot of one-shots because getting people to have consistent schedules was harder than making an effective monk using core-only materials. So I had a lot of throwaway characters that I never really got emotionally invested in- is that what you're talking about?


In our games monsters that aren't mooks also get max hp, we also build mountains of monsters that are a little more, viable, than some of the monster manual critters. I love 4e. I started with it and then moved back to 3.P because that's what all my friends like. I know a good portion of what people didn't like is that all the classes have a more video game/mmorpg kind of power style, I've never seen anyone directly say the hp system is bad.
Ok, cool, glad to hear it. Frankly I think that videogames can be a great source of inspiration, you just have to know where to draw the line of what things they do well and what thing tabletop games do well, and not to make work well in one system what is ideally suited to the other.

For example- "per encounter" abilities. Great in theory, but IMO they feel so inorganic. I'd much rather put in the effort to balance things around "3 times per day" or "once ever 1d6 minutes" or whatever and let players and GMs take it from there.


Just for the record, there is a "correct" way of doing this, meaning how it is done for Monsters and NPCs: your hit Point total is the rounded sum of your hit dice averages + HD*con mod + misc Bonus. PCs and other "elite" NPCs/Monsters maximize the first HD.
That sounds like it would end up at much the same place as my "flat HP plus con per level, plus a static 1st level bonus". Maybe I'll homebrew a feat called "Monster Toughness" that boosts the bonus creatures get at first level, so I can how low-level encounters that go for more than 1 round without needing to have multiple targets or something powerful enough that it risks 1-shotting the PCs.

Jormengand
2017-08-23, 01:23 PM
A lot of people mentioned the "Max HP at first level" which is something else I don't think I really like. I realize that this rule is in place because 1st level characters tend to be unusually squishy and not every wants to run a high-mortality universe, but I feel like it adds a temptation to dip a high HD character for your first level. Sort of like the "4 times skills points" encourages someone to dip a level of rogue. I know that not a lot of people do this because most melee types have either a d10 or 12 anyway, and for casters their spell levels are a lot more valuable than HP, but it still bugs me on an emotional level.

You could just give everyone a flat bonus for existing, such as a nice round 5 or 10. Similarly, you could change to pathfinder's method for class skills where instead of having the separate cost and cap, you just get a +3 bonus to all trained class skills and no *4 skill points at level 1.


That's workable, I guess, I'm just not sure I like the ever-changing pattern. One of the things I'm going for here is simplicity.

I mean, you won't break anything by always rounding up or always rounding down. I would recommend down, so that it disincentivises people from choosing classes with small HD like wizard and sorcerer (because they suffer more from rounding down as a fraction of their total HP), if it weren't for the fact that it incentivises people to pick cleric and druid over rogue so YMMV.

Deepbluediver
2017-08-23, 02:10 PM
You could just give everyone a flat bonus for existing, such as a nice round 5 or 10.
Yeah, that's kind of what I'm leaning towards now.


I mean, you won't break anything by always rounding up or always rounding down. I would recommend down, so that it disincentivises people from choosing classes with small HD like wizard and sorcerer (because they suffer more from rounding down as a fraction of their total HP), if it weren't for the fact that it incentivises people to pick cleric and druid over rogue so YMMV.
That's a good point- I'll keep it in mind, thank you.



One thing that I haven't seen any feedback for yet is what people think of reducing the number of different levels (tiers? strata? whatever) for HD/HP-per-level. Does have 4 (or even 3) separate divisions allow you to fine-tune things enough? One benefit about have 5 different HD is that if you need to slightly adjust a character's power up or down you can do so- reducing the numbers and increasing the space between each one makes that harder, but I don't know if that's relevant enough to make a difference.
Does anyone think we should go in the opposite direction and have MORE different amounts of HP-per-level?