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.
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.