why roll hit dice?

[King of Nowhere]

Everyone here who plays with serious attempts at competitivity would never roll stats, because that's random, unfair. the whole development of your pc will be determined by a handful of starting rolls.
And yet, there is an equally unfair factor, which is hit dice. one single roll determines how many hit points you have, and you can't do anything to affect it (you can work on CON modifier, but that's just a different source of hit points) or to fix it if you roll low.
I think it's a leftover from early d&d, which was permeated by the gritty "one single bad roll of the dice may screw you up forever!" philosophy.

wouldn't it be more fair to always grant a fixed number of hit points (full hit dice or average hit dice) per level?

[MisterKaws]

Lot of people do that, though. Pathfinder itself is also ruled like that. It's one of the more common houserules, along with removing death by massive damage.

[HouseRules]

Everyone here who plays with serious attempts at competitive would never roll

Never roll dice. Use average + 0.5 for odd dice quantity and use average for even dice quantity.

[Thurbane]

Maybe because it's because I've been playing since 1E, but I'm used to rolling stats, and HP: although my current group does allow average HP if desired (max HP at 1st, then average after that). A Fighter would get 10, 5, 6, 5, 6 etc.

[heavyfuel]

I allow players to roll to or to take max-2. Yes, I know that max-2 is pretty much always worth it (with d4s being the only exception) and that's the whole point. If you want to bet, you can bet, but I'm not gonna reward players who do so.

[Elricaltovilla]

I've long used Max HP as a houserule. It's never caused any issues in game and it helps cut down on rocket tag crap.

[Shocksrivers]

This is one of the things I often "fight" about with my group. I roll, for reasons much like Thurbane, but one more modern player complains. And I am starting to get why... It does seem much more fair

[MisterKaws]

This is one of the things I often "fight" about with my group. I roll, for reasons much like Thurbane, but one more modern player complains. And I am starting to get why... It does seem much more fair

My trauma with dice for character generation mostly started after my party Druid rolled 4 18s in a row for his stats. You can imagine the rest.

[daremetoidareyo]

I really like the rolling aspect to a character, cuz life is unfair, and its nice to see that modelled.

[JNAProductions]

I really like the rolling aspect to a character, cuz life is unfair, and its nice to see that modelled.

Life is unfair. Why does a game have to be?

That's not to say rolling is inherently bad or anything-if you and your table enjoy it, more power to you. But surely you can understand why some people enjoy equality and fairness in their games, in more aspects than you can get in life.

[Blackhawk748]

I've moved over to a more generous point buy and for HP i do, take the roll or half your HD, whichever is higher. This helps stop the Barbarian from having less HP than the Sorcerer

[Lorddenorstrus]

I've long used Max HP as a houserule. It's never caused any issues in game and it helps cut down on rocket tag crap.

Same, it's never really caused an issue. If anything it's made combat more interesting. Mooks are still oneshot trash, but bosses take awhile to burn down and healing starts to have relative value with high HP. As I also am not a fan of 15 minute adventuring days.. The HP helps them be actual adventurers.

[Biggus]

Everyone here who plays with serious attempts at competitivity would never roll stats, because that's random, unfair. the whole development of your pc will be determined by a handful of starting rolls. (snip)
wouldn't it be more fair to always grant a fixed number of hit points (full hit dice or average hit dice) per level?

I think you've answered your own question. Not everyone regards competitiveness as a high priority: in fact, most people I've played with don't. Most groups I've played with still roll ability scores as the default, although the DM will usually let you reroll if you get truly awful scores. Some people like to gamble, and find it worth sometimes playing a character with fairly poor stats for the chance of playing one with excellent ones another time. Some character concepts can only be fully realised with excellent stats (generally those which are highly MAD) so unless you use a very high point buy, you'd never get the chance to play them.

Personally, I find rolling hit points adds more excitement to levelling up, especially at low levels where it matters more. There's nothing wrong with always using averaged HPs and point buy for stats if you prefer that, but there are lots of reasons why people might choose not to.

[soullos]

I've always allowed players to roll hp or take the average (rounding up fractions), whichever is higher. That way they get the excitement of rolling and if they roll low, they're not screwed, they can take the average instead. Win-win.

For those who mentioned they give max hp, does that further weaken damage spells, healing in combat even less of a thing, and/or pad out combat? I'm curious how the dynamic change.

[Zaq]

Rolling HD is an awful throwback to earlier editions where it was much faster to build a character and the expectation was that life was cheap. No one roll should permanently penalize you like that, so I’m always in favor of just taking the average.

One alternative I’ve seen that might be okay is that the variance is limited to 1d4. So d6 = d4 +2, d8 = d4 + 4, d10 = d4 + 6, and d12 = d4 + 8. There’s still randomness and still a chance to do well, but the floor is way higher and having a bigger HD more or less always matters. Barbarian rolled a 1 on HD? Well, she still gets 9 + CON. Straight up cannot get lower than anyone with less than d10. That seems acceptable to me. Never tried it in actual play, though.

[Blackhawk748]

I've always allowed players to roll hp or take the average (rounding up fractions), whichever is higher. That way they get the excitement of rolling and if they roll low, they're not screwed, they can take the average instead. Win-win.

For those who mentioned they give max hp, does that further weaken damage spells, healing in combat even less of a thing, and/or pad out combat? I'm curious how the dynamic change.

I don't play with Max, but HP values are typicy higher in my games and noone does in combat healing unless it's their "thing". Then it's fine. Really in combat healing is terrible and inflating HP numbers doesn't really make it worse

[ngilop]

I abhor the half +1 or average because it screwed over the classes even more who are already in the poo pit.

the bigger your HD is, the smaller of a percentage of HP you get compared to the smaller guys.

The d4 wizard manages to get 75% max HP per HD while the poor barbarian only get 58% max HP per HD.

But, I do have to admit it fits with the whole GiTP typical anything not a caster is pointless MO.

[Elkad]

Make them roll. And then use the PF retraining rules to improve the bad ones.

[MisterKaws]

I abhor the half +1 or average because it screwed over the classes even more who are already in the poo pit.

the bigger your HD is, the smaller of a percentage of HP you get compared to the smaller guys.

The d4 wizard manages to get 75% max HP per HD while the poor barbarian only get 58% max HP per HD.

But, I do have to admit it fits with the whole GiTP typical anything not a caster is pointless MO.

The average rule gives wizards 2.5 per HD, or 2/3/2/3/2/3, which is 62.5% of the maximum, not 75%. Notice the difference?

[Saintheart]

Life is unfair. Why does a game have to be?

That's not to say rolling is inherently bad or anything-if you and your table enjoy it, more power to you. But surely you can understand why some people enjoy equality and fairness in their games, in more aspects than you can get in life.

I'd like to offer a link to Angry GM's recent article (https://theangrygm.com/dice-beautiful-and-terrible/) on the subject of the role (This Pun Brought To You By Dad Jokes Inc.) of the random dice in a RPG. The heart of the article (the whole thing bears reading) is this:


Dice serve as a reminder of the most terrifying truth humans have to learn to cope with. Again, game design, not life advice. And when they do something like that, well, it’s hard to pretend you’re in control. And it’s hard not to get angry.

The truth of the matter is we don’t want fairness, we want the world to be unfair in our favor. But that’s a very cynical thing to say. And I’ve been angry and bitter enough. So I’ll say this: we don’t want fairness, we want justice. We don’t want the rules to just apply equally to everyone, so everyone is equally screwed some of the time. We want the outcomes we think we deserve and no chance of being screwed if we didn’t do anything to deserve the screwjob. That’s so ingrained that people set up some very complex delusions to convince themselves they deserve things they didn’t earn and then scream that the world is unfair and unjust when they don’t get them. But, game design, not life advice.

And that’s why people get worked up sometimes about some of the weirder aspects of the game that arise from the random elements. For example, the idea that a fighter with a Strength of 18 who rolls a 1 can fail to break down a door but a wizard with a Strength of 8 who rolls a 20 can break down the same door, leaving the fighter to say “well, I loosened it for you.” That’s unfair. The fighter DESERVES to break down the door. He chose to focus all his points on being able to hit things hard instead of being smart enough to rewrite the fundamental laws of reality. At least he should be able to break down a damned door without the smartass wizard showing him up. And, obviously, the game is broken because it allows that outcome.

And maybe the game IS broken. But those situations don’t happen very often. And mature people can laugh them off and keep playing the game. So, they probably aren’t worth fixing. But they do illustrate the problem with dice.

Here’s what this all boils down to: we need unpredictability in games to add tension and excitement. Hidden information isn’t sufficient. We need to know the unpredictability isn’t going to be unfair or biased or unscrupulous. So, we use dice. But we hate the dice. Because they can’t be controlled. They are utterly, heartlessly, mercilessly, cruelly fair. They are random to a fault. No matter how much the odds are in our favor, things can still go wrong. And so, we – the players – do everything in our power to limit the influence of the dice. Or influence the odds. That’s called strategy. And that’s how players earn their victories.

Flank an opponent, get a bonus to attack. Use a crowbar to open that chest, get a bonus. Work together as a team, get a bonus. Use a magical item, get a bonus. Benefit from a blessing, get a bonus. Meanwhile, move to get a clear shot, avoid a penalty. Stand back and prod the chest with a ten-foot pole, hopefully stay out of reach of the trap. Gain temporary hit points, soak up some extra damage. Fight on the defensive, decrease the odds of getting hit. And on it goes. That’s the game. And the GM who complains about players doing that crap – throwing their strengths against obstacles, seeking bonuses, avoiding penalties, and avoiding danger – that GM is actually complaining that the players don’t want to live or die on coin tosses. Heads you win, tails you get to make a new character, no there’s nothing you can do to change the odds. Suck it up. Embrace failure. Failure is when the game gets fun.

What a load of ****.

Players love and hate the dice. They want to roll the dice because the dice are exciting and surprising and impartial. But they are forever fighting the power of the dice. They trust the dice implicitly. More than they trust the GM. Until the moment the dice turn against them. Then, they hate the dice. It’s that interplay again: randomness vs. determinism, cause, and effect vs. pure chance, law vs. chaos.


Thus Angry's working rule that you don't roll dice unless there's a chance of success and a chance of failure and a risk or cost associated with the attempt. None of those things exist when rolling hitpoints.

[Eldariel]

I find the game is short on HP to start with when you start to play the stronger 3rd of options in it, so maxed HP solves a number of issues at once (makes mundanes better at their supposed job by increasing their relative advantage over people with lower HD, makes HP in general higher increasing the tolerance for damage [and mundanes while at it, but damage is easier to optimise than HP so I accept this], and removes the excess randomness]. Though when doing calculations and online I default to ½ for level after level 1. Rolling is something I only did in the olden days (early 3e and previous editions).

[ngilop]

The average rule gives wizards 2.5 per HD, or 2/3/2/3/2/3, which is 62.5% of the maximum, not 75%. Notice the difference?

and in your example the barbarian only gets 54%. Notice the difference? there isn't one, it still favors the caster

[JNAProductions]

and in your example the barbarian only gets 54%. Notice the difference? there isn't one, it still favors the caster

If you want to balance casters and martials, you need to go a damn sight farther than just giving them more HP.

And you want to see a difference?

51 HP versus 135 HP, before Con Mod. That's the difference between a d4 class and a d12 class using average (max at level one).

Sure, the Wizard gets proportionately more of their hit die. But in absolute terms, they're much worse off.

Which is not to say a Wizard is WORSE than a Barbarian-merely that HP isn't an advantage of their's, without dedicating some amount of resources towards it.

[upho]

Everyone here who plays with serious attempts at competitivity would never roll
I think you've answered your own question. Not everyone regards competitiveness as a high priority: in fact, most people I've played with don't.I very much doubt that competitiveness is a major reason why many people prefer to keep die rolls out of the character building process. Instead, the main reasons appear to be the increased freedom, additional strategic layer and more fun challenges made possible by improved predictability. Meaning that a PC's strengths and weaknesses aren't primarily dictated by fluke, but rather by the player's choices, greatly increasing their chances to play the character they actually want to play, and granting them the ability to tailor their PC's mechanical abilities to suit the party and increase the value of teamwork. The GM in turn benefits by being able to design mechanical aspects of challenges with greater precision and with much less risk of boring unintended fluke results.


Personally, I find rolling hit points adds more excitement to levelling up, especially at low levels where it matters more.I can understand the excitement. But I really don't get how you or anyone else can honestly consider the few short moments of excitement added by those rolls to be worth their potentially very negative impact on hours and hours of actual play.


There's nothing wrong with always using averaged HPs and point buy for stats if prefer that, but there are lots of reasons why people might choose not to.With the rare exception of a player who has no idea what kind of character they'd like to play and no time to find inspiration in some other manner, or possibly one who feel compelled to gamble with their chances of having fun for some weird reason, I can't really see rolling having any advantages whatsoever. But I may very well be blinded by prejudice born out of my own subjective preferences rather than more objective reasoning. Perhaps you could open my eyes by giving some examples of the many reasons you were thinking of?


I really like the rolling aspect to a character, cuz life is unfair, and its nice to see that modelled.I'm certain none of the people I play with would consider "fairness" to have much impact on their character generation preferences, if any. And IME if someone wishes to play a PC treated unfairly by fate and have that reflected in their stats or hp, they'd simply adjust those values accordingly.


Same, it's never really caused an issue. If anything it's made combat more interesting. Mooks are still oneshot trash, but bosses take awhile to burn down and healing starts to have relative value with high HP. As I also am not a fan of 15 minute adventuring days.. The HP helps them be actual adventurers.I've rarely played with max hp for PCs, but I run my games with living creatures not dying before their negative hp is below half their max hp, and without death from massive damage. I also tend to redesign monsters prone to cause fluke PC deaths. All much for the very same reasons you and Elric mention.

[MisterKaws]

and in your example the barbarian only gets 54%. Notice the difference? there isn't one, it still favors the caster

JNA already said everything, I guess. The balance between martials and casters stops where Glitterdust starts.

[King of Nowhere]

I think you've answered your own question. Not everyone regards competitiveness as a high priority: in fact, most people I've played with don't. Most groups I've played with still roll ability scores as the default, although the DM will usually let you reroll if you get truly awful scores. Some people like to gamble, and find it worth sometimes playing a character with fairly poor stats for the chance of playing one with excellent ones another time. Some character concepts can only be fully realised with excellent stats (generally those which are highly MAD) so unless you use a very high point buy, you'd never get the chance to play them.

Personally, I find rolling hit points adds more excitement to levelling up, especially at low levels where it matters more. There's nothing wrong with always using averaged HPs and point buy for stats if you prefer that, but there are lots of reasons why people might choose not to.

I like to roll stats. there's excitement about it, because it defines what I could get. if i roll really well, I can try something MAD that I wouldn't be able to do otherwise. And with point buy every character is the same; with rolls, you get some variability. If I roll poorly, it is assumed I'm going to reroll until I get at least decent stats.

But I hate to roll hit dice. that does not influence my build at all, nor it influences my personality or character or way to play. it's simply about having more or less hit points.


I find the game is short on HP to start with when you start to play the stronger 3rd of options in it, so maxed HP solves a number of issues at once (makes mundanes better at their supposed job by increasing their relative advantage over people with lower HD, makes HP in general higher increasing the tolerance for damage [and mundanes while at it, but damage is easier to optimise than HP so I accept this], and removes the excess randomness].

Same opinion here. and while it does make blasting a bit weaker, a strong blaster will still do a lot of harm, plus blasting remains invaluable against large groups.
Although I don't give max hp but I let everyone reroll if the dice score below 50%. I may consider giving full hit dice or similar in the future; current arrangement started because someone rolled a 1 at second level and I let them reroll, and from now eventually I codified a guideline on when rerolling a hit dice is acceptable.

[heavyfuel]

One alternative I’ve seen that might be okay is that the variance is limited to 1d4. So d6 = d4 +2, d8 = d4 + 4, d10 = d4 + 6, and d12 = d4 + 8. There’s still randomness and still a chance to do well, but the floor is way higher and having a bigger HD more or less always matters. Barbarian rolled a 1 on HD? Well, she still gets 9 + CON. Straight up cannot get lower than anyone with less than d10. That seems acceptable to me. Never tried it in actual play, though.

That's a really nice compromise. Might allow this next game.


I abhor the half +1 or average because it screwed over the classes even more who are already in the poo pit.

the bigger your HD is, the smaller of a percentage of HP you get compared to the smaller guys.

The d4 wizard manages to get 75% max HP per HD while the poor barbarian only get 58% max HP per HD.

But, I do have to admit it fits with the whole GiTP typical anything not a caster is pointless MO.

Completely agree. That's why I do max-2 instead of half+1. Give the a rogue a d8 (maybe also the bard) and have fun

[Mordante]

I'm surpised that some of you don't roll you ability stats. I think we normally roll 1x5D6 3x4D6 and 2x3D6

With HD a roll is just a roll. To be honest I just found out in this topic that Con has an influence on your HP. That makes my characters a bit tougher.

[ayvango]

HD rolling is existing to justify luck domain power.

[Eldariel]

and in your example the barbarian only gets 54%. Notice the difference? there isn't one, it still favors the caster

Half is the DMG rule though so it being common makes sense and half rounded up is just mathematically easier to some. That said, caster HP really doesn't matter that much. Though I agree that half+0.5 is generally worse than full.

[Albions_Angel]

I have them roll HP but with a training system in place. Training requires a settlement and a day of down time, but can be done in advance.

Spend nothing, get dice roll.
Spend current level*100 gp, get dice roll, minimum half+ (so a D6 minimum is 4).
Spend current level*200 gp, get 2 dice rolls, take better dice, minimum half+.
Spend current level*400 gp, get max.

Retraining at double cost can happen once (not once per game, but once per level, capped at 1? Does that make sense? So if you did poorly or didnt train going from 5 to 6, you can spend double to train or retrain the roll one time. But if you didnt retrain after level 2, 3, or 4, you cant spend those "rerolls" to reroll your 5 to 6 level multiple times!)

I am also toying with a luck counter. A bit like inspiration. One of the uses would be to spend a point to get minimum half- (so a D6 minimum would be 3). It would have to be declared BEFORE the roll. Luck would have other uses, so spending the gold is still the better option, but if the party is off in the wilderness for months, it becomes viable. But I am still thinking the luck mechanic through so it might not make it in.

I would make the minimum half+ option free, and bump all the others down a step, or even just say its average HP, but everyone I find to play with is a low op player and the games are low op too, and they like rolling everything and having it all randomised so I already have enough trouble telling them my games are point buy only. So I feel I have to give them the option to hoard their money in return for bad rolls I guess.

[heavyfuel]

I'm surpised that some of you don't roll you ability stats. I think we normally roll 1x5D6 3x4D6 and 2x3D6

Point buy is a more fair way. You don't end up with a guy that has three 18s and one guy whose highest stat is a 13


HD rolling is existing to justify luck domain power.

I really don't think that's at all what the designers had in mind when implementing rolling for HD

[ayvango]

I really don't think that's at all what the designers had in mind when implementing rolling for HD
Why then HD rolling starts from 2nd lvl? Because you need 1st level to pick cleric class and domain bonus.

[SirNibbles]

It would be nice if Toughness, instead of adding 3 HP, just maximised all your HD; that way it'd actually be a useful feat. 1d12 (6.5 average) becomes 12 every time, meaning 5.5 hp per HD. 1d10 (5.5 average) becomes 10, meaning the feat gives 4.5 hp per HD. 1d8 gains 3.5, 1d6 gains 2.5, and 1d4 gains 1.5. Basically, the higher the HD, the more HP per HD you get from the feat.

__

As for rolling or not rolling, giving players the option to roll or take the average seems fair to me. Those who want to live on the edge and go for max can try it, while the game designers' idea that it all averages out in the end is still in play.

[heavyfuel]

Why then HD rolling starts from 2nd lvl? Because you need 1st level to pick cleric class and domain bonus.

Yeah... Sure...

[Eddieddi]

So, A solution for this that I've been using with my players since we started was this:
You can Either take half rounded up (Or +1 if your a martial class), Or roll. If you roll, and get under half, you can take half -1.
It lets the players who want to munchkin do that, (since logic says taking half rounded up each time makes the most certain choice), And players who opt to roll still have the excitement of the moment they roll max. It also means you don't end up with players who have just rolled utter crap for health (No wizards with more health than the barbarian!)

As for stats, My group loves rolling for them, But that may be because we roll 3d6, drop the lowest and add 6. With the rule that if your total stat modifier is under 10 you can scrap the entire set and re-roll, if you want. It generally leans towards somewhat more powerful characters, but We've yet to have an issue with a character who has 3 18's and another who's got all 14's.

[Elricaltovilla]

I've always allowed players to roll hp or take the average (rounding up fractions), whichever is higher. That way they get the excitement of rolling and if they roll low, they're not screwed, they can take the average instead. Win-win.

For those who mentioned they give max hp, does that further weaken damage spells, healing in combat even less of a thing, and/or pad out combat? I'm curious how the dynamic change.

I feel like you're asking two different questions here. Because Max HP affects PCs and Enemies differently. Fortunately I use max HP on both sides much of the time so I think I can answer.

Mathematically speaking, max HP does "Nerf" damage dealing, if only because enemies have more HP. At most it results in enemies living for 1 extra round. Bosses get a little tougher, but mooks generally do not.

As for healing, I personally think it buffs healing or at least is neutral. When PCs have more HP they live longer, which gives healers more time to get to their allies that need healing.

What I like about it the most is that it lets me be more free with encounter design. My PCs are tougher, so I can throw more aggressive enemies at them without worrying about rocket tag as much. It also allows me to use lower CR monsters for longer, as they can survive relatively larger hits.

Overall I think it's an improvement because it slows the game down a bit so that my monsters can actually do their one cool thing before they die.

[HouseRules]

Max HP and then add an extra d10 (d11 if odd constitution at level 1) would be identical hit points to 4E.
Then we get all the problems that 4E had: severe inflation in hit points and extra long battles.
To partially solve this, 4E made characters do more damage.
2W for 2× weapon damage
3W for 3× weapon damage
4W for 4× weapon damage

[ericgrau]

I think rolled ability scores makes sense because that random variation of stats makes character generation more interesting. There are rules in place if you roll too low. That plus not whining about not having an 18 and accepting that the average high stat is 15.5. If your high stat is 13 or lower the reroll rules will usually kick in. And many classes can do very well with poor stats or only 1 or 2 good stats.

I do think it makes more sense to use average hit dice than it does average ability scores. It's not like you're going to role play differently or make more interesting build choices because your HP is low or high. You might grab some temp HP or something I guess, but usually I'd try to get good HP regardless of my starting HP. Lots of high ability scores might make me think of doing a MAD class, a high single stat might make me cast more spells with saves, a low one might make me avoid them entirely. Etc.

[HouseRules]

The player plays a role within the constraint of a character: Known as Role-Playing.

A character behaves within the constraint of the player: Known as Personality Projection, the inversion of Role-Playing.

[soullos]

I feel like you're asking two different questions here. Because Max HP affects PCs and Enemies differently. Fortunately I use max HP on both sides much of the time so I think I can answer.

Mathematically speaking, max HP does "Nerf" damage dealing, if only because enemies have more HP. At most it results in enemies living for 1 extra round. Bosses get a little tougher, but mooks generally do not.

As for healing, I personally think it buffs healing or at least is neutral. When PCs have more HP they live longer, which gives healers more time to get to their allies that need healing.

What I like about it the most is that it lets me be more free with encounter design. My PCs are tougher, so I can throw more aggressive enemies at them without worrying about rocket tag as much. It also allows me to use lower CR monsters for longer, as they can survive relatively larger hits.

Overall I think it's an improvement because it slows the game down a bit so that my monsters can actually do their one cool thing before they die.

Thanks for that, that's some pretty good insight. Having more staying power is a good thing overall and as you said, allows for more exciting encounter design. I might do max hp next game for PCs and maybe give important bosses/NPCs max as well. :)

[Jay R]

The problem with this approach is that it has no limit. Why roll for damage? One fighter doing more damage with a sword than another is just as unfair. [And at low levels, it can effect whether or not you kill the goblin, which affects whether or not he kills you.]

Why roll to hit? Why roll saving throws? Why roll skill checks?

The same "fairness" logic applies to every single roll in the game.

Sooner or later you're going to have to accept the fact that some things are random. The sooner you accept it, the less annoying the next roll will be.

[Divine Susuryu]

The problem with this approach is that it has no limit. Why roll for damage? One fighter doing more damage with a sword than another is just as unfair. [And at low levels, it can effect whether or not you kill the goblin, which affects whether or not he kills you.]

Why roll to hit? Why roll saving throws? Why roll skill checks?

The same "fairness" logic applies to every single roll in the game.

Sooner or later you're going to have to accept the fact that some things are random. The sooner you accept it, the less annoying the next roll will be.

Damage, to-hit rolls, saving throws, and skill checks are all different to hit dice. If you roll low on one of those, the ramifications are much shorter term than having lower max HP. A low d20 roll is bad once, a low HD roll is forever. Even with retraining you're just spending WBL to ameliorate failure rather than enhance your character.

[JNAProductions]

The problem with this approach is that it has no limit. Why roll for damage? One fighter doing more damage with a sword than another is just as unfair. [And at low levels, it can effect whether or not you kill the goblin, which affects whether or not he kills you.]

Why roll to hit? Why roll saving throws? Why roll skill checks?

The same "fairness" logic applies to every single roll in the game.

Sooner or later you're going to have to accept the fact that some things are random. The sooner you accept it, the less annoying the next roll will be.

Why even decide what race your character is going to be? You don't get to decide that in real life.

A game is a game-the line might (key word MIGHT-the post above mine gives a good explanation for why it's not) be arbitrary, and it's certainly going to be different person to person. That doesn't mean it's pointless.

[LordBlades]

Point buy is a more fair way. You don't end up with a guy that has three 18s and one guy whose highest stat is a 13





Also, beyond fairness between characters, point buy also helps you play the character you want, instead of the character the dice say you can.

[Elkad]

Also, beyond fairness between characters, point buy also helps you play the character you want, instead of the character the dice say you can.

Except you also remove any chance of being the smart charming fighter unless you gimp his combat stats.

[weckar]

Point buy is a more fair way. You don't end up with a guy that has three 18s and one guy whose highest stat is a 13

Why do people keep talking about fairness? You're all on the same side, aren't you?

[Elricaltovilla]

Except you also remove any chance of being the smart charming fighter unless you gimp his combat stats.

Not really. With the right point but and stat spread you can be a smart, charming fighter by just not gimping your mentals and investing skill points. Especially in Pathfinder, where there are more ways to get increased skill ranks.


Why do people keep talking about fairness? You're all on the same side, aren't you?

Things can be unfair even if you're on the same team. It becomes unfair when one character dominates every scene and no one else gets to enjoy themselves, even if you are all working towards the same goal.

[weckar]

Being present in scenes isn't all about stats, though. In fact, weaker characters with inherent conflict often get to do more.

[ayvango]

The problem with this approach is that it has no limit. Why roll for damage?
It is all matter of frequency. You roll multiple times for damage each encounter. You have plenty of encounters while gaining one level. Law of averages diffuse luck or unluck. You roll for HD once every level and the roll affects your performance through all that level.

[Divine Susuryu]

Being present in scenes isn't all about stats, though. In fact, weaker characters with inherent conflict often get to do more.

Not in the context of low HP they don't. They just get to go down more often. Yay.

[heavyfuel]

Why do people keep talking about fairness? You're all on the same side, aren't you?

Sure we are. That doesn't mean I'd like to play a commoner with 10 in every ability while my friend plays an awesome hero.

If a DM forced a friend to play a character with crap stats because he rolled bad, I'd talk to the DM and do my best to allow my friend a character as good as my own. And I'd expect reciprocity in case I was the one with bad rolls.

[Elkad]

Not really. With the right point but and stat spread you can be a smart, charming fighter by just not gimping your mentals and investing skill points. Especially in Pathfinder, where there are more ways to get increased skill ranks.

So how do you make Schwarzenegger on point buy? Excellent Cha (acting and politics, and by all accounts friendly and likeable), obvious 18str candidate, strongman endurance competitions says his con is high, and not deficient anywhere else? You have to find points to give him a 15+ int, which you aren't doing without lucky dice. Dolph Lundgren is even harder, as his Cha is higher, he probably has a better dex (black belt, etc), but he needs an 18 Int (IQ 160+) in there as well.

[JNAProductions]

High point buy.

[Divine Susuryu]

So how do you make Schwarzenegger on point buy? Excellent Cha (acting and politics, and by all accounts friendly and likeable), obvious 18str candidate, strongman endurance competitions says his con is high, and not deficient anywhere else? You have to find points to give him a 15+ int, which you aren't doing without lucky dice. Dolph Lundgren is even harder, as his Cha is higher, he probably has a better dex (black belt, etc), but he needs an 18 Int (IQ 160+) in there as well.

How do you make a Schwarzenegger on die rolls either? "Get lucky" isn't good enough. Even with insane things like 5d6 reroll 1s drop 2 lowest there's still a chance you won't get the stats you need. But if you use a higher point buy, you can just get what you want each time.

Edit: swordsaged

[LordBlades]

So how do you make Schwarzenegger on point buy? Excellent Cha (acting and politics, and by all accounts friendly and likeable), obvious 18str candidate, strongman endurance competitions says his con is high, and not deficient anywhere else? You have to find points to give him a 15+ int, which you aren't doing without lucky dice. Dolph Lundgren is even harder, as his Cha is higher, he probably has a better dex (black belt, etc), but he needs an 18 Int (IQ 160+) in there as well.

In a game where a character like Schwarzenegger is appropriate, the point buy would be high enough for you to be able to build him. If the point buy is not, then the game was likely aimed at a lower power level.

Sure, you might get some lucky rolls and get the stats you want for Schwarzenegger in a regular game, but in my experience, getting to be the Strong, Tough, Smart and Charismatic guy in a game where everybody else gets to pick only one of those usually leads to a bad experience for both the GM and your fellow players.

[Remuko]

So how do you make Schwarzenegger on point buy? Excellent Cha (acting and politics, and by all accounts friendly and likeable), obvious 18str candidate, strongman endurance competitions says his con is high, and not deficient anywhere else? You have to find points to give him a 15+ int, which you aren't doing without lucky dice. Dolph Lundgren is even harder, as his Cha is higher, he probably has a better dex (black belt, etc), but he needs an 18 Int (IQ 160+) in there as well.

I wouldnt give him high int. Not low but not high. His wis would be moderate as well. Same with Dex. STR CON CHA is all he really needs. Thats doing with a moderate point buy.

[Elkad]

I wouldnt give him high int. Not low but not high. His wis would be moderate as well. Same with Dex. STR CON CHA is all he really needs. Thats doing with a moderate point buy.

Then you haven't duplicated Schwarzenegger. Going by IQ, his intelligence is far above average (in the 97th percentile at least). Dolph Lundgren is in the 99.997 percentile. Bartoli (Wimbledon winner, so decent str and extremely high dex/con) is 99.99986.
The world is full of people who have a low stat of 14 and multiple 18s. Rolling dice gives you the chance to be one occasionally. Very occasionally. But the hope is there.

[Elricaltovilla]

Then you haven't duplicated Schwarzenegger. Going by IQ, his intelligence is far above average (in the 97th percentile at least). Dolph Lundgren is in the 99.997 percentile. Bartoli (Wimbledon winner, so decent str and extremely high dex/con) is 99.99986.
The world is full of people who have a low stat of 14 and multiple 18s. Rolling dice gives you the chance to be one occasionally. Very occasionally. But the hope is there.

You're assuming that everything about a person is determined by their raw stats though, which is very much untrue in D&D and in the real world.

You are discounting these people's classes (athlete, actor, politician, scientist) and the potential class abilities that they may come with, as well as how they invested their skill points. The Governater wasn't born as a 6'2" tall muscle bound politician, that was the culmination of a lifetime of training, discipline and questing that took him to the right places at the right time to become what he is today. Similarly, Dolf Lundgren wasn't born with a master's in chemical engineering.

IQ tests are notoriously finnicky, and I have no idea where you are sourcing your information on these individuals' scores, nor did you state which IQ test they took to receive those scores.

Your argument is based on the assumption that these dynamic, fully alive, nuanced individuals can be entirely replicated by shoving enough points into 6 broad, poorly defined categories of raw ability. I think that's kind of insulting to all the hard work that these people went through to achieve their goals.

I think what you are actually looking at in these cases are a group of high level characters. They are all older, they have all had a lot of life experience, and they are all people who invested a great deal of time and energy into becoming who they are. To me that says "high level" not "high stats."

[upho]

You're assuming that everything about a person is determined by their raw stats though, which is very much untrue in D&D and in the real world.This.

Might also be worth remembering that the further above 130 an IQ score is, the less accurate and reliable it is. IQ tests aren't designed to be accurate past 130 (for good reason, as it quickly becomes really difficult to measure.) Not that it matters if translated to a 3d6 distribution, but anyways.

And speaking of, IQ represents general intelligence and cognitive ability ("g factor"), which can so far only be measured through the various more specific functions that general intelligence have been proven to affect (like pattern recognition, perception, reasoning etc), and several of those functions would be related to Wis rather than Int in D&D. Or perhaps more accurately, Int primarily represents so called "crystallized intelligence" rather than "fluid intelligence" which is independent of knowledge.


IQ tests are notoriously finnicky, and I have no idea where you are sourcing your information on these individuals' scores, nor did you state which IQ test they took to receive those scores.Tiny nitpick, but proper IQ tests (like WAIS-IV) are proven to be highly statistically reliable and IQ score an unusually good predictor of not only a person's ability to deal with complex problems, but also of many other factors in life in general.

[Elricaltovilla]

Tiny nitpick, but proper IQ tests (like WAIS-IV) are proven to be highly statistically reliable and IQ score an unusually good predictor of not only a person's ability to deal with complex problems, but also of many other factors in life in general.

Which is why I asked for sources on those scores. There are many different IQ tests, with wildly different levels of reliability. That Facebook IQ test that says I have a 140 IQ? Probably not accurate.

On top of that IQ scores correlate with a number of other success determining factors such as race, income, and geographic area. I'm sure they've improved since I last studied them in college, but I will always remain skeptical of anyone that holds their IQ score in high regard.

[Divine Susuryu]

I wonder what's more common, rolling HD or rolling stats? I'd guess that rolling stats is more likely, even though that's far more likely to end up with big disparities between characters. Regardless of how crap it might be from a game balance perspective, rolling stats is more "iconic" than rolling HD, so I'd guess it's more likely to be kept.

I also really want to pivot away from anything political and the discussion on IQ is starting to border on there

[Elkad]

I prefer to roll both.

Obviously if I get a choice of pointbuy or rolling, I'd like a roll method that roughly approximates the same buy.

[pabelfly]

I prefer to roll both.

Obviously if I get a choice of pointbuy or rolling, I'd like a roll method that roughly approximates the same buy.

Doesn't the roll have to be better to make it worthwhile to consider over point buy? Point buy lets you precisely allocate stats as you want them, so you're going to pick that over rolling if the equivalent value of the rolls is the same, with your rolled stats less optimally-allocated.

[Mordaedil]

Point buy is a more fair way. You don't end up with a guy that has three 18s and one guy whose highest stat is a 13

There are actually rules for rolling ability scores, you know.

1) If the combined ability modifier amounts to less than 0 (I would make this +1 or even higher honestly), re-roll the entire block.
2) If your highest stat is 13, re-roll the entire block.

PHB, page 8, Rerolling.

[DeTess]

There are actually rules for rolling ability scores, you know.

1) If the combined ability modifier amounts to less than 0 (I would make this +1 or even higher honestly), re-roll the entire block.
2) If your highest stat is 13, re-roll the entire block.

PHB, page 8, Rerolling.

That still means someone might end up with an array consisting of a 14, 2 11s, 2 10s and an 8. Yet no one will argue that this is a particularly useful stat array, even if the rules say you have to keep it.

edit: as for the rolling HD question, I've always used the half-HD option, either rounding up, or alternating between rounding up and down.

[Mordaedil]

That still means someone might end up with an array consisting of a 14, 2 11s, 2 10s and an 8. Yet no one will argue that this is a particularly useful stat array, even if the rules say you have to keep it.

Just saying those are rules that exist that people forget are in print.

We usually add further house rules on top depending on the game we run. My friend allows two blocks and you get to pick the better. Another friend runs a game where you roll normally, but you can pick an automatic 18 and an 8 in place of two stats or just roll all. One of our players got two 18's this way, but it also meant he had to take an 8.

In my last game I just had everyone roll 2d6 + 6. People got pretty good results that way.

[DeTess]

Just saying those are rules that exist that people forget are in print.

We usually add further house rules on top depending on the game we run. My friend allows two blocks and you get to pick the better. Another friend runs a game where you roll normally, but you can pick an automatic 18 and an 8 in place of two stats or just roll all. One of our players got two 18's this way, but it also meant he had to take an 8.

In my last game I just had everyone roll 2d6 + 6. People got pretty good results that way.

And those sound like pretty decent ways to approach it. I'm not dead-set against rolling, but something like 3d6 or even 4d6b3 can lead to some serious variation which will often be to the detriment of someone's fun. The best rolling method I've heard so far makes the players and DM roll up a 6x6 matrix and that they then get to pick any row, column or diagonal. That way no one is left behind by a set of unlucky rolls.

[Elkad]

Doesn't the roll have to be better to make it worthwhile to consider over point buy? Point buy lets you precisely allocate stats as you want them, so you're going to pick that over rolling if the equivalent value of the rolls is the same, with your rolled stats less optimally-allocated.

Not really. As long as it's using some variant of 3d6, (3d6, 4d6b3, etc) I'll take my chances with the dice. It's more fun for me.

Now if the DM comes up with something curve-flattening like 5d4-2 that nearly eliminates my chance of at least one decent roll I'll take the point buy. And probably put every single point into Int, make a Wizard, optimize the hell out of it, and do my best to break stuff (Like the DMs soul)

[heavyfuel]

There are actually rules for rolling ability scores, you know.

1) If the combined ability modifier amounts to less than 0 (I would make this +1 or even higher honestly), re-roll the entire block.
2) If your highest stat is 13, re-roll the entire block.

PHB, page 8, Rerolling.

Yeah, so? You can still get things like 18 10 8 8 8 8 or 14 10 10 10 8 8 and be forbidden from rerolling

These are not nice stats. It's basically the same as saying "good luck playing anything that's not a Druid"

[upho]

Which is why I asked for sources on those scores. There are many different IQ tests, with wildly different levels of reliability.Ah, seems your point was basically the same as mine.

Well, guess my nitpick may at least serve as a decent example of the effects of an insufficient IQ score... :smallredface:


That Facebook IQ test that says I have a 140 IQ? Probably not accurate.I think you may just have coined a new meme, describing something so obviously not trustworthy it's practically a contradiction in terms. "Facebook IQ test". Brilliant.

But I really wouldn't be so quick to view your result in itself as a good indicator of the test being a joke.


On top of that IQ scores correlate with a number of other success determining factors such as race, income, and geographic area. I'm sure they've improved since I last studied them in college, I only know that some environmental factors for some populations have been confirmed to typically have a minor or no correlation (such as socioeconomic status for European populations), while there are still high correlations between other environmental factors and populations (especially the IQ of children and family environment IIRC). Measurable neurological stuff (brain vs body weight, frontal lobe activity etc) and especially physical health have far greater correlation AFAIK.


but I will always remain skeptical of anyone that holds their IQ score in high regard.I'm of exactly the same opinion. Perhaps especially because IQ tests measure something which makes for a pretty darn limited definition of "intelligence" IMO, and because having an IQ above a typically rather low threshold have been shown to not give of much of an advantage in life (and may come with significant disadvantages). Not to mention the many factors which may weaken the correlation between a person's actual abilities and those indicated by their test score, such as the simple fact that you can of course train specifically to score higher at IQ tests.

[Elricaltovilla]

I would not expect anything I say to become a meme anytime soon, but I appreciate the compliment nonetheless.

[Willie the Duck]

Everyone here who plays with serious attempts at competitivity would never roll stats, because that's random, unfair. the whole development of your pc will be determined by a handful of starting rolls.
And yet, there is an equally unfair factor, which is hit dice. one single roll determines how many hit points you have, and you can't do anything to affect it (you can work on CON modifier, but that's just a different source of hit points) or to fix it if you roll low.
I think it's a leftover from early d&d, which was permeated by the gritty "one single bad roll of the dice may screw you up forever!" philosophy.

wouldn't it be more fair to always grant a fixed number of hit points (full hit dice or average hit dice) per level?

There are multiple (sometimes competing) ways of measuring fairness. So long as everyone has the same chances, there is a form of fairness. What rolling introduces is risk. And I'll be straight about it -- rolling for both stats and hit dice is a throwback to an era where that risk was considered part of the fun. In part because a really good result is only possible/meaningful if there is a chance for an ungood result, but also because there's a potential value to taking a poor result and still doing well with it ('succeed despite...'). If either of these things aren't true for your gaming group for any given thing determined randomly (and you've posited that you like random stats, just not hp), then they don't belong in your specific gaming group. There's a huge distance from that and 'Everyone here who plays with serious attempts at competitivity would never roll...' for any or all things listed as randomly generated.

However, what I want to focus on is the "'one single bad roll of the dice may screw you up forever!' philosophy" part. The thing is, there is no forever. You don't play characters forever, and, more importantly, various parts of your character sheet aren't important forever. Are the theoretically 'permanent' rolls put on your character sheet, in general, more important than an individual other type of roll? Usually, but there are exceptions (a particularly fortuitous roll on a treasure table can land a character with a defining magic item, or a save-or-die that happens several levels before the party has raise effects can be as permanent as they come. A really great/poor fireball cast at a really important time can make or break an entire party (while said fireball caster should, after a certain point, be spending more time making sure their hp total is never even touched, much less worry about what the specific number actually is).



Which is why I asked for sources on those scores. There are many different IQ tests, with wildly different levels of reliability. That Facebook IQ test that says I have a 140 IQ? Probably not accurate.

On top of that IQ scores correlate with a number of other success determining factors such as race, income, and geographic area. I'm sure they've improved since I last studied them in college, but I will always remain skeptical of anyone that holds their IQ score in high regard.

And people actually bringing up what their tested IQ is tends to actively lowers my regard for them (if only a little bit). That's what makes those 'what would your stats be, as a D&D character?' threads so unfortunate (:smalltongue:).

[Elricaltovilla]

And people actually bringing up what their tested IQ is tends to actively lowers my regard for them (if only a little bit). That's what makes those 'what would your stats be, as a D&D character?' threads so unfortunate (:smalltongue:).

I'm not sure how to parse this response to what I said. I don't know what my IQ score is, I've never taken one of the reliable tests from a licensed test giver. The Facebook IQ test comment was to illustrate the issues with making an unsourced claim.

I could say I have a 140 IQ, but if that score came from a 20 minute quiz I took on a social media platform, then you would be right to be skeptical of the results.

I am not a fan of those "You in a D&D world" posts either, mostly because I'd be dead without access to modern medicine, so I can't really enjoy them anymore.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm not sure how to parse this response to what I said. I don't know what my IQ score is, I've never taken one of the reliable tests from a licensed test giver. The Facebook IQ test comment was to illustrate the issues with making an unsourced claim.

It was not specific to you, but rather comboeing off your comment, and intended as jest.

[Elkad]

And people actually bringing up what their tested IQ is tends to actively lowers my regard for them (if only a little bit). That's what makes those 'what would your stats be, as a D&D character?' threads so unfortunate (:smalltongue:).

How is that any different than posting benchpress numbers, or marathon time, or being homecoming queen, or the fact they did.. uh, something wisdom-ey... Quit heroin cold turkey? Didn't get pushed by the salesman into paying double for their first car? (I negotiated a good price on my first dealership car, and then let them charge me 27.99% interest...)

What I get on a social media test I don't trust either. Because I have actually gone through them and deliberately got half the questions wrong, and still gotten the maximum score.
But the battery of IQ tests I got in school, including the one where they brought in a testing authority from another district, because they were convinced the teachers were helping me cheat? Yeah, I figure those were roughly accurate. I'd say the same for a MENSA administered test, or other similar ones.

[Willie the Duck]

How is that any different than posting benchpress numbers, or marathon time, or being homecoming queen, or the fact they did.. uh, something wisdom-ey... Quit heroin cold turkey? Didn't get pushed by the salesman into paying double for their first car? (I negotiated a good price on my first dealership car, and then let them charge me 27.99% interest...)

Okay, this is veering highly off topic, but I'll give one good response before dropping it.

I think that if you go through my posting history, you'll find that I've been remarkably consistent: Don't tell us you are a doctor, lawyer, martial arts expert, or certified genius to try to add weight to whatever point upon which your are opining-- we can't verify that you are what you say you are, and people on the internet lie all the time. Instead, point us to verifiable resource -- that you undoubtedly know about because of your doctor/lawyer/etc. background -- that supports your position.

Things that happened in your life, like quitting addictive substances or getting a good car loan, that's anecdotal stories and those are great! I'm quit proud of being 15 years sober, and love to talk about it to people who are actually interested. But that's neither bragging, nor using unverifiable credentials to support a point.


What I get on a social media test I don't trust either. Because I have actually gone through them and deliberately got half the questions wrong, and still gotten the maximum score.
But the battery of IQ tests I got in school, including the one where they brought in a testing authority from another district, because they were convinced the teachers were helping me cheat? Yeah, I figure those were roughly accurate. I'd say the same for a MENSA administered test, or other similar ones.

Yes, you know they are accurate. However, I/we can't differentiate between the you that you know is legitimate, and all the other people who might say so, and are not.

Regardless, this is highly tangential to the discussing of hit point rolls, and I think I laid out my opinion on that pretty thoroughly -- Do whatever works for your group and preferences, yes random HD and Attributes absolutely exist for a risk/reward style of gaming that many no longer prefer (but does still qualify for certain forms of fairness), but the quality of HD rolls as 'permanent' is perhaps given too much weight.

[Elkad]

Okay, this is veering highly off topic, but I'll give one good response before dropping it.

I'm out of this brutal topic-veer after this one as well. But the discussion was on duplicating gifted people via character creation. People with MENSA cards and sports records.
You brought up the "what are my d&d stats" threads thing. And this is the internet. So an IQ claim is just as valid as claiming I run marathons in 2.5 hours, so deserve an 18 con. Proving either of them to you is pretty unlikely. So getting sticky about one of them but not the other seems strange.

[Mordaedil]

Yeah, so? You can still get things like 18 10 8 8 8 8 or 14 10 10 10 8 8 and be forbidden from rerolling

These are not nice stats. It's basically the same as saying "good luck playing anything that's not a Druid"

Can also play a warlock with those stats, but I was only really saying that there were rules for even worse stats than the given ones.

[Divine Susuryu]

It chills me to the bone to imagine there are people who play 3.5 with straight 3d6 stats, assigned in rolling order. What else are these cold-eyed, hard-hearted madmen capable of?

[Shocksrivers]

I see the thread has moved on relentlessly in my absence, but I just had another thought on the rolling vs taking half or full or whatever of hit die. It makes a big difference for the importance of constitution, right? A barbarian using rolling needs more con, or takes a very big gamble with (literally) her life. While if you know you get the full 12, you might skimp on con in favor of dex or even wis, since your basically good with 12+1.

What do you think this does for the value of the constitution modifier for, lets say, wizards, rogues and clerics?

[Prince Gimli]

A happy medium that guarantees solid HP while keeping the variance (and possibly excitement) of rolling I've seen used in local groups for over a decade is what they called the "Epic Rule": you get half your HD's hit points for free, and you roll for the other half.

Personally, I like it :smallsmile:

[Shocksrivers]

A happy medium that guarantees solid HP while keeping the variance (and possibly excitement) of rolling I've seen used in local groups for over a decade is what they called the "Epic Rule": you get half your HD's hit points for free, and you roll for the other half.

Personally, I like it :smallsmile:

Yeah, I was actually considering something along these lines. That also keeps constitution relevant, for those who really want to be sure of getting enough hp!

[Willie the Duck]

I'm out of this brutal topic-veer after this one as well. But the discussion was on duplicating gifted people via character creation. People with MENSA cards and sports records.
You brought up the "what are my d&d stats" threads thing. And this is the internet. So an IQ claim is just as valid as claiming I run marathons in 2.5 hours, so deserve an 18 con. Proving either of them to you is pretty unlikely. So getting sticky about one of them but not the other seems strange.

You are the one making a big deal out of this. You and you alone. I'm not sticky at all. I stated an opinion about unverifiable internet claims. That is the long and short of it. I have stated my position, noted to Elricaltovilla that it was mostly in jest (plus used a the tongue-out smiley in my initial post) and more-than-patiently explained my reasoning. I am done with this.


I see the thread has moved on relentlessly in my absence, but I just had another thought on the rolling vs taking half or full or whatever of hit die. It makes a big difference for the importance of constitution, right? A barbarian using rolling needs more con, or takes a very big gamble with (literally) her life. While if you know you get the full 12, you might skimp on con in favor of dex or even wis, since your basically good with 12+1.

Much like the increased static damage value that 3e has over many editions, the opportunity* to have this great big non-rolled portion of the total will lesson the impact of the variability of the roll. For a 10 con barbarian, rolling a 1 on a level-up could be catastrophic. The likelihood that it is really 1 + 3-or-4 makes it less of a risk. I can see some of the more high-flying stat games (be it alternative rolling methods or simply 're-roll until you get something decent') will have less incentive to take an average instead of rolling compared to a play-what-you-roll or stat-point-buy setup.
*non-warrior types not being capped at +2/HD being a major change that 3e instituted over AD&D (B/X and BECMI had -3-+3 for all classes, but the scale was different as well, making direct comparison harder).

And yes, I would say that if you get your max hp automatically, that barbarian's 2nd-highest stat is going into Dex (or spread more evenly over the whole, if point buy).


What do you think this does for the value of the constitution modifier for, lets say, wizards, rogues and clerics?

It's hard to say. rogues and clerics might put less in Con, or they might keep the same Con and then just be more likely to stay in melee (since they are overall more rugged). Wizards... hmm. I think a (non-gish) wizard will never have so many HP that they won't consider getting hit in the first place to be a fail-state of their strategy. It's an odd dichotomy -- How many hit points are enough for a wizard? More, because 1-2 rounds accidentally next to a big melee opponent will eat through more than you can stack on them. Yet the best way to address the situation is usually not hit-point based, but instead not being put in that position in the first place. Wizards are one of the top-tier classes of the edition, no doubt, yet even the people I game with that swear by them acknowledge that they always feel intensely vulnerable when playing one. I can imagine maxing hit points on the rolls might be taken as "we're doing that? Sweet! Now, about my efforts to score a Con-boosting item..."

[Tom Kalbfus]

Everyone here who plays with serious attempts at competitivity would never roll stats, because that's random, unfair. the whole development of your pc will be determined by a handful of starting rolls.
And yet, there is an equally unfair factor, which is hit dice. one single roll determines how many hit points you have, and you can't do anything to affect it (you can work on CON modifier, but that's just a different source of hit points) or to fix it if you roll low.
I think it's a leftover from early d&d, which was permeated by the gritty "one single bad roll of the dice may screw you up forever!" philosophy.

wouldn't it be more fair to always grant a fixed number of hit points (full hit dice or average hit dice) per level?

Life isn't fair, that is why we roll hit dice! That's my opinion anyway. I heard of the point buy system for ability scores to get a carefully balanced PC, but I'd much rather roll the dice to get those abiility scores, if you get lucky, you get a supurb PC, if you get unlucky, then you get a new challenge in roll playing an underdog, and if you advance a level, you get a chance to improve your character. If your character dies, then you roll a new one. Worrying about your character dying adds tension to the game and suspense, that is what makes in fun, in my humble opinion, and the price of this is sometimes your character dies, and sometimes he doesn't, that is life, and roll playing games simulate this to one degree or another.

[Divine Susuryu]

Life isn't fair, that is why we roll hit dice! ...the price of this is sometimes your character dies, and sometimes he doesn't, that is life, and roll playing games simulate this to one degree or another.

If life already isn't fair, why makes games unfair as well?

[CharonsHelper]

With HD a roll is just a roll. To be honest I just found out in this topic that Con has an influence on your HP. That makes my characters a bit tougher.

Lol - if you didn't realize that CON affected your HP, was it your standard dump stat? I can't imagine it being a high priority for many characters if it didn't boost their HP. That's by far its largest feature. Everything else it gives is secondary.

[Lvl45DM!]

Because rolling a 12 on a d12 for your barbarian feels awesome.

[Shocksrivers]

It's hard to say. rogues and clerics might put less in Con, or they might keep the same Con and then just be more likely to stay in melee (since they are overall more rugged). Wizards... hmm. I think a (non-gish) wizard will never have so many HP that they won't consider getting hit in the first place to be a fail-state of their strategy. It's an odd dichotomy -- How many hit points are enough for a wizard? More, because 1-2 rounds accidentally next to a big melee opponent will eat through more than you can stack on them. Yet the best way to address the situation is usually not hit-point based, but instead not being put in that position in the first place. Wizards are one of the top-tier classes of the edition, no doubt, yet even the people I game with that swear by them acknowledge that they always feel intensely vulnerable when playing one. I can imagine maxing hit points on the rolls might be taken as "we're doing that? Sweet! Now, about my efforts to score a Con-boosting item..."

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Perhaps it would make it easier to play your rogue/cleric/other mid-hd possible melee classes the way you want. If you want to be able to hold your ground, you can put a little more in con, and know that it will have the desired effect. If you want to be ranged/a caster you can care a little less about con, knowing you wont instantly die if you get hit.

For wizards, I think you nailed the issue: you should still just not get hit, if you aren't a gish of course :smallsmile:


Because rolling a 12 on a d12 for your barbarian feels awesome.

Haha, you got me there, that is very true :smallbiggrin:

[heavyfuel]

Worrying about your character dying adds tension to the game and suspense, that is what makes in fun

Unless you resent your character because you wanted to play a bad-ass Kung fu warrior but rolled like crap. In which case you have it killed just so you can reroll. Yeah, sounds like a really fun way to play the game

[LordBlades]

Unless you resent your character because you wanted to play a bad-ass Kung fu warrior but rolled like crap. In which case you have it killed just so you can reroll. Yeah, sounds like a really fun way to play the game

In my experience, not being able to play what you want because the dice say otherwise is one of the least fun ways to play the game.

[heavyfuel]

In my experience, not being able to play what you want because the dice say otherwise is one of the least fun ways to play the game.

Yup, that's my point. The dice shouldn't tell you what you should or shouldn't play.

[Psychoalpha]

In my experience, not being able to play what you want because the dice say otherwise is one of the least fun ways to play the game.

Really, it's about what you can play being determined by your DM, since your DM determines the character creation rules you use.

Our groups generally set a point buy value that the DM decides is the minimum he wants people to have to work with, and then we get to roll (4d6, drop the lowest, repeat 6 times, assign where you want). If your roll ends up falling below the point buy value, buy points until you hit that minimum. If your roll ends up above the point buy value, congratulations.

All the other considerations just seem... silly. You know why the smart, charismatic, strong fighter doesn't dominate our games over characters who are only one of those things? For the same reason the Cleric and Druid don't dominate the game at the expense of the guy playing the Fighter's fun. Is the fairness of me ending up with the point buy value (which is never anemic, mind, but isn't super buff either) while my buddy rolls four 18s even an issue when he wants to play a rogue and I'm going to use my lone 17 to play a Wizard? Is the 'fairness' of stat rolls even remotely consequential in 3.5 when you have Druids and Fighters at the same table in the first place?

Most of these things people present as problems are problems with the DM or other players, and your stats/rolling methods aren't going to fix that. Any DM who says "Hey you rolled all 10s, now you're stuck with it." _is a bad DM_, and when you're all using the same point buy _they are still a bad DM_. If the player at your table with the Str/Dex/Int/Cha 18 Rogue is just constantly making your point buy Fighter player feel useless because he's unwilling to share the spotlight, _that's going to be a problem where everybody uses point buy and he plays a spellcaster_.

Don't get me wrong, if people want to use point buy, more power to them. Some people just don't like random chance, even WITH the idea that you get a decent baseline regardless. But outside of the DM's ability to run for characters with potentially higher ability modifiers, most of the rest of these objections are people problems, not system problems.

And, because it once again bears repeating: Bringing up the fairness of relative ability score rolls when you'll have Fighters and Druids at the same table is just hilariously silly.

[upho]

And, because it once again bears repeating: Bringing up the fairness of relative ability score rolls when you'll have Fighters and Druids at the same table is just hilariously silly.I agree. However, that's assuming a relatively experienced group of players who know how to capitalize on the advantages of the stronger classes. A lot of players don't (with the possible exception of the druid due to its high optimization floor). Not to mention that increasing the probability of different PCs having ability score sets equivalent to wildly different point buy values won't help mitigate the risks of class balance issues, but rather the opposite.

In addition, even a minimum point buy limit on rolling doesn't necessarily protect a player from the dice dictating their viable character options. I mean, using say 4d6b3 and a 28-point buy limit, you could very well get stuck with something like 18, 18, 8, 7, 7, 6, or say 13, 13, 13, 13, 12, 12, either of which will likely rule out several character concepts in most games. And of course, the higher the point buy (and/or minimum roll) limit, the less the risk of these things happening, but also the greater the probability of the rolling having little to no impact.

If balance is a concern, for example in a group of players able to get more out of the stronger classes but not yet able to balance to the table, the GM could simply give extra ability increases at level-ups depending on class choice. So the monk based character concept ends up with the equivalent of say a 70-point buy and the wizard based one say a 30-point buy. That can at least help mitigate the risks of balance issues somewhat.

[King of Nowhere]

In my experience, not being able to play what you want because the dice say otherwise is one of the least fun ways to play the game.

on the other hand, you cannot play a monk or a paladin with point buy, because they suck hard. the only way to make them affordable is to roll many high stats.

so, rolling may rule out some options, but not rolling definitely will rule some options out.

[Elricaltovilla]

on the other hand, you cannot play a monk or a paladin with point buy, because they suck hard. the only way to make them affordable is to roll many high stats.

so, rolling may rule out some options, but not rolling definitely will rule some options out.

No, you can play a monk or a paladin with point buy. I've done it. It's easier in Pathfinder where the classes are both slightly improved, but my first ever 3.5 character was a monk and we used point buy instead of rolling.

[LordBlades]

All the other considerations just seem... silly. You know why the smart, charismatic, strong fighter doesn't dominate our games over characters who are only one of those things? For the same reason the Cleric and Druid don't dominate the game at the expense of the guy playing the Fighter's fun. Is the fairness of me ending up with the point buy value (which is never anemic, mind, but isn't super buff either) while my buddy rolls four 18s even an issue when he wants to play a rogue and I'm going to use my lone 17 to play a Wizard? Is the 'fairness' of stat rolls even remotely consequential in 3.5 when you have Druids and Fighters at the same table in the first place?



In the games I usually play in, we don't really have Druids and Fighters at the same table, because it requires a ton of compromises to make it work, IMO too many and in my experience it affects the fun of at least one of the two players more often than not.

For some of us, having a somewhat balanced party is an important ingredient for a fun game.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Rolling for hit points is dumb. I refuse to play a front line character in a game that does HD rolls unless the rules for it are so ridiculously stacked that you're guaranteed a minimum of half the maximum result anyway (at which point...why not just use fixed amounts?).

I've been in games where the d4 HD Sorc (handy that she only needs one primary stat, so con could be her 2nd best) had more hp than the d12 HD Barbarian (well, his con was one bonus lower than the sorc, but that made the difference) because of the latter's unlucky rolls.
If you're not guaranteed a better hp for your high HD, it's not really a class feature, now is it? Imagine if casters had to leave it up to the random chance of a single die roll to determine if they got all their new spell slots at each level up. You'd think that would be crazy, right?

In my games, I use 3/4 max HD (a 9 on a d12, 7.5 on a d10, etc...) with the first HD still maxed. I'm not opposed to just giving max hp either, but I get concerned that it tilts things in favor of the save or die/suck/lose/fail spells vs. direct damage too much. I also give animal companions, summons, etc... Half max hp instead of 3/4, to give the martial PCs in the party a small advantage over them.


on the other hand, you cannot play a monk or a paladin with point buy, because they suck hard. the only way to make them affordable is to roll many high stats.

so, rolling may rule out some options, but not rolling definitely will rule some options out.
You can play them w/ point buy. You just need a high point buy. 32 PB or more in 3E.

High point buy = overpowered characters is a myth that needs to be smashed, badly. it strictly benefits the weakest classes, and has minimal impact on the strongest ones.
Q: What Int does a wizard start with, pre-racial, in a 36 point buy game?
A: 18

Q: What Int does a wizard start with, pre-racial, in a 20 point buy game?
A: STILL 18

[LordBlades]

on the other hand, you cannot play a monk or a paladin with point buy, because they suck hard. the only way to make them affordable is to roll many high stats.

so, rolling may rule out some options, but not rolling definitely will rule some options out.

Monk's may be difficult, although monk has a ton of other issues beyond being super-MAD, but that's what Unarmed Swordsage is for, and Unarmed Swordsage works just fine in PB.

Paladins however are fully playable IMO (at their expected power level) for all but very low PB. 16 Str 10 Dex 14 Con 8 Int 12 Wis 14 Cha is a decent 28 PB human Paladin for example. Drop Dex to 8 and Wis to 11 (increasing to 12 at level 4) and it's even playable at 25 PB.

[Calthropstu]

I have my players roll. Then they have the options of:

keep it
Have me reroll it for them
or take the average.

Seems to work well.

[D+1]

I think it's a leftover from early d&d, which was permeated by the gritty "one single bad roll of the dice may screw you up forever!" philosophy.It's a leftover from early D&D, which was permeated by the notion that D&D is NOT a competition among the players. At worst it's a competition between the players and the DM - but the DM plays to LOSE... a LOT... because if the DM wants to win - they win. So, the game is designed for the entertainment of everyone , not by establishing winners and losers, but by the DM simply challenging the players and their PC's through a character-driven fictional world.

If one PC has fewer hit points than another as a result of purely randomly low hit point die rolls, THAT is part of the challenge that the player accepted about the game when agreeing to even play. If players/DM's don't want that as part of their challenge, it is simplicity itself to establish minimum die rolls, assume always-average hit point die rolls, or whatever other idea floats your boat.

[upho]

It's a leftover from early D&D, which was permeated by the notion that D&D is NOT a competition among the players. At worst it's a competition between the players and the DM - but the DM plays to LOSE... a LOT... because if the DM wants to win - they win. So, the game is designed for the entertainment of everyone , not by establishing winners and losers, but by the DM simply challenging the players and their PC's through a character-driven fictional world.:smallconfused: First, could you please explain what makes you believe what King of Nowhere said has anything to do with "competition among the players"?

Second, it appears as if you believe that "competition among the players" is a disease which has relatively recently infected the hobby. Is that true? If so, why what makes you think so?

Third, where you not aware that one of the reasons for the rules changes in 3.0 was to deal with the adversary DM style that had been cultivated by previous editions?

Fourth, don't you find it more plausible that what King of Nowhere refers to is an old school game style where "PC life is cheap",relatively speaking? And lets face it, at least if going by published adventures and the rules, there's no discussion that PC life was very cheap and far more dictated by fluke in the earliest editions in comparison to 3.0 and later.

Coincidentally, that also happens to be the primary reason for not rolling hd - namely that character development and RP aspects have been steadily more accommodated for in the rules mechanics. And RP rarely - if ever - benefit from fluke permanent PC deaths.

[Willie the Duck]

:smallconfused: First,
...
Fourth,

Agreed that D +1 seems to be carrying on an argument with points out of alignment with those made by the individual he's quoting. However...


Coincidentally, that also happens to be the primary reason for not rolling hd - namely that character development and RP aspects have been steadily more accommodated for in the rules mechanics. And RP rarely - if ever - benefit from fluke permanent PC deaths.

I would disagree that HD rolling is a particularly egregious component of fluke permanent PC deaths, and that the game overall hasn't necessarily moved to support/accommodate this playstyle (despite wording and of course character creation time-burden seeming to indicate that preferred playstyle is definitely moving in that direction). Two points:

Firstly, If the goal is to reduce fluke deaths, it would seem that the place to remove randomness would be during the 'dungeon-delves' (an outdated term, but the part of the adventuring where risk to life and limb routinely occur) themselves. Lower permanent total HP is something you can plan around, just like lower total rolled attributes or last adventure's loot being particularly underwhelming -- if you end up with a weaker character or team, you just take on less risky challenges. It is a known quantity that you can plan around, whereas how many times your opponents will roll crits upon you (and similar) can't be. If we were looking to make the game less prone to fluke deaths, I would think keeping the HD rolls random and opponent damage rolls (or similar) fixed would be more appropriate.

Secondly, 3e doesn't really be the game that actively (i.e. through rules) accommodates rp and character development by eliminating fluke deaths. 3e is the game that vastly increased the risk of critical hits (by having attacks which crit on 18+, or which do 4x damage on a crit). It's also the game that altered save math such that almost-guaranteed-successful saves no longer be a thing at high levels, while retaining much of the so-called save-or-die/suck effects from previous editions. I mean, I know a large part of it is unforeseen consequences of ramping up LFQW, but there's a reason why the edition is known for 'rocket tag' -- and that's really a recipe for not taking the same character from levels 1-wherever your group considers quitting range. Yes, clearly the effort required for character creation makes it clear that the game wants to be focused more on character development and RP aspects), but I don't find that the ruleset actually works towards that goal. Non-random HD might be a small movement towards the predictability which would favor such, but for the reasons raise in my first point, I wouldn't say this would be my primary argument for de-randomizing HD.

[upho]

Firstly, If the goal is to reduce fluke deaths, it would seem that the place to remove randomness would be during the 'dungeon-delves' (an outdated term, but the part of the adventuring where risk to life and limb routinely occur) themselves.
...
Secondly, 3e doesn't really be the game that actively (i.e. through rules) accommodates rp and character development by eliminating fluke deaths. 3e is the game that vastly increased the risk of critical hits (by having attacks which crit on 18+, or which do 4x damage on a crit).Yes, I didn't say the rule changes had the intended effect overall, I'm simply stating one of the intents behind them. And while not rolling HP may have a relatively minor impact on the number of fluke permanent PC deaths, it undeniably still has an impact.

But perhaps more importantly, there was also a major difference in adventure design if you compare 1e to 3e, where 1e ones were lot more along these lines IME:

Player: "I take the left tunnel."
DM: "Ok, roll up a new character."

*60 minutes later*
Player: "I investigate the statue."
DM: "Ok, roll up a new character."
Player: "Crap. Bob III is so gonna be a thief so I can find those darn traps..."

*30 minutes later*
Player: "Aight, so no traps... I open the door."
DM: "Ha, ha! Demogorgon says: 'Hullo!'"
Player: "WTF? But Bob III is still only first level!"
DM: "Yeah, sucks when you open the wrong door, right? He, he... Ok, roll up a new character."

:smallamused:

[Willie the Duck]

Yes, I didn't say the rule changes had the intended effect overall, I'm simply stating one of the intents behind them. And while not rolling HP may have a relatively minor impact on the number of fluke permanent PC deaths, it undeniably still has an impact.

Okay, we don't fundamentally disagree on this. There is positive correlation there, no doubt. If I were arguing for non-random HD rolls, though, I would still make a different argument to my group.

But perhaps more importantly, there was also a major difference in adventure design if you compare 1e to 3e, where 1e ones were lot more along these lines IME:

Player: "I take the left tunnel."
DM: "Ok, roll up a new character."

*60 minutes later*
Player: "I investigate the statue."
DM: "Ok, roll up a new character."
Player: "Crap. Bob III is so gonna be a thief so I can find those darn traps..."

*30 minutes later*
Player: "Aight, so no traps... I open the door."
DM: "Ha, ha! Demogorgon says: 'Hullo!'"
Player: "WTF? But Bob III is still only first level!"
DM: "Yeah, sucks when you open the wrong door, right? He, he... Ok, roll up a new character."

:smallamused:


When you say "IME," are you being serious? Did you in fact play 1st edition games, and that was your personal experience? (and if so, was it because the DM was 12 and bought into the mythology which was springing up around the game?)
I ask because I did play through that era (I actually mostly played basic/classic until 2e came out, but the distinction is probably unimportant for this conversation). While there was a whole lot of unimportant characters that, if they died got replaced by henchman #3 who was waiting in the wings (or the iconic suspiciously similar cousin who showed up in town looking to take up the mantle of their fallen kinsmen), the game was not a gonzo conga-line of death. Tomb of Horrors and other, well, horror stories are so ironically notable because they were exceptions. Smart players playing smart characters could (and did, yes with a bit of luck as well) live to get past the lethality curve. Unless your DM drank the koolaid on the supposed way to craft your dungeons into utter deathtraps (where your only real choice was which way your character was going to die), the games of that era often were no more (and often less) lethal than they are/were in 3e.

[AnimeTheCat]

It chills me to the bone to imagine there are people who play 3.5 with straight 3d6 stats, assigned in rolling order. What else are these cold-eyed, hard-hearted madmen capable of?

It really depends on what you want to get out of the game and the way that the DM is running the game and the in-game world. I've played with a DM and group that all wanted to focus on the story of their character and came up with very simple, basic backstories for their characters. Biff was something something, grew up on a farm, something something, killed a kobold with a pitchfork, something something, decided to be an adventurer. Bland and basic with maybe just a hint of other things to provide character development, such as "Biff was terrified at the blood gushing from the Kobold he skewered as a youth so he never uses slashing or piercing weapons". Then, roll them 3d6 in order and roll with it. If Biff ended up having an 8 strength and 9 dex with a 11 Con, well Biff still dreamed of adventure and he's gonna persue it (he just may not last too long). Then, it's all about what would biff do? How would Biff handle this situation, and what will Biff's story look like. If Biff died, that was just the end of Biff's story and it is time for a new character to take the scene. That's one way of playing the game, the one where you don't know how or what Biff will do until it's happening. The game shapes and molds your character and you take it in stride. THis can be really fun because it's very similar in essence to Dwarf Fortress (where you guide and decide, but you aren't making all the decisions).

Another way is where you have detailed and elaborate backstories, character plans, and everything planned out to a T. If this were the case, of course 3d6 in order would be bad! It just really really depends on the style of game and how you want to play it. Lots of good memories playing both ways, but I know it's not for everyone.

[Biggus]

I can understand the excitement. But I really don't get how you or anyone else can honestly consider the few short moments of excitement added by those rolls to be worth their potentially very negative impact on hours and hours of actual play.

With the rare exception of a player who has no idea what kind of character they'd like to play and no time to find inspiration in some other manner, or possibly one who feel compelled to gamble with their chances of having fun for some weird reason, I can't really see rolling having any advantages whatsoever. But I may very well be blinded by prejudice born out of my own subjective preferences rather than more objective reasoning. Perhaps you could open my eyes by giving some examples of the many reasons you were thinking of?



Unless you resent your character because you wanted to play a bad-ass Kung fu warrior but rolled like crap. In which case you have it killed just so you can reroll. Yeah, sounds like a really fun way to play the game

This illustrates a fundamental difference in philosophy between the rollers and the point-buyers. I don't come to the table already having decided what I'm going to play, I roll my stats then decide. For me it's part of the challenge, part of the skill of the game, part of the fun. Very occasionally you get a set of stats that are above the reroll threshold but don't allow you to make a useful character of any class, but it's a rarity, not something that happens often enough to affect the overall enjoyment level of the game significantly.

Why do many people prefer poker to chess? Chess is totally, perfectly fair (the only slight advantage being that white goes first, which averages itself out over a series of games) while poker is not. And yet many people consider poker a much more fun, exciting game than chess, in part precisely because of the unpredictability, the randomness, the unfairness.

The more dice rolls you take out of D&D, the more it becomes like a chess game. I can understand that some people prefer that (one of my friends considers chess the best game there is, because it is a game entirely based on skill rather than luck) but to many people reducing the number of dice rolls makes the game more boring, and hence less fun.


Damage, to-hit rolls, saving throws, and skill checks are all different to hit dice. If you roll low on one of those, the ramifications are much shorter term than having lower max HP. A low d20 roll is bad once, a low HD roll is forever.

Well, except that a low roll on a saving throw (or skill check, in certain circumstances) can kill your character instantly, which is also "forever" if you don't have access to resurrection magic.

[LordBlades]

Well, except that a low roll on a saving throw (or skill check, in certain circumstances) can kill your character instantly, which is also "forever" if you don't have access to resurrection magic.

By the time failing a save can instantly kill you, Resurrection magic is also likely available, barring DM Fiat. Reincarnate is a 4th level spell costing 1000 gp, so we'll within the reach of any adventuring party past low level.


In the more general sense however, I think there's a point to be made about how the long term consequences of randomness affect how fun it is perceived to be. There's a reason poker is more popular than Russian roulette. Similarly, excluding cases of addiction, most people who love gambling, gamble only amounts they can afford to lose because, while they do love the thrill of randomness, they're not very keen on having that randomness permanently impact their lives.

Similarly, there's a lot more people who find rolling for attacks, saves etc. fun than people who find rolling for stats or HP fun, because one mainly has an effect in the moment while the other has an effect throughout your character's entire life.

[Elkad]

By the time failing a save can instantly kill you, Resurrection magic is also likely available, barring DM Fiat. Reincarnate is a 4th level spell costing 1000 gp, so we'll within the reach of any adventuring party past low level.

A single CR1 ghoul can wipe a party if they blow some saves. Jump out, attack 3 targets.
A ghoul was my first TPK (way back in 1979).

You may live until the CdG, but failing the save is barely less deadly. Same with Hold Person, Heat Metal, or just failing your Reflex to not fall in the pit trap.

[Yogibear41]

A single CR1 ghoul can wipe a party if they blow some saves. Jump out, attack 3 targets.
A ghoul was my first TPK (way back in 1979).

You may live until the CdG, but failing the save is barely less deadly. Same with Hold Person, Heat Metal, or just failing your Reflex to not fall in the pit trap.


Watch as over half a group of 5th level character almost got wiped out by a few of your standard human skeletons because all they had were piercing/slashing weapons and were rogue types or low level wizard types with crossbows.

Also I have never DM'd but if I ever do I will probably use max HP per Hit Die because why not. Helps fighters/barbarians the most and wizards the least so people who are all about the "tier system" should love it.

[LordBlades]

A single CR1 ghoul can wipe a party if they blow some saves. Jump out, attack 3 targets.
A ghoul was my first TPK (way back in 1979).

You may live until the CdG, but failing the save is barely less deadly. Same with Hold Person, Heat Metal, or just failing your Reflex to not fall in the pit trap.

Ghoul: it has +6 hide , so in order to jump out and attack 3 targets it needs to beat the entire party's spot until they stumble within 5ft. of their hiding place. Otherwise it's just 1 target. Then, ghoul attack is pretty terrible (+2 and +0) and it needs to hit. Then the target needs to fail a DC 12 Fort save. Even if you do fail and the ghoul CDGes you, its average CDG damage is 9, so that's a DC 19 Fort save to live. That's a series of rolls favoring the ghoul, not a single bad roll.

Hold person: unless somebody casts Hold Person while right next to you and you fail the save, you get at least another round (so 2 saves total) until the CDG. Even if the enemies get into position to CDG you, they still need to live through the AOOs of at least some party members.

What about Heat metal though? That's 20 damage over 6 rounds. At level 3 and above you should survive through that without much trouble, especially since combat would be done by round 6 and you can be healed. Power Word Pain is a much deadlier example of this kind of spell, as it's actually a no-save-just-die at level 1.

Fair point about pit (and other save-or-die) traps though.

[Elkad]

Ghoul: it has +6 hide , so in order to jump out and attack 3 targets it needs to beat the entire party's spot until they stumble within 5ft. of their hiding place. Otherwise it's just 1 target. Then, ghoul attack is pretty terrible (+2 and +0) and it needs to hit. Then the target needs to fail a DC 12 Fort save. Even if you do fail and the ghoul CDGes you, its average CDG damage is 9, so that's a DC 19 Fort save to live. That's a series of rolls favoring the ghoul, not a single bad roll.
The party always opens every door, coffin, crate, or closet, rarely checks corners with a mirror, rarely checks the ceiling, and can be counted on to have the polearm-wielding Goliath Barbarian (who didn't write "Dagger" on his character sheet anywhere) be the first to squeeze-crawl into the kobold-sized tunnels if you sprinkle some silver coins where he can see them. Opportunities abound to get that initial strike off.
Unless the target is heavily armored, don't waste time on the CdG if his friends can AoO you, just take your extra +9 (or more if the character had a dex bonus) to hit and full attack. 3 hits does the same 9 damage (+0.5 actually) as the CdG, and forces 3 more saves.


Hold person: unless somebody casts Hold Person while right next to you and you fail the save, you get at least another round (so 2 saves total) until the CDG. Even if the enemies get into position to CDG you, they still need to live through the AOOs of at least some party members.

What about Heat metal though? That's 20 damage over 6 rounds. At level 3 and above you should survive through that without much trouble, especially since combat would be done by round 6 and you can be healed. Power Word Pain is a much deadlier example of this kind of spell, as it's actually a no-save-just-die at level 1.

Fair point about pit (and other save-or-die) traps though.

Once again I have forgotten the Hold Person nerf (resave every round). Oops. I plead 32 years of playing earlier versions 60 hours a month, vs 9 years of 3.5 at about 8 hours a month.

Heat Metal... Ye Olde Standard Goblin Druid 3 (with Fiery Burst for the CL bonus, impressing the other goblins, and burninating halfling villages at-will) casts Heat Metal (DC:14) on the Cleric2 (Will +6) and the Rogue2 (Will -1), and heads for safer parts atop his Riding Wolf. (If he has a 2nd one, pick the fighter as secondary, hit the rogue+fighter on the return lap 6 rounds later)

20 damage won't quite kill the Cleric, but he'll definitely be unconscious (-3) unless he can manage to make a continuing damage Concentration check and heal himself. Rogue would go down as well (-6). Wizard is lucky he isn't wearing metal armor, because it's even odds it kills him.

Not quite save-or-die, but pretty darn close. As an end boss vs a 1st level party, it IS save or die for everyone but the fighter (who will end up about -8, good luck on those Heal checks)

Power Word:Pain is just nasty, (and massively overpowered - it should probably be a 3rd level spell). A 1st level sorc/wizard with a bit of arrow-dodging luck just casts 3 of them and gets 3 kills, even against a 3rd level party.