Who here does rolled HP?

[Witty Username]

So, I tend to do average (or for my current game max roll) hp for PCs. so far it has worked out decently, but I am always curious how other tables do things and how they end up working. I have very little experience with rolled HP, how it effects the game or the advantages/disadvantages of it.

What do you people do?
Do you roll for HP? If so, are there things you particularly like about it?

[MaxWilson]

I allow rolled HP but have zero desire to use it myself, for the same reason (in part) that I have no desire to use point buy--I'll take whatever option has the higher expected value, thank you very much, especially in a case where it's just a bunch of uninteresting numbers (as opposed to stuff that affects roleplay, like your Int or Strength scores).

[Zhorn]

I always roll, and accept my 1's with dignity.
I let my players do either rolls or take an average.

I know the average values given will give you a higher expected hp in the longrun, but I enjoy the randomness and risk of rolling.

[Rukelnikov]

We almost always use rolled HP and always roll for stats. I personally like the variance, and the inability to plan beforehand.

[Lunali]

We use rolled hp, rerolling 1s. This gives exactly the same average as fixed hp while maintaining the variance. Fixed hp is typically also available as an option, but it doesn't get used.

[Gurgeh]

We use rolled hp, rerolling 1s. This gives exactly the same average as fixed hp while maintaining the variance.
This averages very slightly less than the 5e rules for fixed HP (average die roll rounded up), but it is very close. I might use this in future games!

d6: ~3.91 vs 4
d8: ~4.93 vs 5
d10: 5.95 vs 6
d12: ~6.96 vs 7

I always roll for stats and HP. When playing an edition that doesn't have automatic max HP at level 1, I usually houserule that in anyway to make death a tiny bit less likely at first level.

[Rukelnikov]

This averages very slightly less than the 5e rules for fixed HP (average die roll rounded up), but it is very close. I might use this in future games!

d6: ~3.91 vs 4
d8: ~4.93 vs 5
d10: 5.95 vs 6
d12: ~6.96 vs 7

I always roll for stats and HP. When playing an edition that doesn't have automatic max HP at level 1, I usually houserule that in anyway to make death a tiny bit less likely at first level.

Hmm, IDK how you got to those numbers

You are considering rerolling 1s a single time, but lunali is likely meaning infinitely rerolling ones, which is the same average 5e uses.

Its simple to show, lets take a d6, rerolling ones, is the same as eliminating that possibility, so now we can get 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6.

So the average will be the total sum of the possibilities divided by the number of possibilities:

2+3+4+5+6 = 20

20/5 = 4

The easy formula to add up all the numbers between 1 and n is n(n+1)/2

For 8 it would be (8*9)/2 = 9*4 = 36

we substract 1, since its no longer a possibility, 35/7 = 5

It works.

[ff7hero]

I always take the "average." Even if the "average" were less advantageous when compared to rolling (either always rounding down or alternating round down/up), I'd still take the average. I don't want to gamble on something that could permanently and severely impede my character, even if the odds are low.

Expected values are nice when you're performing an action a lot, but not so much when it's something you're doing 19 times max.

[Angelalex242]

Depending on the game...sometimes, I allow 'always maxed' HP.

With maxed player HP, I can be significantly less careful with their health and well being, because there's an extra layer of padding.

[Xihirli]

I used to play with a guy who rolled every time, and it was five years before I ever saw him roll less than a 7 on a new hit die.

[Gurgeh]

Hmm, IDK how you got to those numbers
You are considering rerolling 1s a single time, but lunali is likely meaning infinitely rerolling ones, which is the same average 5e uses.
Ah, I see - so effectively they're lowering the die size and adding 1 (i.e., 1d5+1 instead of 1d6, 1d7+1 instead of 1d8, etc.)
Generally when I see "reroll" I assume that the new result sticks.

[JonBeowulf]

Current game I'm playing, we roll. If we don't exceed the average, we take the average.

Games I run, player choice... but live or die by your choice.

[Sandeman]

We always use average HPs and point buy abilities.
We simply see no advantage in rolling for these things.

[Morty]

I see absolutely no purpose in rolling HP myself and I've never done that in any D&D game I've played, regardless of the edition. I have done it in Dark Heresy and I wished I hadn't in both instances - I rolled poorly and my characters ended up less durable in combat for no particular reason. The benefits of letting dice decide who has more or less health elude me.

[Osuniev]

I used to do : you can roll for HP or take the average ROUNDED DOWN. It meant rolling was better but sometimed risky.

Now, I play with what I think is a great houserule (stole it from someone online) : every level, you reroll all Hit Dice. If the total is under your maxHP, you keep the previous one.

[diplomancer]

Another Interesting possibility is roll, but if you take less than the average you take the rounded down average; so if your hit die is a d8 you can either take 5 or roll with a floor of 4. This gives an average of 5.25. A boost, but not a too significant one. The higher your hit die, the better it is (which is a slight boost to martials, opposed to the current rule, where the lower your hit die is, the better it is to take the average)

[nickl_2000]

We have the option to choose at our table. Personally, I always just use the standard since we level between sessions. It's easier to just not have to worry about fair rolls and all that junk.

[KorvinStarmast]

So, I tend to do average (or for my current game max roll) hp for PCs. so far it has worked out decently, but I am always curious how other tables do things and how they end up working. I have very little experience with rolled HP, how it effects the game or the advantages/disadvantages of it.

What do you people do?
Do you roll for HP? If so, are there things you particularly like about it?
I have 3 players who prefer to roll HP. I insist that they record, on their character sheet, what the roll was for each level. Why? We often have different people missing for a session and people sub for one another; less confusion that way.

Me? KISS Principle. I go for the average.

[The Big Bear]

I prefer everyone at my table take the average. It seems like 90% of the time that people like rolling for HP they also use a houserule that mitigates poor rolls (reroll 1's, take average if you roll below it, etc), which to me makes rolling pointless.

[da newt]

My current Dm uses rolled hp but reroll all 1s. I prefer average. It's 6 of 1, half dozen of the other.

[Person_Man]

I’ve done both, and in every edition of D&D. My personal experience is that using a fixed number of hit points per level makes the game better for everyone, and any mention of rolling for hit points should be stripped entirely from the next edition of the game. And I feel the same way about ability scores. (Though I prefer to give players enough points that they can have 3ish high abilities, so that MAD classes are more viable).

If you have one player who is lucky on a handful of dice rolls, and another player who is unlucky on them, Then for the entire game its basically impossible for the DM to run fun and balanced encounters without regularly knocking out or killing the weak player. It also effects how often they have to rest, how powerful traps and environmental hazards can be, etc.

[Imbalance]

Average hasn't been a consideration, but I suppose I would allow it. My players roll, and since they're all new I have them reroll 1's. I don't have odds-crunching white room analysts in this group, fussing about statistics and optimal numbers. They just want to play.

[nickl_2000]

Average hasn't been a consideration, but I suppose I would allow it. My players roll, and since they're all new I have them reroll 1's. I don't have odds-crunching white room analysts in this group, fussing about statistics and optimal numbers. They just want to play.

Oddly enough, the "I just want to play" mentality is one of the reason I don't worry about it. I just set D&D Beyond to do it for me for average HP changes when I level and I don't need to think about it again.

[Catullus64]

I used to play with a guy who rolled every time, and it was five years before I ever saw him roll less than a 7 on a new hit die.

See, that's me, which is why I always roll. No sense squandering my innate good luck.

I like rolling and encouraging others to roll, because I appreciate it as part of game history, and part of the collective leveling-up ritual. We all feel the pain of a 1 together, and jointly celebrate the 6s, 8s, 10s, 12s.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Me? KISS Principle. I go for the average.

I thought the KISS Principle involved Rock'in and Rolling during the evening hours, and shindig-ing it up during the day? 🃏

The only interesting aspect about rolling for HP, is it does provide another variable that a player might need to account for. That really lucky Wizard with a high Constitution score can be close to,(or exceed), the same HP total as an unlucky Barbarian.

My personal opinion, is while this might open up Roleplaying opportunities; it feels really good, to be a high Hit Point Wizard, it is aggravating to be a Barbarian with less than average Hit Points.

I let the group decide if they want to use the rolling for HP option, but my caveat to rolling for HP is: if one rolls less than average HP, one takes average HP.

I prefer rolling stats to Point Buy, as Point Buy characters are a bit too 'cookie cutter' like for my tastes; but I have no objection about removing rolling for HP from the game.

Life already has enough stressors as is, no need to add an artifact to the game that adds one more to the player's burdens.

[Sigreid]

Used to roll. Now we use the average, just because we play via Fantasy Grounds and it does that automatically and it's an extra step to change it. Overall it may impact a particular level, but over a long enough string of levelling it balances out. Unless you're using loaded dice. :D

[ProsecutorGodot]

We tend to play above curve on balance so we roll, and any rolls below average are rounded to average.

In our current campaign, everyone still has average hit points at level 4.

[Kardwill]

Games I run, player choice... but live or die by your choice.

I do the same for my current 5e campaign. I ask each player if they want to take the average, or roll the dice. But once the dice has rolled, the result stands.

[Trask]

I like rolling my HP, taking the good rolls with the bad. I've played so many D&D characters at this point that rolling HP is just another way to keep it interesting. Its fun to have that character you just roll amazing HP on, and its groan-inducing to have the one you roll poorly on, but either way its a memorable experience.

[JNAProductions]

I used to do : you can roll for HP or take the average ROUNDED DOWN. It meant rolling was better but sometimed risky.

Now, I play with what I think is a great houserule (stole it from someone online) : every level, you reroll all Hit Dice. If the total is under your maxHP, you keep the previous one.

I think that's the actual rules for Stars Without Number. And presumably Worlds Without Number too, but I've not read through that one yet.

For me, I don't roll or have my players roll. A couple of poor rolls can really mess up durability, and it's nothing you can really influence or adds to the fun.

[Gignere]

Tried it once in a 3.5 game, never doing it again. Had a Paladin player in the group who wanted to play a tank, prepared to play a tank, psyched to play a tank and after 3 1s had less hps than my 1d4 wizard that I rolled max on 3 levels.

So ended up the player stopped being interested and just got himself killed so he can start a new character.

[truemane]

I do max. I've always done max since my earliest pre-1E days, when you were supposed to roll even 1st level and when part of the game's underlying assumptions that was you grind through an endless series of characters of random competence until you got lucky with one and it stuck around.

It just always seemed strange to me to base a class's balance and role (in part) on the number of HP they had, and then determine HP by a flat probability curve, so higher Hit Dice only made a consistent difference over time.

And targeting HP is often the least interesting way to threaten a PC anyway.

[Cryptwright]

We have done roll and if its higher than average you keep it, if its lower you take average.

I prefer to just do average so I can recreate my character sheet at any given moment and dont have to track what all the rolls were.

[BoutsofInsanity]

I use the following rolling rules

Roll Down - When you gain new hit points for leveling you may roll your hit dice like normal. However, if you don't like your roll you may instead drop one dice lower and roll that one continuing as low as you would like.

You may at any point take 1/2 of your normal dice roll.


A Fighter rolls his new hit points 1d10 and gets a 4. So he elects to roll a D8 instead. He rolls that and get's a 5. He drops down one more time and rolls a D6 and again gets a 4. At this point he elects to take 5, half of his original d10 hit dice + any additional modifiers.

[JumboWheat01]

I always go for standard HP on my characters, along with the Standard Array for ability points. For something that important, I'd rather not leave it up to chance. Could I get better? Sure, but I can also get worse just as easily, if not more so. While you may only need 1 HP to function properly, having a good buffer to that 1 HP line is never a bad thing. Heck, I almost NEVER make a character without at least a +2 Con mod, just to be extra safe!

[Tanarii]

I do max. I've always done max since my earliest pre-1E days, when you were supposed to roll even 1st level and when part of the game's underlying assumptions that was you grind through an endless series of characters of random competence until you got lucky with one and it stuck around.
I mean, being hit was almost always death for any 1st level character. Even max meant maybe you could take 2 hits. If you wanted one group of characters to all survive 1st level, it meant not getting into combat or DM fiat.

[KorvinStarmast]

I thought the KISS Principle involved Rock'in and Rolling during the evening hours, and shindig-ing it up during the day? It also means drinking cold gin with Beth. :smallsmile:

[Zevox]

I always take the average, for the same reason I prefer point buy to rolled stats. I hate my stats being determined by random chance. The dice have more than enough influence over the game without that, thanks.

Only one player in my group has ever done rolling for hp, our current Kobold Druid. He spent the first few levels very squishy as a result, since he has both low Con (initially a 9, he bumped it to 10 at level 4) and rolled poorly those first few levels; but it worked out since he's a strictly ranged caster type and our group has plenty of healing for when he does get attacked. Better rolls in the last few levels has lead to him averaging out to a more decent hp amount, albeit obviously still not that good due to that Con score.

[Rukelnikov]

Tried it once in a 3.5 game, never doing it again. Had a Paladin player in the group who wanted to play a tank, prepared to play a tank, psyched to play a tank and after 3 1s had less hps than my 1d4 wizard that I rolled max on 3 levels.

So ended up the player stopped being interested and just got himself killed so he can start a new character.

Well... That's a sign of playing numbers instead of characters tbh.

If you like your character you are not gonna have him commit suicide to have his brother with more HP join at the next tavern. And if you don't like your PC because he has low HP, then again, you are playing numbers.

[Gignere]

Well... That's a sign of playing numbers instead of characters tbh.

If you like your character you are not gonna have him commit suicide to have his brother with more HP join at the next tavern. And if you don't like your PC because he has low HP, then again, you are playing numbers.

I disagree with this take, the guy wanted to play a tank, can’t play a tank with low hps. What play a ranged Paladin with out the spells to support nor even a good dex?

Tell me oh roleplaying god how do you roleplaying a tank with hps lower than a wizard. At the end of the day numbers matter, that’s why I don’t roll hps anymore. I wish this wasn’t the case but you’re not playing D&D if you think numbers don’t matter.

[Cryptwright]

I always take the average, for the same reason I prefer point buy to rolled stats. I hate my stats being determined by random chance. The dice have more than enough influence over the game without that, thanks.

I agree with this plus i can recreate the character if I lose the sheet easier :)

[Rukelnikov]

I disagree with this take, the guy wanted to play a tank, can’t play a tank with low hps. What play a ranged Paladin with out the spells to support nor even a good dex?

Tell me oh roleplaying god how do you roleplaying a tank with hps lower than a wizard. At the end of the day numbers matter, that’s why I don’t roll hps anymore. I wish this wasn’t the case but you’re not playing D&D if you think numbers don’t matter.

By the time he had rolled HP multiple times, he should have played the character for many sessions, assuming 3 per level, that's around 10 sessions, usually by that time, the characters are more than "a tank" or "a ranged DPS", they are "Rhistel, the elven bladesinger that wants to join the Knights in Silver" or "Clancy the ranger with the bear that has a crush on the royal huntswoman". If they are still the paladin with low hp, then I stand by my statement, its a wargame, and they are playing numbers.

Note, there's nothing wrong with playing like that. But its a different kind of game altogether.

[Gignere]

By the time he had rolled HP multiple times, he should have played the character for many sessions, assuming 3 per level, that's around 10 sessions, usually by that time, the characters are more than "a tank" or "a ranged DPS", they are "Rhistel, the elven bladesinger that wants to join the Knights in Silver" or "Clancy the ranger with the bear that has a crush on the royal huntswoman". If they are still the paladin with low hp, then I stand by my statement, its a wargame, and they are playing numbers.

Note, there's nothing wrong with playing like that. But its a different kind of game altogether.

Yeah he played his Paladin always charging into battle and kept dropping within a couple of rounds. That’s no fun, can’t roleplay if you’re unconscious. It was terrible the guy had no fun couldn’t play his character and this was 3.5 if you weren’t a rogue/bard or wizard you had no skills. But be all high and mighty about your amazing RP skills carrying low rolls, until level 20 without dying.

[Rukelnikov]

Yeah he played his Paladin always charging into battle and kept dropping within a couple of rounds. That’s no fun, can’t roleplay if you’re unconscious. It was terrible the guy had no fun couldn’t play his character and this was 3.5 if you weren’t a rogue/bard or wizard you had no skills. But be all high and mighty about your amazing RP skills carrying low rolls, until level 20 without dying.

It's not about having amazing RP skills or whatever, and dying is part of the game btw. I don't think I've ever seen any DnD character reach mid 10s without having died at least once. I don't know what that has to do with anything though.

[JNAProductions]

It's not about having amazing RP skills or whatever, and dying is part of the game btw. I don't think I've ever seen any DnD character reach mid 10s without having died at least once. I don't know what that has to do with anything though.

The player, from what the other poster has said, wanted to be a tank. As-in, they wanted to be the defensive bulwark against the enemy, the rock that breaks the tide, the anvil that others hammer upon. And, if they had used static HP, they would've been able to fulfil the role much better than with rolled HP, both from the perspective of the foes and from the perspective of fellow PCs.

While they COULD continue playing the PC with crap HP (which they have no real way to mitigate) it doesn't fit what they wanted to do. The mechanic of random HP (and probably other stuff too, since 3.5 isn't very tank-friendly) dumpstered their concept because of dice flukes.

[False God]

I let my players take average or roll, and they get to live with their choice.

[Rukelnikov]

The player, from what the other poster has said, wanted to be a tank. As-in, they wanted to be the defensive bulwark against the enemy, the rock that breaks the tide, the anvil that others hammer upon. And, if they had used static HP, they would've been able to fulfil the role much better than with rolled HP, both from the perspective of the foes and from the perspective of fellow PCs.

While they COULD continue playing the PC with crap HP (which they have no real way to mitigate) it doesn't fit what they wanted to do. The mechanic of random HP (and probably other stuff too, since 3.5 isn't very tank-friendly) dumpstered their concept because of dice flukes.

I understand that, after leveling up a couple times, the HP rolls got in the way of the concept the player wanted to play. I still think the mentality of "This PC has bad rolls, so I'll just have him suicide to roll another" is one of playing numbers not characters.

[Witty Username]

I understand that, after leveling up a couple times, the HP rolls got in the way of the concept the player wanted to play. I still think the mentality of "This PC has bad rolls, so I'll just have him suicide to roll another" is one of playing numbers not characters.

Sounds like rolled HP has a similar pitfall to rolled abilities in that area. If you want to die hard on a concept your rolls not matching will hurt but if you're wants are less specific it is more of a non-issue.

[JNAProductions]

Sounds like rolled HP has a similar pitfall to rolled abilities in that area. If you want to die hard on a concept your rolls not matching will hurt but if you're wants are less specific it is more of a non-issue.

And neither method is wrong. There's nothing wrong with having a concept in mind (provided said concept is appropriate for the game, of course) and wanting to play that, or having no idea and letting dice dictate more of your decisions.

Edit: I will note, though, that rolling for HP seems less fun than rolling for ability scores.

If you roll 18 12 10 10 10 8, in any order, you get someone who's EXCEPTIONAL in one area, but average in the rest.
If you roll 16 14 14 13 12 11, in any order, you get someone who's across the board good, but isn't as good as the focused specialist.

Whereas HP... It's just a buffer between you and death. There are differences in characterization between the two sets above. What's the difference between a Wizard with 30 HP and one with 35 HP?

[Rukelnikov]

And neither method is wrong. There's nothing wrong with having a concept in mind (provided said concept is appropriate for the game, of course) and wanting to play that, or having no idea and letting dice dictate more of your decisions.

And I said so above, I don't think its wrong, but its a different kind of game approach.


Edit: I will note, though, that rolling for HP seems less fun than rolling for ability scores.

If you roll 18 12 10 10 10 8, in any order, you get someone who's EXCEPTIONAL in one area, but average in the rest.
If you roll 16 14 14 13 12 11, in any order, you get someone who's across the board good, but isn't as good as the focused specialist.

Whereas HP... It's just a buffer between you and death. There are differences in characterization between the two sets above. What's the difference between a Wizard with 30 HP and one with 35 HP?

I agree, stats are far more important defining traits of a character. On its own, I don't think there's any characterization derived from HP, probably cause its pretty hard to find a way to conceptualize HP that makes sense.

And, again, I'm have nothing against flat HP, if anything, I personally dislike the idea of dropping a PC because it had bad rolls, to me it's no different than saying "my PC lost an eye, I'll just jump into a volcano and roll a 2-eyed one".


Sounds like rolled HP has a similar pitfall to rolled abilities in that area. If you want to die hard on a concept your rolls not matching will hurt but if you're wants are less specific it is more of a non-issue.

Yeah, its like having bad stat rolls. You can play any class with low stats in 5e, higher stats are required to multiclass though, so some concepts/archetypes may become unavailable due to particularly bad rolls, or if not from creation, deciding to MC into something you don't have the stats for.

[Witty Username]

And neither method is wrong. There's nothing wrong with having a concept in mind (provided said concept is appropriate for the game, of course) and wanting to play that, or having no idea and letting dice dictate more of your decisions.

Yep, pretty much my stance on rolled abilities vs point by. It hasn't been necessary in my recent games but I have used a player can roll then choose the rolls or point by for abilities rule, my play group more or less stopped taking point by after a bit, either by high rolls or stoked creativity.

[jas61292]

As a player, I always roll. I find it more fun that way.

As a DM, I don't really care, though I do generally ask that my players choose one method when making their character and stick with it. I don't personally like the idea of building up a decent base of hit points by taking the average and then only gambling when it means less at higher levels. Nor, alternatively do I like leaving things to luck but then giving up on it if it does not immediately go your way. Take your pick and stick with it. One member of my group will always do the averages, because he is quite risk averse, but the others are more like me and will typically pick rolling.

[Tanarii]

And, again, I'm have nothing against flat HP, if anything, I personally dislike the idea of dropping a PC because it had bad rolls, to me it's no different than saying "my PC lost an eye, I'll just jump into a volcano and roll a 2-eyed one".
It's very different to want to drop a 1st level character because of bad stat rolls, and be forced to drop a melee character, who is expected to have higher than other character hit points built into the class, after 4-5 sessions of playing them.

What's weird to me is that the fighting man class didn't get d6+1 (or d6+2 when they became d10 HD class) hit points per level right from the get go. At least then your "larger sized" hit die would have had something built in to prevent the issue from being as bad.

[Witty Username]

It's very different to want to drop a 1st level character because of bad stat rolls, and be forced to drop a melee character, who is expected to have higher than other character hit points built into the class, after 4-5 sessions of playing them.

What's weird to me is that the fighting man class didn't get d6+1 (or d6+2 when they became d10 HD class) hit points per level right from the get go. At least then your "larger sized" hit die would have had something built in to prevent the issue from being as bad.

Didn't the fighting man get more bonus hp from con than other characters in the old days? Maybe it was thought to be enough at the time.
I do agree it is odd when a perk of a class can amount to nothing though.

[Rukelnikov]

It's very different to want to drop a 1st level character because of bad stat rolls, and be forced to drop a melee character, who is expected to have higher than other character hit points built into the class, after 4-5 sessions of playing them.

I agree completely, at least in my case at 1st level most PCs are not yet characters per se, they are expendable.


Didn't the fighting man get more bonus hp from con than other characters in the old days? Maybe it was thought to be enough at the time.
I do agree it is odd when a perk of a class can amount to nothing though.

Kinda. At least in 2e, non-combatants were limited to +2 bonus from a 16 con, if they had more than 16 Con they would still have a +2. Full thac0 classes would get a +3 from 17, and +4 from 18. However, there was no built in stat increasing mechanic, so outside of DM generosity with stat tomes or something, you were stuck with what you had at chargen.

[Pex]

I used to like it way back when until a game where the 2E wizard had one more max hit point than my 2E paladin. It was then I understood rolling a 1 for hit points hurts you far more than rolling max helps. One game I'm in rolls for hit points. The player rolls, the DM rolls, take the higher value. I don't like rolling for hit points, but if it is to be done I do prefer rolling with advantage, so to speak. In past games a DM would allow reroll of 1s, but you kept 2s. I know barbarians really want to roll that 12 yet they'll take 10 or 11, but only getting 7 for average works fine.

The downside to average hit points is the increase in value Constitution is for the bonus hit points. It makes a difference. It's a price I'm willing to pay.

[Xervous]

The matter of jumping in a volcano to get a new character suggests the player is respecting the rules. The failure point is not questioning whether the rules are worthy of respect if they are obviously getting in the way of fun and not otherwise integral to a complex machine.

Is the class a promise of a baseline, or a possibility of what you might or might not get to enjoy over the course of a campaign? Answer that question and things clear up, but please answer it session 0 and get the message out to everyone.

[Morty]

Sounds like rolled HP has a similar pitfall to rolled abilities in that area. If you want to die hard on a concept your rolls not matching will hurt but if you're wants are less specific it is more of a non-issue.

I see it as even worse than rolled stats, because in this context, the "concept" is basically any fighter, paladin or barbarian. Part of these classes' job is to go in first and take hits - for fighters and barbarians, this is one of two things they'll ever do well. So rolling poorly for HP makes them worse at it for no good reason.

[Nikushimi]

Wow, I'm actually and honestly surprised at the amount of people who don't roll for HP. Even more so for those who use MAX every time....that's absurd. Especially at higher levels where you can easily get into the 100s with a decent CON. At least for those classes with a D8 and above. Just a simple +2 in con can net you 100hp by 10th level. Taking any kind of feats that increase your HP like Tough makes a stupidly high HP/tanky character....

I always thought it was common to roll for HP after level 1. Since it is the main way, and the alternative is to take the value shown on the classes page.
---

Our group tends to go max at 1st level, and then roll for every level afterwards. Sure, it allows for some low rolls, but that's just how it goes sometimes, and it prevents characters from have ridiculously high HP unless they roll really well, and in which case then they earned it.

However, we also have a rule that we can ask the DM to roll if we roll too low and decide we want to chance it with the DM. In one group you have to take what the DM rolls no matter what, in another we ask the player which one to take. Typically the latter makes sure we have at least average or higher though. So that's nice.

And lately, at least when I DM, I allow rerolling of 1's, but ONLY once. If you roll a 1 again then you get that 1. You can of course ask me to roll instead. I tend to make sure it's average. Like a 3 or above on a d6. 4 or above on a d8. etc. Cause it does suck to have too low of HP, but lately I've been reconsidering.
---

All that being said, it depends on the DM. That's how we do our HP rolls.
---

But yeah, it is kind of surprising that people go with automatic MAX HP. Average I can understand. I have thought of using that myself, but we tend to roll. Makes the players feel better and more "in control" of their character.

So that's how the groups I'm in, and how I when I DM, do it.

[JNAProductions]

Our group tends to go max at 1st level, and then roll for every level afterwards. Sure, it allows for some low rolls, but that's just how it goes sometimes, and it prevents characters from have ridiculously high HP unless they roll really well, and in which case then they earned it.

You say "They earned it."

But they literally just rolled higher than someone else. Either they were lucky or cheating, and either way, how does that make it earned?

[Gignere]

You say "They earned it."

But they literally just rolled higher than someone else. Either they were lucky or cheating, and either way, how does that make it earned?

They earned it like Bill Gate’s kids earned their billions.

[Morty]

Seems to me like if you want to "earn" more HP, you take levels in a class that has more of them and invest in constitution. A situation where a rogue has as many HP as a fighter or more, because they got lucky, strikes me as the opposite of earning anything.

[Gignere]

Seems to me like if you want to "earn" more HP, you take levels in a class that has more of them and invest in constitution. A situation where a rogue has as many HP as a fighter or more, because they got lucky, strikes me as the opposite of earning anything.

My 3.5 gnome illusionist having more hps than the Paladin was earned through hard work and exceptional roleplaying that obviously impacted how the dice rolled on level up.

[Person_Man]

Didn't the fighting man get more bonus hp from con than other characters in the old days? Maybe it was thought to be enough at the time.
I do agree it is odd when a perk of a class can amount to nothing though.

Correct. In 2nd Ed (and some versions of other earlier editions) only Warrior classes could get more than +2 bonus hit points per level from high Con. They also had a number of other built it numerical bonuses that would take way too long to explain here, and magic had built in weaknesses (spell failure, armor limitations, spell resistance), and magic using characters generally sucked horribly at low levels.

[Zevox]

Our group tends to go max at 1st level, and then roll for every level afterwards. Sure, it allows for some low rolls, but that's just how it goes sometimes, and it prevents characters from have ridiculously high HP unless they roll really well, and in which case then they earned it.
Yeah, have to agree with others about the "they earned it" part of this, that's a very strange viewpoint to me. I look at that and see it as something they lucked into, which is not the same as earned in any way.


Average I can understand. I have thought of using that myself, but we tend to roll. Makes the players feel better and more "in control" of their character.
This one also baffles me, as I see it as much the opposite. If I roll for hp (or stats), I have a lot less control of my character, I'm surrender that control to RNG. Taking the average for hp gives me more control, because it provides consistency - I know exactly how much health I'll gain when I level up, and if I'm not happy with that, I can put more points into Constitution, or take the Tough feat. If I'm not happy with what I get from rolling, too bad, the dice decided what I would get, not me.

[ProsecutorGodot]

My 3.5 gnome illusionist having more hps than the Paladin was earned through hard work and exceptional roleplaying that obviously impacted how the dice rolled on level up.

Pretty sure this is sarcasm but I don't actually hate the idea of allowing someone to use inspiration (or perhaps a separate type of inspiration specific to this) that allows them to roll their hit die with advantage.

Personally I would still default to minimum of average, but if everyone was on board I think it could be a small but potentially meaningful reward for roleplay.

Ignoring that idea, claiming that good or bad luck is somehow earned is pretty laughable. I've been in this Paladin players shoes, having a character with such bad luck that I wanted to develop and roleplay but couldn't because the dice just hamstrung me. It's a horrible feeling.

[Nikushimi]

You say "They earned it."

But they literally just rolled higher than someone else. Either they were lucky or cheating, and either way, how does that make it earned?
Oh no, pick apart my words. They "earned it" in the same sense that you "earned" that critical hit or you "earned" that great magic item rolled randomly from the magic item table, or that success on your skill check.

They rolled well, and so earned it. Sure, you can say they "cheated", but that can be said about literally any roll you roll in the game.

Seems to me like if you want to "earn" more HP, you take levels in a class that has more of them and invest in constitution. A situation where a rogue has as many HP as a fighter or more, because they got lucky, strikes me as the opposite of earning anything.
Again, pick apart my words. If you roll well, you feel great about yourself and good for you. That's something you earned by rolling well. You don't see it that way, that's fine. You still made the roll and you gained that high of HP by your own roll. Sure, it's "RNG" but so is every other roll in the game. Unless you also take the "Average" for your damage and don't roll any dice at all in DnD. If we're really wanting to nitpick here about "earning" something.

They earned it like Bill Gate’s kids earned their billions.
Not sure what to say about this except...okay? You don't inherit HP. lmfao.

Yeah, have to agree with others about the "they earned it" part of this, that's a very strange viewpoint to me. I look at that and see it as something they lucked into, which is not the same as earned in any way.
Strange as it may be, if you roll well....well you did that. You rolled it and got lucky enough to earn yourself a good HP score. It's in the spirit of DnD that comes down to a dice roll. Least that's how I see it, but everyone plays it different and that's fine.


This one also baffles me, as I see it as much the opposite. If I roll for hp (or stats), I have a lot less control of my character, I'm surrender that control to RNG. Taking the average for hp gives me more control, because it provides consistency - I know exactly how much health I'll gain when I level up, and if I'm not happy with that, I can put more points into Constitution, or take the Tough feat. If I'm not happy with what I get from rolling, too bad, the dice decided what I would get, not me.
Sure, but it's all based on YOUR rolls. Yes, there's RNG involved, but it's still YOUR roll that YOU did. If you want to manipulate every little detail, then just pick the number for your stats instead of rolling, using point buy, or standard array. With point buy you may have more control (sort of as you're still limited, but you can choose a bit more). In the end, the "dice decided" sure, but it was based on YOUR roll. You don't really "decide" the average either. The book simply tells you it. Sure that gives you the choice of "I want to play a high HP character...going Barbarian cause average is 7 or max is 12 + con. If that's fun to you, great....but it's not really a choice at that point, it's just set in stone for you after the initial choice. Some people enjoy having that known for them with it being left up to their own personal rolls....that's fine, but it doesn't feel "earned" in the sense that it was based off of something you did, I.e. rolling the dice.

Just in my group they feel better about rolling something themselves because then it's on them and not something they have no control over. And sure, they don't really have control on where the dice lands, but that's just how it goes sometimes with THEIR roll. Yes, you have more "control" perse with averages and stuff, but that's not really "control". That's just static. It's a constant "Always going to be this". It's easier, sure. You don't have to add up so much math and you can be like "A fighter at level 5 with a con of 16 will have 49HP (13 at level 1 and 9 from levels 2-5)".

Or taking the max it's easy to say you have 65hp as a 5th level Fighter with a 16 con (13x5). So if you enjoy that static, great, but it doesn't really feel fun to me, and so us "rolling" feels like "we" did it since it was based on our rolls (or the DM's if we ask for it).Even though, yes, there's RNG involved it was still OUR roll. Sometimes the dice are good, sometimes they're not. *Shrugs*

Best way I could describe the "you earned it" part that people are picking apart lol. No hate btw, but....y'all really went in on that. xD

[Nikushimi]

And sure, there's no real "trick" to "rolling well" so it's RNG, but it was still based on a roll that you did, and that is why it feels "Earned" because the RNG gods were on your side during the roll that you did.

It's not like I meant it in "They did 300 pushups and so earned that 16 strength score" or "They meditated in ice cold weather for 7 days straight so earned that 8 on their dice roll" but that they made the roll and got lucky. Just like you "earn" anything in DnD.*shrugs* Didn't think that would be picked apart so much lol.

[Zevox]

Oh no, pick apart my words. They "earned it" in the same sense that you "earned" that critical hit or you "earned" that great magic item rolled randomly from the magic item table, or that success on your skill check.
Those are all also things that I would never call "earned," just luck. You simply don't earn luck, by definition. You earn something through your actions, whereas luck is completely out of your control.


Sure, but it's all based on YOUR rolls. Yes, there's RNG involved, but it's still YOUR roll that YOU did.
...which doesn't matter, at all? Whether you rolled or someone else did, or a random number generator did, a roll is still a roll, just a random result out of however many numbers are on the dice. It's completely uncontrolled by definition.


You don't really "decide" the average either. The book simply tells you it.
Sure, but you have actual consistency there, since the result is always the same, which is a form of control over the result. The opposite of rolling, which is totally uncontrolled and random.

You're just speaking of these things in very bizarre terms to me, is all, referring to things in ways that seem like the opposite of what they truly are. Most people who say they like rolling for stats or health seem to say they do so because they like leaving things up to chance, getting the disappointing low results and the exciting high ones, which I understand, intellectually at least, even if I don't share the sentiment personally. But speaking as if rolling for stats gives you control of the results in some way? As if luck is something earned? That all just makes no sense to me.

[Tanarii]

Early on some groups thought the way it worked was when you level up, you rolled all your HD to date, and if it was higher kept that value. Otherwise kept your current HP.

Pretty sure there are some modern systems out there that work that way.


Didn't the fighting man get more bonus hp from con than other characters in the old days? Maybe it was thought to be enough at the time.
I do agree it is odd when a perk of a class can amount to nothing though.
Only once AD&D came around, and then only for a very high Con. Certainly in AD&D if you happened to roll very high Con, it was worth considering being a Fighter or subclass.

[Mr. Wonderful]

A very good DM I play with insists on rolled HP.

As a result, we saw the party's fighter (under 2e rules) roll horribly for HP...which lead to her bugging the Wizards for Bear's Endurance first thing in the morning, every morning like an addict. It was a magnificent piece of roleplaying.

Fast forward 10 years and I'm the party fighter. But I roll ridiculously well for HP. Which I roleplay by casually walking into the middle of every combat without a care in the world...often with hilarious results. It's fun!

[Witty Username]

And sure, there's no real "trick" to "rolling well" so it's RNG, but it was still based on a roll that you did, and that is why it feels "Earned" because the RNG gods were on your side during the roll that you did.

It's not like I meant it in "They did 300 pushups and so earned that 16 strength score" or "They meditated in ice cold weather for 7 days straight so earned that 8 on their dice roll" but that they made the roll and got lucky. Just like you "earn" anything in DnD.*shrugs* Didn't think that would be picked apart so much lol.

This sounds like an Albert Camus argument a bit, at least as I understand it.
If I remember the principal correctly, humans have a tendency to feel accomplishment and failure even in situations they have no control over and is absurd from a logical standpoint. But embracing the absurdity of things like this is part of how humans cope and process reality.
Or how this web comic explains, in a more entertaining way:
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/58

[Ogre Mage]

Once the option to take average HP appeared in the RAW, I took it and have never looked back.

[Trafalgar]

Hmm, IDK how you got to those numbers

You are considering rerolling 1s a single time, but lunali is likely meaning infinitely rerolling ones, which is the same average 5e uses.

Its simple to show, lets take a d6, rerolling ones, is the same as eliminating that possibility, so now we can get 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6.

So the average will be the total sum of the possibilities divided by the number of possibilities:

2+3+4+5+6 = 20

20/5 = 4

The easy formula to add up all the numbers between 1 and n is n(n+1)/2

For 8 it would be (8*9)/2 = 9*4 = 36

we substract 1, since its no longer a possibility, 35/7 = 5

It works.

Based on this, I am going to used rolled hp with unlimited rerolls of 1s in all my games!

[Ogre Mage]

They earned it like Bill Gate’s kids earned their billions.

Off topic side note -- interestingly, Bill and Melinda Gates said they plan to leave only a tiny portion of their estate to their children. Reportedly, each child will receive about $10 million each. That is a sweet sum and if the kids manage it correctly they will be set up for life. But it is a very small percentage of the Gates's $100+ billion fortune.

https://news.yahoo.com/why-bill-gates-children-won-142720036.html

[Trafalgar]

Off topic side note -- interestingly, Bill and Melinda Gates said they plan to leave only a tiny portion of their estate to their children. Reportedly, each child will receive about $10 million each. That is a sweet sum and if the kids manage it correctly they will be set up for life. But it is a very small percentage of the Gates's $100+ billion fortune.

https://news.yahoo.com/why-bill-gates-children-won-142720036.html

I wish someone would give me 10 million.

[Witty Username]

I feel like people should write out 10 million more.
10,000,000
Imagine having that number in your max HP line, with all the glorious Zeros.

[Ogre Mage]

I wish someone would give me 10 million.

Mammon has a warlock contract ready to go. All you have to do is sign on the dotted line in your blood. :sabine:

[CrazyCarppy]

We use max hp for the first 5 levels then roll straight up. No rerolls. We have found that this gives a good baseline survivability with room for variation later.

[diplomancer]

Again, pick apart my words. If you roll well, you feel great about yourself and good for you. That's something you earned by rolling well. You don't see it that way, that's fine. You still made the roll and you gained that high of HP by your own roll. Sure, it's "RNG" but so is every other roll in the game. Unless you also take the "Average" for your damage and don't roll any dice at all in DnD. If we're really wanting to nitpick here about "earning" something.

I used to think like this; until someone pointed out to me the difference between, literally, hundreds (thousands?) of die rolls, over the course of a campaign, and 19 die rolls (at best, if you go all the way to 20); not to mention the difference between rolling a 1 for hit points at level 2 and rolling a 1 to hit an enemy, also at level 2; in one case, you miss your action for the round; on the second case, you're hamstrung and at risk of death for at least 1, possibly several, sessions;
And, honestly, you can't even say "oh, but you could have rolled a 10 instead", because the added benefit of rolling a 10 (being able to take slightly higher risks) is not comparable to the problems you have when you roll a 1.

[Gryndle]

my group rolls for HP and stats. we prefer the randomness over the static average HP and point buy which in our opinion leads to very formulaic character creation.

[Silly Name]

My group does "roll twice, keep higher result". I like it because it means people have slightly disequal HP and not all builds have the same exact HP, and keeping the best of two generally keeps the trouble of rolling truly low in check.

[Person_Man]

They earned it like Bill Gate’s kids earned their billions.

By stealing DOS and Windows and selling it to IBM?

Actually now that I think about it, if Bill had killed some orcs while stealing, it wouldn’t that different from a D&D game.

[Catullus64]

I think it's fair to say that someone who rolls their HP "earns" the high results by accepting the risk of also getting a low one. It's a high permanence variable, and if you're willing to stick your neck out on it, you can obtain greater fortune.

[Trafalgar]

Mammon has a warlock contract ready to go. All you have to do is sign on the dotted line in your blood. :sabine:

Unfortunately for Mammon, my soul is on layaway to a pair of fiends each far more powerful than he. The great devils Sallie Mae and Fannie Mae already enslaved me!

[Morty]

A very good DM I play with insists on rolled HP.

As a result, we saw the party's fighter (under 2e rules) roll horribly for HP...which lead to her bugging the Wizards for Bear's Endurance first thing in the morning, every morning like an addict. It was a magnificent piece of roleplaying.

Fast forward 10 years and I'm the party fighter. But I roll ridiculously well for HP. Which I roleplay by casually walking into the middle of every combat without a care in the world...often with hilarious results. It's fun!

What I'm seeing here is "two characters' basic competence was decided entirely randomly, which used up precious resources in one of the cases".

[Nikushimi]

You're just speaking of these things in very bizarre terms to me, is all, referring to things in ways that seem like the opposite of what they truly are. Most people who say they like rolling for stats or health seem to say they do so because they like leaving things up to chance, getting the disappointing low results and the exciting high ones, which I understand, intellectually at least, even if I don't share the sentiment personally. But speaking as if rolling for stats gives you control of the results in some way? As if luck is something earned? That all just makes no sense to me.
Then this is my fault for being unable to communicate properly as I was not trying to insist on some kind of "control" in terms of being able to manipulate it, but rather "control" in that it is their roll, and not some generic value that is static. That they chose to roll, and thus it was their choice to control the situation via a roll to the RNG gods. If that makes better sense.

The feeling of "earning it" may be superficial and not "real" but it is that feeling which I was meaning rather than actually something "earned" in the sense that you worked hard for it.

*Shrugs*
---

In the end, it is just the essence of DnD to them that it is determined by a roll. Granted, we tend to be lenient and often have the DM roll which is often made to be average anyways so the difference between rolling and just choosing average regardless is kinda irrelevant.

But choosing the average was not as shocking as going MAX for every level. I feel those are power campaigns, but I could be wrong.
---

Overall, I'm very open to using the average listed in classes when I DM, but my friends enjoy rolling cause it feels like it is in their hands and up to the RNG gods so it feels like whatever they got they "earned" it in the sense that they were blessed or cursed.
---

I do enjoy hearing everyones opinions. It lets me open up a bit in terms of how others play and how I can incorporate things into my games. Though I don't think, unless I'm doing a difficult or power campaign, that I'll ever allow MAX whenever I'm running. That just seems too much to me, but to each their own.

Thanks for the insights everyone!

[Zevox]

Then this is my fault for being unable to communicate properly as I was not trying to insist on some kind of "control" in terms of being able to manipulate it, but rather "control" in that it is their roll, and not some generic value that is static. That they chose to roll, and thus it was their choice to control the situation via a roll to the RNG gods. If that makes better sense.
Honestly, not really (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64BOxYpVZpU), no, that doesn't make any more sense to me. But at the same time, I don't think a discussion of the definition of the word "control" (or whatever you mean by "the feeling of 'earning it'") is going to be a productive use of either of our time. So instead, happy gaming, have fun however you do. :smallsmile:

[Dark.Revenant]

A couple years ago, I entered a long-term campaign where every other player chose to roll their stats. In keeping with tradition and solidarity, I rolled for the stats that my monk would be using. What I got, using the standard 4d6, drop the lowest, rules: 12 12 11 11 8 6. I'm sure I'd have enjoyed starting with an AC of 13 and eventually making Stunning Strike attempts with the rock-hard DC of 12. Really evokes the "world-saving hero" vibe, y'know?

The DM offered for me to re-roll, which kind of illustrates the flaw with unbounded rolling for permanent stats. High or low, it's not earned. It doesn't really mean anything.

HP is even worse because it has low verisimilitude. It's a totally ephemeral, abstract quantity. What would "training to increase your HP" even look like? The rule for my games is, and has always been, taking the average. There is perhaps some minor value to rolling it, but even the usual arguments to defend rolling for ability scores fail to hold up for HP, in my opinion. It's just not worth it.

[JellyPooga]

I would like to say that I'm torn on the subject, like I am with Ability Scores (which I genuinely am). On the one hand, the static average gels better with the notion that Fighters are supposed to have higher HP than Wizards, while rolling means the opposite can be true. On the other hand, rolling adds an element of variety to characters of the same Class (should that be required) and can guide the development of a character down differemt paths. In the example of the Paladin Tank that rolls all 1's for HP, then they're going to have to find new methods to fulfil their intended role (e.g. use a shield instead of a 2-hander for higher AC, or spend spell slots on Shield of Faith instead of Smites) or change their concept, much as a wealthy character who loses their fortune in-game has to make similar changes to their spending or how they perceive themself.

That said, I've taken nothing but the average any time I've been given the option in every game since 5ed was released. I suppose you might say I like the idea of rolling, but in practice don't want to take the inherent risk because I'm just not a gambler.

[Tanarii]

The choice to roll or not roll would be more meaningful if the fixed value was average of die size rounded down, instead of up.

[Xervous]

The choice to roll or not roll would be more meaningful if the fixed value was average of die size rounded down, instead of up.

Would have to be a bit lower than that to coerce me. I’m not looking at beating averages, it’s more about hedging out the 1-10% outlier events as it’s harder to effectively leverage high health than it is to suffer from low health.

[Amdy_vill]

At my table i do rolled hit points but we also do take the average if you roll bellow and reroll 1s

[Tanarii]

Would have to be a bit lower than that to coerce me. I’m not looking at beating averages, it’s more about hedging out the 1-10% outlier events as it’s harder to effectively leverage high health than it is to suffer from low health.
That fine. It doesn't have to appeal to all. But statistically being worse off rolling eliminates a far larger segment of players, because you have to be a high risk person to take that. It eliminates people in the middle between high risk and risk averse.

Making rolling actually being slightly higher merely eliminates those who strongly aren't gamblers or are fairly risk averse. For everyone in the middle it introduces a meaningful choice.

[Demonslayer666]

So, I tend to do average (or for my current game max roll) hp for PCs. so far it has worked out decently, but I am always curious how other tables do things and how they end up working. I have very little experience with rolled HP, how it effects the game or the advantages/disadvantages of it.

What do you people do?
Do you roll for HP? If so, are there things you particularly like about it?

My apologies, I did not read though all the other posts as it is 4 pages long now.

I always roll for my characters. Taking average is boring even if it's slightly better. My most memorable characters are those that I rolled well on HP.

We have recently gone to a new method for rolling HP when you level up. If you roll and don't like what you get, the DM will roll HP for you but you have to take the DM's roll. You are also allowed to take average if you want. Rolling has better odds than taking average that way.