Max HP

[Rob_The_Impaler]

So, the group that I'm in, along with the campaigns that I run (So far 1, soon to be three.. my parents finaly agreed to sit down and try it out woo) Alwys max out HP for each level, so a level 2 fighter would have 20hp+2xcon. It seems to work, but what are the pros and cons to this houserule..

So lets look at the numbers useing the fighter witha con of 10 for simplicity...

At level 5 a normal fighter would have an average HP of:
30,

A level 5 useing this homebrew rule his HP would be:
50,

Much better by 20 on average. Now, as I know, my DM uses the HP given in the MM, and max for most NPC's.

Edit: 3.X..<.<
How much easier does this make the game...

Does it upset the balance....

Or is it jus simpler for players and DM to keep track of how much HP everyone has..

So, does anyone other then my little group use this rule...
If so then how does it change the game...

(by the way, I've never played a game when you roll for you HP every level..)

[shadzar]

4th edition D&D does max out HP for everyone...so what game/edition are you talking about?

[DSCrankshaw]

I'm assuming he's in a 3.5 campaign. What he's saying fits.

I've never done Max HP, but I have done average and as high as 3/4. Both seemed to work (course, I was playing a wizard in the latter, so I was just happy I wasn't rolling a d4).

[Rob_The_Impaler]

My group uses 3.5....

[Frogwarrior]

Eck, this seems like it would seriously unbalance things. Consider: As you said, an average fighter level 5 has 50 HP (+5xCon) instead of average 30. An average wizard, though, has 20 instead of an average of 14. Fighter (and other large-HD classes) gets an ENORMOUS boost, where wizard (and other small-HD classes) get a lot less and no other advantages.

However, there is a simple way to salvage the idea of removing the randomness from leveling up. First level gets max on the HD as always. But every subsequent HD gives you the average amount. So a second-level fighter gets a roll of 6 on his Hit Die, upon reaching third level gets a roll of 5, fourth level gets 6 again, etc. Wizards past first level alternate 3/2/3/2, etc. And so on.

[lsfreak]

Another thing to consider is how healing is effected. If you max hit points every level, healing becomes relatively less effective (and its effectiveness is already low), and also consider if you want to up the effect of healing overnight. Not saying you should, just something you should consider.

[Teron]

Eck, this seems like it would seriously unbalance things. Consider: As you said, an average fighter level 5 has 50 HP (+5xCon) instead of average 30. An average wizard, though, has 20 instead of an average of 14. Fighter (and other large-HD classes) gets an ENORMOUS boost, where wizard (and other small-HD classes) get a lot less and no other advantages.

Wizards don't need more advantages. The proposed change, while not the ideal approach, is in fact a small step toward better class balance.

[Gnomo]

I converted the Hit Die to static bonuses for each level:

d4 => 3
d6 => 4
d8 => 5
d10 => 6
d12 => 7

But changed some stuff like Barbarians, Constructs and Undead getting 8 hit points per die, Fighter getting 7, Monk and Ranger getting 6, Sorcerer and Commoners getting 4.

Works fine and it's easier.

[FMArthur]

Save or Lose/Save or Die effects are now significantly more effective than trying to damage. Wizard can survive taking hits in battle now. How is this useful to balance? The meat shield is a meatier shield, but so what? That makes battles where the big melee guys play shot-for-shot last longer, and that's all.

[Rob_The_Impaler]

Healing? my group doesn' know the word... Joking,but we almost never have someone there to heal us, so we fork out hundreds of gold just to get potions. The last person to DM just said after a full nights rest we get full healing... of corse he is also the person to set up nightly encounters...-_-... but it worked to the point where the dragon shaman could pwn anyone in the party just from HP bonus.

[Teron]

Save or Lose/Save or Die effects are now significantly more effective than trying to damage. Wizard can survive taking hits in battle now. How is this useful to balance? The meat shield is a meatier shield, but so what? That makes battles where the big melee guys play shot-for-shot last longer, and that's all.

I didn't initially notice that Rob_The_Impaler mentioned applying this rule to NPC's as well -- that's definitely a bad idea. If it's only applied to PC's, though, it should work out all right.

[lsfreak]

Healing? my group doesn' know the word... Joking,but we almost never have someone there to heal us, so we fork out hundreds of gold just to get potions.

Off-topic, but in that case I'll direct you to Belt of Healing (MIC), 750gp for between 4d8 and 6d8 healing per day. Also, wand of lesser vigor, cost 750gp and give you 550 out-of-combat healing.

[Keld Denar]

d4 => 3
d6 => 4
d8 => 5
d10 => 6
d12 => 7

This method (half+1) is the method that Living Greyhawk used to determine HP which removed the randomness of rolling in the name of fairness and auditability.

It worked out fine for 8 years.

[Teron]

If you want to stick to the core rules, wands of cure light wounds are also far more cost efficient than healing potions, and a single level in any class with the spell on its list or a few ranks of Use Magic Device will let you use them well enough between encounters. At most, you might want to carry a few strong healing potions for emergencies (assuming you don't have access to better options from outside the core rules).

[LibraryOgre]

One question: Is this applying to monsters, too?

[T.G. Oskar]

Surprising no one actually hasn't mentioned Touch of Healing as part of this routine.

Given the humongous amount of HP acquired by level, and that someone can pretty much survive having half of their HP down for a longer time, that means that you'll be able to save on the costs of Wands of Cure Light Wounds and so forth.

Basically, instead of healing Krusk the barbarian of his incredibly high HP from single digits to full (let's say 170 for level 10 barbarian and 20 CON), you can heal up to 85 with Touch of Healing and the rest with the wands. It's almost as cost-effective as using the wands alone on someone who has half that amount of HP.

Also, he mentioned that only a few NPCs get the max HP treatment. So that means probably the BBEG, some important minions, and the valuable NPCs. Unless the BBEG has d12 and a Constitution to boot, it's not going to be that surprising.

But true, that would make save-or-die spellcasters even more powerful than they already are, unless the DM fudges a save or two.

[Rob_The_Impaler]

One question: Is this applying to monsters, too?

With the encounters that I have premade yes, when I'm lazy, or my group is begging for more encounters then I just go with whats in the book.

But I noramly pit them against creatures two CR's above theirs.

For the other DM I'm not sure, I think he just went from what was in the book,

[Gerbah]

We're doing the Max HP thing right now, it applies to everyone, even monsters. It really isn't that bad, it makes fights last a bit longer for sure, but it's not awful. Also, the spells that outright kill on a failed save instead deal extreme damage on a failed save, so that a Barbarian with full HP could survive one, but a wizard/sorcerer will die.

[Gnomo]

This method (half+1) is the method that Living Greyhawk used to determine HP which removed the randomness of rolling in the name of fairness and auditability.

It worked out fine for 8 years.

And then it stopped working...

[Tukka]

In my games I use the variant rule for fixed HP progression in the DMG: (HD size/2) on even levels, (HD size/2)+1 on odd levels. Plus the Con modifier, as always.

But really, I haven't been playing long enough to evaluate how balanced it might be or might not be. I just know I hate rolling for permanent stats.

[Keld Denar]

And then it stopped working...

R.I.P. Living Greyhawk, may you find peace after the heavy hand of WotC felled you at the peak of your glory. You are missed by all of your loyal fans. Thank you for the hundreds of hours I enjoyed you, and the millions of hours you entertained many of the years.

[Ernir]

These are the pros and cons I see as such:

Pros:

• The impact of having a large HD is increased - large HDs benefit the most from being maximized.
• Battles last longer, which may be a plus if things dying in one round is a problem.
• The cruel, cruel possibility of someone rolling a 2 on his HD three times in a row is removed.

Cons

• Direct Damage changes from being a suboptimal strategy to a one straight from the crapper. The Sorcerer's decision between Grease and Magic Missile has never been easier.
• While it increases the amount of time the meleeers can survive, it also increases the amount of time they have to be in melee. At least if this applies to both sides of the battle.
• It subtly screws up some assumptions the game makes regarding HP at any given level. Things like Power Word: Kill and death from massive damage shift in importance in ways that can be hard to foresee.

And whether that is good or bad: a character's Con modifier drops in importance, since HP is now "cheaper". Undead have more HP than expected. The "quick" trait now becomes less painful. And so on and so on.

My conclusion: Don't do it. Do something like average HP instead (or my toy idea I have yet to test, do something more bell-curve like ), maximizing it just throws off too many assumptions the game makes.

[Quietus]

With my group, everything has maxed HP - even the monsters, at least with some of the DMs.

When I run games, I'll be keeping the "PCs get max HP" deal. Monsters will get their normal amount if they're mooks, max if they're bosses, and anywhere in between that if I feel like it (decided on the fly).

[Riffington]

Just make sure to give everyone +3 to all saves.
If damage is going to take 1.5 times as long to kill things, then so should spells.

[herrhauptmann]

A DM in my circle uses this as a houserule, for players and all monsters.

It significantly weakens any method of fighting which relies on hitpoint damage, as if blasting wasn't subpar enough as is. And tactics that deal out save/die or save/suck effects is even more powerful.
Since he runs tough games, it means that high hitpoint characters like my dwarf (level 15, 330HP), were NEVER at full hitpoints. Partly because we lacked dedicated healers, but also because healing spells were not maximized, so it took almost double the castings to bring someone up to full.
As stated, spend more time in combat because it takes almost twice as long to kill someone as well. So something like a pimped rogue is going to get twice as much SA on the players. (I took 300 points of damage in 2 rounds because the rogues focused on me, and I couldn't kill them fast enough with their springattack)

[JaxGaret]

Wizards don't need more advantages. The proposed change, while not the ideal approach, is in fact a small step toward better class balance.

Agree 100% with this. Max HP is one of the best houserules for 3e.

Only for the PCs, though, of course. Monster HP is fine as is.

[Zeta Kai]

I converted the Hit Die to static bonuses for each level:

d4 => 3
d6 => 4
d8 => 5
d10 => 6
d12 => 7

But changed some stuff like Barbarians, Constructs and Undead getting 8 hit points per die, Fighter getting 7, Monk and Ranger getting 6, Sorcerer and Commoners getting 4.

Works fine and it's easier.

This is basically what I do, but a bit more complicated. I usually just offer my players a choice at the beginning of the campaign: They can either roll for their HP, or take the average of their HD, rounding up. Most choose the rounded-up average.

[Reaper_Monkey]

Just make sure to give everyone +3 to all saves.
If damage is going to take 1.5 times as long to kill things, then so should spells.

I agree entirely, save or die spells become the only option when so much health is about. However making the majority of spells that allow a saves fail isn't much fun anyway.

What about having a bonus to your saves equal to how much health you have? That way there is a reason to keep healing up, a reason for the non-spell casters to hack things up to weaken them, and a reason to unload a few direct damage spells before hand. It also keeps magic users from one shoting bad guys on their opening round.

Something like this...
{table=head]HP|Save Bonus
100%|+5
>80%|+4
>60%|+3
>40%|+2
>20%|+1
<19%|+0[/table]

Of cause that could be difficult to work out on the fly, so maybe something simpler like this...
{table=head]HP|Save Bonus
>=75%|+5
<75% & >25%|+3
<=25%|+1[/table]

I think that balances out the saves or die effect quite well.

[Irreverent Fool]

I feel that the random aspect to player HP is one of the charming points of the game (and I endorse using it for monsters too, though it tends to be a few too many rolls to bother with when you can just use average hp).

For the games I DM, we use d4s for player HP and then add the difference between the d4 and the die they would normally use (then add con bonus). For example, a fighter rolls 1d4+6+con. I didn't invent this method, but saw it on some forum (probably here). This leaves enough randomness to keep those you like rolling happy, but it means someone like a fighter or barbarian won't be screwed over if they roll low for two levels in a row. By the same token, it means those classes who are meant to have more hp will always have more hp.

(Rollings 3s and 4s every level and with a modest Con bonus, I once had a wizard with more hp than the party fighter due to his lousy rolls)

I agree with one of the above posts which mentions it reduces the role of healing, but I don't really see this as a problem unless you have a player who really desires to be a 'healer', which it seems few do.

I agree entirely, save or die spells become the only option when so much health is about. However making the majority of spells that allow a saves fail isn't much fun anyway.

I disagree with this. While this is true from the player-side, if the players have more hp, it opens up many options for the DM. One can place the powerful monsters that would usually one-shot a PC with a full attack in front of them. Generally in 3.5, a player's ability to dish out destruction greatly exceeds their ability to survive it. In the low to mid levels, it has always seemed difficult to me to provide a challenge to the players without creating something that will simply one shot them. It seems every combatant becomes a glass cannon. Max hp would make this less of an issue.

I've seen it used before, and honestly don't see any problem with it. 'Balance' really isn't an issue if everyone is getting it. I wouldn't use it myself, but I like rolling dice.

obnoxious
sig

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Considering how much damage you can get out of Power Attack, this is almost necessary. My current group always gives PCs max HP per level, and we usually give monsters 3/4 max per die, or max HP for important/climactic opponents. It gives the PCs better survivability and allows the DM more leeway for larger encounters without worrying so much about killing a character. In a severely unoptimized game this may lead to drawn out fights, but if the players are capable of creating characters who are capable of putting out a fair amount of damage then this is almost necessary.