Variant: Max Hit Points

[Orak]

The current campaign that I am playing in we have opted for a maximum hit point variant and it seems to be running really well. Characters, NPC's and monsters all have max hit points. We have just reached 10th.

We seemed to be running into a lot of combats where everything was dying in one attack, including the PC's. The increased hit points have allowed for longer, more dramatic combats. As a bard I am really enjoying this because my buffs are appreciated for the endurance fights and my 10 round duration spells actually run out in a single combat.

Let me know if anyone has tried this before or wether or not it interests you.

[okpokalypse]

The current campaign that I am playing in we have opted for a maximum hit point variant and it seems to be running really well. Characters, NPC's and monsters all have max hit points. We have just reached 10th.

We seemed to be running into a lot of combats where everything was dying in one attack, including the PC's. The increased hit points have allowed for longer, more dramatic combats. As a bard I am really enjoying this because my buffs are appreciated for the endurance fights and my 10 round duration spells actually run out in a single combat.

Let me know if anyone has tried this before or wether or not it interests you.

I've used it before, and while I like it better than the current way HPs are done, I'm still not crazy about it because it tends to make battles drag out more. If you like that, great, but I've always felt it directly devalues certain classes. Specifically those with limited offense (spells) who do not use "save or die" techniques (WarMages). It's an imbalance when every target is maxxed, but none of your damage is.

What I've done in the past is the following:

Narrows the ranges for HP determination as follows (average):
d12 = d4+8 (10.5), d10 = d4+6 (8.5), d8 = d4+4 (6.5), d6 = d4+2 (4.5), d4 = d3+1 (3). Monster HP were calculated based on HD Average from the previous numbers.

For PCs, this means that no matter how bad a fighter rolls, he's getting 7 HP - which will always be more than a WarMage / Sorcerer / Bard / etc.. It defines a higher range that isn't always maxxed out. And it prevents a simple occurance... The back-to-back-to-back 1 HP Levels for a Melee Class on a d10 or d12 HD. When your Barbarian has 15 HP at L4 before Con Bonus, you may as well just suicide :). With the above, the min HP he'd have at L4 would be 36 before Con Bonus. Sure, the 48 would be better if you got lucky and maxxed, but even rolling minimums, the PC is still very playable.

Similarly, we've added feats for damage casters to augment damage. An example:

Energy Focus:
Pre-Req: 3rd Level Caster, Ability to Cast Two (2) Spells of the Energy Type.
Benefit: Spells with the given Energy Type descriptor do an additional +1 Damage per Die.

Energy Focus, Greater:
Pre-Req: 9th Level Caster, Energy Focus in the given Energy Type, Ability to cast Three (3) Spells of the Energy Type:
Benefit: Spells with the given Energy Type descriptor do an additional +1 Damage per Die. This Damage Bonus stack with that of Energy Focus.

We never found the need to increase melee damage to balance things out because meleer's at L10+ were doing 30+ damage per hit with 3 attacks a round. At L10 a 20-Con Barbarian averaged 155 HP. We saw no reason to up melee damage to where he'd be killed in a single round :).

[Merlin the Tuna]

The biggest problem with maxing HP is that it favors classes that bypass the HP mechanic -- and those tend to be the ones that are already leaps and bounds ahead of the others. The party Barbarian now has a considerably larger mound of meat to cut through, whereas things like Sleep, Color Spray, Slay Living, Finger of Death... they still rock the casbah.

That said, if your group is light on the save-or-suck/die spells and wants beefier characters and enemies, it's a nice, simple fix.

[Hazkali]

At the moment, my PCs are getting average hit points per level. The campaign hasn't started yet so I can't say how successful it is but I had to do something to increase the survivability of my PCs. Upping thier hit points to the same as an NPC of thier level seemed an appropriate way to go.

[TheElfLord]

I was going to do this for an upcoming game, but one of my players pointed out that this really nerfs constitution as an attribute. If a fighter with a 16 Con rolls a 5 for hit points, the Con adds 60%. If he rolls a 1, it adds 300%. However, if he always gets a 10, then it adds only 30%, and is much less valuable.

This convinced me to to use max, though everyone in the world gets max first die.

[TheOOB]

I usually go for max hp if the campaign is more high powered and combat oriented, or average hp if I want it a little more gritty, I never run a game with random hp generation. I don't belive that it's fair to make such an important, permenate aspect of your character be determined by random chance.

[Reinboom]

I was going to do this for an upcoming game, but one of my players pointed out that this really nerfs constitution as an attribute. If a fighter with a 16 Con rolls a 5 for hit points, the Con adds 60%. If he rolls a 1, it adds 300%. However, if he always gets a 10, then it adds only 30%, and is much less valuable.

This convinced me to to use max, though everyone in the world gets max first die.

Eh, it doesn't really nerf con, since %s aren't the actual end to it. In fact, because of the aspect of chance, there's a considerable chance for that con to just go to waste. What about the two fighters, one with 16 con and one with 12 con - what happens when the person with 12 con keeps rolling on average, lets say, 6 (just above average) and the person with 16 con keeps rolling 4 on average (just below average)? They are both getting 7 HP on average every turn.
If they rolled equal on average, then the person with 16 would be getting 2 extra hp level, the same amount of hp bonus that max hp would give anyways. Also, chance should normally be taken into consideration anyways, since there will always be somebody who rolls worse and better than any given character, unless that character rolls all max... which then defeats the purpose.

Personally, I hate super unchangeable permanent aspects of my characters going to chance, since, almost everybody dislikes playing an unluckily gimped character.

With that, I rather like max HP. however, I prefer half die +1 (ie 3 from a d4, 4 from a d6, etc.) since it gives just slightly above average but doesn't really significantly change the game much.

[Spiryt]

I also have problem with HP. Max HP makes litlle too much HP for every character. 10th level Fighter with 14 Con have can survive 30 crossbow bolts - it's not funny and hard for DM to describe

And this is very good Okpokalypse!

What I've done in the past is the following:

Narrows the ranges for HP determination as follows (average):
d12 = d4+8 (10.5), d10 = d4+6 (8.5), d8 = d4+4 (6.5), d6 = d4+2 (4.5), d4 = d3+1 (3). Monster HP were calculated based on HD Average from the previous numbers.

However maybe d6+ 6 for Barb and d6 + 4 for d10 guys will be better? It will make to small difference between d10 and d8...

[Imrix.]

This'd make Undead veeeeerry appealing. Minimum 12 HP increase at every level? Yes.

[Jack Mann]

Okypoky's method actually increases the difference between d10 and d12, whereas your suggestion only decreases the averages without changing the difference.

Current averages: 5.5 and 6.5.
Ok's averages: 8.5 and 10.5.
Your averages: 7.5 and 9.5.

[Dhavaer]

Okypoky's method actually increases the difference between d10 and d12, whereas your suggestion only decreases the averages without changing the difference.

Current averages: 5.5 and 6.5.
Ok's averages: 8.5 and 10.5.
Your averages: 7.5 and 9.5.

Wait. The last two have the same difference. There's a mistake here somewhere.

[Spiryt]

Actually, i was talking about difference between d10 and d8.

It will make to small difference between d10 and d8...

And yes, I was thinking that 10.5 is still a bit too high average.
Changing differences.... Maybe odd numbers?

[Fenix_of_Doom]

Wait. The last two have the same difference. There's a mistake here somewhere.

no it's correct the difference in HP used to be decided by difference in dice(d10 vs d12), now the dice are the same(d4 vs d4 or d6 vs d6) and the diference is in the bonus part.

also doesn't max HP significally weaken the con attribute?

[Spiryt]

also doesn't max HP significally weaken the con attribute?

I would say : quite indeed. That's why we are talking about okpokalypse method, beacuse max HP - too much HP.

HP is generally silly thing. If I don't forget anything HP progression is only random thing in gaining new level in any class.
And as TheOOB said it can give totally unfair results.

[henebry]

My own variant is average hit points: every character, NPC and monster has average hit points per die (though PCs and important NPCs get max hp on the first hit die, as usual).

It's my contention that it's a mistake to roll for permanent attributes, as it seals in stone the good luck or bad luck of different players on a given day. Roll for combat, for saves, for skills, yes; but don't roll for hit points and don't roll for Str Dex Con (use point buy).

I agree with earlier posters that running Max hp unbalances the game, makes Con a dump stat, etc. And I would add that the same must be said for okpokalypse's solution, which doesn't simply narrow the range of hp per die, it raises the average for the higher hit die classes. If you give d4+8 to barbarians, d4+6 to fighters, d4+4 to clerics, d4+2 to rogues and just d3+1 to sorcerers, sorcerers are really getting screwed. The gap between the averages for each of these is a full 2 hp, while the gap between the averages for d12, d10, d8, d6 and d4 is just 1 hp. This will make a big difference in the game over time. Some of you may say, "wizards are overpowered anyway", but let's not fix the wizard by making a sweeping change that leaves the rogue in the dust when compared to melee types.

So if you want to narrow the hp per die range, narrow it in a way that keeps the average hp per die constant. d12 shouldn't be replaced by d4+8; it should be replaced with d4+4, since that gives an average roll (2.5+4=6.5) equal to the average roll of a d12. Sure, the barbarian gives up the excitement of rolling a 12, but he also gives up the heartbreak of rolling a 1.

[Umarth]

In my games I have players roll for HPS but if you get under half you get half. (rounded down so 2, 3, 5, 6)

You still get some varration in HPS that way but you can't wind up getting compleatly hosed with low rolls.

Averages: (normal avg)
d4 = 2.75 (2.5)
d6 = 4 (3.5)
d8 = 5.25 (4.5)
d10 = 6.5 (5.5)
d12 = 7.75 (6.5)

This tends to reward folks who take the higher HD classes as it moves their average HPs up more than folks with smaller HD.

[BrotherMick]

In my last few games we have set it so that you couldn't get worse than your con bonus . So if you were a wizard with a 18 con you got max hitpoints. It let ppl get a little beefier while keeping con important.

[spotmarkedx]

I'll just toss out another alternate method of bumping average hitpoints. Our gaming group runs with the houserule of: if you don't like your hit point roll upon leveling up, you may ask for a reroll from the DM. You must take the results of this second roll. So, in theory, it is possible to get a lower roll if you're really unlucky, but usually you only ask if your hit point roll is poor anyway. This has worked out well enough for us, though I certainly can't give you statistics for the average hitpoints per die (since there is a conscious choice involved with the reroll)

[Alveanerle]

In our game we use the "double roller" routine. Each level past 1st, the Hp dice is rolled twice, once by player and once by DM. Then the best of two results is used.
The same applies to NPCs. Of course for them both dice are cast by DM

I have found this routine quite appealing for players and DM alike (ok, i am the DM there).

[Yechezkiel]

My favorite hp system is reroll 1's and always get at least half of the die. No one get's stuck with 1+Con and bigger dice don't have to dread that d10/d12 roll.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I typically give my players a choice.

The risk takers that don't feel happy unless they're rolling dice can roll as normal.

The folk that prefer a sure thing can take the Living Greyhawk method: half the maximum value + 1. This gives them half a hit point per hit die more than the statistical average of rolling dice.

I allow the players to choose which method they want on a per hit die basis.

[the_tick_rules]

it's cool, but my dm also applied max hp to our enemies, that kinda soured it.

[Quietus]

When I have people roll up characters, I have them roll their hit dice as they level up, but I always have them reroll anything that's half or less on the particular die. The ultimate result is :

d4= d2+2
d6 = d3+3
d8 = d4+4
d10 = d5+5
d12=d6+6

I COULD just have them roll the second part, but I think, psychologically, it makes them feel better about themselves when they roll the full die. Particularly when a player roll max for their barbarian's HP... rolling that 12 FEELS a lot better than rolling a 6, even if the net result is the same.

[LotharBot]

I give my PC's the option to reroll HP once.

Mr. barbarian rolls his d12 and gets a 4. He can either keep his 4, or roll once more and hope for higher than a 4.

This tends to give slightly above-average values, but not max.

I also occasionally use DM override. Like the time the rogue had a 2 and rerolled a 1, and then rolled a pair of 1's next level... I picked up the die and rerolled it for him. Because that's just lame.

[Yakk]

CON MOD:-5  -4  -3  -2  -1   0  +1  +2  +3  +4  +5  | +5
TOUGH            HP based on CON MOD
1        1   1   1   1   1   1   2   2   2   2   2  | +1
2        1   1   1   2   2   2   3   3   4   4   4  | +2
3        1   1   2   2   2   3   4   5   5   6   6  | +3
4        1   1   2   3   4   4   5   6   7   8   8  | +4
5        1   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  | +5
6        1   2   3   4   5   6   8   9  10  11  12  | +6
7        1   2   3   5   6   7   9  10  12  13  14  | +7
8        1   2   4   5   7   8  10  12  13  15  16  | +8
9        1   2   4   6   8   9  11  13  15  17  18  | +9
---------------------------------------------------------
+10      1   2   4   6   8  10  12  14  16  18  20  |+10

Notes:
MULT:   .1  .2  .4  .6  .8   1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Now scale player HP:
d4 -> 2 Tough/level
d6 -> 4 Tough/level
d8 -> 6 Tough/level
d10 -> 10 Tough/level
d12 -> 12 Tough/level

Next, give every player bonus HP equal to their CON.

Giving HP-class players more HP is a good thing(tm), because those classes tend to be less useful at higher levels.

So a L 10 warrior has 100 tough. With 22 con, that comes out to:
22 HP every 10 tough. 220+22 = 242 HP.

A L 10 barbarian has 120 tough. With 24 con, that comes out to:
24 HP every 10 tough. 24*12=288 tough from HP, plus 24 from con is 312 HP.

A L 10 wizard has 20 tough. With 12 con, that comes out to:
24+12 = 36 HP.

Note the large difference. This makes the "fragile" classes more fragile, and the "tough" classes tougher.

It also makes sure that the con stat matters to high-HD classes as much as low-HD classes.

To compare with max-HD systems:
L 10 barb, 24 con: 19*10 = 190 HP.
L 10 fighter, 22 con: 16*10 = 160 HP.
L 10 cleric, 16 con: 11*10 = 110 HP
L 10 rogue, 14 con: 8*10 = 80 HP
L 10 wizard, 12 con: 5*10 = 50 HP.
L 10 sorcerer, 8 con: 3*10 = 30 HP.

Notice how flat the above curve is. The Barb has just over 6x the Sorcerer's HP.

Under the tough system:
L 10 bar, 24 con: 312 HP
L 10 fighter, 22 con: 242 HP
L 10 cleric, 16 con: 112 HP
L 10 rogue, 14 con: 70 HP
L 10 wizard, 12 con: 36 HP
L 10 sorcerer, 8 con: 24 HP

Here, the Barb has 13x the Sorc's HP.

Under the "average roll, max at L 1" system:
L 10 bar, 24 con: 140.5 HP
L 10 fighter, 22 con: 119.5 HP
L 10 cleric, 16 con: 78.5 HP
L 10 rogue, 14 con: 57.5 HP
L 10 wizard, 12 con: 36.5 HP
L 10 sorcerer, 8 con: 18.75 HP (1+1+2+3)/4*9+3 = 18.75

The Barb has 7.5x the Sorc's HP.

[Orak]

The reason that we decided on this change in the first place is because we had all played characters whose hit points did not match the roles that they were intended for.

In a previous campaign I had a druid who had 35 hit points at level 10. He specialized in shape changing so he had to be in melee combat. In a tough shape shift form he could achieve 100+ hit points but then required immediate healing to be able to shift out of the form without dying.

In the current campaign I was playing 2 characters to start (because of an initial low player pool). At 5th level, before we switched to max hit points my rogue had 36 hit points and my bard had 25, despite the same con bonus. They were designed to work as a team in combat but the bard was melee shy because of his low hit points. Similarly the priest had as many hit points as the party barbarian despite the barbarians higher con score.

Now that we have switched to the max hit point variant players can fill the roles that they designed their characters to fill. The barbarian is the meat shield of the party, having held off a bugbear army while the others players whittled them down. He did have the help of a favored soul by his side healing him as he fought and my bard incapacitating the tougher combatants. But the main point is that those of us who wanted to get into the fray were not afraid to because of weak hit points.