Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Durath 04-29-06, 07:05 PM	Are we the only ones who put this into play before DDO? Certain melee favoring PC's were b*tching about wizards who always seemed to get 3's and 4's every level (the player in question had exactly one two and zero one's. There were many more 4's than 3's. I know because I watch them level up!) Couple this with a high constitution and the wizard has as many hp's as the rogue. It just felt broken to us. So, we don't roll for hitpoints. Got a d12, you get 12 hitpoints every level. It really isn't much of a stretch for the monsters, because I've been giving them max hp ever since our second campaign. Otherwise the battles didn't even last 3 rounds sometimes. If you look at the wizad at level 10 he has 40 hitpoints. By comparison a barbarian has 120. We concluded that a theoretical hitpoint maximum just doesn't make up for having greater defensive and offensive power. Granted constitution bonuses can change this, but it has the chance to change both equally.
Tarkwin 05-01-06, 02:29 PM	in any game i run i use the max hp for both players and monsters, its nice and simple and you dont have barbarians rolling 1's on hp and having the least hp of the group.(has happend the player refused to keep playing him).
Durath 05-01-06, 04:29 PM	We used to allow a reroll on a 1 for hp, but you couldn't get max hp. I suppose in retrospect that did favor wizards.
Crystal Monk 05-01-06, 10:07 PM	I houserule somewhere in between that - I say you always get at least half your hit points when you roll, before adding CON bonus. it's true that it probably does favor wizards and such, but it also means that everyone gets enough of a gain to make it worth it. and naturally, I do this for the monsters too, unless I'm rolling up a random group of kobolds or something. :D
Darth Sephiroth 05-01-06, 10:16 PM	I just made it a re-roll ones for HP, if it comes up again as a 1, well you're stuck for the level
Coren 05-02-06, 12:55 AM	An idea i've heard before is that if hp are maxed, weapons and spells should do max damage. Probably easier to calculate.
MasterOfPsychic 05-02-06, 03:43 AM	Sounds not too bad, but remeber that this will lead to longer battles, unless you max all damage and such, but that would be boring... The option is good, as long as you are willing to play long battles... I like it as it seems to not destroy your favorite char...
Galroth 05-02-06, 04:24 AM	We do this, and have been doing it for some time. The only time you role for your hp's is if you spent more than 1/2 of that level poisoned or diseased. Other than that players and monsters all get max hps to make the battles less about who wins iniative and more about who knows how to use their abilities and work as a team.
myeviltwin 05-02-06, 09:06 AM	If you're going to make hp increase at a constant rate, you should probably take the average rather than the max. That's what the monster manual and the CR system in general are balanced against. So a wizard with 14 constitution should get 4 or 5 hp a level (probably alternating) rather than 6.
Silverstream 05-02-06, 08:09 PM	Our own group encountered something like that. Where the wizards were getting as much or more HP as the fighter. We still wanted some variation, though, so we came up with the following. All classes roll a d4 for HP, with the difference maximized. Meaning: Wizard/Sorcerer gets 1d4 HP. Rogue/Bard gets 1d4 + 2 HP. Cleric/Druid gets 1d4 + 4 HP. Fighter/Paladin gets 1d4 + 6 HP. Different enough to make some difference but the higher HP classes are guaranteed to have better HP. This majorly benefits the melee classes over the wizard classes, though, as the d4 HPers don't change. Be warned, though. Even the books put it that the benefit gained by having more HP is not offset by the real suckage of having low HP. Meaning, always having good HP makes all of the classes much more powerful. So be sure to take that into account when assigning CR enemies. As a side note, for monsters we do regular rolls, but give the class enemies (and some BBEGuys) the same better HP system as the PC's.
caeruleus 05-02-06, 11:23 PM	Our own group encountered something like that. Where the wizards were getting as much or more HP as the fighter. We still wanted some variation, though, so we came up with the following. All classes roll a d4 for HP, with the difference maximized. Meaning: Wizard/Sorcerer gets 1d4 HP. Rogue/Bard gets 1d4 + 2 HP. Cleric/Druid gets 1d4 + 4 HP. Fighter/Paladin gets 1d4 + 6 HP. Different enough to make some difference but the higher HP classes are guaranteed to have better HP. This majorly benefits the melee classes over the wizard classes, though, as the d4 HPers don't change. That's a good system. It's the one used in Iron Heroes, and it's worked out well when I've played it.
Durath 05-03-06, 12:08 AM	Maximizing spell damage is not a good idea..... There's a reason it costs +3 spell levels to maximize a fireball. Just look at a sudden maximized meteor swarm against a single target. That's 24d6 damage maximized. No save assuming you make all your touch attacks..... So now you have to make a 24 Fortitude save or you're dead. Besides, at level 20 you can take a feats like leap attack and shock trooper to end most monsters with a single hit.....Game over I just power attacked you with a 2h weapon for +60 damage with no attack penalty (before you add in str, enhancements, etc). And then you start cleaving..... Currently we have an all melee game, no "dedicated" casters so it's another reason to max those hp. I don't like the d4 difference bit, that really would favor melee quite a bit considering low hitpoints really hurt your character.
pathwalker 05-03-06, 01:22 AM	By core rules, a level 20 barbarian has 84 more hp then a level 20 wizard. Under max hp rules, the barbarina has 160 more hp. Even if the wizard is somewhat tougher to kill then in core (by about 30 hp), I'ed say its a shift in power towards the more martial characters and monsters. Depending on ones perseptive, this may or may not be a good change. Here's my recommendations for using averages: .............wo/Roll..w/Roll Wizard........3......1+1d3 Rogue.........4......2+1d3 Cleric..........5......3+1d3 Fighter........6......4+1d3 Barbarian.....7......5+1d3
Nebo 05-03-06, 11:29 PM	In the campaign that I'm playing in at the moment, we are taking full HP for the first 5 levels, that way nobody is too fragile at the start and towards the later levels there is a bigger difference. Although my wizard only has 4 less HP than the monk of the same level. I really don't like to roll badly on HP, it can ruin a character, I rolled 2 2s in a row for a monk character and as a result I nearly died in every encounter.
Hippokrene 05-04-06, 01:59 AM	Steady HP gain is a good thing. I see randomness as being best in tense situations where 'anything can happen' or where there's a good chance a PC could lose. You don't roll for how many skill points you get per level or for how many spells, why roll for HP?
allenchan 05-04-06, 02:40 AM	I dont use max, but as been stated before: d4=3 d6=4 d8=5 d10=6 d12=7. Works great for me and my pcs, and makes npc generation on the fly a bit easier.
Witch 05-04-06, 07:12 AM	I believe this is a relative nerf of casters. I'd suggest using averages, it balances out more.
Vermifaux 05-04-06, 09:29 AM	The way we do is PCs roll for their HP for the level and if they roll below 1/2 on the dice they get 1/2 (Rogue rolls 1d6 and gets 1, he gets 3 HP plus Con bonus)
9JACK9 05-04-06, 01:13 PM	I like "1/2 your hitdie +1" method. IE: Rogue with a d6 gets 3+1+Con, Fighter gets 5+1+Con. Works out pretty good, especially when you apply that method to the monsters the PC's fight. Helps you keep track of their hitpoints, too, a HUGE plus... 3d8+9 monster equals: 8(I give em' max at first hitdie. Makes the PC's earn that 300xp, especially against undead. Go d12!)+5+5+9. Total of 27.
Witchblade 05-05-06, 04:00 PM	I'm not saying I don't like more HP, because I do (I like longer combats, I also give the party 25-point-buy), but ruling Max-HP has some serious flaws: 1 - The more HD you got, the more powerful you get, as your HP is increased more. Barbarians get a serious power boost with this rule and Wizards get nerfed. 2 - Damage effects are less useful, as everyone has more HP. 3 - Save-or-Die and Take-Out spells are way better now, like Finger of Death and Hold Person. 4 - Constitution becomes relatively less relevant, as it determines less of your total HP. If you want the party to get steady HP, just let them get the average. I seriously don't see why so many people don't use this rule: d4 = 2.5 d6 = 3.5 d8 = 4.5 d10 = 5.5 d12 = 6.5 Round down when playing, but keep track of any decimals for purpose of levelling up, as 13.5 + 3.5 = 17, not 16. Since I like longer combats, I houserule a steady HP variant with increased HP to 75% instead of 50%. I'm strongly against rolling for HP (and ability scores) as this all messes up your characters, and brings up (minor) balance issues. I use: d4 = 3 d6 = 4 d8 = 6 d10 = 7.5 d12 = 8 I'm well aware of the balance issues that arise because of my houserule. I don't mind though, because IMHO: - Casters are more powerful than warriors. - Save-or-Die are not fun (I houseruled those too). - Direct Damage spells are boring. Note that ruling 75% HP doesn't bring up much balance issues and TBH neither does ruling 100% HP, but more than 50% or 75%.
FriendoftheDork 05-09-06, 06:56 AM	I'm well aware of the balance issues that arise because of my houserule. I don't mind though, because IMHO: - Casters are more powerful than warriors. - Save-or-Die are not fun (I houseruled those too). - Direct Damage spells are boring. Note that this will not make casters less powerful, it only nerfs wizards and sorcerers more. I'm not sure what you've donw with save or die spells, but have you also limited the save-or-be-helpless spells? Hold person? Dominate? Baleful Polymorph? Tasha's Hideous laughter? Even so, clerics and druids will still be the best characters, and now wizards and sorcs can't compete with them anymore. Their buffs are still great, their HD is OK, and they don't really need direct damage spells. About the last... direct damage spells are boring... I hope your players also agree, I for one likes direct damage spells alot, especially the overlooked ones like Shocking Grasp and Produce Flame. One of my most fun fights was when my 12th level wizard killed a 18th level psion with a maximized Scorching Ray and a quickened Magic Missile right after my cohort had dispelled his major buffs (read: Vigor).
Witchblade 05-09-06, 08:43 AM	Note that this will not make casters less powerful, it only nerfs wizards and sorcerers more. I'm not sure what you've donw with save or die spells, but have you also limited the save-or-be-helpless spells? Hold person? Dominate? Baleful Polymorph? Tasha's Hideous laughter? Basically my save-or-die houserules are: If CL is at least double the ECL of the target, it's the same. If it's not, it will reduce the target to 0 HP. This about equally nerfs Clerics, Sorcerers and Wizards I think and it's no big deal for the PCs, since 0HP equals victory mostly. But it works wonders against the PCs, one failed save doesn't kill a character outright. I haven't modified those other spells, because they don't necessarily kill you. They just take you out of the frame. Even so, clerics and druids will still be the best characters, and now wizards and sorcs can't compete with them anymore. Their buffs are still great, their HD is OK, and they don't really need direct damage spells. Well I'm playing pretty strict on Clerics' religion and I use the new errata for Wildshape so it's oke. And my players aren't really keen om playing the healer, so it's all right if they're a little overpowered. Besides, Druids and Clerics rely on melee damage and that's less effective too now. About the last... direct damage spells are boring... I hope your players also agree, I for one likes direct damage spells alot, especially the overlooked ones like Shocking Grasp and Produce Flame. One of my most fun fights was when my 12th level wizard killed a 18th level psion with a maximized Scorching Ray and a quickened Magic Missile right after my cohort had dispelled his major buffs (read: Vigor). Well that's still possible. Direct damage spells aren't affected anymore than direct melee attacks. Also, this doesn't work much against the PCs, since the PCs have more HP, but the enemies don't (except BBEGs, I give those more HP) so casters are still viable. NPC direct damage casters are just less viable. But your main point is right. Giving more HP provides some balance issues and you need to take a careful look on your own party before introducing these rules. They're campaign specific.
Rolof 05-09-06, 09:29 AM	I prefer an adaptation of an old 2nd ed. rule; back then the constitution ability score chart had the following info on it: 20 ** All 1s rolled for hit dice are automatically made 2s 21-22 *** All 1s and 2s rolled are automatically made 3s 24-25 **** All 1s 2s and 3s rolled automatically made 4s Simply treat the number of asterisks 2, 3, or 4, to be equal to what in 3.5 is the character's con modifier bonus, and then apply the benefit. For instance, 18 con = +4 con mod, so that player automatically gets a 4 on any hitdie if they roll less than 4. You can expand the chart further if need be to include +5 and above for cons of 20 or more, though it would not apply to those with too low of a die to get it. Guess it still favors those with the d4 HPs some, though if need be to suit your asthetics or soothe player feelings, you could tailor this to being only allowed for those with a d8 or d10 or higher to start with. In my opinion it can be a nice compromise, I won't give away the store, but I'm willing to give a discount. There's even some precedent for that last bit, since until third edition, only a fighter was allowed to benefit fully from a high con score, all other classes were limited to +2 HPs per die no matter how high their con was.
Rerednaw 05-09-06, 09:50 AM	I used different variants. Max hp for the first few levels, then average die after that (so a d8 would get 4 and 5 per die at alternating levels). I am now using out of the book, max at first level and then alternating average low and high. Not sticking with that ran into some serious balance issues and generally improved the power of melees and divine casters over arcane casters. I didn't mind the increase of melees, since they are gimped to begin with. My concern was that divine casters got even more unbalancing with the change given they melee almost as well before buffs and much better after buffing than martial types. A wizard who may have sacrificed his mental stats for a high con should nearly have as much hp's as a rogue or bard. Average for a d4 is 2.5, average for a d6 is 3.5. That's only 1 hp difference per level. The wizard only needs to have a con 2 better than a rogue's to have the same hp. Then again, what kind of point-buy for stats are you using? Or was it rolls? In my game when I increased hit points this is what happened: Combat was not necessarily longer. And it was even seem less rewarding. By diminishing the value of hit points, my game shifted to move 'save or die' variety magics which for the most part, martial types generally are weaker against in terms of saving throws. Arcanes have to shift more of their repertoire towards defensive magics to avoid the 'omg I got one-shotted by a bugbear' factor. The only worry divines had was their cures became less effective. But since they are too busy killing the BBEG by themselves it did not really impact them that much. Then again it is your game so do what you want. YMMV. Cheers. Certain melee favoring PC's were b*tching about wizards who always seemed to get 3's and 4's every level (the player in question had exactly one two and zero one's. There were many more 4's than 3's. I know because I watch them level up!) Couple this with a high constitution and the wizard has as many hp's as the rogue. It just felt broken to us. So, we don't roll for hitpoints. Got a d12, you get 12 hitpoints every level. It really isn't much of a stretch for the monsters, because I've been giving them max hp ever since our second campaign. Otherwise the battles didn't even last 3 rounds sometimes. If you look at the wizad at level 10 he has 40 hitpoints. By comparison a barbarian has 120. We concluded that a theoretical hitpoint maximum just doesn't make up for having greater defensive and offensive power. Granted constitution bonuses can change this, but it has the chance to change both equally.
Findail 05-09-06, 03:27 PM	I dont use max, but as been stated before: d4=3 d6=4 d8=5 d10=6 d12=7. Works great for me and my pcs, and makes npc generation on the fly a bit easier. Yes, that's my preferred solution. With max hitpoints for the first level only, as per standard rules. Very slightly favours Wiz/Sorc, because the extra 0.5 above average is proportionately larger on a d4 than on a d12. But they need the help.
Tharivol 05-09-06, 11:53 PM	What I like to do is to allow a player a choice at every level. You may either take half of the maximum for your die or you may roll, but if you roll low you're stuck with it. Since the average die roll is half max +1, rolling will tend to work out better, but taking half is safer. The player can choose which he or she prefers, and can choose differently at different levels (the fighter may want to make sure he has enough so he takes half at second level, but at third he'll take the risk and roll).
Rhomphaia 05-11-06, 04:57 PM	The way my group plays really helps melee types in the long run and doesn't change casters much at all. For the first two levels, HP are maxed. After that, it is either roll or take the average. Almost everyone rolls except me. I judge whether or not to roll based on the size of my hit die. d4 or d6 and I usually roll for HP, higher than that I tend to take average, since the chances of rolling below average really increase on d8, d10 and d12. When you look at the numbers, on a d4, a 2 or 3 would be considered 'average' (even though it is actually 2.5). Only being capable of rolling numbers 1-4, a d4 only has a 25% chance of rolling below average. However, consistently rolling 2s would probably constitute rolling below average as well, but I am talking about a single die roll. On the other hand, on a d12, a 6 or 7 would be 'average' (since rolling 6.5 is impossible on a single roll) and on a spread of 1-12, this works out to a 41.7% chance of rolling below average, a significant increase from that of a d4. I will show the chances below for each die to roll below 'average'. d4: 25%. d6: 33.3% d8: 37.5%. d10: 40%. d12: 41.7%. So yes, forcing your players to roll does inherently favor arcane casters and rogues and nerfs clerics and fighters a bit. On the other hand, taking averages each level favors the higher hit die types while nerfing rogues and arcane casters a bit. However, the latter should not be a problem for the following reason. (unless they are very unusual in concept) Rogues and arcane casters should not be getting hit nearly as often in combat. Whether due to spell or staying out of the mix or away from attention, they should just plain not be getting hit. Casters should have plenty of defensive spells on hand (none of mine are ever caught going out on adventure without at least a Shield or Mage Armor spell and some sort of energy defense) while Rogues shouldn't be getting hit because of high ACs and acting in such a way as to avoid being hit. Note that this is how I see the standard class as written in the core books.
Tharivol 05-12-06, 01:33 PM	Except that you're neglecting that those characters also have a higher chance of rolling above average. Rolling with low-HD characters is still safer since you can only be a few off, but rolling with the high-HD ones can also have more reward, 'sjust riskier.
Rhomphaia 05-12-06, 08:40 PM	Except that you're neglecting that those characters also have a higher chance of rolling above average. Rolling with low-HD characters is still safer since you can only be a few off, but rolling with the high-HD ones can also have more reward, 'sjust riskier. Riskier and the higher reward does not outwiegh the possible risk. A wizard who (under standard rules) rolls a 4, 1, 2, 1, 1 for HP is not in as much trouble as a fighter who rolls 10, 3, 2, 4, 5, for HP. Look at it like this, a wizard who goes from level 1 to 2 rolls a 1 for his second hit die. A good hit (5 or 6 damage) from a short sword is still gonna take him out. At most he would withstand two good hits depending on what he rolls for his hit points. Then again, a wizard really isn't supposed to be hit by a short sword in combat. On the other hand, a fighter's survivability is directly influenced by his hit points. The fighter advances from level 1 to 2 and rolls a 1 or 2 for his HP, that doesn't change how durable he is. Two or three good hits from that same short sword is going to take him out just the same as it would have at level 1. He can hit a little better, but he is no more capable of standing up in combat. Give him an average roll of 5 or 6, and he is suddenly able to withstand another good hit from that short sword. Roll higher and there is an additional time he can be bashed with that sword before falling. Now this seems pretty even, but let's think about the other effects of low HP. The fighter, low HP or not, is still expected to be in front during combat. This means trading blows with the bad guys. Now inevitably, he is going to get hit. The less HP he has, the more the cleric will have to heal him so he doesn't fall down and there is more of a chance he will be felled in one lucky blow (critical) and then the rest of the party has lost their buffer between themselves and the enemy. Fighter/barbarian HP totals are directly responsible for party survivability, among other factors.
PurdueDave 05-13-06, 12:25 AM	As DM I always allow taking average (low on even levels, high on odd). As a player I take average if it's allowed. Low HPs hurt far more than high HPs help. If you want to be a little generous use the common 1/2 of die max plus 1.
Atirakis 05-13-06, 12:57 PM	1s should never be allowed for any HP rolls except for the d4 and MAYBE the d6 classes. In my campaign I have the no less than half rule, however instead of getting a re roll you get half if you roll less than half.