Post/Author/DateTime	Post
cerberuspuppy 12-27-06, 10:42 PM	I'm starting a new game next month, and I've already decided to use point buy for the stats because I don't like so much randomness in something so fundamental to the character. For many of the same reasons, I'm also thinking of giving the PCs maximum HP every level. I just wanted to vet the idea a bit, so I could get a better picture of the ramifications. First of all, I don't mind making the PCs a bit tougher. If it really comes down to it, I can just use harder encounters. I don't balance every fight to CR anyway; some are easy, some are very difficult. Second, I have from time to time, maxed out a monster's HP, and I can give important villains max HP too if I want. Third, there is the matter of the rolls themselves. They can really skew things. In RAW, you can easily have a Bard with more HP than a Fighter, simply because the Bard is rolling really well and the Fighter is rolling really badly. A larger hit die can actually create more variation, and make bad luck hurt more. Most games I've played have some sort of house rule about hit dice, like rerolling if you get below average. This is just taking that to its logical conclusion. As for ramifications, the most obvious is that the hit die of a class becomes more important. A Fighter will always have alot more HP than a Ranger, and a Barbarian will always have alot more HP than a Fighter. How much it tips balance between classes is up for debate. So, any thoughts?
Mock26 12-27-06, 10:48 PM	What I do for my players is to give maximum HP at first level, and then use a modifed die roll for every level. This modified die roll is to go to a lower die with a bonus. For example, a fighter would roll 1d8+2 for their HP, a thief would roll 1d4+2, and a mage would roll 1d3+1. I find that this really doesn't do much for the warrior classes, but it helps out the "weaker" classes with a little bit of boost. I have been doing this for quite some time and my current group is up to 6th-7th level and it has not unduly affected the game in any way that I have been able to notice. Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
PhaedrusXY 12-27-06, 10:50 PM	I played under a couple of DMs who maxed all hit points. At the low levels, it would be ok. However, at the upper levels, I hated it. Just one of the "problems" that it caused:direct damage spells were even more suboptimal than they otherwise are at the higher levels of the game. Another group of people I used to play with maxed hit points up to level 5, and then rolled after that. I think that worked fairly well, without messing things up too badly later on.
Evillain 12-28-06, 12:38 AM	My group uses max Hp at first level, then we roll for, mainly the fun of it. There's no more important role than your hp roll, the anticipation the wait, the 1.... :p or on the oposite, the 12!! and your like SHAZAM! Barbarian (or warblade) for the win! but if you want to make your players a little stronger, you might consider giving them average HD rounded up, or rolling the dice, as they choose. I'm sure you'd be surprise how many of them actually roll.
unundindur 12-28-06, 08:55 AM	I'm starting a new game next month, and I've already decided to use point buy for the stats because I don't like so much randomness in something so fundamental to the character. For many of the same reasons, I'm also thinking of giving the PCs maximum HP every level. I just wanted to vet the idea a bit, so I could get a better picture of the ramifications. First of all, I don't mind making the PCs a bit tougher. If it really comes down to it, I can just use harder encounters. I don't balance every fight to CR anyway; some are easy, some are very difficult. Second, I have from time to time, maxed out a monster's HP, and I can give important villains max HP too if I want. Third, there is the matter of the rolls themselves. They can really skew things. In RAW, you can easily have a Bard with more HP than a Fighter, simply because the Bard is rolling really well and the Fighter is rolling really badly. A larger hit die can actually create more variation, and make bad luck hurt more. Most games I've played have some sort of house rule about hit dice, like rerolling if you get below average. This is just taking that to its logical conclusion. As for ramifications, the most obvious is that the hit die of a class becomes more important. A Fighter will always have alot more HP than a Ranger, and a Barbarian will always have alot more HP than a Fighter. How much it tips balance between classes is up for debate. So, any thoughts? Good and logical reasoning. Even Andy Collins agreed the hp rolls was and still is a broken mecanic :) its the same with rolling for stats... game-lasting variables aren't good for anything if you ask me. They tend to end with some sort of fix anyway, such as "oh, you rolled that bad, well just reroll". Player vs. NPc balance isnt important, its in-group balance that matters. After all, you as a Gm have total and uter control of NPCs and people are by nature competitive, so few like when their mate is grossly more powerful :)
zae 12-28-06, 08:59 AM	It means damaging effects aren't as useful. As it stands, no competent caster casts Fireball etc. No, they cast a Save or Die spell, because you bypass all of the annoying HP and skip to the part where the enemies die. This is also (one of many reasons) why casters outclass fighters at high levels: The fighter charges up and smacks the enemy for a hundred damage or so, and the enemy still has a few hundred left. The silly caster uses a damage spell, and knocks off another hundred, and finally it stomps over them for some damage before they finish it off. If they were smart, they'd just go "Save vs Death!" and it would die. That's how the game already works. Before your houserule, that is. Now, consider that when everyone has more HP, it becomes a bigger pain to chip all of it away. People are likely to focus exclusively on save or die effects. If you simply ban anything that can be considered a Save or Die (Sleep counts, here. Perhaps "Save or go on a snack run because you're out of the fight" works better.) then this doesn't become a problem. But otherwise, yeah, you'll find that those extra HP never become relevant as everyone just goes around forcing Fort/Will saves.
Endarire 12-28-06, 09:53 AM	I advise maxing at L1 and allowing PCs to roll or take average at every level thereafter. -EE
cerberuspuppy 12-28-06, 09:24 PM	I won't bother maxing out HP for every monster, just for a few key monsters and major villains- cases where I probably want the fight to last a little longer anyway. I'm not a huge fan of Save or Dies, but I haven't DM'd enough to have a problem with them personally. Key villains can have defenses against such things, and to a small extent I can fudge saves if I really need to.
cerberuspuppy 12-28-06, 09:40 PM	Good and logical reasoning. Even Andy Collins agreed the hp rolls was and still is a broken mecanic :) its the same with rolling for stats... game-lasting variables aren't good for anything if you ask me. They tend to end with some sort of fix anyway, such as "oh, you rolled that bad, well just reroll". Player vs. NPc balance isnt important, its in-group balance that matters. After all, you as a Gm have total and uter control of NPCs and people are by nature competitive, so few like when their mate is grossly more powerful :) Exactly. Die rolls in combat are totally different. Bad rolls actually can kill a character, but that's the exception and not the rule. In the long run, all those dice in all those fights succumb to the law of averages. Over several levels, Hit Dice also tend to average out, but it takes much longer and it's much less consistent. Two bad rolls can put a character 20% below average, especially for the melee classes, who have bigger dice with more variation, and they need HP the most.
cerberuspuppy 12-28-06, 09:59 PM	If everyone has average HP, then a Rogue gets 4 per level, and a Fighter gets 6, for a difference of 2. But if everyone gets max, then the gap is 4. This does place alot more importance on the hit die of classes relative to one another. Will this cause the players to skip Fighters in favor of Barbarians? Should I cap Barbarians at 10? With the way I'm doing it, balance within the party is the only issue that doesn't have an obvious quick fix. Even that might not be a big deal; different classes have different strengths, and players know this. The problem might only apply to classes that fill similar roles but have different hit dice.
cerberuspuppy 12-28-06, 10:02 PM	Another benefit is simply book keeping. I will always know how many HP my PCs are supposed to have, and the entirety of leveling can be done at home between sessions.
Glororhan 12-29-06, 03:26 AM	I agree that rolling for hit points is not the best idea. It's weird to base one of the most important stats in d&d on random die rolls! We don't roll to figure out what our Base Attack Bonus will be, or how many extra spells a day we'll be able to cast, after all! Page 198 of the Dungeon Master's Guide has a pretty simple variant that I have used in most of my games. It's also used in most of the games I play in. The way it works is that you get max hit points for first level, like normal. Then, for every even level thereafter you get the lower of the average for hit points, and for every odd level you get the higher of the average for hit points. So, for example, a rogue would get 6 HPs at level one, then 3 next level, then 4, then 3, and so on. A fighter would get 10 HPs at level one, then 5 level two, then 6 level three, then five level four, and so on! This way most accurately simulates rolling average for hit points since it alternates every level, keeps damaging spells roughly equivalent to how they are now, and keeps the classes balanced too! So you don't need to worry about people choosing barbarians over fighters because of this rule change or anything.
Xeviat-DM 12-29-06, 08:42 PM	In my games, over the years, I have adopted a simple ability score array: 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8. Players can move this around on point for point basis. The stats average out to straight 13s; I've grown to dislike the point buy system's method of skewwing stat costs and how it makes even stats easier to purchase than odds. Mook NPCs use 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, but their CR is decreased by 1. Important NPCs get the PC array, and they have normal CR. This is done because the PC array is more potent; the Monster Manual states that giving PC stats to a monster increases it's CR by 1 (and classed monsters get the PC array by default). Since I've boosted the power of the PC array, I've decreased the power of the NPCs with standard array. My point? PCs and NPCs should use full HP; mooks should use average. This makes mooks threatening, but their fights last less. It makes damaging spells still useful in the vast majority of fights. I do think that save or dies need to be adressed more and more as the years go on (I'd be more comfortable if they were changed to be more like disintigrate). No base stat like HP should be that random. Skill points, Spell Slots, and every other resource are fixed; randomizing them is a sacred cow that should be abolished.
Hochiu 12-30-06, 02:11 AM	I don't like maximum HP per level. All my friends get angry at me for making them roll, or doing anything other than allowing them to have their d#+ Con mod each level. I know there's one campaign setting I look at that instead cuts up the HP in half and then has you roll the other half in dice. A barbarian would receive a base 6 points of HP next level, and the player would roll a 1d6 in order to finish it off. I like that system since it gives you at least half of the possible roll prior to constitution modifier so you generally end up with enough that you wouldn't otherwise curse out.
questionc 12-30-06, 04:32 AM	Non-random hitpoints is a very reasonable house-rule. Honestly... rolling for hitpoints is a bad mechanic anyhow. Still, taking their full hit-die is also problematic. Con score becomes unimportant. Spells, traps, abilities, &ct are balanced around the assumption that characters roll about half their hitpoints per level, not full. As you said, size of hit die becomes more important. Fights will take twice as long (obviously). Personally, I suggest giving the players 1/2hd + 1 per level. It's non-random, it benefits the players (mildly), and it doesn't interfere with the assumptions the game was balanced on.
Marrethiel 01-02-07, 12:00 AM	I exlusively use what I call "dodgy average" which is the mathematical average rounded up. It's simple and speaking from long experience works well.
Fallenangel359 01-02-07, 08:17 PM	my group rolls hp 3 times, and takes best results... we find that statistically that works out well.
DarkRhystar 01-02-07, 08:27 PM	As for ramifications, the most obvious is that the hit die of a class becomes more important. A Fighter will always have alot more HP than a Ranger, and a Barbarian will always have alot more HP than a Fighter. How much it tips balance between classes is up for debate. So, any thoughts? One of the niftier methods I've seen on these boards that I plan to try out is: d4 -> d4 d6 -> d4+2 d8 -> d4+4 d10 -> d4+6 d12 -> d4+8 Benefits: First, rolling a 1 hurts everyone the same. If you roll a 1 on a d12, you've just lost 11 HP versus 3 had you rolled a 1 on a d4. With this system, everyone risks the same amount of HP per roll. Second, high hit die classes will have more HP than lower hit die classes. That burly Barbarian is guaranteed to have at least twice the HP of the Wizard before extra modifiers. Third, this makes the hit die of the class a lot more important. As it stands, a high Constitution can more than make up differences in hit die with a random rolling system as it's so easy to roll poorly. With a system like this, classes with higher hit dies are more valuable. Finally, you can use the same die for every character. Not really a huge advantage but I swear d12s are never around when you need them. :)
Andion Isurand 01-02-07, 09:10 PM	Roughly half the games I've been in used average hit points. first level -- max HP even levels -- average rounded down odd levels -- average rounded up 1d4 x 20 lvls = 51 HP 1d6 x 20 lvls = 72 HP 1d8 x 20 lvls = 93 HP 1d10 x 20 lvls = 114 HP 1d12 x 20 lvls = 135 HP
thebestideaieverhad 01-02-07, 09:43 PM	call me old-fashioned... but i just roll the dice in my games, things usually don't turn out bad.
Racous121 01-03-07, 04:05 PM	What I allow for my hp rolls in my home game has been adopted by both the DMs I play with on the other night I play. It is a pretty simple system that usually eliminates the chance for the 1 roll. All HP is maxed at first level. D4 hp you roll 1d4 D6 or D8 you roll 2d6/8 taking the highest roll D10 or d12 you roll 3d10/12 taking the highest roll I like to throw encounters that make the party think. Most times if they charge in and fight they will die. My players like my campaigns because I usually allow them to make super characters. Which by the way I really enjoy killing them. Racous
Roivas 01-03-07, 05:30 PM	I use max hp at every level, but that's mostly because I know how fragile my players are. By the same token I often give the monsters the same courtesy. Strangely the players tend not to go after the save-or-die powers, mostly due to my policy of deterrence, expect the monsters to use any tactics that you do if they are smart enough.
FoxmanFX 01-05-07, 07:11 PM	My players and I use the following system: Max HP at first level (unchanged). Roll for HP for the level that was gained and record. Every level they have 1 free reroll. They can rereoll HP for any level gained so far (including the one they currently have.) If they don't use the re-roll they lose it. Example: Fred the fighter Level 1 - gain 10 HP Level 2 - roll 3 HP - reroll get 5 HP (net 15 HP) Level 3 - roll 7 HP - reroll level 2 (5 HP), get 2 HP (Net 19 HP) Level 4 - roll 5 HP - reroll level 2 (2 HP), get 9 HP (Net 31 HP) Level 5 - roll 3 HP - reroll level 5 (3 HP), get 8 HP (Net 39 HP) So at level 5 for each level his HP is: 10, 9, 7, 5, 8 It requires some tracking but my party enjoys it and it works out to roughly 3/4 max hp every level...
Millenia 01-05-07, 11:40 PM	I think rolling for max HP is a good idea and not too balancing, excluding complaints of direct damage dealing. The house rule my DM uses is that every player rolls a d4. If the class HD is d4, nothing changes. If the class HD is d6, you roll 1d4+2 (not counting con). If the class HD is d8, you roll 1d4+4. If the class HD is d10, you roll 1d4+6. If the class HD is d12, you roll 1d4+8. It works pretty good so far, I think. ^_^;;
The_sleeper1 01-06-07, 08:44 AM	I'm starting a new game next month, and I've already decided to use point buy for the stats because I don't like so much randomness in something so fundamental to the character. For many of the same reasons, I'm also thinking of giving the PCs maximum HP every level. I just wanted to vet the idea a bit, so I could get a better picture of the ramifications. First of all, I don't mind making the PCs a bit tougher. If it really comes down to it, I can just use harder encounters. I don't balance every fight to CR anyway; some are easy, some are very difficult. Second, I have from time to time, maxed out a monster's HP, and I can give important villains max HP too if I want. Third, there is the matter of the rolls themselves. They can really skew things. In RAW, you can easily have a Bard with more HP than a Fighter, simply because the Bard is rolling really well and the Fighter is rolling really badly. A larger hit die can actually create more variation, and make bad luck hurt more. Most games I've played have some sort of house rule about hit dice, like rerolling if you get below average. This is just taking that to its logical conclusion. As for ramifications, the most obvious is that the hit die of a class becomes more important. A Fighter will always have alot more HP than a Ranger, and a Barbarian will always have alot more HP than a Fighter. How much it tips balance between classes is up for debate. So, any thoughts? In my games I make characters max hp for levels 1-3 and then I let them roll if they get less than half there average (round down) I round them up to it. So a fighter rolls a 2 at 4th level and he gets rounded up to 5 instead. It produces a bit stronger characters. The way I am doing stats I have 3 sets of stats with 2 stats in each entry. You pick 1 set from each stat block and get the 2 stats that relates to. Highest score set chose one set only: 1- 18, 8 2- 17, 10 3- 16, 13 4- 15, 15 Mid numbers set chose one: A- 18, 7 B- 17, 9 C- 16, 12 D- 15, 13 Average number set chose one: W- 17, 8 X- 16, 11 Y- 15, 12 Z- 14, 14 If a character were to pick 1, C & Z they would have 18, 16, 14, 14, 12 & 8 as their stats. Picking higher stats gives you lower stats at the same time. You don’t discard any of the numbers you pick are the numbers you get. Adjust for race after you pick your stats and assign. Those are fairly high stats but you could keep the same stat levels of a lower point if you reduced some of the numbers, this build is more set for a high power game.
Dragoloth 01-06-07, 10:08 AM	In my game I have my players roll HD but I use a houserule. You can never get less hp than your con modifier. While this makes con a bit more important my players seem to like it. The wizard and psion in my game each have a con of 18.
Thelon Fairblade 01-09-07, 02:20 PM	I use this for PCs: roll; if you don't like your roll, *I* will reroll and you're stuck with it. The players chose this over: 75% of max HP, round down on odd, up on even. So a mage gets 3/lvl. a barb gets 9/lvl. Clerics and rangers get 6/lvl. Rogues get 4 then 5 then 4 then 5... Fighters get 7 then 8 then 7 then... For the average bad guy / monster, they get pure average (not average per level). 1d8 = 4 hp. 2d8 = 9 hp. For BBEGs, they get the same 75% rule the players were offered. Damage spells are less effective, slightly, against PCs, which is not a bad thing. And the abberation of the previous campaign, where the bard indeed had 14hp at second level, and the fighter had 12 (before CON bonuses)... that situation is avoided.
Shaftiel 01-09-07, 04:17 PM	There's another problem with max hp besides spells, and IMO it's even worse - sneak attack! A lot of rogues depend on the first 2 rounds to whack their opponents (surprise + flat footed round 1), or at least weaken them to the point where they are almost dead. With max HP it's tough for rogues to quickly kill each other, let alone actual fighters. You don't multiply the damage on a crit, as do fighters, and unless you're an assassin, there's no sudden death sneak as there is for wizards. So rogues are just SOL... -Shaftiel
Krusk 01-09-07, 07:56 PM	We use the rule, max at level 1 Roll for the rest openly The dm also rolls for each players HP in secret the player must choose their roll, or the DM's roll +1. You end up with a few 13's but generally never any barbarians with a one or two. Casters get a small buff as their range goes from 1-4 to 2-5, but oh well. Players tend to choose the DM's roll when they roll below average, but this dosnt always gaurentee good HP. The dm could roll a 2. Generally the dm tends to roll slightly above average, but you risk blowing it if you get greedy. comments this usually recieves- "Do i really want a 5 with my fighter? ill take yours, 3." "aww crap a 1 on barbarian? yours 13." "awsome a 6 for cleric, i keep it"
frankthedm 01-09-07, 09:48 PM	I exlusively use what I call "dodgy average" which is the mathematical average rounded up. It's simple and speaking from long experience works well.Most folks refer to that as "high average". I allow characters / creatures in my game to use in rather than roll for HP. If they choose to roll, they live with the result.
pukunui 01-09-07, 11:40 PM	I've just instituted max hp/lvl in my campaign but that's because there are only 3 PCs and I was looking for small but significant ways to compensate for the party not having a 4th action each round (my players aren't interested in having me run an NPC as a full party member). We've had one death in the party so far and it was the guy with the most hit points (the dwarf fighter). That's why I decided to give max hp/lvl. I don't think I'll do that with the monsters, though. Just the PCs and maybe a few key NPCs. If it proves to be problematic, I won't do it again in any future campaigns, but I don't foresee it being that big of a problem really ...
Mitsukai_sama 01-14-07, 07:47 PM	I allow my players the option of taking average HP, or rolling. If you allow them to take Max HP, then a few things happen. The gap between the toughness of casters and heavy tanks becomes that much wider. DD spells become less useful (as does the Power Word family of spells), with Save-or-Die or condition-inducing spells becoming the caster's weapons of choice. Players often become bolder than usual at high levels; with that much HP, they're probably not dying too often, and this false sense of security may lead to upset PCs if they do lose a character (in an ideal group, things this shouldn't happen, but they do, and its something you may need to consider). Depending on how you run your campaign, all this may not be a bad thing at all. Just some very important considerations to bear in mind before you implement such a mechanic. :] HTH.