D&D 4E 4e HP speculation based on new D&D podcast

[MaelStorm]

I really hope WoTC doesn't touch this sacred cow, at least not too much. Rolling HP's is a must, but the spread should be less, to avoid hopeless characters.

I think they will take the same approach used in the SWSE which is static for the 1st level character, then roll each level:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STARTING HP
18+CON mod.
24+CON mod.
30+CON mod.

HP/LEVEL
1d6+CON mod.
1d8+CON mod.
1d10+CON mod.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is why the fighter (d10) would start with a 30HP+CON mod.

It would not be difficult to transpose d4 (12+CON mod.) for wizard or d12 (36+CON mod.) for barbarian.

 

[Fifth Element]

I really hope WoTC doesn't touch this sacred cow, at least not too much. Rolling HP's is a must, but the spread should be less, to avoid hopeless characters.

Why is it a must? In 3.X, you don't roll for skill points, you don't roll to see if your BAB or saves increase, you don't roll to see when you gain a feat, you don't roll to see if you get an ability score increase. You don't roll to see which spells you gain, you don't roll to see if you get class abilities.

Why do you roll for hit points? It's the only aspect of character advancement that's random. It doesn't make sense in context. A wizard with a 12 Con can gain more hit points in a level than a fighter with a 16 Con (max 5 versus min 4). Why is that a must? Shouldn't fighters have a chance to gain more skill points than a rogue if that's the case?

 

[Wormwood]

I really hope WoTC doesn't touch this sacred cow, at least not too much. Rolling HP's is a must . . .

It hasn't been a *must* at my table for years.

Not everyone worships this particular cow.

 

[delericho]

As with ability score generation, I am very much against random hit points... for games I am playing in. (And, actually moreso than for ability score generation.)

As with ability score generation, I would prefer to see both random and non-random methods presented side-by-side for people to use as they prefer.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If you think he's too nice, you should see me. My PCs got to start with 80 points divided between their six abilities on a one-for-one basis, which translated to a point buy of anywhere from 36 to 42. And on top of that when they roll hit points, if they roll less than half on the die they get the half score (4 on d8, 6 on d12, etc). And with all that we average a PC going to -10 or below every alternate session. Some of us seem way nicer than we are

Our Age of Worms campaign had at least one PC death per session in the beginning. I think it got a little bit better, but barely so. Next to every PC has Leadership now, and - as usual - the PCs are twinked as much as possible. Unfortunately or fortunately (I am not sure, I am not a fan of our AoW DM), my Radiant Servant of Pelor is rarely with the party, since I can only partake (on average) every 2 sessions, so I pick the campaigns I take part in wisely (round-robin-DMing).

Last thing I heard, some PCs died multiple times in a specific combat. (After reviewing the monster stats the participants of that session concluded that CR 10 was a very liberal interpretation of the CR guidelines, and by liberal we mean they picked a number so that the encounter level would fit the desired level, but it wasn't exactly linked to the monster stats...) But I disgress...

 

[Jack99]

Why is it a must? In 3.X, you don't roll for skill points, you don't roll to see if your BAB or saves increase, you don't roll to see when you gain a feat, you don't roll to see if you get an ability score increase. You don't roll to see which spells you gain, you don't roll to see if you get class abilities.

Why do you roll for hit points? It's the only aspect of character advancement that's random. It doesn't make sense in context. A wizard with a 12 Con can gain more hit points in a level than a fighter with a 16 Con (max 5 versus min 4). Why is that a must? Shouldn't fighters have a chance to gain more skill points than a rogue if that's the case?

TBH, I don't have a good answer. I guess the closest thing I can say is: 20 years of habit.

I have mentioned this in another thread, but to my group and I, rolling HP's is one of the things that we could agree defines DnD.

So when I said it was a must, I was ofc stating my personal opinion, nothing else.

Rationally, I understand that it makes no sense that it is random, but anything else just feels wrong to us.

Cheers,

 

[sinecure]

I think hit points are random because a lot of things were random in the beginning. Everything wasn't meant to be balanced. I don't think people whined about balance as much either or were as shortchanged by a difference in a level or two between PCs. It sounds like 4th edition will be flatter too. So I'm happy for that.

Stats and hit points and starting money and probably some other stuff I don't even know of were all random. My guess is they were random because we are born with random abilities in real life. And the randomness meant some people were better and some worse and you couldn't complain about it. You just outplayed the opposition.

 

[Roman]

I don't really care one way or another about random hit points. I and my group, however, do care about having random ability scores that represent variation in the population, though we are not attached to a 4d6 drop the lowest system. PCs are not average people, so in our opinion they do need to fall into the above-average range in terms of their ability scores, but we feel there should still be randomness in terms of what ability scores they actually get.

 

[DamnedChoir]

I really hope WoTC doesn't touch this sacred cow, at least not too much. Rolling HP's is a must, but the spread should be less, to avoid hopeless characters.

I used to love rolling for HP's in second edition...but you know the longer I've played the game and the more D&D has developed into a tactical, ridiculously overbalanced game of number crunching. (The earlier editions were not like this.) The more and more it just seemed like rolling was unfair and cruel.

Why should someone with good ideas and a good build end up with a total +1 for all his ability score adjustments put together, with a bout 3-4 HP per level as a Barbarian from ridiculously low rolls, while bob the Monk is 18 17 16 15 14 12 and has rolled 7-8 on every die + his high con mod? A few levels in and Bob the monk could easily kick the hell out of Jerry the Barbarian in a one-on fight even with Jerry raged.

In real life, one I suppose could argue that it's random what everyone gets...but not really. In real life there's nature and nurture and it's not really so much random considering people also have the ability to train their bodies and develop skills on their own. If you're born small and skinny, you can work out. If you're clumsy you can take gymnastics, if you're shy, take Speech classes.

In D&D though you can never really change those random rolls. You can never 'work out' at level 20 without magic items you have a total of +5 points or about 2.5 extra plusses to your attributes not counting magic.

If you start with 9 strenght, you won't have 14 by the end of the game unless it's from magic.

And since this is the nature of the game, rolling just feels wrong.

In a game like WFRP or GURPS or WOD where you can increase attributes and abilities with exp, random rolling would make more sense because if you start off with a weakness you can spend time making sure it doesn't cripple you. In D&D...you're screwed. Roll a new character.

 

[DamnedChoir]

I also have to say, as for 3x HP at first level...I never really liked that idea. For a funny reason, really, is that I thought 4x, or 2x made more sense, but every time I've played with 3x it just...I don't know, set me off. Firstly because it's 3x(Max HD)+Con Bonus, which I think minimizes the importance of Con at first level, and secondly because almost everything in 3E and 3.5 at least were x4 at first level.

I also do agree that 4 for a caster and 6 for a defender might be a bit low.

Maybe 4 Controller, 6 Striker/Leader, 8 Defender would make a bit more sense. I've always supported max HP even after first level as a viable option when I've run a game where I used non-random ability score generation. The monsters all got max HP too, mind. It was just easier to calculate than rolling a lot. Fighter gets 10 per level, ding. Might not be super balanced as per the rules but neither was rolling.

As for HP based on roles? I'd like that a lot more than HP based on class. As-is, we need some standardization to make sure that people get a better idea where HP comes from. I could definitely see all controllers, even Martial or Divine having the lowest HP range. A martial controller would just be a machinist, war engine guy, or alchemist, right? Since when do they have tons of staying power in man to man combat?

I'd definately love to see a Divine Controller, mind. A 'Priest' class would be awesome. Cleric spells and powers tuned to the max without much combat prowess. Alot like the Cloistered cleric from UA which I enjoyed. When I usually think 'Cleric' I think of a guy in linen robes praying, not so much a guy in full plate with a shield and a mace calling down a pillar of fire, but I'm fine with that long as we have the squishy holy guy as an alternative.