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

[Mercule]

As much as I hate(d) random ability scores, I like some variation in hps. I'm behind a reduction in spread, but not a completely static hp. I think Iron Heroes got it pretty much exactly right.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Well they have said that rolling for HP is gone multiple times since the announcement.

Can you think of any specific examples of this?

I ask because nothing has been put on the 4th edition news page to this effect, and if you can come up with a solid cite for it, we can get it on there.

Thanks

 

[JohnSnow]

Can you think of any specific examples of this?

I ask because nothing has been put on the 4th edition news page to this effect, and if you can come up with a solid cite for it, we can get it on there.

Thanks

I don't think there's been anything truly solid, but there's been an awful lot of quotes (including in one of the Podcasts...which one I couldn't tell you) along the lines of "Hit dice? What on earth are 'hit dice?'"

While not exactly conclusive, that's at least tantalizing in its implications.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Static HP are something that while not exactly bad, are not something I would use for the players.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Dragonblade]

Static HP are something that while not exactly bad, are not something I would use for the players.

END COMMUNICATION

I would. Rolling for HP is an artifact of the game best left out of a new edition.

This sacred cow is ready for the grill. Mmmm, sacred cow steak...with a little A-1 Chicago Steakhouse marinade....yum... Dang, I'm making myself hungry...

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Can you think of any specific examples of this?

I ask because nothing has been put on the 4th edition news page to this effect, and if you can come up with a solid cite for it, we can get it on there.

Thanks

The most direct official pronouncement was the one in the podcast where it was said "what hit dice? There are no hit dice." But I'm also fairly sure I saw a reference in one of the WoTC staff posts within the last couple weeks. It was in the discussion about monster roles and levels, an offhand mention that PC HP were no longer random either. As I don't have search it's taking time to wade through all those old threads.

 

[pemerton]

I think hit points are random because a lot of things were random in the beginning.

<snip>

And the randomness meant some people were better and some worse and you couldn't complain about it. You just outplayed the opposition.

I agree with this. And as the action resolution mechanics (which take the character build numbers as inputs) have grown in sophistication and importance, the potential to outplay the opposition with poor numbers has become increasingly reduced.

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.)

Yep.

 

[Anthtriel]

Well, I for one would not have a problem with that, but Khuxan's 6 hp for a defender is a Joke. That's just 2 more than the mage, who we keep being told are smooshy.

Many designers have stated, even before 4E was announced, that the vastly diverging hitpoint totals of the various classes were one major problem of D&D. Monte Cook in particular regretted designing D4 HP classes, and therefore killed them off in Arcana Unearthed.

The proposed model seems fine to me. I would have liked everyone to have one hitpoint more (so that CON bonus matters less, if it still adds hitpoints) I guess, but it's not a big deal.

 

[Bagpuss]

Boo. My players will still be rolling for hit points! I may even reinstitute rolling at 1st level as a form of protest!

Yes, because it's so much fun playing a fighter with less hit points than the wizard.

 

[Steely Dan]

I would. Rolling for HP is an artifact of the game best left out of a new edition.

Yep, please, no more:


"That's a bummer, Hal; you've rolled nothing over a 3 for your paladin's hp the last 5 levels…