D&D 5E Hit points -- how do you roll?

[MechaPilot]

But... then wouldn't every player want this option?

It's not really an option; it's what I tell all the players at my table to do for gaining HPs as they level.

Seems like it's the average or higher always. Assuming a d8 with the prescribed average of 5..
If my roll is 4 and below I get 5, other wise I'll get 6, 7 or 8.

That is a correct assessment of how it functions, and "average or higher always" was the intended result when I decided to use that method.

I don't see why such pampering should be encouraged either.

It's more generous than the rule in the book, but it's not pampering. If I've done my math correctly, it actually results in a new average that is only one point higher than the old average.

Old average:
1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8 = 36
36/8 = 4.5, round up to 5.

New Average:
5+5+5+5+5+6+7+8 = 46
46/8 = 5.75, round up to 6.

However, what it does do is create a situation where no one has to go from bold to timid because they rolled low on two consecutive HP gain rolls. It also liberates me as a DM. I don't have to worry about pulling my punches.

 

[Cristian Andreu]

We roll the dice and live with the consequences. A couple of campaigns ago we had a guy roll 1's and 2's pretty much straight all the way up to 7th level. He was like two well-placed greataxes away from the afterlife.

Even considering that, our games have very low rates of PC deaths, with minimal fudging. There's always a plan, and there's always another plan, underneath which there's an even more convoluted plan. Somehow, they almost always survive.

Some times, I try to convince myself the cleverness and resourcefulness of my players is the result of years of natural PC selection enforced by brutal single-roll policies and my stinginess regarding magic items.

Other times, I'm pretty sure they are going to murder me.

 

[Psikerlord#]

But... then wouldn't every player want this option? Seems like it's the average or higher always. Assuming a d8 with the prescribed average of 5..
If my roll is 4 and below I get 5, other wise I'll get 6, 7 or 8.

Seems like a no risk and all gain option. Essentially you're saying to roll a dice where the numbers range from 5 to 8?
As a player I'd love it but... I don't see why such pampering should be encouraged either.

I do better than rhat - keep rolling until upper half. It just means all pcs have above average hp. Very important in a game with slow healing option.

 

[Tanaka Chris]

Ok, seems player survivability is the goal here. Any reason not to just make it the HD max then?

 

[Sunseeker]

Ok, seems player survivability is the goal here. Any reason not to just make it the HD max then?

No, not really.

Rolling for HD is an artifact of editions past when we rolled for everything. Heck, even using HD as a measure of health is reflective of such times. As MechaPilot points out and I agree really the only thing it will accomplish is to allow a DM to throw down harder. There's probably some scaling issue and CRs would likely need to be evaluated along with expected encounter math and the HPs of monsters but it's not like we don't all do that anyway as DMs.

I just lost a player in my game so I might max out my party's HP and see what happens.

 

[Valador]

I hate rolling for anything besides checks. So max HP and point buy builds when I DM. It's fair and simple. It's hard for a lot of people to enjoy playing when their character they're attached to ends up being lame due to bad luck rolling...

 

[Psikerlord#]

Ok, seems player survivability is the goal here. Any reason not to just make it the HD max then?

I think there is also some fun to a bit a variability. So I like to have them roll but with my version they will always end up with higher than average hp. They are tough examples of their kind!

I guess the more hp you guarantee the less important Con is. Which is probably good. A player might want to put a high score in another stat instead that opens up other more interesting options that "you're harder to kill" than average.

 

[Elf Witch]

It's all about playstyle. Presumably those who have more generous HP-rolling regimes are playing at tables where PCs are less disposable than at some tables. There's a poster around here whose players have had something like 4 PCs each over the past twenty years of gameplay--at such a table, I can see the DM wanting to make sure any given PC comes from the right side of every bell curve, especially if the table strives for Combat As Sport instead of Combat As War.

Conversely, at tables like mine where every player has multiple PCs in his character tree simultaneously, and where death and retirement are both allowed and even maybe encouraged, rolling a 2 on your HP for one character is still disappointing but less of a permanent crippling and more of just a quirk: it makes it marginally more likely that you'll die sometime soon, but most of the things that will kill you won't have been very sensitive to +/- 5 HP either way, and if they do kill you you can always switch to another PC, so at least for me as the DM I don't feel bad when PCs roll low HP. And if the players feel bad about it, well, they can always opt to take the high-average instead of rolling.

Different playstyles play by different rules.

I don't think this is totally true. I am not a killer DM and I don't run a high death campaign. PC survivability is pretty important to me yet I do the rule roll or average no re roll. Like I said if you choose to roll you are choosing to take the chance of rolling a 1. The reward of course is rolling maximum. I also do this for NPCs so it is not like they are any better I roll for all of them. I also run long term campaigns and my players tend to keep their characters for a long time.

Maybe it is because I started when I did but I hate point buy and and average or max at every level it is to much like everyone played so everyone gets a trophy. I played many games over the years I have never run into an issue of my player sucks because her stats are not as good as another players or my hit dice is not as high. But I know some players like the comfort of not tolling for important things like that so I allow it.

 

[Hriston]

I've never done this, but something that just occurred to me that I might like to try someday after running it by my players, is to keep hit points potential until they're actually needed. I actually do this for monsters all the time. When the monster takes some damage and I haven't given it hit points already, I roll at least as many of its hit dice as are needed to absorb the damage, usually all of them, but not necessarily. I think it would be kind of fun to run some sessions where the PCs roll a hit die or two when they take damage and keep a tally of whatever is left over. Max hit points could even change from session to session this way. Just an idea.

 

[delericho]

For 5e, it's Player's Choice: take the average, or roll and live with the consequences. (And I expect players to play in good faith, so no killing off your character if you don't get the stats/hit points you wanted.)

Prior to 5e it was fixed hit points per level: 3, 5, or 7 per level (depending on class). This actually included 1st level, except that all characters got a one-off +5 bonus to hit points at that level. (This was done to clean up one of the oddities of the multiclass system. Though in actual play I don't think it ever came up. )