How do you like your HP to increase?

[Sunseeker]

That is some amazing hatred for d3s! I've never seen such visceral dislike for dividing by 2 - I'm actually so impressed I really want to send you a d3.

Let's try d4, d4+1, d4+2, d4+3? Even the worst Fighter gains at least as many HP as the best Wizard. I'm certainly seeing a lot of love for 'minimum' dice rolls and safety nets - this is a formal version of that.

What I like about each class having its own die-type is that I feel it empahsizes the possibility that one class posesses over another. Using the same die for each class makes it feel less special to me. At that point I'd rather use the 4e system of giving flat HP values(which were 1/2 the classic dice +1).

 

[Knight Templar]

I had to bail out of a game before it even really got going because my 8th level fighter had hit points in the low 30s. Not one roll was over 3, I simply refuse to play an 8th level fighter with fewer hit points than any non-mage in the party. Rolling for hit points = the potential for ruining fun.

 

[Lanefan]

No. How would it be? Every individual level has the same odds of being a low number. That is, once you've gotten your first 3 levels and incidentally rolled low, once you gain that fourth level, the odds of rolling low are exactly the same as for the second and third level which you've already rolled.

Exactly.

But when you do this a bunch of times and check the results you get, lo and behold a bell curve appears.

Lan-"ding ding ding"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

I had to bail out of a game before it even really got going because my 8th level fighter had hit points in the low 30s. Not one roll was over 3, I simply refuse to play an 8th level fighter with fewer hit points than any non-mage in the party.

It's a challenge, and you'd want a second character on immediate standby, but it can be fun with something like that to see just how long you can make it last.

Throw everything into AC and defense - make it so the DM needs a natural 20 to hit you no matter what you're fighting - and pray she doesn't plaster your group with too many area-effect blasts.

Lanefan

 

[CroBob]

Exactly.

But when you do this a bunch of times and check the results you get, lo and behold a bell curve appears.

Lan-"ding ding ding"-efan

Do you mean a relative bell curve, when comparing the two characters? If so, then it's still irrelevant, because you don't get nigh infinite levels in which to roll your HPs. You don't necessarily get to the down slope. Further, the chance that you continue to roll below average every level even existing is the problem. The tendency is toward the middle, but that's only the statistical average, not the specific character who just happened to roll low, and is underpowered specifically due to bad luck, not poor design or strategy.

It's a challenge, and you'd want a second character on immediate standby, but it can be fun with something like that to see just how long you can make it last.

Throw everything into AC and defense - make it so the DM needs a natural 20 to hit you no matter what you're fighting - and pray she doesn't plaster your group with too many area-effect blasts.

Lanefan

It could be fun for a time, but worrying more about your potential to get one-shotted, when one of the strengths of your class is that you can take a bunch of hits and keep going, is not fun for most people. Most people aren't like "Hehehe, my character is far weaker than he should be, making him a liability for the party as a whole, this'll be great!"

So you're advocating that instead of having a reliable member of the party who pulls his own weight and does his job, put all of your effort into simply remaining alive while your allies do all the actual work.

No, most people like to play heroes as heroic.

 

[Li Shenron]

No. How would it be? Every individual level has the same odds of being a low number. That is, once you've gotten your first 3 levels and incidentally rolled low, once you gain that fourth level, the odds of rolling low are exactly the same as for the second and third level which you've already rolled. There's no actual dice karma, that's a superstition.

I certainly didn't think that.

Yes each level separately, once you already know the results at previous levels, has flat probability. But overall when you start a new character you have before you a bell curve of probability for your HP, or equivalently you can see that as the distribution of all possible characters all together.

 

[Empirate]

I certainly didn't think that.

Yes each level separately, once you already know the results at previous levels, has flat probability. But overall when you start a new character you have before you a bell curve of probability for your HP, or equivalently you can see that as the distribution of all possible characters all together.

Mathematics don't concern me. Fun does. Mathematics only come in as an afterthought, as a method of generating good fun.

If you start at 1st level, that first levelup sure is flat randomness. When you get to 3rd level and already rolled low once, you really can't afford to roll anything but high - the game mechanics are that swingy at this level of play. Most PCs that are played from the ground up won't live to see mid to high levels, where maybe (but not guaranteed!) their low HP rolls from the early levels will be evened out.

As others have pointed out, having low HP simply due to bad luck on the rolls has the potential to make or break a character (at least the melee guys). Also, when we went for point buy for ability scores, the HP roll was the only randomness still remaining in character building, and it's a huge factor in how effective your character can be. So we got rid of it.

 

[Li Shenron]

Mathematics don't concern me. Fun does. Mathematics only come in as an afterthought, as a method of generating good fun.

Neither does concern me particularly, but it's often used by designers to provide or support the fun.

The fun in randomness for me lies mostly in having variety over a number of characters, but this is not necessarily everyone's concern, especially for those who like playing each of their characters a long time e.g. from level 1 to last across a whole campaign, in which case reducing or removing randomness on character stats is a good thing (especially if their gaming philosophy is "combat as sport").

To others, randomness in fact generates good fun. It doesn't have to be the same for you, but if it doesn't for you, it doesn't mean that others are having badwrongfun of course.

I think Gygax might have had originally two motivations for unforgiving random HP and ability scores: first an interest in representing statistical variations across the population of characters, and second some twisted sense of humour when it comes to player's luck. Perhaps he had a certain view on playing D&D, that instead of us playing only the "best" adventurers (as in the modern gaming philosophy that PCs are born superior and practically destined to "win" the game unless their players do something terribly stupid), we should also feature the "worst" in our games instead of forgetting that they also exist in the fantasy world (and to a good tactical player, more challenge usually means more fun). Obviously this is not the only possible view on gaming.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

What I like about each class having its own die-type is that I feel it empahsizes the possibility that one class posesses over another. Using the same die for each class makes it feel less special to me. At that point I'd rather use the 4e system of giving flat HP values(which were 1/2 the classic dice +1).

I'm not sure I understand. Having a d10 rather than d6 is special because you might get 7,8,9 or 10? I see that, but there's also an annoying possibility that you'll get less than the d6 guy, in fact, your added potential means reduced reliability to perform your role (of getting hit more because you have more hp). I think having the same variability with different ranges is a reasonable tradeoff.

They seem to be sticking to adding Con to HP too, which really does make a lower HD not much of a disadvantage. If classes supposed to have more HP had more reliably, then Con would be less overpowering.

 

[dm3.5swva]

I like to give max hit points with new characters (Lvl 1) plus of coarse ability modifiers. Then they have the option to roll or take the median of what dice their class lets them roll. This is great when you give your players a little bit more options because they feel more apart of their character, from having a say in manner. Also in the higher levels some player characters with a high constitution might take the chance to roll and end up taking a feat like toughness b/c it didn't work out. That is a win for any DM. Usually spell-casters or secondary-fighters don't test their luck and really like 1/2 of what dice they get to roll. Feel free to adjust familiars bonuses! A player makes a wicked background for his sorcerer comes ready to play every session or heat wants extra hit points without taking a feat are you going to make him take a toad +3 hit points or just let him have a raven and switch its abilities? More choices better game your the DM make him roll a percentile even if your already going to let him or her do it. They will feel like it was earned. Which it already was.