Why are hit points generated randomly?

[khyron1144]

I actually love the idea of random hp. I make my PCs roll hp, even at first level. It teaches PCs that they can't randomly wander into dungeons and expect to trade blows with vicious monsters. I mean, the fighter with 2 hp is going to be smart and use tactics, not just be a meat-shield.

In fact, I'm trying to develop ways to add more random element to character stats. I've considered rolling for starting saves (1d3-1), rolling for skill points (Fighters 1d4, druids 1d6, bards 1d6+2, rogues 1d4+4) rolling spells known (wizards start with 3d4 spells known, +1d2 level. Sorcerer start with 1d4 per spell level + 1d2 level) and randomly determining which stat gets boosted every 4 levels (1d6: 1 = str, 2 = dex).

Guaranteed no cookie-cutter PCs after THAT!

I find your views intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Sadly, I actually kind of like this idea.

Dang! I just realized something. I actually am kind of working on this. I've been designing a homebrew RPG rules system from the ground up since about high school, and one of its key features to speed up play is random assignment to race and class by die roll.

 

[FireLance]

You know, the Iron Heroes hp method makes me wonder if it might be interesting to handle character ability scores the same way, like a hybrid point-buy method. Anyone do this?

This probably deserves its own thread, but I tried out something for a solo game in which I was quite comfortable with high ability scores. The player assigned the standard array (15, 14, 14, 12, 10, 8) to the various ability scores, and then rolled 4d6 drop lowest in order, and then took the rolled amount if it was higher than the assigned amount. This ensures that you will always generate a playable character with decent scores in your most important attributes, but allows a chance for an odd quirk (like a wizard with 16 Strength).

 

[ThoughtBubble]

So, I played a wizard with 9 con (I had a 6, a 7 and a 9 to get rid of) and rolled 1s for my hitpoints for 4 consecutive levels (followed swiftly by a 2). Even with the +2 con necklace I worked so hard to make and the +1 to con, it was still pretty close to 1 hit, 1 kill on me. I very quickly got in the habit of dropping massive overkill on everything to even look hostile.

DM: You see some travellers on the road.
Me: I cast a buff spell
DM: They cast a buff spell
Me: FIREBALL!

Despite destroying a lot of plot hooks, I managed to survive a pretty long time. Right up until I actually took damage.

The DM was surprized when I died.

Also, Fire Lance, I love your method.

 

[billd91]

I've come to notice that in the groups I've gamed with, the desire to inject a lot of randomness in character generation (and advancement) is due to disinterest and boredom with what's actually going on in the campaign, which is where the surprises actually belong.

This has been the opposite for most groups I've played with. When presented with the option of point-buy, we pretty much insisted on rolling. Part of the fun is building a character based on what the gods have given you (in the form of the random rolls), taking what you're given and making the best of it. It can be quite memorable to be taking on the DM's challenges with Joe Genero.

I'm pretty much a stickler about rolling stats and hit points in my table-top games.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

There's also a bit of slippery-slope of rules development to consider...[rest of paragraph deleted].

At some point along the way, you realize that there is some point to randomness in the game. All that remains is a decision as to where to draw the line between fixed progressions and randomness.

I think this latter point (which I agree with) proves that there is no slippery slope in the first place.

Since the monsters roll randomly to hit and for damage, there is no compelling requirement to have randomness for PC hit points. Unless you happen to believe that significant variance between PCs designed more or less the same is an inherently good thing (which some people do).

I rather like a bit of randomness in monster HPs, because that hides information from the players. There are other ways to accomplish the same.

 

[Beckett]

As soon as I read Iron Heroes, I implemented the HP system in that in all of my games. Prior to that, I'd been trying other random but not too random methods; the last was roll, and get half the max if you roll under that.

It's a sacred cow and it's one of the random rolls that can most screw a character long term. A barbarian who can't roll above a 3 for HP is certainly worse off than one rolling 9s and 10s. Other classes suffer too.

Monsters, I often either figure their HP the same way, or just max out the HP.

(Random attribute generation is the other random roll I hate- and not even for the possibility that a character with high stats might outshine one with lower stats: it's the player reactions I'm worried about. It does not a fun game make when one of your players stink of envy of another's stats)

 

[Choranzanus]

For those arguing that the logic of the character build is why it should not be random, why not also kill off the idea that your class determines your hit points? Why isn't it based off of race instead? Attributes are affected by race not class. Logic says hit points should be as well.

Why does a human wizard with a 13 Strength 15 Dex and 14 Con have fewer hit points than a human fighter with the same stats? Because fighters learn lots of weapons and wear heavy armor? What does that have to do with their ability to die? Their training makes them tougher? They why isn't that reflected in their Str or Con? They learn how to avoid blows better? Why doesn't class level affect Dex or AC, then? Their combat training allows them to stand in a fight better than a wizard? Makes some sense when being attacked with swords, but how does that help when being burned by a fireball, or falling into a pit? The wizard will still die easier than the fighter then.

Isn't this just another sacred cow that deserves to be killed?

No, I don't think it does. Fighters supposedly have more hit points because they are more used to taking wounds. And I always thought that low hit points of wizards reflect sword and sorcery paradigm that magic is taxing and corrupts your body (and your soul).

For the record we use either maximum hit points or roll and take if the result is better than average.

 

[S'mon]

For me, yes, because it's one of the "gamist" aspects that I've always liked.

I think it's Simulationist rather than Gamist - it's realistic that 2 Fighters have different stats, but it creates an unequal challenge for the players. Gamist design should emphasise a level playing field, eg the current concern with Balance is Gamist, whereas debates about Realism are Simultionist.

In my Wilderlands C&C game I use max hp at first, half max at 2+, which is working very well. In my homebrew ex-3e C&C game I use high average hp each level (or rolled, if better) which also works well, but gives low-hit-die classes a noticeable power boost.
Comparing the two I think 'max then half max' is best because it keeps d4 hit die classes relatively vulnerable, even with good CON; using high-average there is not enough difference between Wizard and Barbarian considering the Wizard's massive spellcasting powers.

 

[Quartz]

The big problem with taking the average and rounding up is that it aggressively favours the low HD classes. Next time, it's going to be average rounded up for the combat classes and average rounded down for the non-combat classes.

 

[S'mon]

The big problem with taking the average and rounding up is that it aggressively favours the low HD classes. Next time, it's going to be average rounded up for the combat classes and average rounded down for the non-combat classes.

As I said, I think average rounded down for everyone works well. Or better of (1) roll (2) average rounded down also works, without favouring the low hit dice classes.