D&D 5E Rolling Hit Points Tweak

[ad_hoc]

PC hit points are very important. If you have too few you are likely to be taken out by a single attack from a brute of your CR.

With bounded accuracy and multiattacks from monsters, if you roll low for your hit points, you are in trouble.

Luckily you can just choose to take a set number of hit points to avoid that. Not only that, but that set number is highly than the average you would get from rolling.

Rolling for hit points can be fun though. If you want to keep rolling for hit points but don't want to lose out here is a slight tweak:

d12 = 2d6
d10 = d6 + d4
d8 = 2d4
d6 = 1d4 + 1d2

This weights your rolls toward the middle, has a minimum of 2HP, has the same maximum, and gives you an average equal to what you could choose without rolling.

Any problems you can see with it?

 

[Shiroiken]

Your averages would be slightly higher, but overall I could see it work. I would consider using 1d8+1d4 for d12 and 1d6+1d2 for 1d8, as they give you a flatter spread.

Personally, I'm fine with using average HP (even true average), rather than rolling. Those who like rolling however, would probably hate this. They tend to like the risk/reward aspect, and while your minimum is higher, you have much lower chances of getting a really high roll.

 

[ad_hoc]

Your averages would be slightly higher, but overall I could see it work. I would consider using 1d8+1d4 for d12 and 1d6+1d2 for 1d8, as they give you a flatter spread.

Would it be higher? The average of 2d6 is 7. If you have 1d12 hit die you can choose to take 7. Rolling normally you would get an average of 6.5 which is lower.

I suppose which dice should be used depends on the goal and whether it is to just make the average work out right. I suppose using these numbers 1d6 should be 2d3.

Personally, I'm fine with using average HP (even true average), rather than rolling. Those who like rolling however, would probably hate this. They tend to like the risk/reward aspect, and while your minimum is higher, you have much lower chances of getting a really high roll.

I tried it with my group today. They seemed to like it. They don't like to just take hp. I am finding in 5e that HP are much more important than they were before.

I suppose I could just let fate decide things. Let them die if they roll low on their HP.

Personally this is a system I would use when playing instead of choosing the average. I like to let aspects of my character be up to chance. But rolling straight 1dX in 5e feels like rolling 3d6. It achieves the goal of putting some randomness in, but at the cost of potentially making an unplayable character.

 

[CapnZapp]

The way the average is rounded UP when you take the set value, means that taking a risk is not only not encouraged, but actively worked against.

For you to take a risk, there rationally needs to be a reward. Rounding DOWN would have meant such a reward would have been present, however small it is.

(Half a point is not much, but at least it's double the reward when you're rolling a d6 than when rolling a d12. Meaning wizards would gain more by rolling than barbarians in this scenario.)

But the rules round up.

Only a fool or compulsive gambler would choose to roll when this statistically hurts you, even before you factor in the risk.

Besides, rolling low hurts you more than rolling high helps you, especially at the lowest levels.

 

[Shiroiken]

Would it be higher? The average of 2d6 is 7. If you have 1d12 hit die you can choose to take 7. Rolling normally you would get an average of 6.5 which is lower.

I was comparing rolling to rolling, not to the "average" option available. [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] is correct that you are always better of taking the "average" than rolling in 5E.

I suppose which dice should be used depends on the goal and whether it is to just make the average work out right. I suppose using these numbers 1d6 should be 2d3.

True.

I've decided that I don't like rolling 2 dice of the same type anymore, because the average is by far the most likely thing to roll. With 2 different dice, the bell curve widens out to give a larger group a higher percent, without making the average the most probable. For example, with 1d8+1d4, you are just as likely to roll a 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9, whereas with 2d6 you are most likely to roll a 7, then likely to roll a 6 or 8, and then 5 or 9. It's personal preference I guess.

I tried it with my group today. They seemed to like it. They don't like to just take hp. I am finding in 5e that HP are much more important than they were before.

I suppose I could just let fate decide things. Let them die if they roll low on their HP.

Personally this is a system I would use when playing instead of choosing the average. I like to let aspects of my character be up to chance. But rolling straight 1dX in 5e feels like rolling 3d6. It achieves the goal of putting some randomness in, but at the cost of potentially making an unplayable character.

I'm glad your group liked it. Sounds like you found a great house-rule

 

[ExploderWizard]

I take a simpler approach to hit point rolling in my 5E campaigns. At each level the player simply rolls the appropriate hit die. If the roll of the die isn't at least the default average for the die type then they may take the average.

No risk. Just a shot at getting better than average. Its win-win for the players.

Monsters get the same break. I roll HD and the monsters either have average HP or better.

 

[bgbarcus]

I give my players a choice of how to roll hit points each time they gain a level.

Option #1. Roll three dice and take the best one.
Option #2. Roll one die but with a minimum of the average for that die.

Option #2 is safe but option #1 offers better chances for a high roll. Most players take option #1 and there have been a couple of times when three 1's were rolled.

 

[CapnZapp]

I lowered the static number to the rounded down average.

This to encourage rolling hp, partially since I outruled rolling for stats.

And yes, already with such a small sample this shows how rolling bad is more negative than rolling good is positive.

I would definitely take the given number, at least for the first few levels to ensure my survivability before starting to roll around when I already have 30 hut points or so.

I feel bad for players that love to gamble, or perhaps simply rolls out of habit. The 5E rules screws you so bad...

TLDR The chance at rolling a 10 on the d10 doesn't outweigh the risk of rolling a 1 on low levels. You really shouldnt risk the roll unless the potential reward is made even greater than I made it. (see upthread for ideas that does make the risk of rolling worth taking)

 

[HorusZA]

If you want to have a bell-curve without changing averages, there's a simple technique:
Roll 3 dice of the required type and pick the middle result.

This doesn't change the possibility that a player could still land up gaining just 1 HP but the chances are much reduced (using a d8, for example, the chance is 4.3% as opposed to 12.5%)

 

[ad_hoc]

If you want to have a bell-curve without changing averages, there's a simple technique:
Roll 3 dice of the required type and pick the middle result.

This doesn't change the possibility that a player could still land up gaining just 1 HP but the chances are much reduced (using a d8, for example, the chance is 4.3% as opposed to 12.5%)

The idea is to change the average though.

The average result of 6.5 on 1d12 is too low when you can just choose to take 7.

For those who are increasing the amount of HP the players are getting, how do you find that? Why not just give max HP at each level at that point?