D&D General Rolling HPs

[Coroc]

Do you roll/allow rolling HPs in your game? If so are you a 'hard line' "You decided to roll so your stuck with that 1" or do you have a way to mitigate bad rolls?
What options I've seen are:
Player and DM roll, DM rolls behind a screen, and player can decide to take either roll. Of course the player cant see the DMs roll before deciding.
Re roll 1's.
If you roll lower then half take half.

How do you go about it.

1st level full hp
Every level after 1st: Roll. A roll of 1 can be rerolled once but then the roll stands.

No problems so far.

I prefer this over a normalized fixed HP increase, it can lead to some PCs being slightly over or under the average, but at least e.g. not every fighter with same CON has the same HP on a given level.

Think of it like that: If you take the average, then I have to ask you why you do not use the average damage output of mobs also? I bet you do not use them except evtly. in mass combat. Am I correct?

 

[Don Durito]

No rolling for me.

I can see a benefit to roll ability scores.

Hit points? No. Never again.

 

[ccs]

In my games each time you lv up you get a choice:
Take the listed average + con mod.
Or
Roll + con mod.

If you choose to roll, then that's what you get. There's no re-rolls. There's no mercy if you roll bad. Afterall, YOU chose to roll attempting to get more than the average vs taking the "safe" option..... Nobody but you forced you to do that.

Some of my players always take the listed pts, some always roll, some mix it up.
One guy will roll - unless his dice have been rolling poorly that evening. In that case he plays it safe.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I came up with the "Player rolls...but can have the DM Re-Roll; but whatever that roll is, stands, even if lower" back in/around 1983. It's been a really good system, and rarely do I see Players want a re-roll if they have at least average (e.g., 1d8 and get a 4 or higher, etc).

EDIT: I have no idea how many other DM's simultaneously came up with the same idea; I live in Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada, that had a population of about 15,000 people...no internet, no official 'hobby store' (just a small corner in the one and only "toy store"; "Jim's Toy & Gift". Hell, we didn't even have PAVED STREETS or concrete sidewalks!...just packed dirt and boardwalks...oh...and ONE traffic signal...in the entirety of the Yukon [which is about the size of Germany, btw]). Just some historical info there! And yes...I still live here.

The problem with the "max always" is that it allows for VERY easy "numbers crunching and meta-gaming". If they see a thug use some particular class ability gained at "Fighter level 5", they can be assured the thug has, in all likelihood, 50hp or more. "You did 33 points, I missed, Bill hit for 11; he's almost dead. Lets get him...but use cantrips so we don't waste higher level spells". That sort of thing is...uh..."very undesirably" in my games.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Shiroiken]

Rolling is something that provides a level of randomness, which some like and others don't. Like with ability scores, I allow the players the option to roll but force them to stick with it. Since 5E uses average rounded up, no one in our group rolls.

 

[opacitizen]

My standard solution is to have the players roll their die, then, if the roll is lower or equal to half the die value, add half the die value to the roll. If the roll is above half the die value, that's your result.

For example, a roll of 1/2/3 on a d6 would be treated as (1+3)/(2+3)/(3+3), that is, 4/5/6.

Add Constitution bonus as usual.

Yes, this makes lower die value characters relatively stronger. So does when they keep rolling high across the levels while the barbarian keeps rolling 1s, so we're fine with it.

 

[Lanefan]

Hard line. You roll what you roll. End of story.

Hit points are locked in when rolled. Subsequent changes to Con (up or down) do not affect them.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well, in my campaign, the wizards are strong, the barbarians are good looking, and all the dice (rolls) are above average

Great now I've got pictures of barbarians tearing through Lake Woebegone stuck in my mind!

We use fixed-HP in all the 5E campaigns I'm in except one. I found traditional rolling to be unhelpful in long-term campaigns long ago, because it effectively means a few lucky or unlucky rolls can permanently make a character massively stronger or weaker, moreso than traditionally-rolled stats even. The odds of getting a bunch of 1s, 2s, and 3s on, say, 10 d10 rolls are actually quite high. And that utterly cripples a Fighter and makes most characters a push-over. It was even worse in 2E, where you only rolled dice until L9 or L10 or so. High rolls are slightly less problematic (in part because its easier to lose HP than get them back), but they can still be an issue. HP are just so fundamental to D&D balance that it's bizarre that this system has survived this long - a true sacred cow.

In 2E and 3E we experimented with various systems (but not this seemingly-common DM and PC both roll thing - that's a nice approach in that it makes bad HP 50% less likely). In 2E after just fudging it for ages and letting people re-roll (at first 1s, then 2s, then 3s) we started using an approach which was like, for a 1d10 HD class, we'd roll 4+1d6. It was in 3E we started using a fixed value (I think we went with 7 for d10 HP classes), but we tried a lot of things in 3E, including starting people with L3 HP and just not adding a L2 and L3. In 4E I think we used fixed HP.

I notice that in fixed-HP games, people value CON a lot more!

 

[Horwath]

I hate rolling for HPs or ability scores.

It is simply not reliable.

To few rolls to even out the probability for too much impact.

d20 might(just might) be OK for attacks and saves as when you count 4-6 players and 1-20 monsters in a fight, and that fight lasts several rounds, you got those number of d20 rolls quite high.

And you have lots of fights during a campaign. You might get a 1000 d20 rolls in a fight over a single level.

Those even out eventually.


to have 1 or 2 rolls define a character as over/under powered from the start? For entire campaign?

No thanks.


same way I do not like skill checks with d20, but prefer 3d6 for skills

 

[Ruin Explorer]

to have 1 or 2 rolls define a character as over/under powered from the start? For entire campaign?

Yeah exactly - Even if 5E, with max HP automatically at L1, if you roll say, 2, 3, 2 for the next few levels, as say, a Fighter, or Barbarian, or whatever, you're going to drastically weaker than expected, and basically forever. Yeah you might roll better for L5 and onwards but equally you might get 5, 3, 4 and even though that's better, you continue to be crippled in a way that nothing else can do to you.