D&D General Rolling HPs

[GlassJaw]

Roll every level and take it. Don't be a baby.

I'll just play in a different group, thanks.

 

[GlassJaw]

That's definitely not the whole point, it's actually been an issue D&D has struggled with for decades, and makes no actual sense at all in the modern framework of the rules (5E). It's fine in disposable-character-type OSR games, but anything that pretends to any kind of balance, it's absolute the worst design element in D&D. I think in one of the very first issues of Dragon I read they were talking about alternatives to rolling HP (so late 1980s early 1990s). And in 5E, RAW, it's a player choice. Any DM overriding it is going into house-rules territory and breaking a fairly fundamental RAW/RAI point.

Agreed. You never see a video game where an incremental power increase is random and "locked in", unless the entire game is designed around that purpose (like a hardcore mode or a Rogue-like).

Any system with escalating challenges requires a high degree of predictability, or at least knowing how much and which systems should have random elements. You are playing with fire if "staying power" (health/hit points) is one of the systems you choose.

You would also be hard-pressed to find a large audience for your game. That much swinginess isn't fun.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

You roll the dice and take your chances.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Not quite as bad as early editions where stats had to be super-high to add a bonus, but still. I've never understood why it's a bad thing to have some predictability and balance. Random has no inherent value.

I think that, while there's nothing wrong with not rolling, it does add some variability and excitement.

It's possible to do it in a way where serious disparities are vanishingly rare and short term.

The way my friend does it (roll against, take the highest) averages out HP on the high side.

Another way is how Stars Without Numbers does it, where you roll all of your HD on level up. If you beat your current total, you use that. Otherwise you still get +1 HP. Since you roll more dice as you level, you will continuously trend more towards the average, but you always gain something.

There's nothing wrong with predictability and balance, any more so than with variability. It's just a preference, and IMO the best experience can often be found somewhere near the middle.

 

[DND_Reborn]

As always a middle ground approach might work for mixed groups.

Max level 1
roll level 2
average level 3
roll level 4
average level 5
and so on...

I would be on board with such a system. It help avoid a couple bad rolls in a row, but keeps some variability in it as well.

 

[Oofta]

I think that, while there's nothing wrong with not rolling, it does add some variability and excitement.
...

One person's excitement is another person's eye-rolling adherence to a sacred cow that never made any sense in the first place. Like I said, we ignored it even way back in the 20th century.

But in case it wasn't clear if you enjoy it, go for it. I just decided long ago that I wouldn't play in a game that randomized basic things like that.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

When running 5e only 2 of 6 at my table would take average, the rest would roll for max.

Lamenting when they came in low and mocking those who played it safe when they came in high.

 

[billd91]

Your suggestion is an outright bad suggestion in 5E, because it's too late at that point. You can't "become an archer" suddenly, because at L1, you don't roll HP (unless you're playing a serious homebrew), and you have to decide whether to focus on STR or DEX then, when you choose what stat goes where, and pick your Fighting Style. Most Fighters will choose STR, because the player wants to play a brave warrior who fights from the front. And everything about his character will say that. Except this weird random roll, that is at odds with the entire game design (which again is why it's optional and player-chosen, not DM-chosen, RAW). It would be even worse if say, you started rolling really poorly after L3, because then you'd be locked into a subclass as well, and if it wasn't a ranged one, you'd be stuffed, and just have an ineffective character, through literally no fault of your own.

Oh, good grief. Rolling stats and hit points, and occasionally getting a clinker, is not at odds with the entire game design. Nor is it some kind of permanently character crippling tragedy to have a few low rolls, even after 3rd level. There are a number of methods available in the game to compensate including ASI, feats, and magic items. 5e is far more tolerant of lack of ultimate optimization for a particular role than that.

 

[Oofta]

Oh, good grief. Rolling stats and hit points, and occasionally getting a clinker, is not at odds with the entire game design. Nor is it some kind of permanently character crippling tragedy to have a few low rolls, even after 3rd level. There are a number of methods available in the game to compensate including ASI, feats, and magic items. 5e is far more tolerant of lack of ultimate optimization for a particular role than that.

It just doesn't add any value for a lot of people. Yes, if I roll low I could up my con and/or take the tough feat but that's a pretty big opportunity cost.

I've just never seen a reason for it. YMMV.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

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

Will you someday start a thread to describe the above? I am curious (but not sure it's appropriate for this thread).