Fixed HP per level house rule

[haiiro]

AdamBank's thread on a similar topic (http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40098) got me to thinking about the campaign I'm hoping to start later this year (and I didn't want to just hijack his thread).

I've never been a big fan of rolling for hit points, for two reasons:

1) it throws off all of the careful attempts to balance the classes, races, etc. that are built into 3e (or most other games, for that matter)
2) it doesn't make sense to me that after fighting, struggling and training to gain a level a PC should have to risk getting a low roll

At the same time, I know some folks enjoy the thrill of rolling HP. For this reason, I've generally used the "take 1/2 of the die type or roll and take what you get" house rule for hit points. For my next game, however, I'm thinking of trying something different -- fixed HP per level.

Here's what I came up with: max HP at first level (as normal), and max-1 at every level thereafter -- wizards get 3, rogues get 5, clerics get 7, etc.

The campaign will be fairly deadly (resurrection will be hard to come by, and I'll be rolling all combat dice out in the open for the first time), and 32 point buy will probably be used. I don't mind if the PCs are somewhat overpowered for their level -- it makes it slightly less likely that a couple of bad rolls will take them down, which is fine by me.

Any opinions on this (potential) house rule? Thanks in advance.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Max HP-1 exaggerates the difference between high HD and low HD classes.

The average hp for d4 is 2.5 for instance.
The average hp for d12 is 6.5.

That's four points of difference.

Using your method, however, the difference (3 or 11) is 8 points.

It's not that bad of a method, however, it will make multiclass combinations (fighter/wizard for instance) and unusual concepts (melee wizard or melee bard for instance) significantly harder to make effective.

I would prefer something like
Max HP 1st level and 50% (of max)+1 or 75% (of max) at each subsequent level.

d4=3 or 3
d6=4 or 5
d8=5 or 6
d10=6 or 8
d12=7 or 9

That doesn't exaggerate the difference between high and low HD classes nearly so much.

 

[haiiro]

Thanks for the well-reasoned response, Elder-Basilisk. I like your approach, both here and in my thread about tweaking the shield spell. Here's my thoughts on your proposals...

It's not that bad of a method, however, it will make multiclass combinations (fighter/wizard for instance) and unusual concepts (melee wizard or melee bard for instance) significantly harder to make effective.

I'll bite with an obvious question: why would this rule make multiclass combos/unusual concepts hard to make effective? It seems like having near-max HP at every level would make any class or class combo more effective overall.

I would prefer something like
Max HP 1st level and 50% (of max)+1 or 75% (of max) at each subsequent level.

I considered an option like this, but it seemed to throw off the even progression of variation between die types. 1/2+1 is slightly too low to be consistently better than rolling (IMO), and is 75% of a wizard's max, but only 60% of a fighter's max (and so forth) -- this seems somewhat messy.

To a lesser extent, the same seems to be true of the 75% of max approach.

 

[Sanackranib]

fixed HP

I have been in several games with fixed hit points both max and 50%. both worked about the same. although at higher levels the fighter types had a lot more hit points (which I was fine with) at max it definatly helped those of us who multiclassed.

 

[Khaalis]

I have usually done a standard 80% rule.Roll your HP, if you get less than 80% you take the 80% level.

d4 = 3 (-1 form max)
d6 = 5 (-1 form max)
d8 = 6 (-2 form max)
d10 = 8 (-2 form max)
d12 = 10 (-2 form max)

This also gives slight advantage to those with the lower HD types being only -1 from max), who also generally have a lower CON as well. Personally I dont see this as all that imporatant of a balancing act for the game since I have never had an issue with PC's with "too many" hp. If they think they are "all that" and want to pick fights, they find out real quick that many things in the world are much bigger, faster and tougher than they are.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I'll bite with an obvious question: why would this rule make multiclass combos/unusual concepts hard to make effective? It seems like having near-max HP at every level would make any class or class combo more effective overall.

It would seem that way on absolute terms. I practical terms, however, it makes very little difference to the melee wizard or fighter/wizard (who probably only has a couple of fighter levels). Similarly, it won't make too much of a difference to the melee rogue. And PC power is at least partially measured on a relative scale. The question is at least as much "is the fighter/wizard who spends all his spells on being able to fight as good as a real fighter without any wizard levels?" as it is "can the fighter/wizard stand up to the creatures the party faces?" If a character can play on the front lines but needs to run for it 3 rounds before the fighters and barbarians then the character is not really more effective.

The other factor that comes in to play is the malleable threat level in games. DMs intend to challenge their players. So, in general, if you have tougher PCs, they'll face tougher monsters. Consequently, a change which makes certain PCs dramatically more effective but other PCs only slightly more effective will make the latter PC concepts less viable. This is doubly true when the concepts that only slightly benefit were risky and difficult ones to pull off and the most dramatically benefitted concepts were the most effective ones anyway.

I considered an option like this, but it seemed to throw off the even progression of variation between die types. 1/2+1 is slightly too low to be consistently better than rolling (IMO), and is 75% of a wizard's max, but only 60% of a fighter's max (and so forth) -- this seems somewhat messy.

To a lesser extent, the same seems to be true of the 75% of max approach.

Simply being consistent makes the approach dramatically better than rolling--especially if you don't allow re-rolls for really bad hp rolls.

The 50%+1 approach actually doesn't throw off the average progression between the die types either (although it may seem that way at first glance).

Dx Average Avg increase from lower die type 50%+1 increase from lower die
4 2.5 N/A 3 N/A
6 3.5 +1 4 +1
8 4.5 +1 5 +1
10 5.5 +1 6 +1
12 6.5 +1 7 +1

As you can see, the normal (average) effect of a progression of one die type is +1 hp/HD. That is actually modelled best with the 50%+1 method.

As for disproportionately benefitting low HD classes--first, it's not that much of a benefit in absolute terms since with the HD type we're talking a benefit of maybe .6 hp/level above the worst percentage. Second, I think low HD classes need the extra HP.

 

[evildmguy]

other method

Greetings!

I,too, as a DM have struggled with this idea. I personally like it when PCs have higher than average hit points but I tend to run more heroic campaigns with slightly higher attibutes as well.

Suggestions:

MAX at first and 2nd level, 75% at 3 - 7 and then roll therafter. This will give them a big enough boost to help at all levels. You could do so many variations of this, like no less than than 50% at all levels, or longer MAX or 75% levels. What ever you wish to do.

Another option is to lower the variable range of hit points and give a fixed adder based on class. For example, I used this system and I liked it.

Wizards = d4
Rogues = d4 + 2
Clerics = d4 + 4
Fighters = d4 + 6
Barbarians = d4 + 8

This does NOT include CON bonus, which is also added in to the total.

So, a tenth level character would have

Wizard = 10d4 = 25 hps on average.
Rogue = 10d4 + 20 = 45 hps on average
Cleric = 10d4 + 40 = 65 hps on average
Fighter = 10d4 + 60 = 85 hps on average
Barbarian = 10d4 + 80 = 105 hps on average

What this does is still give some random element but gives each class a certain base amount of hit points. It is also higher than average for the classes normal average, without a CON bonus. (Fighter at 10th would be 10d10 = 55 hps average, for example.)

Just some thoughts. Hope they help or give you an idea.

edg

 

[Guilt Puppy]

If you really don't want to screw up the average (and thus a certain degree of the built-in balance), but want to avoid low rolls, then keep the same averages with less variability:

d4 -> d4
d6 -> d4+1
d8 -> d4+2
d10 -> d4+3
d12 -> d4+4

Alternately, you can roll twice and drop the lowest. (Although this does introduce some of the noted problems.)

Or, take the flat average, rounded up (if you really want to be accurate, round down at even levels).

Really, doing anything that's going to tend toward max hp is going to end up throwing off class balance, even outside of multi-classing... Your Wizards or going to be Wizards plus, whereas your Fighters will be more like Fighters plusplusplus. Meaning stuff that poses an appropriate challenge to the fighter may pose a substantail threat to the wizard...

Of course, the effects of this might not be too great (I doubt it's very much at all, as the system is already built to account for the disparities that bad versus good rolls can give), and would probably only really kick in at higher levels. But if you're looking to keep balance a lot, keep the same proportions.

 

[Destil]

Likewise, I use the following:

d4 - 3
d6 - 4
d8 - 5
d10 - 6
d12 - 7

Though using even amounts at even levels and odd at odd levels to keep things statisticaly exact is a possibility I never really thought of before...

 

[Chacal]

IMC, we use "Roll until you've got a better than average score"
So the changes in average are :
dice : normal - houseruled
d4 : 2.5 - 3.5
d6 : 3.5 - 5
d8 : 4.5 - 6.5
d10 : 5.5 - 8
d12 : 6.5 - 9.5

Unsurprisingly, that raises by 50% the differences between classes.

It works for us. (BTW, I use these new averages for monsters too)

Chacal