Fixed HP per level house rule

[FreeTheSlaves]

Fiddling with the average of hit points will fiddle with damage spells and curing.

If you up the average you may want to increase these two, if it becomes noticable to the spellcasters (and they care).

 

[evildmguy]

Other thoughts

I had some other thoughts on this I am going to share.

First of all, if the intent of haiiro is to give his player's more hit points, while it does hurt "balance" it can be done without changing or needing to change anything else. I have run campaigns where the players had 80% of max hit points and it worked. Sure, maybe their clerics were down in healing spells after several days of two or three attacks a day but it usually only took a night in town or a day of rest in the countryside to get everything back.

Second, I do agree that it makes certain challenges less challenging. Having said that though, I don't think it changes the CR or EL of anything. While it is unlikely, it is possible for a fighter to have maxed his HP roll every level and max hit points. CRs and ELs are for the potential, not the actual, imo, with adjustments for situation. If the DM was suggesting to give 125% hit points to character, then yes, I think it would change. At least, that's how I read the rules as they are now. Personally, I liked the 1E version of Base XP + XP / HP as it allowed a nice variation for those tough versions of monsters. (And, yes, I rolled all of those monsters hit points! Ugh. No wonder my wife is suprised at the number of dice I have! )

Third, if the intent was to make it more heroic and the DM allows players more hit points, why not? In the end, all it does is skew the odds only slightly in the PCs favor. Mathematically speaking, I think the odds are usually against the PCs so why not give them one bonus?

Just some thoughts. Good discussion!

edg

"That's just my opinion. I could be wrong." Dennis Miller

 

[MarauderX]

Why mess with the system that much? No one likes to have low hit points, not even bad guys, but it happens to occur every once in a while. The DM may need to compensate just a little if the players don't watch out for themselves, for example a fighter reaches 3rd level, rolls 1 for HP and then still continues to use a two-handed sword instead of taking up a shield. The player has the choice in taking those chances, but of course will risk getting knocked out more often.

I like the choice method: The player rolls and DM rolls the same in secret and if the player doesn't like what he got he can ask for the DMs roll. If the player rolled a 2 and decided to go with what the DM rolled, the chances are that he rolled better, but occasionally he may roll a 1. That way the player can't really blame bad luck unless both rolled a 1, in which case it was just meant to be...

 

[haiiro]

I think I finally understand what several of you are getting at: the max-1 method really skews things in favor of the higher die types. Math is not my strong point.

Here's how I see this breaking down (rounding to the nearest % in all cases):

d4 --> 3 --> 75%
d6 --> 5 --> 83%
d8 --> 7 --> 88%
d10 --> 9 --> 90%
d12 --> 11 --> 92%

Which is a pretty dramatic difference, and definitely not evident to me until the numbers had been crunched a bit.

Thus far, then, the approach that hews most closely to the existing average rolls and average differences between die types is the 50%+1 method. Here's how this breaks down (again rounded to the nearest % in all cases):

d4 --> 3 --> 75%
d6 --> 4 --> 67%
d8 --> 5 --> 63%
d10 --> 6 --> 60%
d12 --> 7 --> 58%

...so instead of ascending benefits to the higher die types, you get descending benefits instead. This seems just as problematic to me, as it removes some of the fun factor from the martial/high die type classes. IMO, wizards expect to have very few HP, while barbarians expect to have quite a lot of HP -- and as the player of barbarian PC, I think I'd be miffed if my DM told me I was getting less HP/level than a cleric with a good roll under the default system.

Trying to maintain a fixed percentage seems like a good fix for this problem. 75% and 80% have both come up, and they're really quite similar:

d4 --> 3 --> 75%
d6 --> 5 --> 83%
d8 --> 6 --> 75%
d10 --> 8 --> 80%
d12 --> 9 --> 75%

Using the 80%/level approach (with standard rounding rules), only the d12 result changes, becoming a 10. This throws off the difference between the average rolls under the default system (d4 = 2.5, d12 = 6.5 -- difference of 4, vs. d4 = 3, d12 = 9 -- difference of 6), but stays fairly consistent percentage-wise. I think this is my favorite approach overall, at least so far.

The potential problem with cure and damage spells hadn't even crossed my mind (thanks, FreeTheSlaves), and I'm still considering it. At first glance, I think giving the PCs higher than average HP will have pretty straightforward effects on both cures (it takes more to fill back up to max HP, but you have HP before you croak) and damage spells (it takes more damage to wipe them out, which is fine by me).

As far as the fixed+random approaches that have come up (from Guilt Puppy and evildmguy), I'm not really sure where to start in terms of breaking them down. I do think I'd change the d4 = d4 element to d4 = 2 + 1d2. Beyond that, I think evildmguy's method would average out to be essentially the same as my 3/5/7/9/11 proposal, and Guilt Puppy's method would average out to be basically identical to Elder-Basilisk's and Destil's 3/4/5/6/7 progressions. Whew.

I am thoroughly enjoying this thread -- thanks to all who have responded so far.

 

[evildmguy]

Yes, it probably does average out as you said:

d4 = 2.5
d4 + 2 = 4.5
d4 + 4 = 6.5
d4 + 6 = 8.5
d4 + 8 = 10.5

Which is very similar to what you had.

In the end, if you want to give them more hit points, give them more hit points. If you want it permanent, make it the numbers you suggested. If you want it less permanent, give them a ring that has x number of hit points, regenerates them at y/time unit and damage comes from the item first.

Just make sure that you are fine with it. I haven't had problems of players making changes because I did something and didn't like it. Usually, my players are pretty good about that.

I just have problems of players wanting to play the same characters forever. (I am not PirateCat. My campaigns run 10 - 15 months and then I move onto the next one. That's just my style.)

Thanks! I just hope I helped or gave you some ideas!

edg

 

[MarauderX]

I like the randomness to having low hit points though, even as a player. There is just the reality factor in it too, where if NPCs join or fight your party, you don't know their capabilities, etc. If you are maxed out, the DM might tend to raise the opponents' HP as well, meaning fights take longer, and each blow or spell does less of a percent of damage to a creature you are facing. Basically it would tend to bolster the side with the higher AC in a battle as they would get hit less often. Me, I like each mercenary the party faces to have different HP so that while one may fall easily the next is tough as nails. I think the same should go for players too, and have them judge for themselves how to weild themselves in battle if they know they have lower than average HP.

 

[haiiro]

I like the randomness to having low hit points though, even as a player.

This is why I have always used a "roll or take a fixed number" approach to HP for PCs -- because I know some folks like to roll. Once the fixed number gets high enough -- past 50%+1, let's say -- I don't think most players will choose to roll; I suspect no one would roll if offered max-1.

There is just the reality factor in it too, where if NPCs join or fight your party, you don't know their capabilities, etc. If you are maxed out, the DM might tend to raise the opponents' HP as well, meaning fights take longer, and each blow or spell does less of a percent of damage to a creature you are facing. Basically it would tend to bolster the side with the higher AC in a battle as they would get hit less often. Me, I like each mercenary the party faces to have different HP so that while one may fall easily the next is tough as nails.

When it comes to NPCs and monsters, I like this reality factor as well -- I don't generally house rule HPs for monsters and NPCs in my games. If the party comes up against a group of mercenaries who happen to be of the same race, class and level, they'll have similar HPs -- I generally use an average, or just choose an amount within their HD range appropriate to their importance -- but not identical HPs. If they're all mooks (a là Feng Shui), then they might have identical HPs -- because one good swat will kill them anyway.

With rare exceptions, I don't like any randomness in character generation. I've enjoyed games where I've rolled all sorts of things about my character (Warhammer FRP comes to mind), and I love Call of Cthulhu -- where I could care less whether or not my investigator has as many stat and skill points as his short-lived fellows. But in D&D, I really like to keep character generation as non-random as possible.