[Hit Points - Minor Rant] How few is too few?

[ForceUser@Home]

So my players (or DMs, depending on what day it is ) are under the impression that a character who rolls poorly on his hit points is doomed and should be round-filed. Nevermind that we uniformly use 28-point buy to build them, and that no one ever starts play with less than a 14 Con. Nevermind that there are magic items in the game, easily attainable for a character with the appropriate wealth, that will bump a low hit-point character up to average hit points.

What's wrong with average hit points????

Let's take, for instance, Garlok the 6th-level dwarven barbarian/fighter/ranger. Garlok's player has had the misfortune of rolling something along the lines of 2,1,2,3,1 for his hit points each level. Garlok is the main fighter in the campaign. I don't know his exact stats, but he's got at least a 14 Con, and being a dwarf, I'd say it's probably closer to 16. So he's adding +3 hit points per level, meaning that if he rolls a 2 on a d10, he gets 5 hit points, which is the average. Yes, it sucks that he's had poor luck on rolling hit points. My opinion is that the character is fine despite that, because with a +2 Con item and/or a vest of false life, he's a little above average. Everyone else in my play group thinks Garlok is doomed. We're playing core rules with no fancy stuff.

Who's right? Whose perception is skewed? I think it's theirs. My character in that campaign hasn't rolled stellar for hps either. Not as bad as poor Garlok, but a bit below average all the same. You would have to pry that character sheet from my cold, dead hands. I love that character. I don't care if I rolled minimum every level, by god, that's who I'm playing. Dead? Whatever - raise me. I'm roleplaying here. ROLEPLAYING.

Grr.

 

[Buttercup]

You could solve this problem by awarding maximum hit points at second level as well as first. From there on out, roll 'em.

 

[ForceUser@Home]

I think you're missing the point

 

[Crothian]

Nothing wrong with low HPs. Our 4th level cleric with a 12 con has 18 HP. He started out with max, so on 3d8 he has rolled a 7. At the same time our 4th level wizard has 25 hps with a 16 con. And that is how many my ranger has, but I have an 11 con. The fighter and the fighter rogue in the pary are in the 30's.

I always say let the dice fall where they may. If you have low HPs there are things you can do like not get into combat. Play smart an accept your characters weakness.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I can't live with less than -9.

 

[Limper]

3e does alot more damage than previous editions... low hps hurts alot more than it used to.

Roleplaying is fine but not everyone likes writing up new PCs all the time or never getting to try new things with the one they have, because they have to take Toughness a bunch of times. Have you had any combat in your games? How can you not see the importance of good hps in 3e?

Crothian... the DM may not allow one to play smart, or the DM may also play smart at which point low hps mean dead PCs.

Also Forceuser not everyone enjoys having a gimp PC... how does their perception effect your PC?

 

[tburdett]

What's wrong with you?

2, 1, 2, 3, 1 are not average die rolls for a fighter, regardless of his CON. Average rolls would be more like 5, 6, 5, 6, 5.

My question any time I see a post like this is...

What's wrong with you?

Why should your opinion matter at all if another player is unhappy with his character. This is a matter for the DM and player to work out.

You may enjoy the challenge (and the misery and suffering) that goes hand in hand with playing a character crippled by his stats, but not every player is like you. I see this same level of intolerance displayed over and over again by those people claiming to be 'roleplayers'.

I am crippled in real life and let me tell you, it's not much fun to have difficulty walking or doing other activities that most people take for granted. I can easily understand why someone who is playing a game might like to avoid a similar situation being forced upon them because of a few bad die rolls.

As a DM I would never force a player to continue with a character that they did not enjoy playing.

 

[Buttercup]

I think you're missing the point

I'm sorry you think so. I don't agree.

I completely understand why a player might feel that their character's low hitpoints ruins the character concept they had. Whether they're correct or not isn't the point. The point is that it makes them feel like they can't/won't have fun with that character. Since fun is the reason we all play, why not give them max hitpoints for second level too, so you can get on with the game, and let the players feel some attachment to their characters. Just because one player (you, in this case) wouldn't mind playing a handicapped character, that's no reason to insist that other players like it.

 

[Hammerhead]

Well I tend to prefer fixed HP per level. If you go to the trouble of using point buy to balance out characters, then why not use fixed HP to keep things balanced? One of the main advantages of the fighting classes is the generous HD, and it sucks to waste with poor rolls.

That aside, low HP can really mess up many characters. The main problem is that poor rolls on HP can take away class distinctions. For example, lets assume that Fighter A and Cleric B each have 14 Con. A starts with 12 HP, and B starts with 10. Those two 2 HP can mean alot that 1st level. Then we advance 5 levels, giving the cleric 6 HP per level (4 from level +2 from Con), and we give the fighter the HP rolls you posted (2,1,2,3,1 +2 from Con each time). The cleric has 40 HP at level 6, while the fighter has 39. The cleric is actually tougher, although not by much. And of course, another character could roll well as the fighter rolls poorly. Then the cleric could have many more HP. Even though the fighter class has an advantage in HD over the cleric, this fighter sees none of it. Essentially, he's playing with a lower HD. Assuming all classes are balanced, then a fighter operating with an effective d8 or even d6 HD clearly isn't.

 

[Valdier]

Average hit points for a fighter his level should be:

37+ con bonus... not

19+ con bonus.

Can you see where a character that spent points on con might be dissapointed that he is going to die because of bad rolls?

What if the mage rolled 9 for intelligence... would you say, deal with it?

In my game I allow the characters to roll their hit points, if it is less than half, they get half. Makes sure everyone is at least average.