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

[Thanatos]

Re: It's a rule = you roll

First, a bit of restating the obvious:

Isn't it a rule that after first level, you roll for your hit points? Isn't there a reason they call them hit dice? A fighter's hit die is a d10. Note the d. It means you roll a die. Rolling a die generates a random number. Thus it is possible that the random numbers come up low for you. WELL BOO-HOO.

Hit points must be rolled after first level. It's part of the game. Some PCs have low hit points, some have high. Maybe your Mage always rolls a 4 but your friend's fighter always rolls a 1. It can happen. Thus the fighter loses his hit die advantage over the mage. Such is life. Hit points aren't everything. Deal with it.

DMs out there: You must let the hit dice fall where they may. To do otherwise is to sell both your players, and the game itself, short.

"It's a rule = You Roll"

Funny, I thought I was the DM and could Rule 0 and do whatever the heck I wanted within my game and that the only rules that existed within that framework were the ones I wanted to use...

Randomness and dice add a level of challange to a game, but it can also upset that balance as well. A good DM knows when to keep it balanced and when not to do so, just like with regards to what rules to use and which ones to toss out.

To tell people they must play by certain rules or they are selling themselves and the game shot is simply wrong. That's your opinion, not universal fact.

I apologize for feeding the trolls.

 

[National Acrobat]

Hit Points are a tough call and I think as the DM it depends on the type of campaign that you are running. I am running a campaign currently that is 50% Roll Play, 50% Hack it up. I am DMing the Liberation of Geoff/Against the Giants where damage is extremely high against the players and I can say that hit points matter in this group, seeing as how a Fire Giant did 87 points of damage in one round where I rolled 2 crits against the main fighter in the group. I give max hp at first level, the player can re-roll a 1 one time only, or I roll behind the screen and give the player the option of taking my roll for hit points. Seems to work out well. No character in the group has ridiculous hit points but no one is really terribly off except the 11th level wizard with the 10 con.

 

[Squire James]

Mostly, this is another one of those My Game vs. Your Game issues... and why should that "vs." be in there... but I'll be a good little boy and argue my point anyway!

Note that Hit Points is the ONLY factor a player can't control when they level up! They can choose their feats. They can (usually) choose which class they're going up in. However, rolling max on that HP die is ALWAYS superior to rolling low on that die. The character gets nothing to compensate for a bad roll, and loses nothing if he gets a good roll.

I know some players that despise having that random element in their character generation process. I know others that are so freaking lucky rolling HPs that it makes everyone else feel inferior in comparison. While letting the rolls stand is actually an impartial activity, to the players it SEEMS I am favoring the guy who rolls good. As any mature person knows, appearances are often as important as reality (like it or not).

My current house rule is that people roll HP, but if they roll less than half the die maximum they get half the die maximum. This actually doesn't affect average HP much (+1 per die for d10, less for smaller dice). My players consider this more than fair, and even the lucky guy has had the benefit of "taking 5" once in a while.

 

[ForceUser@Home]

It's interesting how many DMs rule-zero the hit die aspect of D&D. Why'd the designers even build the game like that if everyone is going to throw it out first thing? Guess we'll never know. Oh well, as long as everyone's having fun with their respective games. Thanks for the opinions.

 

[El_Gringo]

It's interesting how many DMs rule-zero the hit die aspect of D&D. Why'd the designers even build the game like that if everyone is going to throw it out first thing? Guess we'll never know. Oh well, as long as everyone's having fun with their respective games. Thanks for the opinions.

Sacred cow. The designers didn't want to make D&D totally unrecognizable to veteran players.

 

[spunky_mutters]

I find both as a player and a DM that it's very disappointing to level up and roll a 1 for hp. It was worse under 1e/2e, especially for those last couple of rolls before name level. With 3e, it should even out over time. You level fast enough, and get enought dice that it should even out. If the player dwells on it for quite a while after rolling (i.e. every time he has cause to mention his hp total), the situation will probably take care of itself. I find that players tend to be careless with characters they aren't terribly fond of. It's unfortunate that the player feels 'cheated' by the dice. But it's really no different than always missing attacks. You're just not as effective as you could be. But like you said, as the ref, I would do what I could to ameliorate the situation. With the gobs of magic being doled out, the player should be able to rectify this. If the player still feels shortchanged, like he's having to use magic that could better be spent on beefing up his combat abilities...you can only lead a horse to water. Like I said before, that situation will tend to resolve itself.

Just try not to let it distract from the fun of the game. Everybody has had 'loser' character at one time or another. They have tremendous rp value, getting some of the best lines out of the other players. They may not live long, but you can enjoy them while they're there.

 

[nsruf]

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, ...

That's funny. My take on point-buy was always that it was more fair than rolling, i.e. it would give all players equal chances for good ability scores. So I use point-buy in my fantasy game and the logical consequence was to also use fixed hp and eliminate the only other source of randomness (and thus unfairness) as well. So we use what is (IIRC) Living Greyhawk rules, i.e. average hp per die (round up). Works fine.

Now, for my CoC game, where PC abilities don't matter so much, as the challenges are more often than not of the "run away or die" kind, I decided to let players roll both stats (4d6, drop lowest) and hp. Works fine as well, generates some inequalities but these can make up for the lack of PC differentiation caused by lack of classes and races.

But I never ever considered mixing point-buy for stats with rolling hp. No offense intended, but it seems rather inconsequential. Or do you have other reasons for using point-buy than fairness/avoiding frustration? If low hp rolls bother you and your players, just ditch them in favor of fixed. I mean, it is even an optional rule in the DMG (although this one gives you average, rounded down, which will at higher levels yield worse scores than the average hp given for monsters).

Excuse my rant, I was just suprised seeing somebody handle it like that...

 

[Codragon]

paper

I wrote my post in haste, and it became an unintentional troll and this I apologize for.

I still stand by what I said, however.

I realize that you could Rule 0 any rule in the game. I know I cannot tell anyone how to play their game, at least not until my badge and taser gun come in. Until then I say...

The existing hit point rolling rules should not be Rule 0'd. They are already generous enough in giving max HP at level one. I think those rules are there for a reason, and randomness of character hit points (both high and low) adds flavor to the game. There are more than enough items/feats/spells that can compensate for a low HP roll. It is quite a challenge to bring a low HP / stats character up through the ranks, as well as rewarding.

If you are considering rule 0'ing the hp rules, I would encourage you to stick with the book HP rules. They were put there for a reason and are well-thought out, playtested, etc.

PS: Hong - great reply

 

[ForceUser@Home]

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

That's funny. My take on point-buy was always that it was more fair than rolling, i.e. it would give all players equal chances for good ability scores. So I use point-buy in my fantasy game and the logical consequence was to also use fixed hp and eliminate the only other source of randomness (and thus unfairness) as well. So we use what is (IIRC) Living Greyhawk rules, i.e. average hp per die (round up). Works fine.

Now, for my CoC game, where PC abilities don't matter so much, as the challenges are more often than not of the "run away or die" kind, I decided to let players roll both stats (4d6, drop lowest) and hp. Works fine as well, generates some inequalities but these can make up for the lack of PC differentiation caused by lack of classes and races.

But I never ever considered mixing point-buy for stats with rolling hp. No offense intended, but it seems rather inconsequential. Or do you have other reasons for using point-buy than fairness/avoiding frustration? If low hp rolls bother you and your players, just ditch them in favor of fixed. I mean, it is even an optional rule in the DMG (although this one gives you average, rounded down, which will at higher levels yield worse scores than the average hp given for monsters).

Excuse my rant, I was just suprised seeing somebody handle it like that...

That's interesting. We started using point buy about a year ago so the DM wouldn't have to be present when you made your character. One of our DMs offered rolling-vs-take the average for a time, but nobody takes the average. I dunno what to tell you. It never occured to us to not roll.

 

[hong]

Re: paper

I wrote my post in haste, and it became an unintentional troll and this I apologize for.

Good heavens. What is online discourse coming to if people are being civil to each other? It's unheard of. Unheard of, I say.

PS: Hong - great reply

I live to serve.