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

[Warchild]

Well, i can certaintly understand the dissappointment of rolling several 1's in a roll for HP, i also would not be happy with someone who wanted to retire a character because he didn't roll high enough on a Hit Die. That sort of player wouldn't last long at my table, regardless how high (or low. LOL) his hit points are.
Just because you didn't roll real high on a hit die or two, you can't play your character?? Thats a load. A "Tough" guy would have have high con, Toughness feat (s), and things like Great Fortitude and Endurance. The character can still be tough, even though he isn't at max hit points.

I use point buy stats and average hit points/vitality...when i use them at all. Hey Force, send that player to my Wyrd Lands campaign! We don't use Hit points, Wounds, OR vitality in that game setting. Just Death Saves! By the time he runs back to you, he'll appreciate having any hit points at all!!!

 

[Henry]

Forceuser - while the character is not automatically doomed (as one poster said, there ARE missile weapons ), it is true that if he plans to be a "meat shield" that he is unable to do so, even with all the CON boosting items available. All it takes is one mild poison to destroy even these so-called average hit points.

So far with my group, we have rolled hit points, as usual. if someone gets a one or a two, I usually let them reroll - unless they've been getting exceptional max or near max rolls for every level up until now.

One house rule I introduced a while back to the wizards boards (i didn't originate it, It's just that I'm the first person I remember that talked about it over there in about 1999 or so) is to roll hit points TWICE when gaining a new hit die, and keep the best one. Statistically, it raises the hp average a little bit, but doesn't give them the whole store, like the living Greyhawk method does. You can STILL roll crappily, but it is far less likely you will do so.

Forceuser, I agree that if the group agreed to let the dice fall where they may, and only one person is whining, then they need to accept the situation. But if the majority of players are complaining, then the issue needs to be discussed, because it's not just the rant of one dissenter.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I've been there.

You ever notice how, with some players, they'd never dream of using a point buy system (given the option) because they don't want to have "average" stats, but can't stand the thought of playing below average stats just because they rolled them?

A character with really low HP is screwed, true - and it is about the only character decision that, by the rules, is completely up to the die. So allowances should be made for exceptionally low HP rolls, just like you would for low stats.

But if you're allowing the PCs to roll for HP at all, you must allow for the chance of rolling badly. If you say "any roll below average is rerolled", then effectively you're changing the average. Example: for a normal fighter, average HP is 5.5 / level. (6 / level if you reroll 1s.) If they reroll everything below a 5, then the average HP becomes 7.5 / level. This is equivalent to giving every fighter in the game a +4 CON bonus.

I make allowances for poor HP rolls - but I don't allow it to overrule the game mechanics. (Even when half the characters in the game wind up with several poor rolls, like last time.)

PS: I had a particular occurance in one game where two of the fighter-types had gotten really lucky with HP rolls, whereas the ranger had gotten hosed. Then, one day, one of the fighters was forced to burn a Wish they'd earned to cause his disastrous mistake to "un-happen". I took the opportunity for mischief - since the timestream had been altered in this fashion, I required all the PCs to reroll their HP. The results? The first two fighters were still happy with their HP, even though they'd lost a few, but the ranger had gotten a huge boost to make up for it.

 

[Buttercup]

Nevermind. He apoligized, so my post had become pointless.

I think that, since all campaigns are different, no one method works for all. I guarantee that I will never make my players roll for hit points. Anyone who doesn't like my rule can do as they please when they run their own campaign.

 

[Desdichado]

I think maybe he wants to ROLEPLAY a tough, fighter type. One that has a glass jaw, so to speak, isn't probably the concept he had in mind.

With that said, I never force my characters to take the first roll on HP advancement if it's bad. I let them take a second reroll, but they have to accept that result, even if it's worse than the first. Gives 'em a little chance, but you don't abuse it. You're fighter that rolls a 7 isn't going to try again for higher, but the fighter than rolls a 2 probably will.

 

[jester47]

Re: paper

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.

Codragon, I would like to point out that there is a fixed HP rule in the DMG on p. 42. It is a variant rule and gives the players an option. Still this one does get zeroed a little bit in that most round up instead of down.

IMC characters have two options. They can roll stats which they have to keep or they can go with a point buy. I use the rule that if the negatives outweigh the positives they can reroll or choose to point buy. I give them a 28 point buy.

Now for hit points I need to make the argument that there is somthing few people here are considering: Monsters. Monster hit points are not random rolls but rather averages. I know of few DMs that actually roll the monster's HP. If the Monsters are getting average HP, then the heroes should be gettig those at least. The only way to do this is to roll monster stats or go with average HP. I am Lazy, so I go with average HP. Our hp formula is Full fisrst level + con + feats + die max/2 +1 per level. So for a second level fighter with the toughness feat you get and a Con of 14:

10 +2 +3 + (10/2) +1 +2 = 23hp

Also we use SKRs poison and slower dying rules, so if the daddys are not using poison chances of survival are better. If they are using poison, chances of survival are about normal.

Aaron

 

[Zappo]

Re: Re: What's wrong with you?

Ok, first of all a quick lesson on averages.

The average hit points of a 4th level fighter with 14 CON are 34.5 (assuming max HP at 1st), because he rolls 3d10+18.

The average hit points of a 4th level fighter with 10 CON are 26.5, because he rolls 3d10+10.

26.5 != 34.5

So, if I play a fighter with 14 CON and roll 2, 3, 3, and therefore have 26 HP, it's below average (and quite a lot too), and there's not much to argue here. The fact that 26 is average for 3d10+10 is completely irrelevant, since I'm not rolling 3d10+10.

Just as irrelevant is whether I can survive with 26 HP or not.

The only thing that matters is that I've spent 6 of my precious stat buy points on a 14 CON and 4 of those points have been almost invalidated by my bad luck.

I am starting at a clear and well-defined disadvantage because of bad luck. Anything I can do to correct that disadvantage (getting CON increases with levels, getting amulets of health, whatever) will only move the disadvantage to another area (raising CON means I don't raise STR, getting an amulet of health means I don't get a +2 sword). There is absolutely nothing I can do to truly cancel the disadvantage, except rolling well when I next level or having the DM assign me extra XP or treasure or other resources - but I have no control over that.

Further, I am effectively prevented from roleplaying the character I have built (a tough warrior) because fate decided to hand me an average warrior instead.

Since you are already playing with point buy, like I do, I suggest you to think about the reasons for which you use point buy. Because exactly the same reasons are those for which I always assign half max hit die every time a character levels in my campaigns.

Incidentally, there IS an optional rule in the DMG which proposes exactly what I do... so not rolling the dice is exactly just as "official" as using point buy is, and isn't even a house rule.

If someone is going to notice that half max isn't average, let it be known that 1) I don't care, and 2) the safety this system gives makes up for the half point lost.

 

[ForceUser]

I always assign half max hit die every time a character levels in my campaigns.

I am seriously considering this.

 

[Christian]

It certainly fits with the point-buy philosophy, F ... um, Force User. (Dang it-I usually abbreviate people's names in my replies, but I don't think that would come across well in this response.) My personal plan for my upcoming campaign is to give the player a choice, before the die is rolled, to just take the half-maximum from the 'Fixed Hit Points' optional rule.

"Crud-I just rolled 1 hit point for my barbarian at second level. Can I reroll?"
"You had the option to just take 6-you took the chance, you have to live with the roll."



My recommendation, in this case (if anybody cares) is that high hit-die types (d10+, or maybe d8+ for combat-intensive cleric/druid/monk characters) take the fixed hit points at second and possibly third level. Rogues and bards should probably roll, and wizards and sorcerers should definitely roll. (They've got a 75% chance of at least matching, and a 25% chance of coming up 1 hit point short.)

In the long run, any character will do better rolling. But that's small consolation to the 2nd level Con 14 barbarian with 17 hit points ...

 

[sfgiants]

This is a star wars example, but it is relevant. I once had a character in a game I gm'd with a 2 constitution. He had a +2 character over all, but because of racial modifiers ended up with two 18's (dx, and int) and a 2 con, and a 6 st (I am guessing, I can't remember exactly, but it is close). In Star Wars this meant at lvl 3 he had 3 vitality, and 2 wounds. He never complained once (it was partly his doing, I mean he chose to lower some ugly stats and raise high ones) and had a ton of fun. In fact he made it all character, defeated more opponents than anyone else, and never took a hit. He spent all his feats on being a better shot, and getting higher defense. The point to all of this is that (and I know this will not sit well), the DM doesn't break rules to hamper you when you roll well, why should the dm improve your rolls when you roll poor? If you are really concerned use the variant rule that allows avg hp per level. Otherwise, this type of thing will happen. It is a game, and there are tons of ways to improve a character in game w.o. resorting to out of game fixes (armor class may help a low hp character, get expertise, dodge etc and next thing you know it sure is hard to hit you....)