[Hit Points - Minor Rant] How few is too few?
- Thread starter ForceUser@Home
- Start date
Broken Fang
First Post
Yes but the greatest heroes didn't have to roll...or worry about the DM rolling! 
dagger
Adventurer
Our HP system is pretty simple:
You roll for you HP as normal, you can take your roll or have the DM roll if you dont like what you get. But you have to take what the DM rolls, even if it is lower.
Maybe the low HP fighter could become a range weapon guru(archer pehaps)?
You roll for you HP as normal, you can take your roll or have the DM roll if you dont like what you get. But you have to take what the DM rolls, even if it is lower.
Maybe the low HP fighter could become a range weapon guru(archer pehaps)?
Last edited:
Wolfen Priest
First Post
What we do in our campaign is that when you roll for hit points, you simply roll 2 of the dice (at once), and keep the higher roll. No rerolls; ever.
I also want to point out that if you don't have a predefined ruleset about this (or anything else in character development), you are being unfair to your players, especially when you allow them to reroll bad rolls ~haphazardly~. Which is why I use 32 point-buy.
It's especially bad if you allow players to reroll 1's and 2's. Mathematically, this works out greatly to the advantage of wizards & sorcerors, but not as much for the barbarians. But it's even worse (IMO) if you dont predefine the ruleset, because then everything is a judgment call. And don't get me wrong, judgment calls are the DM's job... in the game.
But for character creation, I think players should have as much control as possible. It's the only aspect of the game and/or story that they can control.
I also want to point out that if you don't have a predefined ruleset about this (or anything else in character development), you are being unfair to your players, especially when you allow them to reroll bad rolls ~haphazardly~. Which is why I use 32 point-buy.
It's especially bad if you allow players to reroll 1's and 2's. Mathematically, this works out greatly to the advantage of wizards & sorcerors, but not as much for the barbarians. But it's even worse (IMO) if you dont predefine the ruleset, because then everything is a judgment call. And don't get me wrong, judgment calls are the DM's job... in the game.
But for character creation, I think players should have as much control as possible. It's the only aspect of the game and/or story that they can control.
FungiMuncher
First Post
ForceUser,
I very much sympathize with your complaining players! In my group, my nickname is "Schlep Rock," the bad luck guy from the Flintstones. I have a tradition of rolling lousy. I think my record for rolling consecutive 3's or less on a d20 is at seven times (and I'm not exagerating!)
We have several GM's; the ways of determining hit points varies for each of them. The GM that runs most often makes us roll for hit points regardless of the situation. I had a barbarian in one of his games where the highest I ever rolled for a hit die was a two. Needless to say, I'm not going to play any more front line fighters in his games.
Now, this past week, another guy is hoping to start a new campaign. I would very much like to play a barbarian (and not a barbarian archer!). I ask how are we rolling hit points; he tells us that we need to roll for them reagrdless. I ask if there is ANY way I can get around rolling for hit points. He thinks for a while, and replies that I can spend a feat to allow me to take the average at each level. Well, I now have a new barbarian character, with the feat "Average Hit Points." I'm not too happy about having to spend a feat, but I am happy to be able to play a barbarian with the hopes of being moderately effective.
Anyway, my point is, like others have said, rolling for hit points is the only character creation step not under the player's control. If the appeal of third edition is player control over character creation, why roll for hit points? It's a throwback to earlier editions.
FM
I very much sympathize with your complaining players! In my group, my nickname is "Schlep Rock," the bad luck guy from the Flintstones. I have a tradition of rolling lousy. I think my record for rolling consecutive 3's or less on a d20 is at seven times (and I'm not exagerating!)
We have several GM's; the ways of determining hit points varies for each of them. The GM that runs most often makes us roll for hit points regardless of the situation. I had a barbarian in one of his games where the highest I ever rolled for a hit die was a two. Needless to say, I'm not going to play any more front line fighters in his games.
Now, this past week, another guy is hoping to start a new campaign. I would very much like to play a barbarian (and not a barbarian archer!). I ask how are we rolling hit points; he tells us that we need to roll for them reagrdless. I ask if there is ANY way I can get around rolling for hit points. He thinks for a while, and replies that I can spend a feat to allow me to take the average at each level. Well, I now have a new barbarian character, with the feat "Average Hit Points." I'm not too happy about having to spend a feat, but I am happy to be able to play a barbarian with the hopes of being moderately effective.
Anyway, my point is, like others have said, rolling for hit points is the only character creation step not under the player's control. If the appeal of third edition is player control over character creation, why roll for hit points? It's a throwback to earlier editions.
FM
Imagine if your front line fighter were to be hit with a Curse that permanently removes one third of his hit points. No Remove Curse possible. Nasty huh?
Now it's entirely possible to roleplay around such a weakling frontline fighter, but the fact is the player is NOT going to be happy, and will be hampered in playing the character concept he wanted to play.
That 1/3 loss in hitpoints is exactly what happened to poor Garlok. With a +3 for Con, he should have 10 + 6x3 + 9 = 37 hp. Average hit points would have been 10 + 6x3 + 5x5.5 = 55.5 hp. That's a difference of 18.5 hp, or conveniently exactly 1/3 of the hp he could have had with average rolls.
Personally, I don't like rolling for hitpoints, especially at low levels. Given the choice between rolling and half max hp, I'd take the latter gladly.
Now it's entirely possible to roleplay around such a weakling frontline fighter, but the fact is the player is NOT going to be happy, and will be hampered in playing the character concept he wanted to play.
That 1/3 loss in hitpoints is exactly what happened to poor Garlok. With a +3 for Con, he should have 10 + 6x3 + 9 = 37 hp. Average hit points would have been 10 + 6x3 + 5x5.5 = 55.5 hp. That's a difference of 18.5 hp, or conveniently exactly 1/3 of the hp he could have had with average rolls.
Personally, I don't like rolling for hitpoints, especially at low levels. Given the choice between rolling and half max hp, I'd take the latter gladly.
I do not want to spend time repeating others, so I will try not to...
Apparently this guy has been playing for 6 levels, is he having fun? If yes, then what is the problem?
Now, if his experiences are that he is constantly knocked out then I too would complain.
How about a few level drains on this guy, let him regain those levels and re-roll the last few hit dice as a result. Sure it would stink to loe two levels, but if he were to roll a 8, 10 for HP on the regained levels, then he might be happier. I know I would be.
Also, I do not even know if these items exist in 3e, but give him one of those books that give you experience. Basically level him faster than his cohorts. If he were to gain two levels on everyone else, the HP would come (hopeuflly higher than average this time) and even if they were only average, the higher BAB, saves, and abilities might be placing him above the others that way.
So he's a 9th level Bar with 56 hp while his buddy is a 7th level fighter with 57, but he should be getting the drop on this guy in combat.
g!
Apparently this guy has been playing for 6 levels, is he having fun? If yes, then what is the problem?
Now, if his experiences are that he is constantly knocked out then I too would complain.
How about a few level drains on this guy, let him regain those levels and re-roll the last few hit dice as a result. Sure it would stink to loe two levels, but if he were to roll a 8, 10 for HP on the regained levels, then he might be happier. I know I would be.
Also, I do not even know if these items exist in 3e, but give him one of those books that give you experience. Basically level him faster than his cohorts. If he were to gain two levels on everyone else, the HP would come (hopeuflly higher than average this time) and even if they were only average, the higher BAB, saves, and abilities might be placing him above the others that way.
So he's a 9th level Bar with 56 hp while his buddy is a 7th level fighter with 57, but he should be getting the drop on this guy in combat.
g!
FungiMuncher said:
Ouch! That's cruel.
Assuming that's average-low hp (6 on d12) rather than average high (7), making it cost a Feat is pretty tough considering the option already exists in the DMG as a free choice. A feat that allows you to take average-high hp sounds rather nifty, though.
Storminator
First Post
S'mon said:
Ouch! That's cruel.
Assuming that's average-low hp (6 on d12) rather than average high (7), making it cost a Feat is pretty tough considering the option already exists in the DMG as a free choice. A feat that allows you to take average-high hp sounds rather nifty, though.
That's only a free choice if the DM lets you have it. If not, you're stuck. I think it's a rather reasonable compromise. No one gets exactly the game they were hoping for, but no one is completely unhappy either.
Personally, I roll of stats, and roll for hp. I have a point buy floor under the rolling, so if you roll extremely badly for stats, you get the point buy. So far only about 25% of the PCs have been point buy. And only the wizard rolled well for hp at 2nd level (highest level so far).
PS
Similar Threads
