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

[Terwox]

I'm fond of playing weak characters. As someone said, I do like white wolf quite a bit, and one of my favorite parts of that is picking out flaws. In a 3e game I'm playing now, my gnome char has a limp. So, travelling w/o his mount is a problem. I like both games quite a bit, as I like both pure hacknslash and pure roleplaying.

In a game I'm running, there's a telepath psion w/ 4str, 6dex, 8con, 19int, 10 wis, and 15cha. He rolled two sets. I offered to let him use point buy 30, but he declined. Instead, he made a great backstory about how he'd gotten cursed by (eh, it'll be in a story hour soon hopefully. )

But, the main problem to me is if the player feels outshined by the other characters. Or, if he wants to play the huge front line guy who CAN take a punch. Some people don't mind low stats, some people like them. Some people want to play the man with no achilles heel. That's all fine, as long as everyone is having fun.

But, if I were playing my one-armed barbarian, who is supposed to be revered for combat prowess and that, and rolled straight one's on my hps, I'd be dissapointed. I'd probably have to rework my concept somewhat. I'd basically have to reroll to play the character I wanted to -- or change the character I wanted to. (eh, this didn't come up, his hps came up fine.) If I'm playing a character that's as flawed as I want them to be, a little more is usually fine, but having a LOT less hps or ac or whatever, is somewhat annoying.

But, to say something no one else has quite said... character wealth distribution doesn't have to be equal. For that telepath earlier, I let him make a ring that he had crafted that cost a little less from his alloted gold than it was supposed to, because it helped bring him more up to par with the other characters. No one minded at all, as their total stat modifiers weren't negative.

As for how to handle that specific character, ask the group! Ask if they'd mind if he had a little bit better items than them, or if he got a few extra hps. Could always flat out let him have more hps. Or, he could just remake a character. If it's just numbers to him, well, it's just numbers to him, and he'll have more fun w/ a new char. I'd prefer he at least changed classes or something, but long lost twins aren't awful I guess.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

After having mulled over this I see no real positive advantage in the PCs rolling for HPs at all. Give them max at first level. Give the wiz 3, rogue 4, fighter 5, barbarian 6, at each later level.

The only real downside to not rolling is if the players can start guessing the HPs of the NPCs. Since the DM will fudge this anyway it is a non-issue whether he rolls or not.

If the player comes up with a sound and reasonable concept for a character and the rules prevent him from roleplaying that character, then the rules are flawed. It is that simple in my book.

Bad HP rolls make the character hopeless on the frontline if the DM is throwing out an interesting mix of challenges. Maybe the player has the luxury of turning him into an archer. Maybe not. That is not necessarily within the player's or PC's control. Did you ever consider well-played PCs might kick this character out of the party if he doesn't pull his weight by shying away from melee?

 

[Archangel]

First, I am not going to go into how my group does hp (I am a very nice DM), and I am not going to disagree with either side of the argument (look, I'm Switzerland - no offense meant, just a harmless neutral country joke), but I want to add another dimension.

In a small party (say 3-4, I know average in 3e), you have a Wiz, a Clr, a Rog, and a Ftr (or usually some sort of Arcane/Divine/Roguy/Warrior type combination). If the front-line character that is supposed to take damage so I don't have to has below average hit points, I am praying for his quick demise (and then we have to wait for him to create a new character and play out his entry into the party). A character that cannot pull his weight in the party is a detriment (and is a risk to the safety of the others), so why (even for roleplaying sake) should I even adventure with him (in fact, if roleplaying is the question, in real life I would NOT have this character in my foxhole so why should I in the game - just roleplaying correctly)?

Heck, if I am a non-fighter type recruiting for a trip into a deadly crypt, I am sending the fighter type into the nearest bar to start a brawl. If he doesn't walk out, he isn't coming with me.

Once again, since I just DM and don't play I don't care, just throwing this out there.

 

[Oogar]

Arguments can, of course, be made for both sides. In my game everyone has Max at level 1, after that each level gets a roll, if less then 50% of the max roll, they get 50%. Yes, there is still a thief in the group who has almost as many HP's as the fighter because he rolls well. Yes, it helps some players more then others. However, I have never had a character complain about the way I do HP's. I don't think I am being overly nice, or harsh. For us it works well. I feel that as a DM that is the best you can do, come up with something that works for your group, and stick to it.

Some hard line folks would not be happy about the way I do it, and if I play in their game I won't rock the boat. I feel that this is just an area where DM consistency is the key.

There is nothing wrong with running the game where a fighter can have really bad luck and have 37hp's at level 7, but everyone should know at the start, and be ready to accept it.

It should also be noted that no amount of level appropriate gear is going to make this fighter as good as one with 67hps. The fighter with 67hps would have level appropriate gear to place him at 97. Just my thoughts on that matter. (sorry if I missed a previous post that mentioned this, I wanted to reply before my eyes got too fuzzy).

 

[Gargoyle]

I don't use many house rules, but I do for hit points.

I give max hit points to all player characters and major villains at each level, and use average hit points for monsters and minor NPCs.

The way I see it is this:

- I want a more cinematic game where the PC's are heroes and a cut above most others, so I want them to survive longer. I also want my major villains to survive a fight or two before getting their comeuppance. I feel like this makes the game more fun for everybody. (PC's still die from regular damage ocassionally btw, even those with lots of hit points)

- Damage rolls are random, so the way you determine hit points shouldn't be. In other words, there is already a random factor that determines when characters will die (the damage roll), so why add a second random factor? (the hit die roll) Having the hit point progression fixed means I know how many hit points everyone starts with.

- I don't have to witness dice rolls for hit points or have to worry about cheating. My players aren't cheaters, and I trust them, but locks keep honest people honest. This is one less temptation for them. This is a minor point.

- It's faster and simpler than rolling. Another minor point.

The disadvantage of max hit points is that it's possible that at higher levels there will be such a disparity between classes that encounters will become too deadly for wizards and sorcerers or not challenging enough for the barbarian and fighter types. So far that hasn't proven to be the case, but it's too early to tell (they're only 6-7th level as we tend to stop the campaign to playtest stuff). I've had three deaths so far: One barbarian, one fighter, and one sorcerer, all from damage taken.

I've noticed that having a lot of hit points sometimes gives them a false sense of confidence. The fighter died from a crit about 10 minutes after bragging about his 90+ hp. The encounter was not adjusted to be more difficult because of this house rule, either. D&D 3rd edition is just dangerous sometimes...which is good as long as PCs aren't dying off too often.

I'm not saying this is the best system for everyone, but it works well for me.

 

[Gargoyle]

---------

Some hard line folks would not be happy about the way I do it, and if I play in their game I won't rock the boat. I feel that this is just an area where DM consistency is the key.

There is nothing wrong with running the game where a fighter can have really bad luck and have 37hp's at level 7, but everyone should know at the start, and be ready to accept it.

--------------

Even though I use a different method I totally agree with Oogar's comments above. It's all about setting expectations and being consistent.

 

[Gargoyle]

Oops, sorry, quoted my own post. duh...

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

- Damage rolls are random, so the way you determine hit points shouldn't be. In other words, there is already a random factor that determines when characters will die (the damage roll), so why add a second random factor? (the hit die roll) Having the hit point progression fixed means I know how many hit points everyone starts with.

That is a very good point. Throwing random factors on top of random factors does not give any obvious advantage when it comes to PCs.

All the arguments that apply to rolling vs. point buy apply here. Both are valid methods of play. IMHO giving control to the player is usually a good thing.