HPs gained per level

[Jeff Wilder]

So you reroll your entire hp each level? The thing that I wouldn't like about that system is that it would allow for huge jumps [from average to way above average].

It's possible, but it's not likely. (Much more likely is a jump from substantially below average to average or above, which, IMO, is a very good thing.) And it becomes less likely with each additional level gained.

That aside, though, what do you perceive as the problems, assuming such an increase occurred? Given D&D's extremely abstract wound simulation, I really don't see much of a downside. Remember, the increase wouldn't last forever, because it's unlikely you'd be able to beat the superb roll on the next level, or even the level after that, and thus you'd get minimal HP increases.


Jeff

 

[Vaxalon]

Oh, I like this... I like it a LOT. Consider it snatched.

 

[Zhure]

Wholesale reroll. You berry clever. Take 1000 XP.

Greg

 

[Hardhead]

Our method is this: Before they roll, anyone can choose to graduate down to a smaller die. Each time they do this, they get a +1 to their HP. So, if you're a barbarian, you could roll a d12, a d10+1, a d8+2, a d6+3, A d4+4, or a d2+5. Note that each roll gives you the same average hp, so it doesn't raise the number of hp over time (it does, however, cause most people to end up with "average" results, as almost everyoen opts for the d4 or the d2. You can't roll really high, but at least you know you're not going to get a 1).

 

[Quasqueton]

I use the average rounded up (max/2 +1) in my campaign.

Reasons:

1 - Keeps the randomness out of something so important. I also use point buy for ability scores. I don't think there should be randomness in leveling up a character. Imagine if you had to roll for the character's skill points or feats or spell knowledge?

2 - It allows the Players to level up their PCs without me having to oversee any mechanics.

3 - Players get very disappointed when they roll a 1 (or 2, or anything below half their max). I've seen Players beg and plead and try to make a deal with the DM to get a reroll.

The sorcerer's Player in my game brought up the apparent tilt in favor of mages. But it really isn't anything to get worked up over. A wizard ends up with .5 (one half) a point per level over the average. Same with a barbarian -- .5 per level over average. After 11 levels, both have 5 hit points more than the average had they rolled.

My group is now at 6th level.
The sorcerer has 19 (without con adjustment).
The cleric has 33 (without con adjustment).
The average if rolled would be: sorcerer 16.5 (2.5 difference), cleric 30.5 (2.5 difference).

I've seen all kinds of crazy and convoluted methods for rolling hit points. But it basically all comes down to helping the PC stay at average or better numbers. My way does the same thing, but cuts out the middle man (all that rolling).

One half hit point per level is the set number -- same for everyone. I highly doubt well see mages getting all cocky and bold and charging the monster in front of the barbarians.

Overall, there is enough deadly randomness in playing the game. I don't need or want randomness in character generation/leveling.

Quasqueton

 

[Mercule]

I've been toying with some ideas on hps.

I've always allowed classes with a d6 or d8 reroll any 1s they get. Classes with a d10 or d12 reroll 1s and 2s.

I don't like the LG method because it's at too big of a cost to the big guys. I've thought about a 75% rule where a flat 75%-ish of the max is handed out, though. Thus d4 yields a 3, d6:4, d8:6, d10:8, and d12:9. I'm not sure I like how "stock" the characters would end up, though.

I also thought about doing a 50% base + half the die. So, a cleric would roll a d4 and add it to 4 (half the max of 8). That'd give an average around the 75% and throw in a safety net at 50%.

After reading this thread, I've got a new thought. I don't think I like the full reroll, but it gives me an idea. At each level, the character gets a new hit die and rolls normally, recording the result. Following that roll, he is permitted to select any single level's roll and try again, updating only if the new result is better. I don't know how a statistical analysis would work out, but the worst case is that each level becomes a "roll twice, keep the best" situation.

Oh, the reason I'm looking at such high baselines is because I tend to run high-risk games with minimal healing available. If you're a nicer DM, YMMV.

 

[CRGreathouse]

our system ...

roll the die. If you think it sucks, you can reroll, on a small increment die. Start with that d12, then goto your d10 ... I had a barbarian get down to a d8, which sucked. I think he got 5 points on that roll.

That's interesting, Eolin. How does it affect average hit points over time?

Here are my calculations for the long-term averages for his method -- assuming 1d4 is the lowest roll allowed. (Otherwise, averages are somewhat higher.)

1d4 2.5
1d6 3.8333
1d8 5.1875
1d10 6.5938
1d12 8.0469

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Here are my calculations for the long-term averages for his method -- assuming 1d4 is the lowest roll allowed.

How did you compute this? Doesn't it depend upon what the player is willing to accept for the initial (and any secondary) hit point roll? That is, assuming the player of a barbarian is willing to accept a 5 or higher on a d12, won't he have a different average than a player who's only willing to accept a 7 or higher?


Jeff

 

[SeaWolf]

I pretty much let the characters roll their own dice rolls, and the worst they can get is a little under the average:

2+ on 1d4

2+ on 1d6

3+ on 1d8

4+ on 1d10

5+ on 1d12

This of course doesn't include their con bonuses. Anything else I have them reroll ONCE or they get the minimum for their hit die, whichever is higher.

QUOTE

roll the die. If you think it sucks, you can reroll, on a small increment die. Start with that d12, then goto your d10 ... I had a barbarian get down to a d8, which sucked. I think he got 5 points on that roll.

I do admit I can see potential with this, and I'll have to do some personal testing on this one. Thanks

 

[CRGreathouse]

How did you compute this? Doesn't it depend upon what the player is willing to accept for the initial (and any secondary) hit point roll? That is, assuming the player of a barbarian is willing to accept a 5 or higher on a d12, won't he have a different average than a player who's only willing to accept a 7 or higher?

These assume that the player has perfect logic and accepts whatever rolls will give him the greatest long-term average. In this case (1d4 as lowest allowed), the lowest players should accept:

3 on a d6
4 on a d8
6 on a d10
7 on a d12

Obviously, more risk-adverse players will have a lower average.