HPs gained per level

[Jeff Wilder]

These assume that the player has perfect logic and accepts whatever rolls will give him the greatest long-term average.

Gotcha.

The problem is, however, that in the context of D&D, that's not "perfect logic." In D&D, lower-than-average-HP hurts more than higher-then-average-HP helps. (For a very quick, dirty, and incomplete proof of this, consider death effects.)

Determining "perfect logic" in this situation is probably impossible, but IMO a player who discards a d10 roll of 5 for his fighter is foolish. (A 4 is a much closer call.)

Also (though this may have simply been a series of typos), even going solely by the numbers your quoted logic is off. Remember, the HD size drops by one, if the player chooses to reroll. So a player who does choose to reroll a 5 (from a d10 HD) in the hopes of getting better than a 5 on a d8 is definitely foolish.


Jeff

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Double post.

 

[Hardhead]

Determining "perfect logic" in this situation is probably impossible, but IMO a player who discards a d10 roll of 5 for his fighter is foolish. (A 4 is a much closer call.)

Assuming they have to loose a die if they reroll, a fighter with a five who discards and tries again has a 37.5% chance of getting something better on a d8, a 12.5% chance of getting the same, and a 50% chance of getting worse. So yeah, I'd agree that would be a poor decision. OTOH, if they rolled a 4, they'd have a 50% chance of <i>improving</i> and only a 37.5% chance of getting worse, so it'd clearly be a good choice.

 

[Norfleet]

All of a sudden on achieving 8th level he gets great rolls and it could shoot right up as high as 70-80. Have you seen this kind of thing happen much, even if it wasn't quite as dramatic?

I've seen it happen once or twice, but it made basically no difference in the long run. The player became overconfident and drunk upon his newfound power, and died anyway, or had been rolling for crap for the past few levels anyway, and merely was getting his due.

The other reason I devised this system was, actually, because of myself. This was in the old days of 1E and 2E: I always played wizards and thieves (they were called that back then). With only one die to be tossed, I could easily and without any effort whatsoever apply my special "die manipulation" technique. If you put a d4 or a d6 in my hands to roll, it says whatever the hell I want it to say. If you put a LOT of them in my hands to roll at once, the level of control I have weakens slightly, but on a toss, I can control about 9d6 with little or no difficulty. If I try, at least 8 of them will end up saying "6", if I will it to be so. Back when I made this rule, my control was somewhat less honed and absolute, and I could effective control only about 4 or 5. So I proposed this new idea instead, since the alternative was being banned from playing thieves and wizards, and it was popularly received by the group as whole, particularly the fighter and cleric players always being shafted on hitpoints.

Side note: This technique comes in handy for rolling stats, too. See my proposed "trade system" for stat rolling elsewhere, devised also around this time. I pocketted a lot of cash this way.

 

[KarinsDad]

We've always used plain rolled in the past, but I've just shifted it in my campaign to rolled with a minimum of die size/2.

We do this as well.

How about this one:
Every time you level, your hitpoints are rerolled: If your new total exceeds your old total, you get that as your new current hitpoints. If your old total is greater than or equal to your new total, you keep your old total, and gain 1 HP.

I find this re-roll all method intriguing though. I assume that you still get max hits for first level and that you re-roll your new current level as well (these were not mentioned).

 

[CRGreathouse]

Gotcha.

The problem is, however, that in the context of D&D, that's not "perfect logic." In D&D, lower-than-average-HP hurts more than higher-then-average-HP helps. (For a very quick, dirty, and incomplete proof of this, consider death effects.)

Sure. Players who feel this are risk adverse (by definition!), and will stay with lower numbers. There are literally hundreds of stratagies here, so going with highest average (or risk-neutral) was the easiest.

Also (though this may have simply been a series of typos), even going solely by the numbers your quoted logic is off. Remember, the HD size drops by one, if the player chooses to reroll. So a player who does choose to reroll a 5 (from a d10 HD) in the hopes of getting better than a 5 on a d8 is definitely foolish.

No, because if the d8 is low it can be rerolled as a d6 (and d4, if needed).

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Sure. Players who feel this are risk adverse (by definition!)

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with the terminology. Being "risk averse" means being aware of the probabilities involved and choosing to avoid the possibility of negative outcome, even at the cost of surrendering positive expectation. (You know all that, of course, but some folks might not.)

A player who chooses not to live at the razor's edge in this kind of HP system isn't "risk averse" ... he's simply less ignorant of all of the risks. He's ... "risk cognizant."

(I'm a semi-pro poker player, BTW, so I have some knowledge of risk aversion.

There are literally hundreds of stratagies here, so going with highest average (or risk-neutral) was the easiest.

Call it something else, and I say "fair enough."

No, because if the d8 is low it can be rerolled as a d6 (and d4, if needed).

Are you sure about this? Doesn't this assume, again, that the player (who rolled a 5 on the d10 and chooses to reroll on the d8) will also make the choice to reroll any 5 or 4 on the d8 (a very bad decision, by your own math)?

You're right, though, the "cascading" HD size does make the d10 result of 5 a harder choice than I'd calculated. (Assuming one leaves out everything else in the game that would make rerolling it a bad decision.)


Jeff

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I use maximum + CON mod at first level, per standard, and 1/2 maximum + CON bonus at every level after first. It is not optional, even though the played of the undead PC in my game always wants to roll his d12s instead of taking his 6.

There's another character in the game who gets precisely one hit point at every level by this rule. Strangely, this character's player doesn't complain about it.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with the terminology. Being "risk averse" means being aware of the probabilities involved and choosing to avoid the possibility of negative outcome, even at the cost of surrendering positive expectation. (You know all that, of course, but some folks might not.)

A player who chooses not to live at the razor's edge in this kind of HP system isn't "risk averse" ... he's simply less ignorant of all of the risks. He's ... "risk cognizant."

I'll stick to what I said. Being risk-adverse means that you value your first (whatever) more than your last (whatever), and being risk-loving measn that you value your last (whatever) more than your first (whatever).

For example, I am risk adverse with money. I wouldn't accept a 50% chance to win $20,000 if the chance cost $10,000 -- I value the $10k I have more than the $10k I stand to gain. If I were risk-neutral, I might well take that chance -- and I certainly would take it if I were risk-loving.

Normally, being somewhat risk-adverse with D&D hit points is sensible -- as the 3.0 DMG said, below-average hp hurt PCs more than above-average hp help them. However, there are times when being risk-loving can be sensible with D&D hit points. For example, take a 90-hp character who expects to face a wizard with power word kill. With Con 14 and a d12 HD, he'll average 98.5 hp. It would be a prudent strategy for him to reroll anything under 9, though, to maximize the chance of getting to the 101-hp threshhold for surviving PWK. This will lower his average hp by 0.25 hp, but it's a good move in his position.

Are you sure about this? Doesn't this assume, again, that the player (who rolled a 5 on the d10 and chooses to reroll on the d8) will also make the choice to reroll any 5 or 4 on the d8 (a very bad decision, by your own math)?

You're right, though, the "cascading" HD size does make the d10 result of 5 a harder choice than I'd calculated. (Assuming one leaves out everything else in the game that would make rerolling it a bad decision.)

Assuming risk-neutral behavior, or whatever you'd prefer to call it:

On a d4, you average 2.5 -- you can't reroll any lower.

On a d6, reroll 1s and 2s, since you're better off -- on average -- with the d4. Thus, you average (2.5 + 2.5 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6) / 6 =~ 3.8

On a d8, reroll 1-3 since the d6 gives higher results. You average about 5.2

On a d10, reroll 1-5 since the d8 gives better results. You average about 6.6

On the d12, reroll 1-6 since the d10 gives better results in the long run.

 

[Ogre Mage]

Here is the method our group uses:

Players have two options every time they level:

1. The usual default method. No rerolling, you take what you get.

2. An alternte method based on the class HD:

d4 = d4
d6 = d4+1
d8 = d4+2
d10 = d4+3
d12 = d4+4

Again no rerolling, you take what you get. Choice 2 changes the deviation, but not the average. There is room for variation, but players who rely primarily on method 2 will have characters whose HP's are "average" for their level.