HPs gained per level

[Altalazar]

I also use the "your roll or mine" method for players. They get max hit points at first level, of course, which I always had as a house rule even before that became the official rule.

I also left it optional if players wanted to roll or take the "average" without a roll.

And if they do roll, and don't like it, they ask me to roll for them, which I do behind the screen, and what I roll, they have to take, then.

With no re-roll, sometimes things got a little out of whack. I was playing a 2E campaign - I had a merchant (psionicist, yes, but really, just a merchant!) - well, he had a good con, which helped, but he only had d6 hp. The party had a ranger and a fighter - and every level they rolled like total crap - 1s, 2s, etc. We all rolled together when we leveled, to see how we'd measure up. I rolled a '6' every single time, with the exception of one level, where I rolled a '5'. So by the time we got up to 5th, 6th level, I had by far the most hit points in the group and I didn't do combat!

 

[Majere]

Just to chip in a simple method we always use which also help with roleplaying.
When you level you can level naturally or with training.
Natural training gives you one roll of your hp, trained leveling gives two rolls, pick the highest. Retrospective training is possible.

Of course trained leveling requires a trainer, so time to go join the fighters guild .. only they require a 5000 gold downfee to join the guild and 500 gold training fee per day, leveling takes 1day/lavel at the lever you are about to gain.
And The cleric.. well he needs to find a temple, well not any temple, a temple to his god or to a friendly god, and the Mage well.. how many other mages out there have time for a weedy first level apprentice.. but you could always try that doorless building over here.
And noone is really sure where the rogue trains, but he keeps saying somthing about "friends". I like this method, encourages alot of roleplaying without any faux or forced rewards.

Majere
Had real fun joining theurge, even if he did lose 10hp permanently.

 

[Gnimish88]

Something which has occured to me, in several of the games I played in where HD/2+1 was the norm for hit points, there were several times when there was no pure fighters, paladins, or barbarians. Has anyone else had this experience?

 

[Cbas10]

Personally, methods of determining hit points are no big deal to me. The other local DMs and I agree that whatever methods players use and characters benefit by, the monsters, NPCs and adversaries follow the same rule (except adversaries do not get Maximum hit points at first level).

I have no problem at all with rolling for hit points at each level beyond the first. Generally, after a few levels, odds are you will have right around average hit points. Some will have more; some will have less. I just make sure to reflect this sort of thing in my character when role-playing him. "Hmmm...my character has some pretty crappy hit points. That must mean that he is not all that great at taking a hit and keeping on going - I better not rush him in to the trolls' den." And (not knocking those of you on this topic) whenever one of my players cries and whines about low hit points, I point them to the Saturday game, in which I have worked my Ranger/Sorcerer/Arcane Archer to 10th level. He has a whopping 28 hit points and is LITERALLY the only original character in the party. It's not about being able to kick more ass and live another day; it's all about playing intelligently...and a little luck heps once in a while. Needless to say, I don't hear much complaining about low hit points anymore.

On the other hand, I can see the merit in taking Average, Average +1, or whatever other method a group uses. Such a thing is a lot easier for bookkeeping, figuring out what traps or encounters may be a bit too deadly (CRs & ELs don't work 100% of the time), etc etc. As for the "game balance issue," I used to be a big stickler for that, but game balance is thrown straight out the window anytime a lot of 3rd party d20 material is introduced. That and my opinion that perfect balance is more the domain of computer/console games; PnP games are more the domain of enjoying the role of your character in the story that the DM and players collectively create.

 

[Vahktang]

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.

Been to Vegas lately?


More later,

Vahktang

 

[Philip]

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

Quasqueton

I cannot agree more. Rolling three 1's in a row turns a perfectly fine character in an unplayable one.

I always found it that a little luck on 0,05% of all your rolls (hit points and ability scores) you had to make in your character's adventuring career had a such a huge impact on the other 95,95% of the rolls during your career.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Well, there's more to being risk-adverse or loving than just the raw quantity stated that's involved. Consider: You have $10K. You owe the mob $20K. You have a 50% chance of winning $20K, if you wager your $10K. Regardless of whether you have $0(tried+lost) or $10K(didn't try), if you don't cough up that $20K tonight, you're going to sleep with the fishes. Go for it?

The difference here is that you value NOTHING less than you value SOMETHING (because effectively $10K ~= $0K for this example).

That's hardly risk averse. Thats the equivalent of asking a player whether he'd like to take 0 hitpoints now, or roll a dice for the chance at 10 hitpoints. There is no risk - merely potential gain.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

Couldn't you just have... you know... NOT been a dirty cheat?