Max HP Debate for PC's and Monsters

[Elder-Basilisk]

As for hit points, I do 1/2+1 for every level past first (which is maximum) for both players and monsters. (I let players roll if they preferred to but they had to live with whatever they got--whether their barbarian rolled a 1 or a 12; after the barbarian who rolled 12 twice died nobody rolled again). It let players have decent hit points and not get hosed by rolling several 1s on their big hit dice. It let me figure out monster's and NPCs' hit points very quickly but didn't make them overpowered vis a vis the PCs. I don't think my players ever caught on that that was how I figured monster hit points, if they did, I'd probably add or subtract a few after I was done.

As for the Max HP for everyone suggestion, this is how I see it effecting the game:

-PC balance: PCs are more survivable in general but the differences between the classes are exacerbated rather than reduced. There's now twice as much difference between the fighter and the barbarian's hit points and the barbarian has three times the hit points of the wizard instead of twice the wizard's hit points.

-PC construction: I think it would actually shift the emphasis on PC combat abilities away from AC and towards damage. If you have more hit points, you can afford to be hit every now and then. But if your enemy has max hit points, then you need to dish out lots of damage to kill them. If my 8th level fighter/wizard (a high AC solution) or an 8th level fighter/barbarian (a damage maximized solution) is going up against a raging 14 con, AC 19 (before rage) 8th level barbarian, here's how it plays out:
Normal hp: 86 hp while raging.
Max hp: 152 hp while raging.

Now, the fighter/wizard has a 14 strength but he bull's strengthed himself to 18. He has a 18 dex after cat's grace and wears a +2 mithral chain shirt and a +2 large shield as well as using haste and shield (hasted so he gets 2 attacks/round). In that situation, his AC is 35. If he uses his +1 morning star, he'll deal enough damage to kill the normal hit point barbarian in 5 rounds. He's got one round of Haste left over. The barbarian might hit once or twice if he's lucky. On average (Which isn't particularly meaningful when you need a 20 to hit), he deals 2.475 points of damage per full attack and ends up dealing 13 points of damage to the fighter/wizard. (Out of 50--if we count an extra round for the fighter/wizard to cast Haste and Shield, he'll take an average of 16 points of damage).

OTOH, it takes 17 attacks to kill the max HP barbarian with the morning star--that's 5 rounds after his haste wears off.
The barbarian is almost certain to hit the fighter/wizard will have one round of rage to hit the fighter wizard for an average of 4.75 points of damage and then 4 rounds after that at 2.31 points of damage per round for a total of about 30 points of damage. If the barbarian was smart and saved his rage until the haste ended, he'll deal about 40 points of damage to the fighter/wizard before being defeated. (All this assuming he doesn't manage to sidestep around the shield spell).

Since the fighter/wizard, even with max hp, will have only 60 hit points (as opposed to 50 using the 1/2+1 per HD system), the fighter/wizard comes out of the encounter much worse off than he would have otherwise.

OTOH, let's take a damage maximizer: A bull's strengthed, Raging Bbn2/Ftr 6 with an 18 base strength and a +2 greataxe. He's got weapon specialization and improved crit with his greataxe (and the extra rage feat so he can dish out rage damage all the time). Because he's a PC, he's got pretty good equipment-- +2 fullplate and an amulet of natural armor +1 for an AC of 22 with dex (not good but enough to keep his foe from power attacking much.
He deals an average of 52.47 points of damage/full attack which means that his opponent lasts 2 rounds normally and 3 rounds with max hp.

Now since his foe is an NPC, he'll have slightly worse stats and equipment. Let's say: +1 greataxe and a 16 starting strength; no bull's strength. The 8th level barbarian will deal 23.49 points of damage to him per full attack. So, the normal hp character has 33 (out of 71) hp left over after he drops out of rage and the max hp character has 26 hp left over.

So, what's the net result. Mr. max damage had 7 fewer hit points left over after the battle. Mr. AC had 4 to 14 fewer hit points left after the battle. In fact, after the non-max HP battle, Mr AC had more hit points left than Mr. Max Damage but after the second battle, Mr Max Damage has more hit points left than Mr. AC (probably six more to be precise). The difference in percentages of hit points is even more dramatic than that. So it looks like max HP for all characters (PC and NPC) actually makes high AC characters (at least ones who depend upon their own magic for that AC) less viable rather than more viable.

More significantly, in both cases, the PC ended up worse off in both relative (percentage of max hp) and absolute (number of hit points remaining) terms under the "everybody gets max hit points" scenario. If the scenario were set up with multiple weaker opponents rather than a single strong opponent, the difference would probably be even more pronounced. The relevant lesson is this:

Max hit points for everyone is not good for the PCs.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

The only thing I don't like about the idea of max HP is it takes away from the luck of the game (the bard IMC rolled max HP his first 7 levels, putting him ahead of the avg. HP monsters). I allow players IMC to reroll only if they get a 1 (1's suck) or to take average rounded up:
d4=3
d6=4
d8=5
d10=6
d12=7.

 

[Oni]

I'm not keen on preset HP. Another thing i'd thought of was alternated HP rolls, to keep lousy rolls to a minimum but allow for some variance.

1d4 = 2+1d2
1d6 = 2+1d4
1d8 = 2+1d6
1d10 = 4+1d6
1d12 = 6+1d6

all the 2+1dX are that way (and not 3+1d3, 4+1d4 et c.) because I wanted a marked difference between fighting class characters and the other classes.

I feel using the above method the barbarian really sees the Hp advantage that the d12 is supposed to represent.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Which is somewhat odd. . . . I thought that 1d12 was supposed to represent an average of 1 hp/level more than a fighter and 1 in six possibility to have an 11 or a 12 as well as a 1 in 6 possibility of having a 1 or a 2--in other words a random number from 1-12 instead of a random number from 1 to something else.

I feel using the above method the barbarian really sees the Hp advantage that the d12 is supposed to represent.

 

[Deset Gled]

I currently use the system of maxing out hit points for both characters and for monsters on the occasions that I have DMed with my main group. For the most part, it has worked for me very well, but part of that is also greatly due to the way that I DM. A few details are as follows:

1. I like to see fights that go on for a long time (in terms of rounds. I push my players to make combat happen at a quick pace). I am generally unhappy with the way some battles can get at higher levels, where enemies drop in one or two rounds. Maximizing hit points is a great way to lengthen encounters. It is important, of course, for you players to both understand this, and to enjoy it.

2. It's hard to just take most enemies from the MM as written. Personally, I prefer to use creatures and NPCs that are advanced by character class rather than just taking monsters our of the manual, which has generally had good results. I have a habit of altering just about any numbers of enemies as I feel apropriate for specific encounters. It would probably make players who have the MM memorized angry, as some creatures have become a lot different than the way they are portrayed there.

3. I hand out heal potions quite liberally to characters. Still, it is very common for my characters to be walking around with low HP for parts of a dungeon crawl until I feel like letting some show up, or for them to limp back home after barely surviving a final battle. This goes along with the fact that I like for players to believe that combat is dangerous.

4. I often give spellcasters items that have the ability to store spells. A number are custom made, and are probably given out at a rate that would be much to high powered for a normal compaign (but are necessary in mine). Also, the casters in my campaign still count on doing a certain amount of pure fighting (though mostly at range). To compensate for a bit of their weakness in this field, I give them weapons that would probably be considered overpowered for characters of their level in most campaigns. Most of these weapons have spell triggers, so they cannot be used by others in the group, and are custom creations to help fit the character concept of the player.

6. The differences in HP for different classes is made a lot bigger. The PCs learned this quickly, and have battles accordingly. Fighters and barbarians need to be ready to get in the way of a lot of enemies to absorb damage so that the spellcasters don't drop dead. On the other hand, they also know that the enemy spellcasters can normally be killed a lot quicker (assuming they can reach them). It is important (again) for your players to not only understand this fact, but also for them to enjoy it.

In conclusion, implementing this concept is possible, but will change gameplay on a noticable level. I have done a lot of customization to my world as a result of it, but am very happy with the results.

Edit: spelling, etc.

 

[jlhorner1974]

Actually, I have been toying with the following idea:

d4 = 2d2 (Avg = 3)
d6 = 2d3 (Avg = 4)
d8 = 2d4 (Avg = 5)
d10 = 2d5 (Avg = 6)
d12 = 2d6 (Avg = 7)

This guarantees that characters will get at least a 2, and heavily weights the die rolls toward the average (characters are less likely to get really crappy or really great rolls) while still giving them a chance to get a lot of HP with a lucky roll.

Chance of rolling "average" or better:

d4 (2d2): 3/4 (75.0%)
d6 (2d3): 2/3 (66.7%)
d8 (2d4): 10/16 (62.5%)
d10 (2d5): 2/3 (66.7%)
d12 (2d6): 21/36 (58.3%)

The average roll is 0.5 HP higher than the normal dice roll in each case.

What do you think?

 

[gpetruc]

I think that the idea of using two half dices is the most balanced one, avoids very low hp rolls but does not break the balance between classes (the low hp classes become a little better, but only very little)

 

[CrusadeDave]

Reply to Epametheus and gpetruc

I played out some scenarios yesterday with some sample battles, and I do agree that a CR 1/2 Orc with max hit points is a very difficult opponent for a Level 1 party.

4 Orcs vs. a standard 4 member party 1 Fighter, 1 Rogue, 1 Mage, 1 Cleric, seems to eat up about 75 percent of the parties resources, spells HP, etc. Often the fighter drops before the last Orc falls and after all the Clerics Healing spells are spent.

I would offer that spell selection makes a _huge_ difference. As casting Sleep instead of Burning Hands or Magic Missile makes the battle play out much more favorably..

Now I would suspect that 1st level would be the most difficult for this change as the monsters are getting something (Full HP) that the Players are not, since they start with Max HP.

At 2nd Level, 10 Orcs vs. a standard 4 member party is much easier for the Players, as now the Cleric and Fighter can take about 1.5 and 2.5 hits before dropping without the use of healing. Plus the Wizard gets another sleep spell, and the fighter probably has Cleave at this point, helping out his attacks per round.

And I agree with Epametheus, a CR 1/2 Orc with 8 hp that already attacks at +3 dealing 1d12+3 will do double the damage, will be really scary at lvl 1, as it will easily kill any non-fighter (better hp and attacks, only less smaller AC).

I can't disagree that Orcs at level 1, will be dangerous. But I don't plan on doubling the damage an Orc does, unless you're referring to the fact that he'll last twice as long.

I think that this will hurt much the low HD classes: while a d6 does, on average, 2 points less than a d10, a maxed d6 is 4 points less than a maxed d10.
And so those who had low hp now will have even less and it would be much more dangerous to get into a fight (as monsters usually have a good hit die and so would benefit from this); those who already had many hp such as the barbarians will become even more stronger. This, IMHO, is not good, as will divide even more the classes in "melee ones" and "non melee ones" (and rogues and bards will be non-melee, probably, as most mosters have the d8 at least).

I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing for characters at 1st level, as it helps players focus on working as a unit, and focusing on their roles. Rogues shouldn't be involved in melee, unless they can flank an opponent and get their bonus sneak attack. Through advancement, non-melee characters usually either multiclass and pick up a level of something melee, or rely on their slower Attack Bonus to engage in ranged attack when their spells run out.

 

[CrusadeDave]

Response to Deset Gled

Deset Gled, thanks for the response. I do have a few general questions. Regarding how your players have changed their way of playing.

I currently use the system of maxing out hit points for both characters and for monsters on the occasions that I have DMed with my main group. For the most part, it has worked for me very well, but part of that is also greatly due to the way that I DM. A few details are as follows:

<snip>

6. The differences in HP for different classes is made a lot bigger. The PCs learned this quickly, and have battles accordingly. Fighters and barbarians need to be ready to get in the way of a lot of enemies to absorb damage so that the spellcasters don't drop dead. On the other hand, they also know that the enemy spellcasters can normally be killed a lot quicker (assuming they can reach them). It is important (again) for your players to not only understand this fact, but also for them to enjoy it.

In conclusion, implementing this concept is possible, but will change gameplay on a noticable level. I have done a lot of customization to my world as a result of it, but am very happy with the results.

Edit: spelling, etc.

Do you find that your spellcasters use more spells like sleep and charm rather than direct damage spells?

Do you feel at mid to upper levels it makes spellcasters more powerful or less powerful?

How does this change usually affect the way you build encounters for first and second level parties?

Thanks.

 

[CrusadeDave]

Thanks for the reply, Elder-Basilisk.

As for the Max HP for everyone suggestion, this is how I see it effecting the game:

-PC balance: PCs are more survivable in general but the differences between the classes are exacerbated rather than reduced. There's now twice as much difference between the fighter and the barbarian's hit points and the barbarian has three times the hit points of the wizard instead of twice the wizard's hit points.

-PC construction: I think it would actually shift the emphasis on PC combat abilities away from AC and towards damage. If you have more hit points, you can afford to be hit every now and then. But if your enemy has max hit points, then you need to dish out lots of damage to kill them.

In a party situation though, using your "tank" as a AC decoy, while your spellcasters behind you are busy, knowing that it'll take you even longer to get taken down, allows them to get off twice the spells would counteract that, wouldn't it?

My hope is that at low levels, spells would be seen as more useful, balancing out the melee-centric focus of encounters, and at high-levels, the high hit points, and bigger discrepency between meleers and spellcasters would help out the melee players from playing in a caster centric game.