Maximum Hit Points

[Li Shenron]

Dice rolls almost force players with bad hit die to focus on constitution.

Absolutely, in fact I don't remember a single arcane spellcaster in our games who didn't have at least a +1 Con!
Constitution is the single ability that no one ever wants to have a penalty in... and the reason is just hit points, they are too important.

By giving out more HP you at least make it viable for arcane spellcasters and rogue-types to accept at least a -1 Con, and still be just as good as (or slight better than) their core equivalent. Otherwise, you never get to see some character concepts like the frail wizard or the sick thief

I agree tho, that this variant will produce more low-Con fighters and barbarians, which doesn't make much sense unfortunately. But I still think that making Constitution more an option than a must-have stat is a good idea.

 

[Technik4]

But I still think that making Constitution more an option than a must-have stat is a good idea.

But if Con becomes more dumpable, stat-wise, what is that really going to 'enable' in terms of stat distribution? I've seen many people try low-Con builds with some success, though personally I treat it very highly in RAW D&D (even when some leniency is involved). The points people save on Con aren't going to go to Cha for roleplaying, on fighter-types it will go to Str for more damage and on casters it lets them abuse point buy even more by giving them less stats to really worry about (although it is still a concern for them). I just don't see the benefit of doing this, besides dodging the occasional sour grapes from someone rolling particularly low (which is usually mitigated by the joy of rolling max hp naturally).

 

[Li Shenron]

Overall it makes leveling up exciting. While you can worry that you may get low hp for a level, you can also get excited about getting high hp for a level.

In my personal xp it is never exciting. Instead, the anxiety about the chance of being unlucky far overruns the joy of getting max hp. A high-hd character rolling a 1 or 2 it feels like a doom, and makes the player question what's the point of playing a fighter or barbarian... think of how a wizard would feel if it had to roll the number of spells/day.

Notice in fact that most of the gaming groups use a house rule about rolling HP, usually after only 1 campaign of using the standard rolling method. (And this actually should be taken into account when making comparisons about averages: in the majority of groups the averages are already higher than in the standard rolling method).

Even more important than averages is the MINIMUM. This is particularly important for high-HD classes. Hence the Iron Heroes -type variants.

But also there's the fact that HP is often the only random thing left in character creation, because point-buy for stats is more popular than rolling stats (in gaming groups which have played long enough). So sometimes people just ask why not getting rid of the last randomness in character creation...

 

[scholz]

This has been interesting to see other people's experiences. I am not a huge fan of randomness in chargen, so I am inclined to make it non-random. The question then is what is the sweet spot for a non-random assignment. I am inclined to think the max hps might be the way to go for PCs and something less for typical NPCs and monsters (with an EL/CR bonus for opponents with max'd out HPS... not that I bother calculating those things myself.)

I would think CON is still a valuable trait for Fighter types, since more hitpoints don't really have diminishing returns. Each hit point is as valuable as the previous. They do take more resources to recover, but in a combat (where hit points are more noticeable) if I have 40Hps and you have 20Hps, I have an advantage.

If CON becomes slightly less essential, this strikes me as good. With their pitiful skill ranks, a 12 Intelligence could let a Fighter actually gain a skill or two (particularly if you house rule away class/cross class skills), or having a decent Charisma might encourage a PC to opt for some different strategies (intimidate?) on occasion.

 

[Technik4]

If CON becomes slightly less essential, this strikes me as good. With their pitiful skill ranks, a 12 Intelligence could let a Fighter actually gain a skill or two (particularly if you house rule away class/cross class skills), or having a decent Charisma might encourage a PC to opt for some different strategies (intimidate?) on occasion.

No offense, but especially at the lower point-buys you won't see points that would have been in Constitution placed in Int, Wis, or Cha (particularly for Fighters). You'll just see higher strength and dexterity, which will make them do slightly more damage, slightly more accurate in ranged combat, and may increase their AC. In exchange, they will have lower fort saves and about the same average hit points.

Consider a fighter who would normally have put a 14 in Constitution. He still wants a bonus, so he leaves it at 12, which is reasonable under a max hp situation. With the 2 floating points he could raise his dexterity, intelligence, or charisma 2 points or raise his strength 1 point (assuming he began with at least a 14 in strength). Its possible that he takes one of the non-physical stats (particularly if he's interested in multiclassing), but I don't think you'll see it. YMMV

Even more important than averages is the MINIMUM. This is particularly important for high-HD classes.

In my experience, the average is a minimum, if you decide not to take a re-roll, or roll at all. This does not mean that the average is the least I have seen a character get for a level, despite those rules. I have had it explained to me, in fact, that you have a greater chance of beating the average on 2 rolls than you do by taking the average. So, statistically, you will come out ahead in hit points if you always roll twice (Assuming you are forced to take the second roll, not the higher of the 2). However, if you get a lot of low rolls early on, this may force you to dislike the character or get rid of them prematurely.

And I stand by the fact that while it spells DOOM to get a very low roll for a high-HD class, it is quite joyous when they max their roll. The highest I've ever gotten for a barbarian was 11, and I was quite pleased. If I low roll on the first die, I generally take the average rather than re-rolling, especially with characters who need hp. Personally I just disagree with the statisticians, especially when you start at level 1

Finally, it creates a reason to have a high con as a high-HD class - to try and devalue those low rolls. Maybe you only rolled a 3 on your d10, but with your Con bonus you're still getting 6 hit points for the level. If the 10 con rogue maxes his roll, you'll still outstrip his hp (based on first level differences and con differences over time). When the fighter doesn't need a high Con, it just feels less like d&d to me...

 

[scholz]

No offense, but especially at the lower point-buys you won't see points that would have been in Constitution placed in Int, Wis, or Cha (particularly for Fighters). You'll just see higher strength and dexterity, which will make them do slightly more damage, slightly more accurate in ranged combat, and may increase their AC. In exchange, they will have lower fort saves and about the same average hit points.
Consider a fighter who would normally have put a 14 in Constitution. He still wants a bonus, so he leaves it at 12, which is reasonable under a max hp situation. With the 2 floating points he could raise his dexterity, intelligence, or charisma 2 points or raise his strength 1 point (assuming he began with at least a 14 in strength). Its possible that he takes one of the non-physical stats (particularly if he's interested in multiclassing), but I don't think you'll see it. YMMV

The question of what will induce the more balanced character.
1. Needing CON to offset low (or potentially low) hit point rolls.
2. Not Needing Con to offset low hit points.

If I understand your argument, people are MORE likely to put points in Str than the non-physical stats, when playing a Fighter. I agree 100%. But it doesn't follow that they will be more likely to do if they thought they could spare a few points from CON. I think some players will go Munchkin and Put everything in Strength and dump on INT/WIS/CHA... sure.
However, for those that would LIKE to up their non-physical stats (the people I like to play with). The lower CON requirement seems to penalize them less for doing so, than the higher COn requirement. Or am I missing something from your argument?

I play a front line Monk (what other kind of Monk is there?). I would be happy to put some points in my INT so I could buy more skills. But, realizing I am on the front line, I need to put points in my Con to ensure I don't get smeared the first couple round of combat. In a sense, I feel forced to buy up Con ( in addition to Str, Dex and Wis -- monks are tough to stat). As a result Int and Cha suffer. Not because I want to max out my Strength, but because I need a high Con to offset potentially low HPs (5 level average = 26hps). If I had that 40hps, I might be willing to go 12Con 12 Int (instead of 14/10) [45hps vs 32hps]. That would give me 9 more skill ranks which I would definitely like, and another language!
​

That said, you are right, this change wouldn't be a panacea for preventing top heavy characters, in fact, it might encourage it, as you show. But it could make it more palatable for people who want a more balanced ability set.

 

[Technik4]

However, for those that would LIKE to up their non-physical stats (the people I like to play with). The lower CON requirement seems to penalize them less for doing so, than the higher COn requirement. Or am I missing something from your argument?

That is fine. But it just seems disingenuous to have front-line characters with low stats in Con. That said, I fully empathize with the monk who wants more skill-points, as monks are very difficult characters to play, especially in low-point buy campaigns.

If you want a tough character that can stand up on the front line, I think you should have a good Con. They go hand-in-hand. You don't, for instance, need a high strength to tank. Yet most people play front-line characters with a high strength to do damage because that is fun whereas putting points in the damage-absorption stat is not fun (and passive anyway).

If you are trying to encourage non-physical stats in those types of characters (non-spellcasters), why not just award a +2 bonus to one mental stat at character creation? You could give casters a +2 bonus to one physical stat - but honestly casters are generally considered rather powerful as is.

 

[scholz]

That is fine. But it just seems disingenuous to have front-line characters with low stats in Con. That said, I fully empathize with the monk who wants more skill-points, as monks are very difficult characters to play, especially in low-point buy campaigns.

I am not sure what is disingenuous about my suggestion. I am all for the front line fighters having high hit points (the damage absorbing element). Sincerely, I mean it.
If you want to play a Tank, someone who primarily absorbs damage on the front line, that is cool too, put those extra points in a high Con. You won't be sorry.
I think, sincerely, you can still do your job and have a decent Intelligence or Charisma, or at least you should be able to.
But, (a) I don't think front line meleeists are necessarily tanks, and (b) I don't think agreeing to be a front line person commits one to sacrificing all other aspects of play (or should anyway).

If you want a tough character that can stand up on the front line, I think you should have a good Con. They go hand-in-hand. You don't, for instance, need a high strength to tank. Yet most people play front-line characters with a high strength to do damage because that is fun whereas putting points in the damage-absorption stat is not fun (and passive anyway).

Agreed. Although, without knowing the exact math, I wouldn't be surprised if you are better off over most combats with a higher offense than defense in terms of ending a threat quickly.

If you are trying to encourage non-physical stats in those types of characters (non-spellcasters), why not just award a +2 bonus to one mental stat at character creation? You could give casters a +2 bonus to one physical stat - but honestly casters are generally considered rather powerful as is.

eh.

 

[GreatLemur]

Randomly-rolling hit points really looks like a legacy mechanic, these days. I'm honestly surprised that anyone still uses it. Rolling for HP just doesn't seem like it's any fun, it has the potential to greatly reduce the impact of gaining a new level, and it leads to less reliable character progress and power-levels.

Personally, I like max at first level, and then half max each level after that.

 

[Technik4]

I am not sure what is disingenuous about my suggestion. I am all for the front line fighters having high hit points (the damage absorbing element). Sincerely, I mean it.

What is disingenuous is having a fighter who wants to be on the front line of combat (so a heavily armed fighter, not an archer fighter or multiclass barb/ftr) with a low Con (which is not something you suggested). It doesn't add up. You might as well tell me you want to play a spellcaster with high DCs but you don't want to put a high stat in your specllcasting trait.

But, (a) I don't think front line meleeists are necessarily tanks, and (b) I don't think agreeing to be a front line person commits one to sacrificing all other aspects of play (or should anyway).

Meleeists are not necessarily tanks. A tank is someone who is committed to absorbing damage while other members of the group bring down the threat. At least, that is what I mean when I say Tank. Heavily Armored, High Hit Point characters. Someone who engages in melee is not a tank, though tanks almost always are meleeists.

And having a high Con hardly sacrifices all other aspects of play. As I pointed out, someone who wishes to tank for the party should have a high Con at the expense of their other stats, but not 10/10/18/10/10/10. Also with feats you can make up for a subpar Constitution (or a low roll of a hit die).

Although, without knowing the exact math, I wouldn't be surprised if you are better off over most combats with a higher offense than defense in terms of ending a threat quickly.

Indeed, 3e offers very quick combats where dealing as much damage as possible is often the difference between winning and losing. However, there are many types of encounter and in some you want someone to tank - hold off the main threat - while the rest of the party focuses its energy to bring it down. If you did not have a tank then the threat may well kill a party member or even wipe the group.

eh.

I don't like giving criticism without suggestion. I've outlined many different things to try in lieu of giving straight-up max hp. Giving a starting Monk +2 Intelligence (without telling him before-hand) will hardly break your game in half. Giving a Wizard +2 Intelligence may give you some headaches though