Maximum Hit Points

[Voadam]

How did this spoil the game for you? Was it too easy to remain alive?

It didn't spoil the game at all, it was just very noticeable when looking at my dwarven barbarian versus the party's wizard. It stood out to me and is something I remember from that game.

The monsters were not bumped up, this was a pure player boost. Similar to if we had used higher point buy, gestalt, free LA, more feats, or higher wealth.

 

[Technik4]

I think that while most things should not be random (BAB for instance), having HP be random is one of the few 'real' references left in d&d. It does suck to get low hp for a level, especially if you are a front-line character. However, most games I've played have had some leniency with this. It also keeps Constitution powerful, as it becomes something you need to stress. People would rather raise their str for attack bonuses and dmg or raise their dexterity for ac and initiative than raise their con for hit points.

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. There are many house variants using re-rolls, averages, etc etc. I like those better than max hp. Heck, 3e is the first edition to give max hp at level!

 

[StGabe]

I think that while most things should not be random (BAB for instance), having HP be random is one of the few 'real' references left in d&d. It does suck to get low hp for a level, especially if you are a front-line character. However, most games I've played have had some leniency with this. It also keeps Constitution powerful, as it becomes something you need to stress. People would rather raise their str for attack bonuses and dmg or raise their dexterity for ac and initiative than raise their con for hit points.

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. There are many house variants using re-rolls, averages, etc etc. I like those better than max hp. Heck, 3e is the first edition to give max hp at level!

Gotta disagree. Part of the problem is the "leniency". Depending on how it is handled it can become way too arbitrary as to who gets leniency when. Otherwise it's just too arbitrary who gets high rolls. A properly fitted cleric can already come too close to outtanking a warrior. What if they get great hp rolls and the warrior's suck? Randomness works, IMO, only when you have enough of it that it averages out. Random hit and damage rolls work well because, over time, no one is going to get too screwed. However if you only have 4 hit point rolls through level 5 there can be a huge disparity in who got lucky and who didn't.

I think that making constitution matter more makes lots of sense and if you want that you can either use average rolls (or average+1 although that advantages lower hit die characters), double the con modifier (or for more granularity do something like each bonus grants 1.5 extra hit points, rounding down the total bonus).

 

[StGabe]

Also, I would argue that constitution can even mean too much in campaigns. It's not uncommon for wizards to put excess stats in constitution (after int, they don't really *need* anything). With pure dice rolls, a 14 constitution almost doubles the wizard's overall hit points which is a huge gain for a 14 stat. Dice rolls almost force players with bad hit die to focus on constitution.

 

[Arkhandus]

Except, of course, when the rest of the party is doing their job and not letting the wizard get bushwhacked/swarmed/charged. The wizard holds some responsibility for this too, of course, through summoned monsters and obstacle spells (web, stinking cloud, wall of ice, evard's black tentacles, stone shape, fabricate, etc.), but most of the time he needs other party members to protect him from sudden attacks, getting in the way of such attackers until the wizard can conjure or transmute sufficient obstacles/guardians of his own.

I'm not likely to have much sympathy for wizards played as stupidly as the average fighter or ranger, considering that wizards are almost universally possessed of genius-level intellect (it's an absolute requirement of high level spells after all). I give advice occasionally to a player who's PC has high Intelligence or Wisdom, as appropriate, or ask them for an Int or Wis check sometimes to see if I should remind or mention something to them of a significantly useful nature that their PC might know.

In my Rhunaria campaign, PCs receive half the maximum value for their hit dice if they roll under that (so a class with d4 HP gets at least 2 HP per level, while a class with d12 would get at least 6 HP per level). HP is maximized for 1st-level PCs though. NPCs and monsters automatically get the average, approximately; 2.5 HP from a d4, 3.5 from a d6, etc. This is just for simplicity's sake, as in other games I always roll HP for NPCs and monsters. I only occasionally give an NPC or monster maximum HP, for things like 'bosses' or important fellows. My players tend to be careful enough if they got low HP (like the party's rogue, who rolls only 1s and 2s for HP each level, so my houserule narrowly keeps him from being a 5th-level rogue with 10 HP; instead with the average he's got about 21 HP).

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

I've been giving PCs and BBEGs max hit points for around 25 years give or take a few. It's worked out quite well. The PCs have a little more margin of error. I also give out less magic items than the typical D&D campaign so the extra hp help.

 

[Technik4]

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

Is that a problem? Characters with d4 or d6 HD should definitely consider Constitution an important stat....right?

Part of the problem is the "leniency". Depending on how it is handled it can become way too arbitrary as to who gets leniency when.

In my experience the leniency is almost always decided at the first level-up and is consistent afterwards for all players. For instance, a decision to allow a re-roll and you must keep the second roll or an option to take the average after your first roll, or a combination of both.

I think basing the leniency off of the constitution wouldn't be a bad idea either. For instance:

Con Mod - Leniency
+0 or less - roll your HD or take average
+1 - roll your HD or take average, if unhappy, reroll and keep second roll
+2 - roll your HD, if unhappy, can take average or reroll and keep second roll
+3 - roll your HD, if unhappy, can take average or reroll and keep second roll
+4 - roll your HD twice, keep the higher of the two rolls or take the average

Just an idle thought..

 

[Nyaricus]

Is that a problem? Characters with d4 or d6 HD should definitely consider Constitution an important stat....right?

I agree; but indeed Con is useful for any character class in any of the books.

To the OP: If you are giving full HP to PCs, special monsters and BBEGs and special NPCs, then I see no problem with this model at all. Indeed, it does give them more staying power, and Con is hardly any less useful.

Also, Iron Heroes has a neat system with half set HP and half rolled HP; IE a D&D Barbarian using IH HP system would get 6+1d6 HP/level. It's interesting and gives PCs more staying power, while still allow for a crappy roll here and there.

cheers,
--N

 

[charlesatan]

I usually stick to either the half hp +1 method or RPGA Eberron (basically half hp+1 except for d4 and d12's which get 2 and 8 respectively). But then again, I hate "randomness" (i.e. random stats, random hp). If you want to enforce the randomness of D&D, you should take in the good along with the bad.

I've seen Iron Heroes and it's a good solution too. d4's are usually rolled for hit points but there's a modifier to add to that hp.

Maximizing PC's hp's are fine. Gives them a good buffer. Maximizing NPCs aren't always good -- if you apply it universally (i.e. every single monster they face), you could end up slaughtering the party. Selective NPCs (i.e. those who aren't supposed to die, BBEG [unless it's the CR 26 dragon facing the level 20 PCs], etc.) are okay.

 

[Technik4]

and Con is hardly any less useful.

I disagree. Under a maximum hit point rule, Con loses a lot of punch, especially for classes with higher HDs.

A 4th level fighter with a Con of 14 and random HP rolls will have approximately 35 hit points (10 + (3x5.5) + 8). A fighter with a Con of 10 would have approximately 27 hit points.
A 4th level fighter with a Con of 14 and maximum HP rolls will have 44 hit points. A fighter with a Con of 10 would have 36 hit points (which is still 1 more than the random HP rolled fighter!).

A 4th level wizard with a Con of 14 and random HP rolls will have approximately 20 hit points (4 + (3x2.5) + 8). A wizard with a Con of 10 would have approximately 12 hit points.
A 4th level wizard with a Con of 14 and maximum HP rolls will have 24 hit points. A wizard with a Con of 10 would have 16 hit points (4 less than the randomly rolled HP wizard!).

Clearly Con remains important for low HD characters, yet decreases in value for large HD characters. This is actually the REVERSE of what you think of when you imagine the classes. The typical wizard should have less Con than the average fighter. Yet, using a maximum hit point rule, I think you will find that the lower HD classes will be more inclined to raise their Con than the higher HD classes.

Alternately it is clear that this rule favors higher HD classes. In your group, a wizard would be indifferent to max hp every level, whereas a fighter would be thrilled.

Another system would be as a reward for good role-playing or otherwise enhancing the D&D experience (if your group is focused on combat, for providing tactical advice). You could offer someone an additional roll on their next level's hp, or for particularly ingenious playing, a full HD for one level.