D&D 5E [Poll] How does your group do hit points per level?

[Scorpio616]

I say roll if you want, roll low, sucks for you. Though many other players apply peer pressure on others to take average.

I'm about to start my first real 5e campaign, and forgot to address this one. My strong preference is fixed hit points per level, but I guess if a player really wants to roll then he can.

But there's a trade-off there: if you choose to roll, you accept the risks involved, even if that means getting a '1'. And I expect players to play in good faith, which means no killing off a character just because you didn't get the stats/hit points that you wanted.

I just enforce replacement characters being 4th level, no higher.

I also feel nobody playing a cleric is a self correcting problem.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Max HP for all levels. Taking the average waters down the difference between classes. More HP means less I as the DM have to worry about, hit them with a tough fight and its fine. Finally it makes it easier to string together more encounters without having to rest the party.

Yeah this is partly why I get them to re-roll if they roll less than half their hit die. I want the PCs to have above average HP (they are tough, but we also use slow healing and injury rules), and I to try and help preserve the feeling that a d10 HD class will tend to have more hp than a d6 one, and so on.

I also roll all monster hp. Some orcs are tougher than others, etc. Keeps players guessing as to when their particular orc is going to drop.

 

[Sunseeker]

I also feel nobody playing a cleric is a self correcting problem.

Forcing a player to play a role or class they're not interested in is also a self-correcting problem. That is, you'll lose the player.

 

[Warbringer]

Old rule from 1st we used; Roll, but every level you can re roll one other level as well. 1s don't last more than a level or so

 

[delericho]

I just enforce replacement characters being 4th level, no higher.

I'm a great believer in the notion that you shouldn't use an in-game solution for an out-of-game problem. And a player 'suiciding' a character because of poor rolls is an out-of-game problem.

(Plus, in 3e and 4e dealing with significantly different PC levels was a real pain. It's less of an issue in 5e, of course, but still something I'd rather avoid.)

But then, I'm in the lucky position that my current group doesn't have any problem players, so it's not really a problem I expect to face.

 

[Ricochet]

A player can roll or take the average, BUT... we use a "greed principle" if the player chooses to roll.

It works like this:

At level 1, everyone gets max HP. At level 2, each player must decide on either using average for the entire campaign, or rolling for the entire campaign.

As for the "greed" bit: a player can reroll his HP dice at each level if he feels "greedy". Say a fighter rolls a 3. He can then reroll to try and get a better roll. Maybe he gets a 7 on the new roll. If he is really greedy, he can try again to go for 8,9, or 10. In the case of a lower roll or an identical roll to whatever roll he just had, he is stuck with that roll (EDIT: The NEW roll, not his previous "high"). Thus, how greedy will you be in the hit point department. Once you hit the same or lower, you're stuck with it.

It works for us, and is a fun bit of tenseness in levelling for the players who opt for it. I haven't seen large HP differences among players who take average or roll this way either.

 

[CapnZapp]

A player can roll or take the average, BUT... we use a "greed principle" if the player chooses to roll.

It works like this:

At level 1, everyone gets max HP. At level 2, each player must decide on either using average for the entire campaign, or rolling for the entire campaign.

As for the "greed" bit: a player can reroll his HP dice at each level if he feels "greedy". Say a fighter rolls a 3. He can then reroll to try and get a better roll. Maybe he gets a 7 on the new roll. If he is really greedy, he can try again to go for 8,9, or 10. In the case of a lower roll or an identical roll to whatever roll he just had, he is stuck with that roll. Thus, how greedy will you be in the hit point department. Once you hit the same or lower, you're stuck with it.

It works for us, and is a fun bit of tenseness in levelling for the players who opt for it. I haven't seen large HP differences among players who take average or roll this way either.

In the simple sense, that works because the average for rolling is higher than taking the risk-free average.

Of course, by your method, this average is significantly higher, so much so that I don't see any statistically aware player choosing to take the average. The risk is lowered greatly (the risk of rolling lower than the PHB average, that is), so the reason to choose to take the average is much weaker.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just reroll until you roll higher than or equal to the PHB's listed average value. A straight-forward strategy that doesn't involve "greed", just a basic knowledge of probabilities.

A fighter, for instance, would roll until he gets a 6 or higher, no anguished decisions necessary. Just like when you play black jack - you need to know when to stop and to do that even before you start.

 

[Ricochet]

In the simple sense, that works because the average for rolling is higher than taking the risk-free average.

Of course, by your method, this average is significantly higher, so much so that I don't see any statistically aware player choosing to take the average. The risk is lowered greatly (the risk of rolling lower than the PHB average, that is), so the reason to choose to take the average is much weaker.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just reroll until you roll higher than or equal to the PHB's listed average value. A straight-forward strategy that doesn't involve "greed", just a basic knowledge of probabilities.

A fighter, for instance, would roll until he gets a 6 or higher, no anguished decisions necessary. Just like when you play black jack - you need to know when to stop and to do that even before you start.

Yes very true. Yet many rolling d10 (or even d8) opts to stop at a 4 because the fear of getting something lower plays in too, and statistics are still just statistics. There is no guarentee of a better outcome even if the odds are in favor of it.

I'd argue that the fighter rolling a 5 in your example would have an anguished decision to make, however: if he rolls again to hit his goal of getting to the usual average or more, and rolled a 1,2,3,4 ,he is stuck with that roll. Rolling another 5 has him stuck with that. In any case, there is an interesting psychological approach to it, and my players (and myself) aren't too engrossed by statistics and logic to simply overlook it.

 

[Lord Vangarel]

My players roll but I'm definitely leaning towards average for the next campaign.

 

[wedgeski]

However, in my game the average is rounded down, not up; or there would be no incentive to choose rolling.

Rounding down is the D&D "way", though. Rounding up would be the exception.