Short & Sweet - Discard hit die rolls less than con modifier.

[Rystil Arden]

I just came up with another possibility - check it out:
Con modifier does not modify hit points per level. Instead it determines how many dice you roll and which result you choose.
Con mod. -2: Roll 3 dice and choose worst result.
Con mod. -1: Roll 2 dice and choose worst result.
Con mod. 0: Roll 1 dice, same as normal.
Con mod. +1: Roll 2 dice and choose best result.
Con mod. +2: Roll 3 dice and choose best result.
Con mod. +3: Roll 4 dice and choose best result.
Con mod. +4: Roll 5 dice and choose best result.
And so on. I think its a good alternative for DMs who think that game could benefit if hit points were little lower (but not much so game balance isn't really upset).

That rule will make wizards and sorcerers nearly unplayable by severely cutting down on their HP (after all, when you're only rolling a 4 sided-dice, you are guaranteed to be worse off rolling 5 and taking then best then roling 1 and adding 4, for instance). It works a bit better for Fighters and Barbarians.

 

[Vurt]

In my campaign, I've been using "roll twice, take the better result" with good effect. Using this method there's about a 75% chance of getting a better than average roll, but it still makes bad luck possible.

It has the added bonus that the rule is simple to remember and simple to apply.

So far, everyone's been happy with it.

Cheers,
Vurt

 

[Szatany]

That rule will make wizards and sorcerers nearly unplayable by severely cutting down on their HP (after all, when you're only rolling a 4 sided-dice, you are guaranteed to be worse off rolling 5 and taking then best then roling 1 and adding 4, for instance). It works a bit better for Fighters and Barbarians.

So you are saying that the whole range of wizards will be unplayable because Con 18 wizards will have much less hit points ?
On the other hand, I have no idea if what I came up with is actually balanced or not, I just had an idea and posted it. I'm using totally different HP system in my games anyway.

 

[Rystil Arden]

So you are saying that the whole range of wizards will be unplayable because Con 18 wizards will have much less hit points ?
On the other hand, I have no idea if what I came up with is actually balanced or not, I just had an idea and posted it. I'm using totally different HP system in my games anyway.

Well, let's put it this way: First, I'm going to assume Monte Cook's conjecture, which is that playtesting proved that d4 HD were unplayable without making sure you get a bonus. Even d6 without a Con bonus was doable, but it still results in lots of death. Now, the problem is that using normal Con, a Wizard with 12 Con pretty much gets up to the d6 immediately (only behind by 1 HP on average because the first level is maxed), but with rerolls, it takes until 14 Con to barely beat the d6 average, and it isn't by much. What's worse, your HP as a Wizard basically do not improve above 14 Con, whereas the other classes with d8-d12 HD are actually being aided quite a bit by the rerolls.

So as a Wizard with 14 Con, you become basically unable to increase your max HP by any means.

 

[Nifft]

Yeah, taking Con mod away from HP will give arcane spellcasters a serious dose of "1st Edition Feel"...

-- N

 

[Rystil Arden]

Yeah, taking Con mod away from HP will give arcane spellcasters a serious dose of "1st Edition Feel"...

-- N

And not in a good Necromancer Games way

 

[Hodgie]

I am not so sure what I think of messing with the HP system. HP are the bread and butter of combat, so any increase in HP is a big increase in power. While such systems are good at low levels, by 7th or so they really start to make their affect known. I've seen 8th level fighters break the 100 hp mark with only an 18 con, and that most definitely changes how a group interracts with CRs.

Another way of looking at it... although Toughness is considered one of the weaker feats, it is still a feat. Most HP systems change the average on the d10 by upwards of a point and a half, meaning that every other level you are giving a free (albeit weak) feat.

 

[Thanee]

This gives Con an even higher significance than it already is, as it then counts double for hit points.

I'd rather use this equally simple method: All Hit Die rolls below half the Hit Die count as half the Hit Die instead (i.e. on a d8, every roll below 4 counts as 4).

This works great, does not make too drastic changes to the expected average (raises average by .25 per dice size (starting at d4), which is less than a one-time re-roll, for example) and completely removes no-fun low-hp characters from the pool. It also makes the HD feature of the classes more important, considering, that the HD is a major factor for fighter-type classes, this can only be a good thing.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Michael Morris]

I am not so sure what I think of messing with the HP system. HP are the bread and butter of combat, so any increase in HP is a big increase in power. While such systems are good at low levels, by 7th or so they really start to make their affect known. I've seen 8th level fighters break the 100 hp mark with only an 18 con, and that most definitely changes how a group interracts with CRs.

Another way of looking at it... although Toughness is considered one of the weaker feats, it is still a feat. Most HP systems change the average on the d10 by upwards of a point and a half, meaning that every other level you are giving a free (albeit weak) feat.

Well, in my game toughness is +1 hp per level, not +3 hp.
There's also a +1 skill point per level feat.

 

[Staffan]

In my campaign, I've been using "roll twice, take the better result" with good effect. Using this method there's about a 75% chance of getting a better than average roll, but it still makes bad luck possible.

I have a variant of this. If a player isn't happy with his hp roll, he can reroll it with a die one step lower. So if a fighter rolls a 2 on his hp roll, he can reroll with a d8. If he's still not happy, he can try for a d6, and so on.