D&D 4E Should hit points continue to be generated randomly in 4e?

[blargney the second]

Yay, we all agree that multiple options is best for everyone! Whee!
-blarg

 

[gothmaugCC]

Personally, I like the suspense behind the HP roll. Its usually a big deal at my table as everyone gathers around to cheer or jeer thier freinds as that HP die its the table.

But to each his own. THe RPGA and other living campaigns use a fixed system for game balance and equality. In home games, I think its up to the individual DM to decide what works best for his play group.

So I hope the 4eD developers add both possibilitiies. Its not hard and would take up a very small ammount of printed space.

 

[Sun Knight]

4e shouldn't force the DM to use one method over another, but instead give the DM options to let him pick which one he is most comfortable with for his or her campaign. Such as in my gaming group, the DMs have decided to use the method that the character or monster, PC or NPC, gains maximum hit points for his or her hit dice for the first thee levels (or hit dice) then one half the hit die + 1 per level or hit die there after, applying any Constitution modifiers or hit points gained by feats.

 

[RFisher]

Yay, we all agree that multiple options is best for everyone! Whee!

I dunno. I don't think it's necessary for the book to spell out possible house rules for us. It'd be better, IMHO, to just pick one option for the PHB & save publishing variants to the DMG or a UA-ish book.

 

[WayneLigon]

What are the arguments for completely changing over to a fixed rate of hit point gain per level?

I've been doing the fixed 75% + CON bonus for hit points for a few years now and find it works very well.

1. It makes it easier to do things away from the GM. I trust my players, but it's always nice to have a fixed number rather than there being a random roll.
2. It makes it much easier if we have to recreate someone's PC from scratch - If I know their CON, level and classes, then I know exactly how many hitpoints they should have.
3. Makes it easier on redoing the character for level drains.
4. Makes it easier on the player if they're at one of those levels where all they get is some hit points. It really sucks to roll a 1 then and see all that hard work be for nothing.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

2. It makes it much easier if we have to recreate someone's PC from scratch - If I know their CON, level and classes, then I know exactly how many hitpoints they should have.

Or just if they need to be recalculated. Maybe someone forgot to add his con in the last couple of levels (but you don't know what levels). Not all my players are 100% rules savvy.

And then there's the part about temporarily (or permanently) reduced con. By the rules, you get at least one HP per HD, no matter how low your con is. So if you roll a 2 and get con -2, you don't get 0 HP.

But what if you're poisoned? Do you write down all your rolls so you know that if your con is reduced by 2 on level 10, you'll only lose 7 HP, since 3 of those levels, you rolled a 1?

Though that's not the biggest problem, I give you that.

 

[FireLance]

But what if you're poisoned? Do you write down all your rolls so you know that if your con is reduced by 2 on level 10, you'll only lose 7 HP, since 3 of those levels, you rolled a 1?

I actually did that once, in a recent campaign (yeah, I know - I should have been an accountant ). Never came up in actual play, though.

 

[Merlion]

I've seen many people who like random hit points, because it makes levelling up more... dunno... of an event? But my group likes it and cheers after a good roll... and bad rolls are simply accepted.

Personally, I'm on the fence and don't mind either way. But if they keep the rolled, I'd like to see some dY + Y variant, to avoid making your character unplayable, and also to differentiate the classes more (because rolling a 1 with a Barbarian makes him... less Barbarian-like!).

Cheers, LT.

I agree entirely, Mister Glowing Hummingbird.

 

[Hejdun]

Random hitpoints are fine until your fighter rolls a 1 the next time he levels. I think fixed progression by class would be just fine.

Even worse is when his hit point rolls are 1, 2, 1, 1. That's about as much fun as playing a 5th level wizard that can't cast higher than 1st level spells, and about as ridiculous.

 

[MarkB]

Part of the problem is that I don't want players to be able to look at an opponent and guess, with any degree of accuracy, how many HP he/she/it has. And trust me, I play with enough people who practically memorize the MM that this is a potential issue.

That's an argument for randomising hit points for standard MM monsters (which doesn't happen even in 3.xe at the moment), but it has no bearing upon whether PCs' hit points should be randomised.

Myself, I gave up randomised ability scores in favour of point buy three years ago, and gave up random hit points in favour of average-rounded-up a year later, and I've never looked back - it makes character generation much easier, lets it take place away from the game table, and allows players to play the characters they want.

On the 'cookie-cutter' issue: Sure, if two PCs happen to have exactly the same class, ability scores, feats, class features, spell selections, equipment choices and skills, they'll be exactly identical - but how often does that actually happen? In practice, there are so very many choices in character creation that contribute to each character being a unique individual that random or non-random hit points have no significant bearing on the matter. Cookie-cutter characters are a myth.