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

[Aus_Snow]

I agree. It would be awesome to roll to see if you got a BAB increase even. Just think of the fun when leveling up your fighter... you might get 3hp, no BAB, no save increase and 1 skill. WOO HOO! RANDOMNESS IS AWESOME! Real men roll randomly to see what they do every round! Its boring to have wizards cast spells. Why not roll to see if he charges the enemy, casts magic missile at his familiar or eats a pie!?!

lmao.

Nice one.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think part of the issue here is fun vs. familiar.

Random is familiar. Random can be fun. However, Random can also be not fun. We had a PC with a 10 CON and it was not fun trying to keep him alive, especially when he rolled poorly in addition to his subpar CON.

Non-random is rarely not fun. Nor is it fun. It just is. The momentary "once per level I might roll great" thrill of random is easy overshadowed by a half dozen critical rolls per level.

There are hundreds of random rolls from when the PCs go from level 2 to level 3. One less per PC does not take out the fun. IMO.

The arguments for random appear to be more "familiar" arguments than "fun" arguments. 2 extra seconds of fun every 4 gaming sessions is hardly monumental.

 

[Umbran]

And real s take joy in others misfortune.

Now for another installment of "Good Idea / Bad Idea":

Good Idea: Having a civil, polite and respectful conversation about your hobby.

Bad Idea: Calling people names on a messageboard that already has a broad warning about civility up.

Eventually, folks will learn that all we are asking you to do is be nice to each other, and that this isn't all that hard. But apparently, now is not that time. So, ehren37, don't post in this thread again.

Anyone who doesn't understand the basic concept, please feel free to e-mail me or another mod. Or get a three day ban when you cross the line when the mods are running out of patience. Your choice.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Non-random is rarely not fun. Nor is it fun. It just is.

I get a Hannibal type "I love it when a plan comes together" enjoyment from a character build that does what it's supposed to do.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It's true that old schoolers roll stats and hit points, but old schoolers had four characters each, plus henchmen, so there was a good chance of getting one decent PC. The weak ones would probably just die, you rolled up new characters, the strong survive and so on. A Darwinian survival of the fittest weeded out the low rollers.

That doesn't fly in the era of skill points, feat choices and backstories. I hear some people even give their characters names now.

 

[Lord Zack]

I think random, partially random, and fixed should all be options. I'd prefer that random be the default, and I will likely use it in most of my campaigns. But it would be best for the game I think for all of these options to be represented. I think random and parially random should be in ther PHB and fixed and any other variants should be in the DMG.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If the poll for this thread is any guide, fixed hit points should be the default, while random rolls are in the DMG. I agree we should have both, no sense not to when both are popular, but which should be the default, that's the hard question.

 

[danzig138]

Why? Because I like rolling for hit points. Will I get a 10? Will I get a 1? Exciting stuff there. Especially if we go with the idea that hit points represent luck, fortitude, the ability to turn a solid blow into a glancing blow, et c. If we go with that idea, I don't see why every member of the same class should have the same numer. Maybe Bob is luckier, or Joe isn't as good at rolling with a blow. So not only do I just like rolling, but using a fixed number makes the world that much less "real".

And as a long time Rifts, Battlelords and Shadowrun player, "balance" and "scaling" aren't concerns of mine, and aren't good reasons IMO.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

And as a long time Rifts, Battlelords and Shadowrun player, "balance" and "scaling" aren't concerns of mine, and aren't good reasons IMO.

I remember my 2e 3rd-level fighter with 13 hit points. It was utterly ridiculous. I signed up for something hardy that can take some hits, and I ended up being almost as fragile as the wizard. That totally, utterly stank.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The question is not whether 4E should have either fixed or random PC HP. The first question is whether 4E continues with the same mechanics or makes the entire argument pointless. The second question is that if the matter remains relevant whether it is smart to REMOVE THE CHOICE from the core rules.

Clearly there is division (and not a little closed-mindedness) as to whether fixed hp makes the game predictable and lifeless, or whether random hp makes for a too-frequent fun-killer and bizzare imbalance. It seems to me that all you're doing is rehashing the same old arguments about "My way is the CORRECT way to play."

Clearly, given reasonably similar paradigms to 3rd Edition, 4th should have PRECISELY the same possibility of using either random or fixed methodology for such things. The "no" votes on the poll may have the lead but they clearly do NOT indicate any kind of a, "My way or the highway," majority.