RigaMortus2
First Post
Our group has been using max HP for some time now. Hasn't broken anything, and PCs still end up dying every once in a while.
D&D 4E Should hit points continue to be generated randomly in 4e?
- Thread starter FireLance
- Start date
Creamsteak
Explorer
I think there needs to be rules for both. Whichever one is the side-bar (probably set hit points) can be the side-bar. There are games I run where set hit points are important. There are other games I run where randomness of something semi-permanent like hit points is an important part of the enjoyment of the game. Mouseferatu's example was pretty spot on, sometimes having monsters with some "range" of hit points helps keep the feeling of the creatures that are probably otherwise identical or very similar interesting. Other times, like in Living Enworld I just don't think a random element is a good idea (for PC stats). Or at my table top game, it's ok to use standard hp when you want the fight to seem very standardized (completely identical constructs shouldn't need to have various hp for example).
However, I'm in total agreement with the extreme examples of rolling are incredibly annoying. The one to pick out is the d12 obviously. Widest range. Everyone is able to figure out why that can be a bit "too" random. Take it to whatever extreme you want (11th level barbarian with 22 rolled hit points vs. 122 hit points). There are an infinite number of solutions to this.
Thinking on it, 4d6-L is a good example of a random mechanic I like (when I want random stats). Compared to 3d6, it's more consistent. And the extreme high is more common than the extreme low (six times more common).
I like the d4+x modifier idea. I also could buy into something like Wizard 2d4-L, Rogue 2d4, Cleric 3d4-L, Fighter 3d4, Barbarian 4d4-L.
Sounds too awkward I guess. The averages though come out interesting.
Average
Wizard: 3.125, Rogue: 5, Cleric: 5.9375, Fighter: 7.5, Barbarian 8.6171875
Min
Wizard: 1, Rogue 2, Cleric 2 (less common than rogues), Fighter 3, Barbarian 3 (less common than fighters)
Max
Wizard: 4, Rogue 8, Cleric 8 (more common than rogues), Fighter 12, Barbarian 12 (more common than fighters)
Too complicated though I guess.
However, I'm in total agreement with the extreme examples of rolling are incredibly annoying. The one to pick out is the d12 obviously. Widest range. Everyone is able to figure out why that can be a bit "too" random. Take it to whatever extreme you want (11th level barbarian with 22 rolled hit points vs. 122 hit points). There are an infinite number of solutions to this.
Thinking on it, 4d6-L is a good example of a random mechanic I like (when I want random stats). Compared to 3d6, it's more consistent. And the extreme high is more common than the extreme low (six times more common).
I like the d4+x modifier idea. I also could buy into something like Wizard 2d4-L, Rogue 2d4, Cleric 3d4-L, Fighter 3d4, Barbarian 4d4-L.
Sounds too awkward I guess. The averages though come out interesting.
Average
Wizard: 3.125, Rogue: 5, Cleric: 5.9375, Fighter: 7.5, Barbarian 8.6171875
Min
Wizard: 1, Rogue 2, Cleric 2 (less common than rogues), Fighter 3, Barbarian 3 (less common than fighters)
Max
Wizard: 4, Rogue 8, Cleric 8 (more common than rogues), Fighter 12, Barbarian 12 (more common than fighters)
Too complicated though I guess.
Jefuri no Oni
First Post
I think randomness should go away in 4e. I have seen too many fighters screwed by crappy hit point rolls and over shadowed by fighters who rolled well and spell casters who don't care about their hit point rolls as much.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
I'm not terribly concerned about it either way. It's always been easy to house rule to fixed. If fixed are standard, and done in a way that is easy to house rule to random, then same thing.
That said, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me, conceptually, that hit points should consist primarily of a non-random part based on class level, and then a random part based on character level. The IH d4+X way works wells for that.
However, if we go down that road for the standard, what I'd like to see is a bit more rules elegance, vis-a-vis the rest of the design. This is half-baked, but since we don't know exactly how 4E works, it would be anyway:
1, Give a flat bonus for hit points, by class, for each character level. This should be somewhat less than the average, today. Let's say half the size of the 3.5 die. So +2 for wizard, +5 for fighter. Similar to SWSE, give a bonus amount at first level. I like using the actual Con score (not modifier), but the SWSE triple points, + Con mod also works.
2. For the random portion, don't roll and add to standard hit points. Instead, these are dice you roll when you get to zero. For example, if you are 8th level, you have 8d4 that you can roll, as needed, to keep kicking when you reach zero on your standard hit points. The problem with random hit points is that you roll them once, then live with it. So roll them when it matters. That has the nice side effect that characters don't know for sure how much they can take, when the fight starts. However, that can be simplified.
2A. Cut to the chase here, and say that every character has a damage save, based on level, that kicks in when the character reaches zero hit points.
Tie something like that into something similar to the SWSE damage track, and it should cut out most of the issues with hit points (e.g. falling damage), while still retaining the good use of hit points as a heroic pacing mechanic. I suspect the SWSE hit point/damage track system was designed with that idea, in fact.
That said, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me, conceptually, that hit points should consist primarily of a non-random part based on class level, and then a random part based on character level. The IH d4+X way works wells for that.
However, if we go down that road for the standard, what I'd like to see is a bit more rules elegance, vis-a-vis the rest of the design. This is half-baked, but since we don't know exactly how 4E works, it would be anyway:
1, Give a flat bonus for hit points, by class, for each character level. This should be somewhat less than the average, today. Let's say half the size of the 3.5 die. So +2 for wizard, +5 for fighter. Similar to SWSE, give a bonus amount at first level. I like using the actual Con score (not modifier), but the SWSE triple points, + Con mod also works.
2. For the random portion, don't roll and add to standard hit points. Instead, these are dice you roll when you get to zero. For example, if you are 8th level, you have 8d4 that you can roll, as needed, to keep kicking when you reach zero on your standard hit points. The problem with random hit points is that you roll them once, then live with it. So roll them when it matters. That has the nice side effect that characters don't know for sure how much they can take, when the fight starts. However, that can be simplified.
2A. Cut to the chase here, and say that every character has a damage save, based on level, that kicks in when the character reaches zero hit points.
Tie something like that into something similar to the SWSE damage track, and it should cut out most of the issues with hit points (e.g. falling damage), while still retaining the good use of hit points as a heroic pacing mechanic. I suspect the SWSE hit point/damage track system was designed with that idea, in fact.
funkysnunkulator
First Post
Aus_Snow said:
so.... all characters and npc's must be created equal? interesting.
guess that makes sense. if everyone is equal, it makes encounters easy to predict and execute. feats should likely do the same. every character and npc gets the same feats in the same order. this is good. balance will be achieved. no character will ever outclass any other.
this will make it much easier for wotc to create "modules" with the pregenerated characters in them.
stats are equal.
skills are equal.
feats are equal.
equipment is equal.
power selection is equal.
damage is equal.
wow. you won't need to spend money on dice or anything. considering cost has been a major concern for gamers, this method of gaming should "fit the pocketbook" fairly easily.
hmmm. maybe v4 will be worth getting after all. hadn't been looking foreward to v4 until now.
you know what would be really cool? since gameplay will occur online... you just register for the given adventure, you get handed a pregen character (equal in every way to everyone elses) and simply declare in the beginning what courses of actions the character will take (like the macros in final fantasy or warcraft.. not sure which). then you kick back and watch the character go, like a movie. no need to roll dice or do anything. it's all taken care of.
now THAT is good gaming. easy, efficient, balanced, balanced, balanced and balanced.
nice!
Gargoyle
Adventurer
I voted for not rolling, because I agree with the notion that rolling for damage is enough random variation. Even if damage rolls average out over the course of many rolls, there is enough variation within a single game session to keep it from feeling the same every time you play.
I went through several house rules with 3E, since using the standard rule resulted in some gimped player characters. As an evil DM, I was somewhat amused to see a barbarian roll a 1 twice in a row, but it's simply not fun for the players. The variations I used:
- Reroll 1's. This helps, but a barbarian or fighter rolling a 2 is just as annoying. So I did "reroll 1's and 2's" for a short time, then just decided to chuck the whole rolling hp thing.
- Max at first level, average when leveling up...or you can choose to roll in front of the DM. A few people did choose to roll now and then. This is probably my favorite method, although I think I would have them max out the first 3 levels if I were to start a new game.
- At some point I wanted to make everything more heroic and decided on maximum hit points at every level. It made the barbarian a viable choice, and reduced the need for a healer to keep everyone alive. But it was perhaps too good for the d10 and d12 hit dice characters at higher levels, as it creates a large disparity of hit points between them and the caster types.
I went through several house rules with 3E, since using the standard rule resulted in some gimped player characters. As an evil DM, I was somewhat amused to see a barbarian roll a 1 twice in a row, but it's simply not fun for the players. The variations I used:
- Reroll 1's. This helps, but a barbarian or fighter rolling a 2 is just as annoying. So I did "reroll 1's and 2's" for a short time, then just decided to chuck the whole rolling hp thing.
- Max at first level, average when leveling up...or you can choose to roll in front of the DM. A few people did choose to roll now and then. This is probably my favorite method, although I think I would have them max out the first 3 levels if I were to start a new game.
- At some point I wanted to make everything more heroic and decided on maximum hit points at every level. It made the barbarian a viable choice, and reduced the need for a healer to keep everyone alive. But it was perhaps too good for the d10 and d12 hit dice characters at higher levels, as it creates a large disparity of hit points between them and the caster types.
Last edited:
Good lord, if I want to play a fantasy game where attributes are done with a point buy system and hit points are determined by a formula, then I might as well play GURPS instead of D&D.
I am sorry that a lot of people online seem to feel that random generation of attributes and hit points "ruins" their game. The hundreds of D&D players I have met over the last 28 years have almost always preferred to roll for these things. Lately, the two groups I have that are playing 3.0 were given the option of rolling for attributes and hit points or following one of the determinist methods in the DMG. Out of the 19 players none of them chose to use a point buy system. They all wanted to roll for everything.
Heck, I had people concerned when they heard the system was called the d20 system. They were afraid they would not get to use the rest of their dice. I assured them that there would always be a place for their dice in character creation and in the game itself.
I would prefer it if we kept random rolls for hit points and attributes and had deterministic methods as an option. Removing the random generation method entirely would surely prevent my players from wanting to use this edition.
I am sorry that a lot of people online seem to feel that random generation of attributes and hit points "ruins" their game. The hundreds of D&D players I have met over the last 28 years have almost always preferred to roll for these things. Lately, the two groups I have that are playing 3.0 were given the option of rolling for attributes and hit points or following one of the determinist methods in the DMG. Out of the 19 players none of them chose to use a point buy system. They all wanted to roll for everything.
Heck, I had people concerned when they heard the system was called the d20 system. They were afraid they would not get to use the rest of their dice. I assured them that there would always be a place for their dice in character creation and in the game itself.
I would prefer it if we kept random rolls for hit points and attributes and had deterministic methods as an option. Removing the random generation method entirely would surely prevent my players from wanting to use this edition.
Hmmm. If I had my way, I'd ditch rolling for HPs by default.
In my experience, rolling for HP's just means that everyone (myself included) either cheats like mad and ends up with near maximum HP's anyway (Got give yourself an 8 once in a while, right?) except for the one poor sucker who rolls legit and has half as many HPs as anyone else, if he's lucky.
When it comes down to it, I'd rather skip the cheating-to-get-the-character-I-want anyway and just take the fixed number. At least that way no one has a guilty conscience.
In my experience, rolling for HP's just means that everyone (myself included) either cheats like mad and ends up with near maximum HP's anyway (Got give yourself an 8 once in a while, right?) except for the one poor sucker who rolls legit and has half as many HPs as anyone else, if he's lucky.
When it comes down to it, I'd rather skip the cheating-to-get-the-character-I-want anyway and just take the fixed number. At least that way no one has a guilty conscience.
Similar Threads
D&D 3E/3.5
Homebrew Content
