Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AtomicPope" data-source="post: 4377243" data-attributes="member: 64790">There is a distinct problem with rolling for hitpoints which is not being addressed.&nbsp; Unlike rolling stats for a character, you continue rolling for hit points is done after you've made character.&nbsp; We all know that rolling for stats is a scharade.&nbsp; When people roll up a character and all the stats are terrible what do we do?&nbsp; Roll again.&nbsp; Terrible?&nbsp; Roll again.&nbsp; We act as if rolling up stats is a flawless enterprise when everyone will immediately ditch the awful rolls for a new batch.&nbsp; But rolling for hit points doesn't allow rerolls.&nbsp;The problem with saying, &quot;it will all average out&quot; is it fails to address the low number of rolls to achieve that average.&nbsp; Most D&amp;D games don't last more than 13 levels.&nbsp; If you attempted to determine a statistical average and you chose a sample size of 13 people your evidence would be considered drastically incomplete.&nbsp; Gamers instinctively know this but still worship the sacred cow by creating house rules to keep the worshippers and the cow appeased.&nbsp; For example, nobody complained when all characters in 3e started with max hit points instead of rolling.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Survivability.&nbsp;&nbsp;It's a plain and simple fact that D&amp;D characters don't have the luxury of waiting 10 levels for their hit points to average out.&nbsp;&nbsp;If you're a fighter and your roll a 1 at 1st level (in 1/2/3e), you won't be a fighter very long.&nbsp; Give him an 18 con and if he rolls 1's for the next three levels he'll be just as tough as a lucky wizard with a 12 con.&nbsp; But unlike the wizard who can hang back, the fighter needs to be in melee.&nbsp; After all, that's what the 18 con is there for.&nbsp; We assign our stats at character creation only to find out that rolling for hit points turned us into a ranged fighter.&nbsp; Now we have a 4th level fighter with a 19 con and 20 hit points in 3e - dead man walking.&nbsp; But unlike the character that was rolled up five times to get that one 18, he's not rerolling hitpoints until he gets a roll he likes.&nbsp; Answer?&nbsp; Another house rule.&nbsp;Players want their characters to survive so the house rules and rules changes come in to save the day.&nbsp; Rather than just ditch rolling for hit points we roll a die and if it's too low with take 1/2 Max + 1.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because we instinctively know that rolling for hit points isn't practical in a game of survival.&nbsp; It puts too much at stake on a single die roll.&nbsp; Rolling a single die every level for hit points is more important than every attack you've made to get that level.&nbsp; After playing for over twenty years I can think of hundreds of examples where a party in a game I ran or played in was saved simply because the last character was down to his last hit point and was able to stay in the fight.&nbsp;The fact is we're not playing to level 1000 where the rolls for hit points will average out.&nbsp; We're usually playing to level 15 or 20 (in 4e at least).&nbsp; Fifteen or twenty is not enough rolls for an accurate mean.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AtomicPope, post: 4377243, member: 64790"] There is a distinct problem with rolling for hitpoints which is not being addressed. Unlike rolling stats for a character, you continue rolling for hit points is done [I]after[/I] you've made character. We all know that rolling for stats is a scharade. When people roll up a character and all the stats are terrible what do we do? Roll again. Terrible? Roll again. We act as if rolling up stats is a flawless enterprise when everyone will immediately ditch the awful rolls for a new batch. But rolling for hit points doesn't allow rerolls. The problem with saying, "it will all average out" is it fails to address the low number of rolls to achieve that average. Most D&D games don't last more than 13 levels. If you attempted to determine a statistical average and you chose a sample size of 13 people your evidence would be considered drastically incomplete. Gamers instinctively know this but still worship the sacred cow by creating house rules to keep the worshippers and the cow appeased. For example, nobody complained when all characters in 3e started with max hit points instead of rolling. Why? Survivability. It's a plain and simple fact that D&D characters don't have the luxury of waiting 10 levels for their hit points to average out. If you're a fighter and your roll a 1 at 1st level (in 1/2/3e), you won't be a fighter very long. Give him an 18 con and if he rolls 1's for the next three levels he'll be just as tough as a lucky wizard with a 12 con. But unlike the wizard who can hang back, the fighter needs to be in melee. After all, that's what the 18 con is there for. We assign our stats at character creation only to find out that rolling for hit points turned us into a ranged fighter. Now we have a 4th level fighter with a 19 con and 20 hit points in 3e - dead man walking. But unlike the character that was rolled up five times to get that one 18, he's not rerolling hitpoints until he gets a roll he likes. Answer? Another house rule. Players want their characters to survive so the house rules and rules changes come in to save the day. Rather than just ditch rolling for hit points we roll a die and if it's too low with take 1/2 Max + 1. Why? Because we instinctively know that rolling for hit points isn't practical in a game of survival. It puts too much at stake on a single die roll. Rolling a single die every level for hit points is more important than every attack you've made to get that level. After playing for over twenty years I can think of hundreds of examples where a party in a game I ran or played in was saved simply because the last character was down to his last hit point and was able to stay in the fight. The fact is we're not playing to level 1000 where the rolls for hit points will average out. We're usually playing to level 15 or 20 (in 4e at least). Fifteen or twenty is not enough rolls for an accurate mean. [/QUOTE]

Verification