Suggestion: Full hitpoints for players, NPCs, and monsters alike.

[demiurgeastaroth]

You can do as you like...

In a game I just got in, we did 35 point buy (yeah, high powered) and took average hit points with halves rounding up. So d4 = 3, d6 = 4, d8 = 5 and so on.

That way, the hitpoints should be just above average, slightly better than what monsters normally get (straight average).

Later!

Actually, hit points might be considerably higher than average - but that's because the CON score can be higher with all those points. (But since CON is usually put high anyway, it might not impact much).

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

In my circle of players, maximum hit points is preferred, BECAUSE of the big gap between hit points.

A 20th level Wizard with average hitpoints has 51.5 compared to the Barbarian with 135.5

A 20th level Wizard with maximum hit points has 80 hitpoints compared to the Barbarian with 240.

My problem with max hit points (and the reason I chickened out of using it) is the way it weakens magic damaging attacks.
Spells are a limited resource, unlike melee and (for practical purposes) ranged attacks. But spells aren't, so each fight in which damaging spells are used are now much more draining for the spellcasters.

Darren

 

[Stalker0]

My problem with max hit points (and the reason I chickened out of using it) is the way it weakens magic damaging attacks.
Spells are a limited resource, unlike melee and (for practical purposes) ranged attacks. But spells aren't, so each fight in which damaging spells are used are now much more draining for the spellcasters.

Darren

Which means you don't need a whole lot of combats in one day to drain a spellcaster. Some dms like that, especially ones that don't do a whole lot of combat.

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

Which means you don't need a whole lot of combats in one day to drain a spellcaster. Some dms like that, especially ones that don't do a whole lot of combat.

If that's the intention, then it could be a good change - but I think it'll lead to spellcasters eschewing damaging spells and taking save-or-die, hold spells, polymorph other, and so on. One consequence of this might be that spellcasters become less consistent and reliable. (Which again, may be desirable for some, and frustrating for others.)

Darren

 

[Thimble the Squit]

Maximum HP

I like to run moderately heroic games; my players get a biased default ability score array (17, 15, 14, 13, 11, 9) and either roll for HP or take half, whichever is better (so if a fighter gets a 3 on his d10, that's rerolled until it's at least 5+).

For some bizarre and unexplained reason, my players don't like rolling 1d6+4 for their fighter characters, even though that's exactly the same probability, with no rerolls to consider...

You end up with somewhat different HD, effectively:

d4 = d3+1
d6 = d4+2
d8 = d5+3 -- or reroll those d8's if you don't like (d10+6)/2
d10 = d6+4
d12 = d7+5 (yes, well...)

At 11th level, your average (Con 12) wizard has 40 hp; his buddy the (Con 16) barbarian has 110. By this system, the wizard's looking at 50 hp, on average, and the barbarian's on around 140. The balance is still roughly 1:3, so it doesn't devalue Con quite as much as full HP and reduces the (sometimes severe) randomness that bad hit die rolls can produce. Trust me, I know about really bad hit die rolls. My current wizard, in someone else's game, has 11 hp at 7th-level.

I would not necessarily recommend maximizing opposition / NPC HP, however. I think that could quite seriously undermine your party's spellcasters (especially sorcerers).

If you do think your crunchies are getting chewed up too quickly at the moment, consider upping the CR a touch, or maybe giving them +2 hp per HD (to the averages listed), but I wouldn't throw much more than that around, or your fights will likely either a) D-R-A-G, or b) become spell-less swordfests, as all your players retire their sorcerers and wizards to beef up some power-paladins or melee-munchy-combat-clerics. On the other hand, that might be what you're after; you might quite like that idea. I wouldn't.

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

Maximum HP and Clerics

Another possible consequence of the max HP rule that just occurred to me, is that it might make clerics and other healers use up even more of these spells for that purpose, diminishing their effectiveness in other ways.

 

[haiiro]

So, can anyone give me a reason why I shouldn't use points-buy for stats, and max hitpoints for players and monsters alike?

Yes: because max HP is a bigger benefit to classes with higher die types.

Assuming average rolls, there is only 1 point of difference between each die type and the one below and above it:

d4 = 3
d6 = 4
d8 = 5
d10 = 6
d12 = 7

Whereas with max HP, the difference becomes more exaggerated, as the difference between a d4 class and a d12 class is now 8 points, not 4.

This makes the martial classes much more effective at what they do, while rogues and wizards (etc.) get less of a boost -- and damaging and curative spells become less effective overall, as all of the PCs and monsters have more HP.

I wrestled with this issue a while back, and got some excellent responses in this thread: http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?threadid=40410. Everything I mentioned above (and much of what's been said here so far) came up there, and others explained it better than I can.

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Re: Suggestion: Full hitpoints for players, NPCs, and monsters alike.

It changes different hit dice more than others. d4s see only a small percentage increase, while d12s see a large percentage increase.

A d4 goes from 2.5 (average) to 4 (max), a 60% increase. A d12 goes from 6.5 (average) to 12, an 85% increase.

Con drops in importance.

True.

If the goal is to reduce randomness, why not use average values?

 

[RandomNPC]

In my world everything has max hit points. I know this may seem odd but for a long time I allowed rerolling of ones just because of the high levels of combat. See first of all I don't understand why gaining hit points is random at all, if a class learns to "roll with the punches" better than another class why should an unlucky barbarians only gain as many hit points as a wizard? Also my thought behind things of this nature is, it's my world, I am God, if i want someone to die they will die regardless of their hit points. And on another note the balance works out perfectly with undead and their d12s and you be surprised at how much more powerful a dragon can become, I have yet to experience any problems with it.

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

See first of all I don't understand why gaining hit points is random at all, if a class learns to "roll with the punches" better than another class why should an unlucky barbarians only gain as many hit points as a wizard?
[/QouTE]

I agree with you that random hp are a bad idea and for another reason. There is also a significant random element - whether opponents hit and the damage they roll. So, "set" Hit Points still don't allow you to predict exactly how long a fight will last.You don't need another source of randomness.

[QouTE]
Also my thought behind things of this nature is, it's my world, I am God, if i want someone to die they will die regardless of their hit points.
[/QouTE]

If a GM said that to me, I'd be a bit wary of signing up to play in his game...

[QouTE]
And on another note the balance works out perfectly with undead and their d12s and you be surprised at how much more powerful a dragon can become, I have yet to experience any problems with it.

I'm not sure dragons need to become more powerful!

I use fixed, slighty above average hit points for PCs, and normal for everyone else.

Darren