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

[Andion Isurand]

The problem is, that everything that deals direct damage is decreased in value... including weapon attacks.


Spellcasters are given more advantages because of

Save or Die Spells/effects
& Constitution Damaging Spells


The spellcaster would have more HPs to handle the warrior's weapons, but the warriors would get no additional advantage against these spells. The warriors would then have to look for Vorpal weapons with big threat ranges.

Assassin death attacks would also be given more value.


/////////////////////////////////////////////

Because of this emphasis, the nature of the game may be shifted, and the variety of character styles may be decreased. There should be weak NPCs with few HPs and strong NPCs with a lot.

Just give your players the choice for getting average HPs.

 

[Gort]

I'll concede your first point, but argue your second.

You shouldn't give your players the choice of average or roll. Invariably, in my experience, players choose to roll, or at least most will.

Then, when invariably someone rolls a 1 on a d12 and has to put up with it, your campaign is out of balance. Just because it's the players own fault for not choosing average hits, doesn't make it any less un-fun when your barbarian has fewer HP than your rogue, and has to use a bow and hide behind the cleric.

So in order to deal with that, a GM will usually let him re-roll the low numbers or some such, and then the player goes and rolls a 12 or suchlike, leaving him more powerful than the other party members who chose average.

Really, there's no good REASON to have randomness in the character generation process at all, if you truly want a balanced game.

So, for my new campaign, I'm gonna have all my players take average hits. Same for all my monsters and other NPCs.

 

[Dr. Zoom]

I have been using the Living Greyhawk rules for abilities and hit points (28 point buy, max hp at first level, half HD plus one thereafter) and it is working well so far. I use average hit points right from the book for the monsters, and give them +10 or more hit points from time to time for a tougher version or for a leader.

 

[Andion Isurand]

From the peanut gallery.

I would represent 'the leader' by advancing the Hit Dice by 1 or by adding 1 character level.

This is because many effects work based on a creature's Hit Dice. Plus, the leader would have a wee bit more saves and perhaps more BAB.

 

[Gort]

Aye, plus if you just whack on extra hitpoints, you're not rewarding your players any more for defeating this more powerful opponent, since his CR is exactly the same as for his minions.

While if you whack on another level, his CR goes up by one and the players get extra XP for it.

Plus you can give him a BIGGER SWORD due to the NPC equipment money going up. Which is always nice.

 

[mmu1]

I like to give players the option of taking average hit points to avoid the pain on rolling 1's (and most of my players generally end up not rolling), but I think it's a terrible idea to do the same for monsters and enemies.

In one of the games I played in, the DM insisted on giving everything but the players maximum hit points, and while the inequality alone was infuriating (he was incapable of running anything besides the most basic, hack 'n' slash melees, and used enemies with buckets of HP to make up for that), what made it even worse was that it tended to make combats painfully boring - there's nothing as discouraging as getting a lucky critical while sneak attacking and hitting something for 50 points of damage only to realize that it has the same 90 or 100 hit points as the other two you've killed so far and your amazing blow didn't come anywhere near to putting it at death's door.

Randomness tends to give combat a sense of urgency which you lose when you go to average or max HP.