I do something similar, PC's get max at 1st level then roll each level thereafter. If they roll less than the die average, they take the average. I think it works out the same as your system mathematically.
To MAX HP or not to MAX HP
I do something similar, PC's get max at 1st level then roll each level thereafter. If they roll less than the die average, they take the average. I think it works out the same as your system mathematically.
Very close - within a point per level or so, based on the averages.
Satyrn
First Post
I would totally go with just using the averages. Call them the new max, and you might understand why I'd prefer it: I have found that when it comes to ability score, when I was rolling I always felt like anything less than a 18 at first level meant my character wasn't as strong in that stat as he easily could have been.
Now, since my group switched to using the Standard Array, The best I could possibly get at 1st level a is 17. And practically speaking, a 16 is the same thing - which means I'm actually comfortably putting that 15 in my prime ability and selecting a race that doesn't boost it up, since a 15 is just shy of 16.
I have actually become less concerned about higher numbers with a lower new max. I'm simply not trying to get a 20 anymore - even at higher levels - even though tyat 20 was important to me back when we rolled.
And I saw the same change in when we stopped rolling hp and just took the average - since the best my fight can get at each level was 6, I have never cared that I could have more.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
But it avoids nasty surprises!
Swarmkeeper
Hero
This is how we've been assigning PC HP each level, too. Makes for a more robust party, but with some variation - and a bit of excitement when the player rolls the max number.
On the monster side, I'll usually just pick the average but will sometimes increase or decrease within the given HP range depending on... reasons.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Max HPs for PCs and foes stretches out combat, making it more of a grind.
It devalues healing, and in-combat healing except for standing up fallen allies is already cheap.
It devalues all limited resources (superiority dice, spells, etc.) that don't last an entire combat because combat lasts more rounds so it's active for less of your actions, and damage takes a double whammy because it also is doing a smaller percentage than expected.
CON is worth about half of what it was before in terms of your total HPs.
All of that said, if you are one of the many that take the path of "fewer that then 6-8 recommended encounters, but harder", then some of these points balance out because your rounds per day works out - up per encounter but less encounters. It still makes spells and other limited resources that last for an entire combat a bit more effective, but otherwise is a decent foil.
It devalues healing, and in-combat healing except for standing up fallen allies is already cheap.
It devalues all limited resources (superiority dice, spells, etc.) that don't last an entire combat because combat lasts more rounds so it's active for less of your actions, and damage takes a double whammy because it also is doing a smaller percentage than expected.
CON is worth about half of what it was before in terms of your total HPs.
All of that said, if you are one of the many that take the path of "fewer that then 6-8 recommended encounters, but harder", then some of these points balance out because your rounds per day works out - up per encounter but less encounters. It still makes spells and other limited resources that last for an entire combat a bit more effective, but otherwise is a decent foil.
Leatherhead
Possibly a Idiot.
I use max player HP when the players don't roll up any sort of healer, otherwise I use the PHB listed numbers.
I don't use HD on my custom npcs or monsters whenever I can get away with it. Stock monsters have stock values, because if I am tinkering, I'm tinkering all the way.
I don't use HD on my custom npcs or monsters whenever I can get away with it. Stock monsters have stock values, because if I am tinkering, I'm tinkering all the way.
D&D has DICE! for a reason.
Rolling dice is one of the most fun aspects of playing an RPG. Why would anybody want to reduce the need to roll all of those magnificent polyhedral dice? This shift towards average HP, and standard arrays instead of rolling abilities, is a trend in D&D that doesn't sit well with my inner grognard.
I do understand the disappointment and frustration of rolling low, but without risking the bad there can't be any chance for the good. I do agree that the dice can be TOO swingy, so my groups have adopted methods to mitigate the extremes of randomness to a degree.
We roll 3d6 replacing one die with a 4 for abilities. This generates results between 6-16 for our ability scores.
We use max HP at 1st level, but then we roll 2 dice and average the results at every level after 1st. The bigger the hit dice the less swingy they tend to be this way. Fighters are more consistently average with some variation, while Wizards are more likely to have very low, or even possibly exceptionally high HP.
If this trend towards mediocrity continues in D&D then maybe they can skip dice all together in 6e, and everybody can use average to hit rolls and average damage to just count down how many rounds until their "no-lose" combat ends. If you should hit 50% of the time for 10 damage, then you just do 5 damage per round. If the Orc has 10 HP then you know you can kill 1 Orc every two attacks. There are 5 Orcs, so it takes 10 attacks. During that time they do X damage to you. If X is less than your HP you win. Combat could be done in 60 seconds or less with a calculators. Then we can get back to role-playing how cool and edgy our tragic lone-wolf anti-heroes are as they brood and ignore the DM's desperate attempts to interest them in plot hooks.
This message has been brought to you by the The International Brotherhood of Dice Collectors, Local 691.
Rolling dice is one of the most fun aspects of playing an RPG. Why would anybody want to reduce the need to roll all of those magnificent polyhedral dice? This shift towards average HP, and standard arrays instead of rolling abilities, is a trend in D&D that doesn't sit well with my inner grognard.
I do understand the disappointment and frustration of rolling low, but without risking the bad there can't be any chance for the good. I do agree that the dice can be TOO swingy, so my groups have adopted methods to mitigate the extremes of randomness to a degree.
We roll 3d6 replacing one die with a 4 for abilities. This generates results between 6-16 for our ability scores.
We use max HP at 1st level, but then we roll 2 dice and average the results at every level after 1st. The bigger the hit dice the less swingy they tend to be this way. Fighters are more consistently average with some variation, while Wizards are more likely to have very low, or even possibly exceptionally high HP.
If this trend towards mediocrity continues in D&D then maybe they can skip dice all together in 6e, and everybody can use average to hit rolls and average damage to just count down how many rounds until their "no-lose" combat ends. If you should hit 50% of the time for 10 damage, then you just do 5 damage per round. If the Orc has 10 HP then you know you can kill 1 Orc every two attacks. There are 5 Orcs, so it takes 10 attacks. During that time they do X damage to you. If X is less than your HP you win. Combat could be done in 60 seconds or less with a calculators. Then we can get back to role-playing how cool and edgy our tragic lone-wolf anti-heroes are as they brood and ignore the DM's desperate attempts to interest them in plot hooks.
This message has been brought to you by the The International Brotherhood of Dice Collectors, Local 691.
Last edited:
