-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
What's the best way to handle PC hit points/hit dice?
- Thread starter Felon
- Start date
delericho
Legend
I use one of two systems, depending on game style:
For standard D&D, I give fixed hit points per level, depending on class. I use above-average values to improve the chances of PCs to survive. Characters get maximum hit points at 1st level, and if a character multi-classes, taking the first level of a class with a higher hit die, they gain extra hit points to make up the difference (this last does not apply to Prestige Classes). The values used are as follows: d4 -> 3, d6 -> 4, d8 -> 6, d10 -> 8 and d12 -> 9.
It's probably worth noting that I've found that this system works well at low and medium levels. When the characters reach about 10th level, it seems to become significantly harder to challenge them than it should be.
For grittier versions of d20 (Babylon 5, Call of Cthulhu, cyberpunk), I will be using a slightly modified version of the hit point rules in B5. Basically, characters will get 4 hit points at 1st level, plus some small number (1 to 3) based on class. At each level, the character will get a small increment, again based on class. The Constitution modifier does not apply in this case, so a 20th level character might have hit points in the mid 60's, as opposed to 200+. Under this variant, a character's chance to stabilise at negative hit points is dependent on Constitution, with high-Con characters being significantly tougher as a result.
This system makes the game very deadly, so don't use it lightly.
My motives for using these systems are purely to do with personal taste: I like my fantasy heroic and my horror horrific, moods which these systems seem to inspire, and I really hate random rolls in character management. Mostly because I always roll badly
For standard D&D, I give fixed hit points per level, depending on class. I use above-average values to improve the chances of PCs to survive. Characters get maximum hit points at 1st level, and if a character multi-classes, taking the first level of a class with a higher hit die, they gain extra hit points to make up the difference (this last does not apply to Prestige Classes). The values used are as follows: d4 -> 3, d6 -> 4, d8 -> 6, d10 -> 8 and d12 -> 9.
It's probably worth noting that I've found that this system works well at low and medium levels. When the characters reach about 10th level, it seems to become significantly harder to challenge them than it should be.
For grittier versions of d20 (Babylon 5, Call of Cthulhu, cyberpunk), I will be using a slightly modified version of the hit point rules in B5. Basically, characters will get 4 hit points at 1st level, plus some small number (1 to 3) based on class. At each level, the character will get a small increment, again based on class. The Constitution modifier does not apply in this case, so a 20th level character might have hit points in the mid 60's, as opposed to 200+. Under this variant, a character's chance to stabilise at negative hit points is dependent on Constitution, with high-Con characters being significantly tougher as a result.
This system makes the game very deadly, so don't use it lightly.
My motives for using these systems are purely to do with personal taste: I like my fantasy heroic and my horror horrific, moods which these systems seem to inspire, and I really hate random rolls in character management. Mostly because I always roll badly
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
I give the choice of average hps (max at 1st, even level round down, odd level round up) or the standard roll once. Everyone opted to roll so we'll see.
An NPC fighter Knight that was generated with this method rolled a base 19 hps at level 6 (+2 con bonus & toughness then added for 34hps total). I told the players that someone is likely to stuff up like that but they're willing to risk it. Their reasons are based partly on the hope that they get the good rolls and partly on a desire to differentiate each character.
Next question is: do you modify NPC hps if you grant a more generous hp system?
An NPC fighter Knight that was generated with this method rolled a base 19 hps at level 6 (+2 con bonus & toughness then added for 34hps total). I told the players that someone is likely to stuff up like that but they're willing to risk it. Their reasons are based partly on the hope that they get the good rolls and partly on a desire to differentiate each character.
Next question is: do you modify NPC hps if you grant a more generous hp system?
Romnipotent
First Post
Having played a lot more gurps recently and appreciating the level of do or die in the HT system I find HP more and more.... abstract. I've seen some fairly good house rules on effectiveness VS health
I'm still wanting to seriously try WP/VP and other methods. But as for HT, I prefer rolling for it (good or bad) as it creates a sense of whether your bulking up, getting more resilient, and the like.
I'm still wanting to seriously try WP/VP and other methods. But as for HT, I prefer rolling for it (good or bad) as it creates a sense of whether your bulking up, getting more resilient, and the like.
In my mind, there's a difference between playing an underpowered character and individual rolls. If someone said, "Hey, Takyris, I'd like for Bob, here, to play a guy built with 36 points, and you can play a guy built with 25 points," that would irk me. It would irk me to the point where I doubt I'd enjoy playing unless this was a GM I trusted in a big way to have some reason for this beyond "screwing with Tacky."
When I roll dice for permanent abilities, that's essentially what I feel I'm doing. Rolling a die for an individual attack is fine -- if I miss, I can try next round, and that's a one-time thing. Barring the world's worst luck, it works out in the end. But if I roll badly at character generation, I get an effective permanent -1 or -2 on abilities relative to Bob, who might take the same class and just always be a bit better than I am. Not fun for me.
Same thing goes for hit points. Hit points will tend to average out over time -- you only roll your ability scores once, but you roll hit points, well, a few times at least, over the course of a campaign -- but still, having taken a group from 1-20 with "roll for hit dice" and "roll for ability scores", I've seen how the party rogue can end up with more points than the party fighter, even when the fighter's a dwarf and the rogue is a half-elf with a not-great Con. It's not a ton of fun for that fighter.
So I go with averages. Less flashy, but that way, if you take Toughness in whatever form your group uses it, you're doing it to get MORE hit points, to GAIN something, not to make up for a lousy roll by becoming a character with mediocre hit points and one fewer combat feat than a normal fighter of your level.
Honestly, if I'm going to play an underpowered character, I'd like it to be because of my personal choices -- Yes, I want to play a Str11, Dex14, Int16 fighter. Yes, I want to play a Paladin/Monk elf with 25 point-buy. Yes, I want to see what a halfling rogue/druid/shifter can contribute to the party. Those are underpowered combinations I walked into all by myself. I don't need the fact that I rolled low on ability scores or hit points to make it even worse, and I'd rather not be the guy on the other end of the spectrum, either -- the guy who rolled freakishly well in front of everyone and gets glared at as "The dude with nothing lower than a 15."
When I roll dice for permanent abilities, that's essentially what I feel I'm doing. Rolling a die for an individual attack is fine -- if I miss, I can try next round, and that's a one-time thing. Barring the world's worst luck, it works out in the end. But if I roll badly at character generation, I get an effective permanent -1 or -2 on abilities relative to Bob, who might take the same class and just always be a bit better than I am. Not fun for me.
Same thing goes for hit points. Hit points will tend to average out over time -- you only roll your ability scores once, but you roll hit points, well, a few times at least, over the course of a campaign -- but still, having taken a group from 1-20 with "roll for hit dice" and "roll for ability scores", I've seen how the party rogue can end up with more points than the party fighter, even when the fighter's a dwarf and the rogue is a half-elf with a not-great Con. It's not a ton of fun for that fighter.
So I go with averages. Less flashy, but that way, if you take Toughness in whatever form your group uses it, you're doing it to get MORE hit points, to GAIN something, not to make up for a lousy roll by becoming a character with mediocre hit points and one fewer combat feat than a normal fighter of your level.
Honestly, if I'm going to play an underpowered character, I'd like it to be because of my personal choices -- Yes, I want to play a Str11, Dex14, Int16 fighter. Yes, I want to play a Paladin/Monk elf with 25 point-buy. Yes, I want to see what a halfling rogue/druid/shifter can contribute to the party. Those are underpowered combinations I walked into all by myself. I don't need the fact that I rolled low on ability scores or hit points to make it even worse, and I'd rather not be the guy on the other end of the spectrum, either -- the guy who rolled freakishly well in front of everyone and gets glared at as "The dude with nothing lower than a 15."
A'koss
Explorer
I've been using fixed HPs for years now. If you're going to play a Barbarian - you know you will have good HPs, and so on. For play-balance purposes I don't like the idea that HPs are left to chance - especially with the range you have now. Because sooner or later you're going to roll just awfully for HPs and if you're a High HP front-line class like a Barbarian...
Iron Lore's way seems to be a good compromise between the two (eg. 1d4+4 HPs / level). I typically use 3/4 max. or 1/2 max., rounded up depending on the harshness of the campaign.
A'koss.
Iron Lore's way seems to be a good compromise between the two (eg. 1d4+4 HPs / level). I typically use 3/4 max. or 1/2 max., rounded up depending on the harshness of the campaign.
A'koss.
My group gets max at first level, then roll thereafter. But, if you roll low you may re-roll using the next lower die.
For Example: A barbaian rolls 1d12 and gets a 3, he decides to re-roll but this time he rolls a d10, if he rolls low again it drops to a D8, etc.
I beleive we read about this method here sometime ago and it has worked for us and been a lot of fun.
For Example: A barbaian rolls 1d12 and gets a 3, he decides to re-roll but this time he rolls a d10, if he rolls low again it drops to a D8, etc.
I beleive we read about this method here sometime ago and it has worked for us and been a lot of fun.
lonesoldier
First Post
My campaigns need slightly sturdier PCs, plus the characters end up making them at home so we use point buy and fixed amounts of HP.
1d4 gets 3 + Con
1d6 gets 4 + Con
1d8 gets 5 + Con
1d10 gets 6 + Con
1d12 gets 7 + Con
Basically they use the upper middle value, if you will. This in the long run creates stronger PCs.
1d4 gets 3 + Con
1d6 gets 4 + Con
1d8 gets 5 + Con
1d10 gets 6 + Con
1d12 gets 7 + Con
Basically they use the upper middle value, if you will. This in the long run creates stronger PCs.
Similar Threads
