Where did random hit points come from?

[JoeGKushner]

There are some things in D&D that are very static. Do X and Y happens. Most things require a roll only when they involve possible opposed actions or have negative consequences.

Why then in a setting where level advancement brings so many static and fixed benefits, are hit points randomlly rolled? What is the logic in that thinking?

While I'm not fond of the whole hit dice by class to begin with, as everything else uses type, but I think that random rolling possibly weakens characters by turning one of the attractive things about some classes (d12 hit die for barbarins) into a random roll where even the character with the worst hit die (d4 for mages) can have more dice hit points.

With all the changes made in 3.0 and then 3.5, even with an option for fixed hit points in the DMG, should hit points go to a non-random variable in the core?

 

[kenobi65]

Diaglo would tell you for sure, but I think it's one of the things that's an artifact going back to the very first editions of D&D.

 

[billd91]

I like the idea of variability. Not every 4th level fighter in chainmail is as resilient as every other 4th level fighter in chainmail. The variability is especially nice on the monster side of things, otherwise every owlbear is the same.

 

[delericho]

Oh, please, yes!

I hate random hit points more than any other single aspect of the game. Perhaps because I have not rolled more than a '1' for hit points for any of my PCs for the past 3 years.

(Of course, that's a rather poor statistic - in that time I've only played two d20 characters, and had to level each of them once before the respective campaigns folded. Still, it really sucked to roll a '1' both times.)

 

[Thia Halmades]

Oh, that. Sorry to post in the wrong section, but the fastest fix is:

House Rule: Anytime you roll HP at level up, you take what you rolled, or 1/2 of the die. Whichever is higher. So you'll never have less than 'average' HP for your character, and (should) end up in the 3/4ths range. This has removed the terror of die rolling. When fighters roll 7, they get seven. When they roll 1, they get 5.

 

[Zappo]

It was like this from OD&D to 2E. Given the relatively limited amount of things influencing hit points in those editions, giving a fixed amount of hit points would have caused many creatures to have exactly the same hits.

Me, I don't think this is a problem. And in 3.X there are enough variables between multiclassing, expanded influence of CON, and feats, that most creatures don't have the same hits even with fixed amounts. So I give max at first HD and half max at every subsequent HDs.

 

[Henry]

I prefer it because the prevailing philosophy is to reduce everything to static numbers, which is a trend I dislike. They've taken my random ability scores, they've taken my random reincarnations, they've taken my system shocks and resurrection rolls, they've taken my saving throws, the epic-end of attack bonuses have taken my d20 rolls, let me have something random left!

 

[Umbran]

I prefer the random roll, because it makes the character organic. How many of us have had our lives go exactly as planned, and gotten everything we wanted?

I am not fond of the habit many folks have of planning out character advancement from levels 1 to 20 before they ever play. In a wargame, that sort of planning makes a bit of sense - but this is supposed to be a role-playing game, so advancement choices should be based off of what happens as you play the role.

Sometimes, you have a goal (say, like being the biggest, tankiest fighter around), but things dont go your way (you roll poorly on hitt points for several levels). So, you have to adjust, and make new plans, and think more about what this person who isn't you would do given his reality.

Note that this question is talking about where we draw a line between the fixed and the random. Note that once you've asked it once, you can ask it again and again. So let's cut to the chase - why not have the whole darned system be deterministic? Why not throw out the dice altogether, and just play a chess variant, where each character is one piece with only fixed abilities?

The point there being - how much determinism and how much randomness one wants is simply a matter of taste. Many people adore chess, which has an entirely deterministic mechanic. I personally think that if you're trying to focus on the role, rather than on the game, you want somewhat more things outside individual control.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

I prefer it because the prevailing philosophy is to reduce everything to static numbers, which is a trend I dislike. They've taken my random ability scores, they've taken my random reincarnations, they've taken my system shocks and resurrection rolls, they've taken my saving throws, the epic-end of attack bonuses have taken my d20 rolls, let me have something random left!

Hey! Did you hear that Taking 10 will be mandatory for all future d20 rolls in 4e?

 

[Thia Halmades]

It's true. And you have a Skill. It's called "Skill." It covers everything in game. Ever.