Why are hit points generated randomly?

[shilsen]

In an online game (at playbyweb.com) I'm in, the party warblade has been rolling horribly for hit pts and is currently 1 hp ahead of the completely non-combat incarnate. We were discussing this and I started wondering if the die rolling method of hit point generation is a sacred cow that could use killing.

After all, it's the only standard class-based benefit in the game which is randomly generated. The other standard class-based benefits, namely BAB, saves and skill pts, all go up at a fixed rate, even though all of them have the same built-in assumption as hit pts, i.e. that some classes will have more than others. The rogue, for example, doesn't roll d12 for skill pts every level while a fighter rolls d4. So why have that for hit pts? They have just as much of an effect on a character's survivability and playability as saves do, and arguably more than BAB (since not all classes are dependent on BAB for effectiveness) and skills (since all classes aren't dependent on skills, as all do depend on HP to some degree).

The only real reason I can think of that hit point generation is die-based is because it's always been that way in earlier editions. What do you think? Am I overlooking some other major reason? And would it be a bad thing for the game if classes had a fixed HP progression?

 

[hong]

Sacred cow. I use 3/4 die roll: d4 -> 3, d6 -> 4, d8 -> 6, d10 -> 7, d12 -> 9.

 

[Henry]

The only real reason I can think of that hit point generation is die-based is because it's always been that way in earlier editions. What do you think? Am I overlooking some other major reason? And would it be a bad thing for the game if classes had a fixed HP progression?

For me, yes, because it's one of the "gamist" aspects that I've always liked. Besides, there are CON-boosting items in default D&D that help make up for it, so I've nver seen it as a big deal. (My current 12th level cleric in fact has 48 hit points, before CON bonuses. It's a shade below average, but my CON bonuses help me there.)

But yep, it's an artifact of the "game" roots as much as saving throws are. It wouldn't be bad to assume average hit points, OR if the group wanted variety in their hit points take average plus a 1d4 roll, or to take the better of two rolls, or to take the average if you didn't roll above it, or any other method. For me, though, I like the random element -- the only time you notice it badly is in the d10 and d12 hit dice classes, like Warblades and Barbarians. It really does feel sucky to roll that "1" or "2" on a d12, I'll admit.

 

[Aus_Snow]

d4=3, d6=4, d8=5, d10=6, d12=7 here. No problems or complaints, thus far.

 

[Psion]

I don't know. Especially if you point buy your attributes, it seems like a holdout. I use random rolled attributes in most of my games, and I STILL prefer fixed HP.

 

[kensanata]

I started wondering if the die rolling method of hit point generation is a sacred cow that could use killing.

Look up "fixed hit points (for PCs)" in the DMG p. 198. One of my players has recently asked for this because he has been rolling below average every single time. The high CON sorcerer in our party has about the same number of hit points as our fighter...

 

[el-remmen]

Well, the answer probably is "sacred cow", but I personally like it, as I dislike cookie-cutter aspects to characters of the same class.

Rolling low hit points, to me, is the kind of thing that can potentially make organic character-building fun and in-character. I mean, if you have low hit points, whether that represents frailty, a weak point, a certain lack of skill in combat, then you have to figure out what, if anything you are going to do about it with the aspects of your character you *do* control - for example by taking feats, crafting/finding a particular magical item, or just changing your overall approach to combat.

Anyway, as the others who have posted here have shown, plenty of groups use other options for the determination of hit points.

In my games, people either roll or take average - but the choice has to be made before a roll is made, because I think there should be an element of risk/gamble in the choices you make for your character.

Another possibility I have considered, is to start folks off with a good number of hit points and then have hps increased via a smaller die for each class to have a lower variance (but still some variance).

 

[Lalato]

I like the way Iron Heroes handled it...

2+1d4, 4+1d4, 6+1d4, 8+1d4

--sam

 

[Desdichado]

Especially if you point buy your attributes, it seems like a holdout.

Yup. Despite that, I seem to not quite be able to kill it in my games. I'm not usually beholden to sacred cows, but this one for some reason seems wrong to turn to a fixed progression. I can't explain it, it's some kind of non-rational, visceral thing. I do a few things to take away the rather permanent sting of a bad roll, though---I say you can roll twice and take the better of the two rolls.

I like nemmerle's idea, though---a flatter hit point progression over time and a smaller variance would be welcome by me. I've given some serious thought towards giving half the hit die as a freebie and having them roll the second half--i.e., a d4 hit die turns to d2+2, a d6 to d3+3, d8 to d4+4, etc.

 

[questing gm]

I let my players roll their hit die 3 times and pick the best one.
You can be surprised how many times a d4 doesn't turn up with a 4 even after 3 tries...