Why I Think Rolling For Hit Points is a Bad Thing

[Falling Icicle]

I was very saddened to see the return of randomly determining the number of hit points a player gains at each level. I think that hit points are far too important to be determined randomly. I personally do not like randomly determining any aspect of a character, but I will note that there is a significant difference between rolling ability scores and rolling for hit points, even in this new ediiton which places so much emphasis on ability scores.

Why? For starters, ability scores are typically rolled with 3 or 4 six-sided dice. This creates a bell curve where average scores are far, far more likely to be generated than either very high or very low scores. With the popular 4d6, drop the lowest die method, very low scores are even less likely, narrowing the difference in ability scores even further. Since odd numbered ability scores don't really do anything (since you only get a +1 bonus or penalty for every 2 ability points above or below 10), the actual difference between a very well rolled character and one which rolled poorly is not actually that great. Even if you have an 18 and I have an 8, you have only a +5 advantage over me on rolls in that ability. That is significant, yes, but on a d20 roll that only equates to about a 25% difference in success vs. failure. It's not insurmountable.

Also, unless you are using the extremely stringent rolling method where you don't get to allocate your scores to whatever abilities you wish (In my experience I have never seen a group do that), players can also further diminish the effects of bad rolls by putting them in ability scores that aren't as important to the class they want to play.

With hit points, this is not at all the case. Hit points are generated using only one die, so there is no bell cuve. A fighter is just as likely to roll a 1 as is he to roll a 10. This makes the variation between poorly rolled characters and well-rolled characters potentially extreme. One 20th level fighter could literally have 180 fewer hit points than his comrade. Sure, it's very unlikely for one character to roll 20 1's and the other 20 10's, but even half that margin, 90 hit points, is an enormous difference in character survivability and power.

Ironically, the classes that need hit points the most, such as fighters and barbarians and other classes that are expected to be in melee and take the most punishment, have the widest variation in hit points due to using larger hit dice.

To me, it is poor game design for one character to be vastly weaker than another just because of a few unlucky die rolls. Sure, lots of things in the game come down to the luck of the dice, but as I pointed out, with things like ability scores, the difference is nowhere near as great. And characters have means of recovering from failed saving throws or missed attack rolls. At the very worst, they die and can have their character resurrected. This is a far cry from having a character who is so irreperably fragile that he is practically worthless.

I strongly recommend that in DnDNext that players gain a set number of hit points per level based on their class.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

I strongly recommend that in DnDNext that players gain a set number of hit points per level based on their class.

I strongly disagree.

If every character of X class gained the same number of hit points every level, it would be boring--characters of the same class, theme, and background would look depressingly the same. Rolled HP gives us yet another means of differentiating one character from another.

 

[Janaxstrus]

So you mean 2 people who share a class may have varying levels of "stamina", "pain tolerance" and ability to handle minor wounds?

Sounds about right to me.

A fighter with a Con of 16 will, at 20th level, have a minimum of 76 hps and a max of 216. D&D played this way in 3rd edition as well. A fighter with a 16 con could get 4 to 13. (Max at first level, meaning 89 was the minimum and 260 was max, a much bigger gap). 1e, Basic, 2e, 3.x and PF all roll for hps. They seem to do ok.

So yes, if you are playing a fighter with a 10 con, you could in theory have 30hps at level 20, and another fighter with a 10 con could have 210. But in theory you could also never make a saving throw and die at level 1 the first 10 times you tried to play the game. Should we remove those as well because there is a chance it could happen?

I am happy to see them moving the game away from the rounded off edges and participation trophy type play it seemed to be recently and going for a more old school feel.

You want to make it less swingy? Have the DM match hit die. You level, you roll your hps and the dm rolls the same hit die. Take the higher result.
Since "advantage" exists in 5e, it's got a precendent beyond a fairly common (in my experience) house rule.

 

[Falling Icicle]

If every character of X class gained the same number of hit points every level, it would be boring--characters of the same class, theme, and background would look depressingly the same. Rolled HP gives us yet another means of differentiating one character from another.

Not at all. They still have their Constitution score, which not only determines the bulk of their starting hit points, but also how much they regain from using hit dice to heal.

That, and there are plenty of ways to differentiate characters that don't make one strictly better than another. Maybe your fighter prefers a longsword and a shield, and mine prefers a greataxe. Maybe yours is a knight and mine is a mercenary for hire. Maybe yours has totally different skills and feats than mine. Those are all meaningful ways of differentiating our two fighters without one having more hit points and being objectively better than the other.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I strongly disagree.

If every character of X class gained the same number of hit points every level, it would be boring--characters of the same class, theme, and background would look depressingly the same. Rolled HP gives us yet another means of differentiating one character from another.

This is a fair point. What I would like to see however is a small fixed number of hit points being added/attached to each "unit/feature" of a character. A scholarly background might give 0hps where as a Soldier background might give 6hps. A "luck"-based feat might give 2hps while a "toughness" feat might give 5hps. Different feats and character features have different amounts of hit points attached to them. As long as there is enough variety in the pieces that make up a character at each level, I think this provides a good variable but non-random method of providing hit points that supports the background and development of that character.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hautamaki]

I understand your concerns. Here's my thoughts on the subject:

1st off, the more things you roll for, the more likely it is to even out. Therefore if you only roll for 1 aspect of a character, that actually makes that character MORE random than if you roll for every aspect of a character. When you only roll for ability scores but everything else is set, the ability score rolls are very important. When you roll for ability scores AND hp, good or bad rolls in area are more likely to be offset by the inverse in the other area. Taking this principle into account, I also have my players roll for skill points (2d4 at level 1 + d4 for every level thereafter). Now there are three areas where rolling matters, so things are even more likely to average out.

2nd; it's true that rolling for ability scores works on a bell curve given that there are 3-4 dice rolled (3 kept in any case). But this is equally true for 3rd level characters, and it only becomes more true after 3rd level. So the only real problem is the first 1 or 2 levels where 1 or 2 rolls become all-important. There are a number of simple fixes to this problem. The fix I use is to simply allow players to roll 2 hit die and keep the higher. Combined with their constitution bonus it's very rare to have a really low HP character. Another simple fix is to give the player their constitution in HP at level 1, and then they roll hit die + CON bonus for every level thereafter.

In general though, rolling for HP upon gaining a level is a fun and interesting mechanic and over time everything balances out. I like it even though I acknowledge that rolling a 1 on a level 1 character and then having to play that character is potentially a problem for like 95% of people, so I implement a simple fix for level 1 characters and keep the rest as is.

 

[keterys]

Nah, they should take the opportunity to move the randomness out of character creation / leveling to continually.

When you wake up after an extended rest, roll your hit dice with your Con bonus per HD. Set max equal to max HD (no con bonus). Plus Con Score, I suppose.

So, let's assume a Con 16 3rd level fighter:
Max HP: 16 + 3 * 10 = 46
Random HP: 16 + 3d10+9

I'm not a fan of elements of character creation that lead to cheating, favoritism, tossing characters, etc... which largely means I'm against all randomness in character creation, with the possible exception of controlled randomness (see things like using cards to create stat arrays, or doing group ability score rolls, etc). But if you have to have random-ness for hit points, go all the way.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Characters really shouldn't be gaining that many hit points per level, regardless of the random aspect.

 

[Raith5]

I have not rolled for hp in a couple of decades. I just dont understand how the difference between two 10th fighters with the same CON should come down to different hp. Surely weapons, feats/technique, armour should be more important - the things a PC can actually control.

However, one thing that did annoy me about 4th ed was that the hp difference between fighters/combat types and wizards was too narrow - I think DDN has followed too closely on this. I would like to see a bigger difference between hps on fighters etc compared to wizards etc.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I agree. Let's get rid of dice completely!