Why I Think Rolling For Hit Points is a Bad Thing

[billd91]

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.

It's extremely unlikely to see that gap based on the dice. While the hit points you roll on one die may not have their random distribution described by a bell-shaped curve, the more hit dice you add, aggregate hit points as your levels increase do map to a bell curve. And the more dice you have, the greater the tendency toward the mean.

 

[Tovec]

Why not borrow a page from 5e's advantage mechanic when rolling HP?

Roll twice, take the better roll. That is now what is added to your HP total.

If you want to get fancy you could even have it be: roll a number of times equal to your CON mod, min 1.

 

[Melkor]

I much prefer the randomness that comes with rolling for hit points.

 

[DogBackward]

I'm actually starting to like the idea of some of the old-school stuff, like random Hit Points, randomized ability scores, and so on. But, like we've added house rules to soften ability score generation (it used to be 3d6 down the line, not 4d6 drop the lowest reroll 1's, seven times, drop the lowest score and place where you want), I'll be using a house rule to soften HP rolls. I saw a version of this suggested on the WotC boards, and modified it for my tastes.

At each level after first, before you roll your new Hit Die, you can reroll all of your old hit dice. This follows the normal rules, including each die having a "minimum roll" equal to your Constitution modifier. You can take the new value, or keep your old one, whichever is higher. Then, after this reroll, you roll and add your new Hit Die.

This way, there is still the randomization. But, over time, you'll tend to see a correction of low rolls. If you rolled a 1 at 2nd level, you could try again at 3rd level, and get something higher. At the same time, it won't ever retract a good roll.

 

[FireLance]

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.

While I also prefer static hit points, this argument is incorrect. A single d10 roll is a flat distribution, but the cumulative effect of multiple rolls will approximate a bell curve. For example, 10d10 gives the following approximate distribution:

10-19: 0.001%
20-29: 0.190%
30-39: 4.205%
40-49: 23.110%
50-60: 44.987%
61-70: 23.110%
71-80: 4.205%
81-90: 0.190%
91-100: 0.001%

Essentially, you are 44.987% likely to get hit points within the 11-point 50-60 range, and 91.208% likely to get hit points within the 31-point 40-70 range.

Given that average hit points are 55, that's a 91.208% chance that randomly rolled hit points are within 15 points of the average.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Why not borrow a page from 5e's advantage mechanic when rolling HP?

Roll twice, take the better roll. That is now what is added to your HP total.

If you want to get fancy you could even have it be: roll a number of times equal to your CON mod, min 1.

This is what I was about to post, roll twice take highest with CON mod being the minimum. Either that or 50-50 it.
Wiz 2+1d2 etc

 

[TwinBahamut]

I definitely agree that rolling for hitpoints is a bad idea. It has all kinds of drawbacks, and almost no advantages. If nothing else, rolling for hitpoints makes auditing your character sheet to double-check for errors much more of a hassle than it should be. You need to write down what you rolled for every level in order to do that, and I hate it. It also slows down the creation of higher-level characters and the like...

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.

There is plenty of room for differentiation between characters already. Race, class, ability scores, equipment choice, backgrounds, themes, spell lists, and so on. What's more, I'd argue that randomizing any of those is bad. It is fine to want characters to be different, but that is no argument for making that difference random, especially when there is plenty of room for differentiation already.

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.

This is already covered by a different Con score, though. The effects of a high or low Con score influences hitpoints enough to cover this (or at least it should). What's more, the randomness of hitpoints if taken too far can let a low-Con character have more hitpoints than a high-Con character, which is fairly ridiculous based on the very idea of what Con is supposed to mean.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Here's the thing... WotC can offer multiple options in the core rules so that each gaming group can decide for themselves how to generate hit points. In fact, I'd be shocked if they didn't do this. It seems like such a common sense set of options to me. Just offer guidance to the DMs about each option so that they can make an informed choice about which variant is right for their group.

 

[Fifth Element]

My main objection to rolling HP (and rolling ability scores) is that they are the only mechanical things that are rolled randomly with respect to the character at creation, and during advancement. And there's no reason for them to be an exception.

Why do you roll ability scores, but get to choose your race? Why do you roll hit points, but not saving throw bonuses or skill points? Why should you have absolute control over some aspects of the character, but no control over others, with no internal logic as to which aspects you can and can't control?

Randomness is needed in play, but not in character creation. Rolling Hit Dice for healing is good; rolling for your maximum hit points not so much.

When you start adding all kinds of exceptions (minimum rolls on hp, 4d6 drop lowest reroll 1s and arrange to taste for ability scores), you're trying to beat some of the randomness out of it. Why not just get rid of the randomness entirely, if randomness is undesirable?

In the spirit of 5E, of course, random rolls for these things can be included as an optional module. Said module should probably also include rules for random acquisition of spell slots and save bonuses.

 

[JamesonCourage]

This strikes me as one of the easiest things to make into a "module". Why bother arguing over it? There's almost certainly going to be an option for "instead of rolling HP, take X HP" in the game. Just like there's almost certainly going to be a "instead of abilities, use X point-buy method" in the game somewhere.

No real reason to get into huge arguments over it. You'll be able to take an average, and I'll be able to roll. Others will use point-buy for stats while my group rolls for it. It's one of the easiest additions to the game they can add as far as optional modules go, and there's no need to get worked up over it. I'm not even worried which is the "default" method (personally, I'd prefer them say "here are your options" instead of having a default method). As always, play what you like