Why I Think Rolling For Hit Points is a Bad Thing

[Falling Icicle]

What evidence is there that PCs roll for hit points?

It's on page 4 of the "How to Play" document. It says you start with a number of hit points equal to your con score plus a die roll determined by your class and that at each level you roll again.

 

[thewok]

I really think it's one of those things that should be up to the table.

When it comes to balancing the math, making sure monsters are a sufficient challenge, and the like, A few assumptions need to be made. As long as WotC assumes the average, then the method used to gain hit points every levels won't really be a problem, as, over time, they'll tend toward the average when rolled. It'll be a problem in low levels, though, but if it's a personal choice, then those who roll take the chance of dealing with that problem, and that's perfectly fine.

For my group, though, we'll likely be doing Average hit points, rounding up on the even levels to maintain the average. Or I might make it a personal choice. I haven't decided yet, and I'll leave that decision for when the game actually releases.

 

[FireLance]

Thank you for your detailed analysis, but let's look at this at the 20 level range. Over 20 levels, you are 91% likely to get hit points within the 80-140 range. That's still a difference of up to 60 hit points, which is a pretty big deal.

It doesn't quite work that way. The more dice you roll, the more likely you are to get a result close to the mean. When you roll 20d10, you are actually 98.324% likely to get a number in the 80-140 range. The range for 90% likelihood is proportionately smaller, at around 70-130 (88.916%), or 69-131 (90.573%).

 

[matthulhu]

Unless I'm badly confused, the playtest characters get half HD max hp per level, +CON.

What have I missed that is even bringing rolling for hp onto the radar?

I was riffing on the general concept of rolling for HP (as per the title of the thread) and not directly commenting on the playtest characters (which have HP totals that made me nearly choke when I saw them, but I'll be running them as-is before coming to a workable conclusion).

Using the whole CON value for HP does not sit well with me (and never did), though, while you've brought that up- and in the playtest it feels really wonky to me, knowing the average human, per the bestiary, has about half as many HP as he does CON. Even if I concede that a level-one character should be more suited for adventure than most average folk- which I can only do slightly begrudgingly- I still believe that level-one character must have been until very recently of average folk stock himself, and should have something like comparable HP (or close to it). Obviously the cat has at most one foot left in that bag, because lots of people find character death "unfun" (while it's practically the only thing that sets adventure gaming apart from most other hobbies for me).

YESTERDAY he was but a blacksmith's apprentice, but today his master was killed. So he vowed to take up the sword he learned to smith on, and avenge the wrongs he had witnessed- and suddenly his combat survivability tripled. Maybe the Adventure Guild is a front for a PCP operation, and all the classed
"heroes" are just blacksmith apprentices wailing away on innocent bystanders, far gone in a PCP frenzy. "It's like he felt no pain while he fought all the king's guard- crying out about kobolds and orcs, whatever those are, the poor dear. They had to put him down- took six arrows!"

 

[variant]

Unless I'm badly confused, the playtest characters get half HD max hp per level, +CON.

What have I missed that is even bringing rolling for hp onto the radar?

You are badly confused. Characters get Constitution score + Hit Die at 1st, and every level after they roll their HD and if your Constitution modifier is higher than the roll, you add it instead.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Traditionally, most groups I've played with have issued maximum HP from the respective HD at 1st level, and then had random rolls for each level after that.

It isn't such a big deal to eradicate the random rolls, simply by establishing average** dice scores to each (so D4 gets 2HP per level, D6 gets 3, D8 gets 4 and so on).

I do like the link between Hit Dice and weapon damage value. I always imagine that a basis of 6d8HD, for example, simulates that person can take 6 'hits' on average from a standard melee weopon type. Someone with a 'half HD' (ie a D4 HD) can only take half these hits on average.


** The average is actually 2.5, 3.5 and so on, but how do you account for a 1/2 HP?

 

[pemerton]

It's on page 4 of the "How to Play" document. It says you start with a number of hit points equal to your con score plus a die roll determined by your class and that at each level you roll again.

Characters get Constitution score + Hit Die at 1st, and every level after they roll their HD and if your Constitution modifier is higher than the roll, you add it instead.

So why are the playtest PCs built on fixed values equal to half the HD size?

 

[thewok]

So why are the playtest PCs built on fixed values equal to half the HD size?

My guess is because it's the best way to balance the game math. Assume the average, since over time, things tend toward it.

As for how to account for the extra .5, just add a hit point every even or odd level. So, if you have a d6 hit die, at level 5 you'd get three hit points, and at level 6, you'd get four hit points. Then, at 7, you'd get three again, and so on on.

 

[Falling Icicle]

So why are the playtest PCs built on fixed values equal to half the HD size?

They may have just given the playtest characters half HD HP instead of rolling for simplicity's sake. It's also possible that rolling for hit points is a relic from an older version of the rules that they left in the How to Play document by accident. Only WotC can say for sure.

 

[pemerton]

My guess is because it's the best way to balance the game math. Assume the average, since over time, things tend toward it.

But why would you build a game to use one set of maths (ie rolled hp) but then test it on a different basis (ie fixed hp)? That doesn't make much sense to me.

They may have just given the playtest characters half HD HP instead of rolling for simplicity's sake.

Likewise - why would we test simpler mechcanics if that's not the actual game?

It's also possible that rolling for hit points is a relic from an older version of the rules

Maybe.