Why I Think Rolling For Hit Points is a Bad Thing

[Mengu]

Isn't this like the easiest thing to make optional? The group can pick the way they want to play. If you want to roll dice roll dice. If you don't want to roll dice, take the average of the die roll. For a more gritty experience, round down (d6 becomes 3), for a more heroic experience, round up (d6 becomes 4).

 

[Li Shenron]

Hit points are generated using only one die, so there is no bell cuve.

There is a bell curve, but it is gradually approached as levels go up. The first HP roll (presumably 2nd level) has a flat distribution, when you have rolled twice the distribution is triangle-shaped, but already at the third roll the curve is close enough to a bell.

The reason why HP are random are not really because of the "thrill", but to guarantee the existence of different individuals, some more robust and some less, in the fantasy world (of course you may argue that Constitution score is enough, but eventually Gygax must have disagreed).

But given the fact that the more you roll HP the more you approach the average result (half your HD + 0.5), the most "fair" alternative rule to random HP would be to get a flat amount per level equal to that average. Instead, 99% of the groups which use non-random HP they give MORE than that, e.g. 3/4 of your HD or even full HD. Why? Because they don't so much hate random HP as much as they just hate low HP, and no matter how many the "standard" rule gives them, they always think they need more.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I could imagine a compromise:

You roll for hitpoints, but your minimum is not just your constitution value, but:

d4: minimum: con
d6: minimum: 1+con
d8: minimum: 2+con
d10: minimum 3+con
d12: minimum 4+con

this way, a fighter with proper constitution (14) will at least have 5 hp per level. Which seems right to me!

 

[ren1999]

We roll right on the table when leveling. It's never been an issue.

That brings back fond memories.

The player rolls a 2 and announces to everyone "You did not see that!" --then he rolls again.

The player rolls a 4 and looks at me with puppy dog eyes and says "Please let me roll again?"

I say, "Well, since you're the cute girl in the group.." She says, "I'm the only girl in the group, thanks.." rolls again..

 

[Doug McCrae]

You make a good point about random hit points resulting in fighters and barbarians being more variable than other classes. There's a further issue. Consistent low hit points mean the fighter can't do his job - he can't fight. The player may very well not want to be an archer, and the party might be so small that it needs a frontliner. None of the other classes suffer from this problem.

The other issue with hit points is they don't really represent anything in the game world, so the supposed benefit of variation only distinguishes between characters at the mechanical level. Or, in other words, hit points are a disocciated mechanic, to use The Alexandrian's terminology.

In 1e, Gary Gygax says hit points represent, in addition to physical toughness, combat skill, a 'sixth sense', luck, and magical or divine protections. Combat skill is already represented by level anyway. It would be odd to say that a 10th level fighter with 30hp is less skilled than a 4th level fighter with 40. The other characteristics are very nebulous, and better represented by other mechanics than hit points. For example, sixth sense could give a character a bonus to surprise, immunity to flanking or backstab, or a bonus to saving throws versus traps.

That said, hit points are very easy to houserule, and, given that both random and non-random hit points are popular, I'm sure the rules will support both options.

 

[Lanefan]

This would make perfect sense- if the "fixed HP" are simply equal the max value of the hit die. Plenty of DMs over the years have done this anyways, especially if we're talking about first-level characters.

But really, this doesn't even need a "module." It needs a single phrase in the PHB. "At character creation, and upon gaining a level, your character receives a certain amount of hit points determined by his class's hit dice. Depending on the assumptions of your DM's campaign, you will either roll your hit die to determine an HP value or use the maximum value of your hit die in lieu of rolling."

Why always the maximum?

Shouldn't it be the average value for the hit die, as the fixed amount? Otherwise groups that do use random roll are always going to be weaker overall, which - depending how finely-tuned the math is - could throw a monkey wrench into adventure design.

That said, there's nothing at all wrong with rolling for h.p. If you don't do well, perhaps you have to invest in better armour instead of better weapons; play defensive instead of offensive - just like someone in the real world would do once they realize they're not as tough as the next guy.

Lanefan

 

[Walking Dad]

I don't like rolling HP. I'm a PbP guy, leveling takes so much time, if ever, that you are stuck with the one roll for months.

That said, if you like random HD, what about this:

You start with Con. each level (including the first) you add this:

HD max-4 +1d4.

So the wizard would be unchanged from the rules and every other class would be as random on HP as the wizard, but has a guaranteed advantage from its bigger HD.

If this is to much HP, replace it with:

(HD max-4)/2 +1d4

Fighter: +4+1d4
Cleric: +2+1d4
Rogue: +1+1d4
Wizard: +0+1d4

I never saw the need why any class should be more random on HP than another.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

While I want to promote my method of setting the minimum to con+some value, i could aslo live eith x+1d4 for anyone and minimum is con+x, x is dependant on class.

My method in 3.x was very simple. Roll. Not the HP. If your total hp is below average, your hp is the average.

 

[Mattachine]

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.

Having the same number of hit points, a metagame number on a character sheet, makes characters depressingly the same? Depressingly?

 

[thewok]

Why always the maximum?

Shouldn't it be the average value for the hit die, as the fixed amount? Otherwise groups that do use random roll are always going to be weaker overall, which - depending how finely-tuned the math is - could throw a monkey wrench into adventure design.

I'd think average would be the way to go.

I'm not sure how they're doing monster hit points right now, so this may be way off. I'm going to use 3rd edition as an example. Third edition monsters used the average of their hit dice to determine their hp in the monster manuals. Some examples:

Troglodyte 2d8+4 (13hp)
Ankheg 3d10+12 (28hp)
Great Wyrm black dragon 37d12+296 (536hp)

We've seen the math for hit point distribution. It approximates a bell curve as the number of levels goes up. Thus, player hit points will tend toward average over the course of a campaign. The makers of 3E assumed players had average hit points.

Were a DM to simply grant maximum hit points to his players, monsters would need to similarly be given maximum hit points as well in order to maintain their challenge to the group. So, in a game with maximum hit points, that Great Wyrm dragon should have 713 hit points.

Then, we run into one of the criticisms of 4E: monsters have too many hit points, making encounters run too long. It'll also throw off the expected healing, making healing spells and hit dice half as effective over time, on average.

Like I said, the monsters may be using a different method for hit point generation than the players (and it seems like they are, but it's impossible to know how it's done without those rules released to us). Still, for testing, it makes more sense to assume the average and base the balance around that. It is impossible to balance around the entire spectrum of possible hit point totals, making average hit points the most simple method.

That is why I'd like to see static hit points as the default, with rolled hit points, max hit points and whatever else presented as options.

I'd also like to see the current rules for natural healing (or something like them) remain as the default, with "gritty" and "4e" style health modules added in as options.