Why I Think Rolling For Hit Points is a Bad Thing

[billd91]

Will you also roll the attack bonus, because some are better able to hit others? You know, realism.

You already did that when you rolled the stats that modify the attack rolls.

 

[Fifth Element]

You already did that when you rolled the stats that modify the attack rolls.

What about things that are not tied to ability scores? Characters acquire several things at exactly the same rate as others of their class, which is surely not realistic.

 

[AeroDm]

The whole point of this edition was to set up a simple framework and then let people turn things on or off. I'm not too worried about the ability to turn different HP generation modes on without disrupting the game. I think they'll make rolling "core" for the sake of legacy. They gotta pick something, the game used to roll, so that is why it is currently the "default." If there is one thing I think 5e will do well, it will be to communicate that its okay to stray from the default.

 

[Walking Dad]

You already did that when you rolled the stats that modify the attack rolls.

And HP vary with the Constitution you rolled. Your point?

 

[billd91]

And HP vary with the Constitution you rolled. Your point?

Should have been pretty obvious because I stated it right out. You said you might as well roll to see what your attack bonus is... and I said you have. You've rolled a component of your attack bonus already. It just happens that, once that's done, you typically have a bit more active control over what your attack bonus will be. I don't see having varying levels of control and varying levels of randomness a problem.

 

[Walking Dad]

And I dislike randomness outside of play generally. Maybe because I play PbP and you are stuck longer with your rolls. Or perhaps just personal preference.

(not saying anyone is wrong, just saying that there are differing opinions and I would like to see an option for all of them )

 

[Falling Icicle]

Yes. It's called realism. Some people are simply tougher and more resilient than others.

There already is a character trait that determines toughness and resilience - Constitution, and it can be randomly generated if you want.

One could just as easily say that things like attack bonus, saving throw bonuses, feats, skills, and everything else should be random because "realism" dictates that some people are better at some things than others. The problem is, characters of the same class and level need to share certain core competencies or else the entire concept of level, and its use for determining overall character power, becomes meaningless.

I also agree with another poster who mentions that everyone having the same HPs is boring. I like seeing characters with important HP variations.

Not every character will have the same hit points because not every character will have the same Consitution score. If two fighters of the same level happen to have the same Con, then sure, they'd have the same hit points, just as they'd have the same attack bonus if they had the same strength, etc.

 

[howandwhy99]

What do you think about static HP for all Monsters and NPCs?

I remember the 3e Monster Manual showed mean averages for HPs of monsters. It wasn't a big deal, but I liked having the variety of rolls. I think the rationale for PCs having rolled HPs is, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" or "If the PCs can dish it out, so can the monsters."

Now 3.e was a bit inflated for HPs and the rolled HPs of high HD creatures pretty much feel the same no matter what. There's very little variation. I think the same result occurs the higher level characters are too. But at low level that variance really, really means something. And I think it being so meaningful is what's not liked. No matter what my Fighter should have more HPs than any Wizard.

Here's my thinking. The character classes are variations of the same theme. They are branches from the same trunk. Only a 1st level classed character is very close to the trunk, while a high level classed one is largely divergent from it. The characters are so similar at 1st level that a 4 HP magic-user and a 1 hp fighter aren't going to ruin the game.

Random HP are an easy option either way. I'm glad they are sticking with it for the "Feels like D&D" iteration and I expect many will ditch them later. If for no other reason than many see no reason to ever randomize HPs. And that's okay. Use only what you want.

 

[billd91]

One could just as easily say that things like attack bonus, saving throw bonuses, feats, skills, and everything else should be random because "realism" dictates that some people are better at some things than others. The problem is, characters of the same class and level need to share certain core competencies or else the entire concept of level, and its use for determining overall character power, becomes meaningless.

It all depends on what you want. Do you emphasize strictly balanced development or do you favor seeing unexpected developments emerge over the life of the character. The latter really helps breathe life into the game for me. Too much planned structure feels way too sterile and artificial. I want a bit of chaos in the mix.

Fortunately, if they give us dice to roll, we can both be satisfied - me by having the dice to roll hit points, you by picking the number you want from the same range for your character development.

 

[imurphy943]

All the same arguments apply to any use of d20. You can get bonuses, but it's still a straight line-up and either end has a definite outcome. My group used 3d6 for a while when none of us had a d20 (ah, youth), but when new dice were gotten we went to it with no issues. I, personally, was frustrated with how few critical hits or misses were rolled, and missing the emotional responses associated with them.

If someone wanted to get 5 hit points instead of 1d8, I'd give it to him and to hell with the extra hit point, but I think that high adventure isn't very exciting unless you're a gambler at heart.