Yet another fixed HP thread.

[Quartz]

I had a bit of an epiphany about fixed HP / level this morning and I thought I'd share.

One of the problems with using average HP is that it benefits the non-combat classes vastly more than the combat classes who do and lose out. And I have a simple solution: take the the maximum result and subtract 2.

Sorcerors and wizards get 2 HP / level (50%); Bards and rogues 4 HP / level (67%); clerics, monks, and rangers 6 HP / level (75%); fighters and paladins 8 (80%); barbarians and knights 10 (83%).

An alternative way of looking at it is to take the maximum of the next-lower die, in which case mages get 3HP / level (d3).

 

[Aus_Snow]

One of the problems with using average HP is that it benefits the non-combat classes vastly more than the combat classes who do and lose out.

Muh?

I honestly have no idea how you came to that conclusion. How is using the average (i.e., what would be rolled, on average) somehow unfair to anyone or anything?

Could you please explain the difference? IOW, between that and just rolling, let's say? Because, unless I'm missing something here, when it's just rolling, you'll sometimes go under, and sometimes over, regardless of your hit die/dice. Which all evens out as average, in the end. . .

 

[Quartz]

(Slaps head.) Sorry, that should have been average HP rounded up

 

[Aus_Snow]

Ah. Sorry if I went a bit overboard with the whole 'wtf?!' there, by the way.

So. . . with average rounded up, you get [3, 4, 5, 6, 7] rather than [2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5] - still a difference of 1 HP per level (past 1st) per hit die increase. . . Ack, I still don't get it. I suppose the ratio changes - is that the issue? Like, f'rex, d10 providing only 2x what a d4 provides (beyond 1st level) rather than 2.2x?

I suspect I'm being obtuse here. . . help me out, please!

 

[Arkhandus]

The only reasoning I can think of is......maybe because the warrior-types are the most impacted by rolling really low on HP, because they're the ones that are getting hit at most of the time, while the caster-types tend to be made of glass anyway? Maybe? Meh.

 

[Quartz]

If you use the average rounded up method, it vastly benefits lower-HD classes.

Sorcerors and wizards get 3 HP / level (75%); Bards and rogues 4 HP / level (67%); clerics, monks, and rangers 5 HP / level (63%); fighters and paladins 6 (60%); barbarians and knights 7 (58%).

You can see how massively those with d10 and d12 lose out.

 

[GlassEye]

I think your solution keeps the same problem, just flipped around a bit. If I used fixed hit points I would just give everyone 75%. d4 hd: 3 hp; d6 hd: 4/5 hp alternating; d8 hd: 6 hp; d10 hd: 7/8 hp alternating; d12 hd: 9 hp.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

If you use the average rounded up method, it vastly benefits lower-HD classes.

Sorcerors and wizards get 3 HP / level (75%); Bards and rogues 4 HP / level (67%); clerics, monks, and rangers 5 HP / level (63%); fighters and paladins 6 (60%); barbarians and knights 7 (58%).

You can see how massively those with d10 and d12 lose out.

I think you're analyzing this a bit too deeply. Yeah, 1/2 a HP per level represents a different percent of each class' total HP but so what? It's an average of 10 extra HP over 20 levels; that's not going to make or break anyone.

Are you trying to decide whether to use fixed HP, arguing against it or just thinking out loud?

TS

 

[Asurya]

FYI, I saw a thread some time ago in which the OP wanted to reduce the randomness of the HP (the one between the PC that is).
here is his solution:
- take the lowest dispersion => d4
- change every other HD to keep the same randomness => d6 becomes d4+2, d8: d4+4, d10: d4+6, d12: d4+8

you can now take whatever "average" rule you want if you don't want any roll involved.
for exemple, with the std average method, you get 2.5, 4.5, 6.5, 8.5, and 10.5 per level (which nearly the same as the "75% rule" in GlassEye post)

 

[evilbob]

I also disagree that this method "vastly" benefits any class more than any other. Sure, the low-HD classes get 75% of their HP vs. 58% of the higher HD classes, and while a difference of 17% seems like a lot: it really isn't, because you're not talking about even pools of numbers. If you're take 75% of a very small number, you still get a very small number. 58% of a high number is still a very high number.

As TS said, it's a difference of 10 HP over 20 levels. The squishy classes are still squishy and the tanks are still tanks. I don't personally think it's a huge deal.


That said, your method of (max - 2) HP per level is perfectly sound, and if you think that's more fair, then go for it. I've recently been going with just max HP / level, and it really doesn't change very much at all (except make the bookkeeping easier, which is what I was going for). I wouldn't even say it has raised the effect party level by even 1/2. (If anything, the only change I could possibly even think of is that a mage might have a slightly better chance at low levels of not dropping in one hit. That seems fair to me.)