I know it's been said before, but it needs to be said again...

rolling for hit points sucks.

First of all it just isn't fun to have have such an important stat be a random die roll. It also lends to people wanting rerolls or just plain cheating. If it must be a die roll, then I would use the Con modifier as number of dice rolled keeping best one. 

Keep in mind that for living campaigns it's probably not going to be a die roll anyway, so why bother even doing it in the first place. I understand you want to keep a low power curve so do a flat number with no Con modifier and Con affects healing.

DISCLAIMER: I know I can just house rule it. I can use house rules to fix any broken game. However, I like thousands of others play at conventions in living campaigns and want a well crafted and working system that we can use no matter where we are. A house rule won't fix a problem in the core rules at conventions.

Modified Lost Mine Of Phandelver Map (removed adventure markers)

DnD Next (5e) GM 2 page info sheet

 

 

I agree.  No element of character creation or advancement should be random.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I found it humorous that even though the playtest rules call for a random roll of HP increase per level, the actual playtest characters have a fixed HP increase listed for their level 2 and 3 adjustments. It's as though the designers were acknowledging that no one would actually want to have to roll for hit points.
I prefer rolling.  Character growth is more fun when you dont know what to expect.  It's not like you'll end up with hit points so bad it matters with this system and I dont think everyone who ix X and Y class/whatever WOULD be the same in this regard. 

so I say rolling = good.
Howdy folks,

I am moving this thread to D&D Next General Discussion.

Thanks.  

All around helpful simian

I prefer rolling.  Character growth is more fun when you dont know what to expect.  It's not like you'll end up with hit points so bad it matters with this system and I dont think everyone who ix X and Y class/whatever WOULD be the same in this regard. 

so I say rolling = good.




Um what? Remember, in DDN a character's scaling comes 100% from HP and damage. This makes HP scaling even MORE important in DDN than in older editions, because you rely entirely on your HP for defense. 


If going from 1 to 20 is supposed to gain you 120 HP to let you be tough enough to stand up to level 20 monsters, and through a series of bad-to-average rolls, you only gained 60 hp, you're going to be screwed against any encounter that is appropriate for your level (Though honestly you probably just died long before that if you rolled that consistently bad on HP).
I prefer rolling.  Character growth is more fun when you dont know what to expect.  It's not like you'll end up with hit points so bad it matters with this system and I dont think everyone who ix X and Y class/whatever WOULD be the same in this regard. 

so I say rolling = good.




Um what? Remember, in DDN a character's scaling comes 100% from HP and damage. This makes HP scaling even MORE important in DDN than in older editions, because you rely entirely on your HP for defense. 




This is a good point, and it changed my mind.  Think of it the reverse way:


Your fourth level characters manage to kill a Mind Flayer and his minions, God only knows how.  When you go to get your experience, you see that it's only half the usual amount.  You stop the DM on his way out the door and ask him why.  He says "Oh, well, I rolled badly on his hit points, so that makes him a much lower level monster".  Wouldn't you feel cheated?     


If monsters are based on hit points and not hit dice, then characters should get hit points and not hit dice.         

I want both options in the Core rules yet WotC to make a stand at Cons for "fixed" HP and "Stat Array" for their Ability Scores. At home, do whatever you want so long as everyone's happy. At Cons where people pay and play, it had better be balanced.
I want both options in the Core rules yet WotC to make a stand at Cons for "fixed" HP and "Stat Array" for their Ability Scores. At home, do whatever you want so long as everyone's happy. At Cons where people pay and play, it had better be balanced.



In other words, make a balanced game.

Individual DMs can always screw up their own game balance if they want to.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
One option might be to include the rules for stat/hp rolling and point buy/ array/ static progression with out delcaring any one rules variant the default.
HP rolling is one of the worst mechanics in old editions. Get rid of it for good finally!
I think rolling and a static boost are compatible with each.  A DM should choose which one to use.  Personally, I use the point buy and standard HP boosts at each level to ensure that no player gets cheated by a bad roll(s).  However, I've seen fun campaigns that handled it randomly.
I think rolling and a static boost are compatible with each.  A DM should choose which one to use.  Personally, I use the point buy and standard HP boosts at each level to ensure that no player gets cheated by a bad roll(s).  However, I've seen fun campaigns that handled it randomly.


That really depends on the players if they are ok with the possibility of being an "ugly duckling".

I have play tested 3 times now. The last test instead of using the fixed leveling on the character sheets we rolled like the rules said. 4 out of 5 players had less hit points than taking what was on the character sheet.
I think rolling and a static boost are compatible with each.  A DM should choose which one to use.  Personally, I use the point buy and standard HP boosts at each level to ensure that no player gets cheated by a bad roll(s).  However, I've seen fun campaigns that handled it randomly.


That really depends on the players if they are ok with the possibility of being an "ugly duckling".

I have play tested 3 times now. The last test instead of using the fixed leveling on the character sheets we rolled like the rules said. 4 out of 5 players had less hit points than taking what was on the character sheet.



It's more of whether the players are willing to play with a DM that advocates it.  It might come as surprise, but I know of at least one group that won't play (and feel it's not DnD) without random HPs.  Adding the option won't hurt you for the most part.  If you don' like it, don't play with a DM that uses it (or convince him/her to change).  That's what I do that despite the difficulty over the past few years in finding a group (military service makes it hard when you leave for six+ month stretches). 
Random thought just popped into my head. When rolling for hit points, roll con mod +1 Con mod hit die (min 1) and use the largest number. I know some peeps hate random numbers period, but hey, idea.

Edit: I need to work on my skimming. :/ That's what I get for dropping in one last post before going to bed. 
Roll dem bones.
VacantPsalm, that was my suggestion in the original post
One option might be to include the rules for stat/hp rolling and point buy/ array/ static progression with out delcaring any one rules variant the default.


+1

I see no reason why the "core rules", in some areas, couldn't be presented as choices from multiple modules. In fact, I think some things should be presented as "no default". HP are a perfect example; the concept of HP is "core", but the usage is modular. Character creation mechanics should be handled the same; give the different modules (retro, AEDU, etc.), but let the players/DM decide which module(s) to use when creating their character.

As a note on monsters, and how I hope WotC will handle their HP: I want monsters to be given HD (Hit Dice) to determine their power/level; then I want to roll the HD to determine HP. At present, there is no way to determine how they are determining the monster's HP; what basis is being used?
I say roll con mod +1. HD for at level up. That way a con score of 12 will be useful.

That being said, methinks HP are too high and I would prefer more flat HP growth. I know it kills a sacred cow but I think HP should be d4, d6, d8 or just flat 3, 4, 5.
Leave it optional.

Design everything around average rolls.

You can take the average or you can roll.

Let the player decide which he/she wants.

I do this at my table. I have some that take average and some that roll because they want to.

Nobody has hard feelings if they roll low because they had the option.

Nobody who didn't roll cares if the other has higher HP because they know that player took a risk.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

When a character levels he rolls all his Hit Dice. Then uses the new total, if the new roll is less than what he had,  we add 1 hp to his current hp and disregards the roll.

For Example (3.5 edition)
Bob the fighter was 4th level with 23 hp
Bob makes level 5 and rolls 5d10 he rolls 5  4  7  7  2   his CON is 12 so he gets another 5hp total = 30

another example:  he rolls 2 3 1 5 6 + 5 from CON  this = 22hp which becomes 24 hp.

My rule fixes two problems.
 
rolling too many ones etc.  or the guys who rolled hight numbers.

Leave it optional. Design everything around average rolls. You can take the average or you can roll. Let the player decide which he/she wants. I do this at my table. I have some that take average and some that roll because they want to. Nobody has hard feelings if they roll low because they had the option. Nobody who didn't roll cares if the other has higher HP because they know that player took a risk.




Yup.
A player wants to roll stats, let em, if he gets a single 15 he still has to play the character, if they prefer point buy give them whatever amount you see as fair.

A player wants to roll hp, let em, in fact let them change it up per level if they like, 1/2HD +1 or die roll.

The players that want to take a chance will, and the others get a solid status quo.

some DMs will give you a mulligan if you roll bad, and alot of DMs will just use the simple "take the avrage" approch. 

in pathfinder society you take the avrage rounded up of your hit die, so when 5e gets its public play things going, it is likley to use static numbers to prevent cheating. 

ive had some DMs actually leave it up to the player, take the avrage or show some stones and roll, keeping the resault no matter what.  

the mechanic isent that good honestly, its not new, exciting or anything it just is. 4e's hp system is easy we know how much HP defenders (15+con +6/level) get, strikers (12+con +5/level) get and controllers (10+con +4/level) get and it is super easy to gauge how good your HP is for your level. 



 
Scrap hitpoint rolls. If you really want a random game. Random stats, they guy that rolls bad con gets low HP, that way he can build his character concept around being weak and frail. I remember a 2E game I had a 10 Con Druid that had twice the HP of the groups 14 Con Battle Cleric. Let stats dertermin hitpoints

I'm not liking the 5E hitpoints at all. I like them at lv 1 and thats about it. Mostly because con matters so little for hitpoints in higher levels. And I have looked at the damage potentials of some of the low lv monsters in the bestiary getting hit for 2d4+2+2d6 dmg from a Bugbear flanking you is going to be devestating when you are only pulling about 5 hp a lv (as a fighter, 2 as a wizard). Especially considering if the bugbear is hitting you for that you have at least 2 of them on you. Bugbear is worth 150xp I recall
The problem with making static hp optional, is that it completley changes the effect that CON has in the game, or changes how the upper bounds of hp work.

It might make sense to say that you can either roll, or take half the hitdice, your choice, and let people gamble if they want. 
I dislike rolling for hit points. I generally prefer longer campaigns and I don't want a couple of poor rolls to make my character underpowered for months of play time.

I want point buy to be presented as a 'core' option. It's no skin off my back if rolling stats is presented as equally 'core'. All 3 of my groups will just ignore that anyways.
HP rolling is one of the worst mechanics in old editions. Get rid of it for good finally!


Yup. I was chatting with a friend who is running an Exalted game today, and the conversation illuminated how much mathematically awful stuff D&D does for the sake of tradition.

truth/humor
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.

 

iserith: The game doesn't profess to be "just like our world." What it is just like is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Any semblance to reality is purely coincidental.

 

Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?

 

TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon. A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.

I like the idea of multiple rolls for HP based on CON +/- whatever.  I also like the idea of it being optional from the game point of view, but I think not from the character or event point of view.  Too much optionality will mean indecisive players beating themselves up for a decision that resulted in something they didn't like.  This is RPG, not gambling, so the focus needs to be on the characters, not the dice.

I do like the suggestion of accepting that sometimes characters end up weak, through no fault of their own, and building their story / strategy around that.  That makes for an interesting game.

However, if you're going to go with high randomness, then perhaps the DM needs to adjust the game to account for that?  For instance, if every encounter is going to put a weak character at disadvantage, despite all their strategies and invention, that person is going to want a new character before long.  So I suppose you need to build an environment that has opportunities for characters that have been unfairly treated by the fates on the HP front.  That's okay by me though - harder work for the DM = a more interesting game for the DM too.
I usually use the next mechanic:

Hit dice + CON

if the result of the hit dice is under the average he will have the average.

Barbarian roll d12 + 4(CON) if he rolls 4 on the d12 he will have 10 points (6 plus 4).

Players has the option to have more vitality, but if he has bad luck still has the average.
Leave it optional. Design everything around average rolls. You can take the average or you can roll. Let the player decide which he/she wants. I do this at my table. I have some that take average and some that roll because they want to. Nobody has hard feelings if they roll low because they had the option. Nobody who didn't roll cares if the other has higher HP because they know that player took a risk.



We've done the same thing in my games, and it's worked out well.  

In other words, make a balanced game.

Individual DMs can always screw up their own game balance if they want to.



I wish the designers took this approach throughout development.

"Design a good game. Let DMs houserule it into the ground."

I know that rolling for hit points is how it has (almost) always been done.  And heck yes it's awesome when you roll that "0" on the d10 when leveling your fighter.  Same for rolling stats.

But as others have discussed, this game has a fundamental balance proposition of certain key statistics being fixed and scalaing with level so that you can design effective but not too easy/hard challenges.  I am fully aware that you can house rule in all sorts of re-roll systems, but if the point is that too low of hit points is problematic and needs house rules to address, then to me that means the issue is that in order for the game balance and combat mechanics to work, you need a certain minimum hit points.

And once convinced of that point, the opposite side of the coin is that too high of a level of hit points can push the balance in the other direction.

Fixed HP's per level is the only solution I see as viable.

Pathfinder introduced a concept of being able to either pick 1 extra skill point or 1 extra HP if you advance your "favored" class.  That gave some customization options to the player, as did Toughness feats without throwing combats out of balance.  Maybe something along those lines will help make it feel less like "every fighter is the same" while still controlling the core of making combat balanced.

If the game is so fragile that a minor variance in hitpoints causes it to fall to pieces, I don't want to play it.

When a character levels he rolls all his Hit Dice. Then uses the new total, if the new roll is less than what he had,  we add 1 hp to his current hp and disregards the roll.

For Example (3.5 edition)
Bob the fighter was 4th level with 23 hp
Bob makes level 5 and rolls 5d10 he rolls 5  4  7  7  2   his CON is 12 so he gets another 5hp total = 30

another example:  he rolls 2 3 1 5 6 + 5 from CON  this = 22hp which becomes 24 hp.

My rule fixes two problems.
 
rolling too many ones etc.  or the guys who rolled hight numbers.



This is VERY interesting. I like it, My suggestion was to roll HD + 1 HD per con mod. Fo 12 Cond Rogue would rold 2d6 taking best roll. 
I like rolling Hit Points (and ability scores) and in D&D Next some element of character creation or advancement should definitly have the option to be random for those like me that like to, despite what people may have against it. Multiple generation methods should co-exist. 

  

Strangely enough I just did a blog post about rolling hp and posted a google doc spreadsheet showing the averages for HP, Healing, and percentage of your HP you can heal.

Again all based on probability averages. All you have to do is change block 21B for the con score and everything adjusts.

Con affects hit dice healing way more than HP. In fact it takes an 18 con to raise the average of a wizard from 3 to 4 (rounding up if over .5) and a d12 always stays 7 even at 20 con. If you round down, a d4 changes at 16 and 18, but the d12 stays at 6 until 18 con when the average hits 7.

Again this is just averages, once you have 18 con you will never get less than 4hp per level, if you have 20 you will never get less than 5hp. Taking rules as written that means that a d4 character actually would gain 5hp per level.

Take it for what you will, I just did it because I like math.
rolling for hit points sucks.
....



Yep, +1, I don't like random hit points either. Personally if they don't have a rule for static hit points in DDN I'll end up houseruling that a character has whatever the average of their random hit points would be at each level, taking into account their Con modifier minimum on the dice rolls, rounded up. (Normally you round down in DDN but I'm a softie when it comes to hit points for the players, I'll give them the extra hit point.)


P.S. Random healing is fine, it's just randomized character creation and leveling up that I don't like.
Well, first of all, rolling for HPs makes no sense. "well, I'm done killing monsters, let's see how much luget and morale I get"
Second, the core NEEDS to be non random. A game system is broken if it uses random stat/HP generation, which is fine for those who want it, but THE CORE NEEDS TO BE BALANCED! Having people choose what method at the table doesn't work either, as it creates automatic discrepancies.
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29086701/I_HIT_IT_WITH_MA_SWORD!_(like_this!):_A_Slayers_Handbook An attempt at CharOp
To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales."
"see sig" redirects here
Oblivious troll is Oblivious
PbP supporter!
General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important. There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level. Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition.
You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
rolling for hit points sucks.
First of all it just isn't fun to have have such an important stat be a random die roll. It also lends to people wanting rerolls or just plain cheating. If it



Furthermore, designers never roll hit dice for their monsters. Nope. They decide the hit points based on how challenging the monster will be for the targeted party of the module.

Rolling for hit points just created too many problems in the past. Give people static hit points. It makes it easier for those module makers to select their predetermined hit points.

Another reason that static hit points should be in the game for characters is the thing I'm suggesting next.

The idea that 5th level players get 2 standard actions in which they could attack someone at 2[w]. Or one defensive action when they are attacked and then one standard action during their turn.
I'm also suggesting that at 10th level, a player should get 3 standard actions.
At 15th level 3 standard actions and some kind of defensive action such as a Dodge Action or an opportunity attack.

In order to elevate the hit die this high, which makes encounters go faster!, we need static high hit points.

Hey, if Hook Horror can get 2 standard attacks during its turn, why not characters? Absolutely.

Wizards should be able to cast the same spell on 2 targets at 5th level unless it is a very powerful burst or spell that renders a monster helpless.

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

You could "split the difference". Like they work the Passive Skills in 4E. You either use your Passive Perception (10+Per) or your roll, whichever is better.

So just give all a flat number of HPs per level, what the game designers use as a point of balance for each class and what the monster damage design is based on.

Then allow each to roll for hitpoints as per D&D Next Playtest or some new system that works better. They take either the roll or the default, whichever is better for them

The "for them" is important for some, as it means those who just like the idea of getting bad rolls and want that traditional feel can just say, "I rolled less than the default, so I choose to take the LOWER roll which is best FOR ME and the flavor I like." Another says, "I am gunning for optimum, and always take the better result."

This way, rolling for hitpoints would become fun again, as you know you always have the default to fall back to, so you are not going to get screwed and be suboptimal, lower than what the game expects you to have, yet you know you have a chance to be slightly better than you should for your level, so it is a win-win.

Again, for groups who want to just use the default and not roll, they can just say that taking the default, regardless of what I roll is better FOR ME, so these would never bother rolling. Those who like to roll as it is fun for them, can do so and be safe from a result that brings them lower than the default. Those who want that old school feel, always choose the die result, even if it is worse than the default, as that would be better FOR THEM.

This way all get what they want, and you could have all 3 types of PCs at the same table each playing their own HP method without much issue since each player CHOSE his method, so they cannot complain about others in this regard. The DM is then always free to FORCE a method on the players as a rule in his game, but this will happen anyway, and does not mess with the basic default of being allowed to do both and choose your result the way you like it.
That might work if you let characters have a minimum default number of hit points and allowed them to try to roll for 2 more.

For example, if we divide all classes into 4 groups,
wizard types could get a minimum of 4 hit points and then let them roll a 1d6 for 5 or 6.
cleric types could get a minimum of 6 hit points, let them roll a 1d8.
rogue types could get a minimum of 8 hit points, let them roll a 1d10.
fighters could get a minimum of 10 hit points, let themm roll a 1d12.

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

Sign In to post comments