Poll: do you roll Hit Points?

Alter the poll

I use rolled hit points and average hit points  Roll your hit die and compare it to the average then take whichever one is higher.  That + con mod equals your hit points for the level.
Alter the poll

Unfortunately, once created only the name of the poll can be changed. However, posting (as you did) that you use a different, unlisted option is certainly encouraged. Thank you.

I like games to be random when it comes to event based resolution and/or encounter based resources. When it comes to permanent resources I like fixed numbers. So, hit points and stats should used fixed predetermined systems of generation (as what you roll will permanently stick with that character for the game). But attacks, damage soaking on an event based model (such as parry), or damage dealt should be random. 
Yes. I roll hit points. What we have always done is allow the player to roll his h.d. type and then have the D.M. roll it as well. The character then gets the better of the two rolls. Done it like that for over 20 years.
When it comes to permanent resources I like fixed numbers. 

QFT. In fact, public games pretty much *have* to use static numbers. This includes things like Encounters, LFR, Lair Assault, and Convention games. Games that allow their players to create characters at home also may need to use this method.

Like point buy stats, I assume average Hit Points is the default, while rolling is at the DM's say.
 

The durable feat is the only reason to roll hit points.  Why would you roll except for the thrill of seeing a random number?

If you could cast an 12d6 lightning bolt and could choose between a lightning bolt causing 48 points of damage or roll one and average 42 damage, which would you pick?

After 5 or 6 levels, you probably will wish you had picked the set number of hit points.

The durable feat is the only reason to roll hit points. 

Unless you plan to cheat ;)
"It was amazing! I rolled the maximum on all my HP rolls at home!"

I roll. My players roll. Though I have often applied a minimum achievable or re-roll 1's.  What I set it at is usually determined at the start of the game and based on the kind of game I'm running.
I didn't vote as it depends on the HD of the class. Average hit points is a better deal the smaller your dice is 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
When it comes to permanent resources I like fixed numbers. So, hit points and stats should used fixed predetermined systems of generation (as what you roll will permanently stick with that character for the game).



Yeah, same.

I don't like any "screwed for life" rolls.

Though I did find it really surprising how many groups roll for HP, I figured it would be really rare.

We roll for hp, but you cannot roll below half of your maximum.  This means no 'screwed for life' rolls, but you're also not just as average as everyone else, which is to my mind as mind-numbingly tedious as anything going.  Sometimes you have great rolls, sometimes you just barely come out average, sometimes you're a touch on the weak side.  My current character is on the better side, but my last one was on the low side (minimum for 6 straight levels will do that to ya!)  Nonetheless she was a great character to play.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Sometimes I roll, sometimes I do average.  Mostly depends on my mood at the start of the campaign.
In AD&D our DM gave out "fate points" for doing awesome things in cahracter, RP, etc. We could use them to reroll any die roll.

They were mostly used to reroll poor HP rolls.

When we started 3e he just gave us average HP per level so we could us "fate points" on stuff that was more interesting.

So in other words, we no longer roll HP. 
The people I've played with have always rolled for HP.
I roll all my monster's HPs and I make my players roll theirs.

EDIT:  Oh, I have given them full hit points on occasion.  But mostly its roll away.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

The durable feat is the only reason to roll hit points.  Why would you roll except for the thrill of seeing a random number?

If you could cast an 12d6 lightning bolt and could choose between a lightning bolt causing 48 points of damage or roll one and average 42 damage, which would you pick?

After 5 or 6 levels, you probably will wish you had picked the set number of hit points.




Why wouldn't you roll for things during creation?  The alternative is that every character in the same class ends up the same.  I could never play with these average things,  how predictable it must be to have average hit points and use average damage,  ending up with combat always playing out the same.
For players: generally I go with max hp at lvl1 then roll for the rest

for npcs: a blend of roll and average. usually I'll roll for more dynamic characters and leave the average to minions and soldiers
When it comes to permanent resources I like fixed numbers. So, hit points and stats should used fixed predetermined systems of generation (as what you roll will permanently stick with that character for the game). 



Agreed.  I do not believe any facet of character generation or advancement should include a random element of any kind.
Rolled for D&D minus 4th edition, whre the hit points were fixed. In other games I roll or take flat as the rules dictate.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

My question is:  If it didn't generate numbers that are lower than you get by not rolling -would you roll.


I don't like the fact that by not rolling, you not only get the 'safer' value - you also get a value that is higher than the average of rolled hit points.


To put it another way - if you roll, you will - on average - end up with fewer hit points than if you do not roll.


I don't like this - and I don't like the fact that it violates one of the clear and consistant rules of 5E.  One that gets its own bolded header. "Always Round Down".

The average should be rounded down - not rounded up.

You should get 4 points from a d8, 5 from a d10, etc.  If you want to be safe, you shouldn't also do better than average (just as you can do better with the point buy, but the Array or the point buy guarantees you a decent build).


Safety should come at a cost - or to put it the other way - taking a risk should come with a benefit.


Carl    




The average should be rounded down - not rounded up.





I alternated.  Max at 1st, then L2 was 'average round down', then L3 was 'average round up'.  So, a d8 got you 8,4,5,4,5 ...
I feel that average should be half round up simply because rolling gives you the chance of a higher total HP at the cost of risk.  The player has to choose to go the surefire above average result or risk it and roll.

It also incentivizes using static HP which is easier to balance the game off of.  
as others have pointed out, rolling for hp with a d6 hit die is stupid.
I prefer to limit dice rolls to situations that really are "it's important to randomly determine how well this character's attempt to do something worked" and "it's important to the game that a range of possible values can be generated for this." Like, you roll for attacks, because it's important to the game that if a fighter is fighting a kobold that sometimes the fighter hits the kobold and sometimes the fighter misses the kobold. It's important that sometimes the rogue disarms the trap and sometimes he messes up. I have a hard time feeling like gaining HP upon leveling up is an instance of someone attempting to do something and now we need to see how well it went. If now-for-all-time things are going to be decided by dice rolls, I like them to be things that feel like the results of choices, rather than something that just happens at intervals. Even in terms of rolling for things that affect your character forever and aren't the result of actual choices (simply out-of-game fiat rolls), rolling for HP interests me less than rolling for stats. At least rolling for stats produces results that can have different pros or cons compared to each other. Rolling for HP is just a linear good-to-bad scale
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
The durable feat is the only reason to roll hit points.  Why would you roll except for the thrill of seeing a random number?

If you could cast an 12d6 lightning bolt and could choose between a lightning bolt causing 48 points of damage or roll one and average 42 damage, which would you pick?

After 5 or 6 levels, you probably will wish you had picked the set number of hit points.




If you're obsessed with having the best, strongest character with all the biggest numbers, sure. I've rolled every hit die all my life and never looked back, 1s and all.
i also roll and mostly play casters you can get a bonus with con in 1st and 2nd and its realistic over everyone has the same hp if you have multiple classes in the game seems to videogame style for me
"Back in the day" (1st AD&D) we rolled hit points anew at the start of each session/ adventure.

They weren't a fixed part of the character, but were seen as more of a 'how am I feeling today' thing.

Today you might roll a 1 - and tomorrow you might roll a 10.

A feat like this would have worked very nicely with that kind of approach....


Carl
I do exactly what sleeps said. Different group, same solution.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
When it comes to permanent resources I like fixed numbers. So, hit points and stats should used fixed predetermined systems of generation (as what you roll will permanently stick with that character for the game). 



Agreed.  I do not believe any facet of character generation or advancement should include a random element of any kind.


The random element adds to the fun.  Unfortunately, if the random element is ultimately less ideal than the fixed number it would be foolish to try the random method long term unless the DM insisted on it.

Based on the rules.
Random ability scores - good choice.  4d6, drop lowest is better than point buy in a system which rewards 1 or 2 high ability scores.
random hit points - poor choice. 5 hp per level is better than d8 hit points per level.  Unless you cheat or are very lucky you'll wish you had taken the set value after leveling up more than 5 times.  Random is only truly random in small samples.  The larger the sample the more the random begins to resemble the mean.
The durable feat is the only reason to roll hit points.  Why would you roll except for the thrill of seeing a random number?

If you could cast an 12d6 lightning bolt and could choose between a lightning bolt causing 48 points of damage or roll one and average 42 damage, which would you pick?

After 5 or 6 levels, you probably will wish you had picked the set number of hit points.




If you're obsessed with having the best, strongest character with all the biggest numbers, sure. I've rolled every hit die all my life and never looked back, 1s and all.


Random hit die rolls matter at low levels. By the time you reach higher level, much of the variability is gone.  An 11th level 10 con fighter (do they exist?) will have 70 hit points using the fixed method.  Using the random method, he or she would have 65 hit points plus or minus a few.

Maybe it's not a big difference but I don't purposefully gimp my characters.  
The durable feat is the only reason to roll hit points.  Why would you roll except for the thrill of seeing a random number?

If you could cast an 12d6 lightning bolt and could choose between a lightning bolt causing 48 points of damage or roll one and average 42 damage, which would you pick?

After 5 or 6 levels, you probably will wish you had picked the set number of hit points.




If you're obsessed with having the best, strongest character with all the biggest numbers, sure. I've rolled every hit die all my life and never looked back, 1s and all.


Random hit die rolls matter at low levels. By the time you reach higher level, much of the variability is gone.  An 11th level 10 con fighter (do they exist?) will have 70 hit points using the fixed method.  Using the random method, he or she would have 65 hit points plus or minus a few.

Maybe it's not a big difference but I don't purposefully gimp my characters.  




Which is why - since this playtest started - I have maintained that the system for gaining 'averaged' hit points ought to follow the rest of the rules of the game and "Always Round Down".


They you would be choosing between 60  hit points for the fixed method and 65 for the rolled method. 

There would be a reason to roll (aside from, as the earlier poster put it, because the DM makes you).

Carl

I don't think I've rolled HPs for close to two decades now, since I stopped playing 2e. Using point buy for abilities and average HD for HP just makes things far more managable for both DM and player, IMO. Personally, I want to test a theory of giving every PC the same HP progression, regardless of class, but let each class that would have normally gotten a higher base HD some defensive mechanic to stretch their HP, similar to the Fighter's parry mechanic. IMO, having both better HD and features like Parry makes the disparity between higher HD and lower HD classes that much worse.

If I want to play a "tanky" wizard, I should be able to have spells available for soaking up some damage that are easily renewable (with the cost of not having more offensive spells). Perhaps an "Ablative Shield" cantrip that can be used as a reaction and functions similar to Parry.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
Stopped rolling for hit points in 2e after the campaign in which the fighter ended up with less hit points than the wizard due to a few crappy rules and as a result became unplayable in its original concept. Of course, rolling the dice a lot gets a result closer to the average, but 10 rolls still have a decent chance of differing a lot of from the average. For some time we did use roll hit points, if lower then average pick averager/rounded down, if above, keep it. This at least somewhat favored the classes with bigger HD. After some time we also stopped doing that, might as well keep it simple.

Note btw that keeping everything average is boring, especially in combat, but I find it a bit odd to equate average hit points/standard array with all rolls are averaged - there is a middle ground ;)
Perhaps the solution is to bring back the "you can't roll lower than your ConMod rule"....


Carl
I don't think the solution is to make the fixed hp less than the rolled hp.  The solution is to make them as identical as possible.  People who like fixed hp are not going to want hp decreased since they also tend to like alot of hp (especially at 1st level).

Fractions are not a good idea.  The method of odd and even hp can be too complicated for some people.

Here are some methods that would be equivalent:
For Cleric
1. 5 Fixed hp
2. 1d8, reroll 1's

These result in more hp:
3. 1d8, min. con mod.
4. 1d8, min. average rounded down (4 hp for cleric)
Alter the poll

I use rolled hit points and average hit points  Roll your hit die and compare it to the average then take whichever one is higher.  That + con mod equals your hit points for the level.



Ditto.
Perhaps the solution is to bring back the "you can't roll lower than your ConMod rule"....




I do like the 1st packet's (my favourite) deal of start with Con + 1 HD for 1st level, and roll HD (or take average), but not lower than your Con bonus, for levelling.
In 2nd edition, we always rolled for Stats and HPs.

In 3.X and 4, we always did point buy Stats and average HP

So far in D&D Next, we went back to old school, rolling Stats and HPs lol.
I do like the 1st packet's (my favourite) deal of start with Con + 1 HD for 1st level, and roll HD (or take average), but not lower than your Con bonus, for levelling.

The obvious flaw in that system is that CON essentially did nothing before 14, and was only mathematically significant when the bonus got up to around 75% of the HD size.
community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/...

I like games to be random when it comes to event based resolution and/or encounter based resources. When it comes to permanent resources I like fixed numbers. So, hit points and stats should used fixed predetermined systems of generation (as what you roll will permanently stick with that character for the game). But attacks, damage soaking on an event based model (such as parry), or damage dealt should be random. 



This. I've seen too many fighters roll poorly too often and it really hoses their character.
Sign In to post comments