|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 9:48PM
#11
|
|
|
HP rolling is one of the worst mechanics in old editions. Get rid of it for good finally!
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 9:54PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2008
|
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.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 10:02PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2004
|
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.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 10:08PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2008
|
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).
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 10:14PM
#15
|
|
|
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.
What I think the Wilder Design Goals should be. Psionic Homebrew Mk2! Changed core, Focus Points, Psionic Potentials, stuff! Very basic core stuff. :P Homebrew Psionics blog posts archive: Spoiler:
Show
UPDATED Dec/18/2012: BAMN! Random update with a modest amount of hard rules for Animal Affinity, Telepathy, and Telekinesis. ADDED: Discipline Burn and more "soft" ideas.
Dec/13/2012: Small Psionics Homebrew Update, now that I'm done with Finals.
Really old.
Nov/02/2012:
I'm working on a homebrew Wilder, and so a homebrew Psionics system. Here's a 3 part post with info on where I am in the design process.
Part 1, Hard rules/example soulknife discipline: Link.
Part 2, Basic ideas/goals on basic numbers and classes: Link.
Part 3, Direction/ideas I want to take with specific disciplines: Link.:3
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 10:25PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2001
|
Roll dem bones.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 10:34PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2004
|
VacantPsalm, that was my suggestion in the original post 
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 10:38PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2009
|
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?
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 10:38PM
#19
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 11, 2012 - 10:39PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2007
|
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.
Brave Knights of W.T.F. Gryphon Helm Winner.
Edition wars kill players, this will kill Dungeons and Dragons.
|
|
|
