Remove Random HP Rolls

[Hound]

I want to put forward a suggestion for removing random HP rolls, and just automatically setting all HP rolls to their maximum available value.

My primary argument for this is just because the existence of random HP rolls is incongruent with the rest of the character progression system. HP is, by and large, the main defensive asset of melee classes such as the Barbarian, Fighter and Paladin. On the surface, it seems pretty reasonable to include HP rolls - it makes every character have a unique value and maintains that characteristic RNG from dice rolling that D&D is known for - but dig a little deeper and it stops making sense when you compare HP as a defensive asset with the assets available to spellcasters.

A wizard, at 10 CON and no Toughness feat, has a maximum HP pool of 32 at level 8. His minimum HP pool is 22, accounting for the 3 max HP rolls from levels 1-3. This gives him a potential HP disparity of 10 points, which - while certainly worrisome in a high intensity fight with lots of healing flying around where those hit points could make the crucial difference between chugging a CSW and being subdued - is certainly not nearly as debilitating as the Barbarian's HP disparity. The Barbarian has a maximum health pool of 96 and a minimum of 66, making for a HP disparity of 30 - more than three times that which can affect a wizard. Whilst some might argue that losing 10 HP is not an enormous problem, anyone is going to blanch at the prospect of missing a whopping 30 HP from their pool, which is almost half the health of a minimum HP Barbarian at 8. It is clear, therefore, that high HP warrior classes are punished exponentially more than spellcasters with small HP pools by this system.

With this established, I want to point out what makes the system incongruous with the rest of character progression. Does a monk receive variable rolls on her saving throws, or her AC bonus, or the extra amount of damage potentially available for her fist weapons? These are the primary advantages that a monk possesses - a significant resilience to debilitating effects thanks to universally high saving throws - that is only differentiated from character to character by the level attained, the loot possessed and the scores selected at character creation. These are all values that are ultimately controlled by player agency, and the player's ability to gain strength and equip his character for combat.

Rogues do not receive variable amounts of skill points on level up - they receive a set value, based on their intellect, that is the same every time. Wizards and Sorcerers do not receive variable amounts of spell slots - they attain the same amount of spells, and no degree of randomness is involved in this; if I build a Wizard with the same stat scores as another Wizard and reach the same level as him, I am guaranteed to have an identical number of spells available to me - not accounting for loot. If I build a Barbarian, however, and follow an identical build to another Barbarian I have the potential of having almost a third less HP than his total, for reasons completely outside of my control. I fail to see why this should be the case, seeing as - much as the ability to cast a 4th level Stoneskin and Improved Invisibility a reliable, set number of times is the defensive asset of a Wizard - the defensive asset of a Barbarian should be a reliably large HP pool with which he can soak up damage thrown at him whilst he deals out his own.

EFU is a roleplaying server, and I get that there may be a general phobia/discomfort on wrangling with the minutiae of mechanics such as this in favour of realism, but EFU roleplay operates within the parameters of the D&D system. This system should be consistent with its own paradigms, and endeavour to maintain a degree of equality between the viability of different classes - if not between one another (Wizards are undeniably the most powerful class on EFU, and with good roleplaying reason) then between themselves at least. One warrior-class character should not be more powerful than another for reasons uncontrolled by player agency. Power should be determined by level attained, loot possessed, supply available and the player's mechanical proficiency - not by how much HP the system decides to spit out at you without taking into account any of your PC's characteristics or nuance.

And, yes, 30 HP isn't a huge amount either. Any player worth his salt can overcome a deficiency of HP through chugging that one extra healing potion than the other guy, but its the principle of incongruous disparity that I want to address more than the aggrieved unlucky Barbarian. It is - to use another luck-based analogy - the same as pitching a poker player against his opponent with less chips than his counterpart because a dice said so, even though the rest of the game revolves specifically around a hybrid of tactics and chance. There is no tactical decision-making in HP roll - other than killing yourself to retake the level.

Let's get rid of 'Barricade Madness'.

[Pandip]

What's the solution, though? I always thought the issue here was that max HP rolls weren't considered especially balanced. Can the maximum value of HP rolls be modified with haks? And if so, how would you compromise to modify it?

[Hound]

What's the solution, though? I always thought the issue here was that max HP rolls weren't considered especially balanced. Can the maximum value of HP rolls be modified with haks? And if so, how would you compromise to modify it?

Personally, I don't really see how a max HP Barbarian is overpowered in comparison to, say, a well-built wizard or even a bard/ftr. Barbarians are hardly the strongest of the melee classes, they just look intimidating because of their nominally high strength score and large HP pool. Since the nerf to their Charisma in relation to their rage, they're even less dangerous than before and I would argue that they need the health buff to remain competitive against other melee classes.

The fact remains that a wizard who knows what he is doing - or even a cleric, really - can undo a Barbarian in about 5 rounds flat regardless of how big their health pool is.

[Decimate_The_Weak]

A very good suggestion and one that I can't really formulate an argument against.

~

Wizard - 4 HP/level + CON modifier
Sorcerer - 4 HP/level + CON modifier
Bard - 6 HP/level + CON modifier
Rogue - 6 HP/level + CON modifier
Druid - 8 HP/level + CON modifier
Cleric - 8 HP/level + CON modifier
Monk - 8 HP/level + CON modifier
Ranger - 10 HP/level + CON modifier
Fighter - 10 HP/level + CON modifier
Paladin - 10 HP/level + CON modifier
Barbarian - 12 HP/level + CON modifier

~

I believe standardized/non-randomized HP rolls are a welcoming change because classes are already balanced by their hit-die values. I don't find random rolls to be desirable or a necessary representative of any facet of a character or concept.

[The Old Hack]

Even if maximum HP are somehow deemed overpowered, might it not be possible to make it yield a flat result each level? Such as 3 for d4, 5 for d6, 6 or 7 for d8, 8 or 9 for d10 and 10 or 11 for d12?

[TeufelHunden]

Everyone wants bad rolls to go away, but the DMs like to make us suffer so I doubt anything will change. This suggestion always turns into a circle jerk ending in "we have no intentions of changing the random rolls" and no one is happy.

[Gnomageddon]

I'm all for max rolls, nothing worse than a guy with 12 con who somehow with the luck of the rolls has more hp than some guy with 16 con (same class). Sadly it's been many years for EFU and I feel if this were to change it would have long ago.

[el groso]

Trust me, this won't change, just move on.

[TeufelHunden]

Praise the censorship overlords.

[JackOfBlades]

I'm all for this change. I've always found random HP rolls to just be frustrating.

[VanillaPudding]

I dislike this personally. If anything I'd say to maybe increase the minimum roll across the board by 1, bringing the low end up slightly. That would still leave room for a little random but reduce what I think is too low of a minimum.

[The Old Hack]

I dislike this personally. If anything I'd say to maybe increase the minimum roll across the board by 1, bringing the low end up slightly. That would still leave room for a little random but reduce what I think is too low of a minimum.

Hm. I can see the merit in this, too. It would take the edge off the really bad rolls without actually make PCs as a whole that much more powerful HP-wise.

 

[Hound]

I dislike this personally. If anything I'd say to maybe increase the minimum roll across the board by 1, bringing the low end up slightly. That would still leave room for a little random but reduce what I think is too low of a minimum.

Can you present a counter-argument based on what I have said in my first post? That's not a challenge, its a genuine question, so I can work out an answer to every point of opposition to the change.

[VanillaPudding]

No I cannot. Your argument is solid and completely logical, but I personally just enjoy the touch of "random" (even if I agree that it is too much) to what is otherwise, as you greatly defined, a static set of numbers.

[Talir]

Just to clear up the discussion so it does not go astray with alternative suggestions:

There is one setting when it comes to hit points gained on level up:

• Either NWN random, which is between half hit dice and max. Never below half hit dice.
• Or max hit points always.

Default is random and that is what we like here.