Hit Points and my Limited Brain

[makofan]

On page 17 it gives "Dice for Accumulated Hits"

For Fighters, it goes:
1+1
2
3
4
5+1
6
7+1
8+2
9+3
10+1

Now I assumed that you would roll a die and add 1 at first level. Then you would just roll another die at 2nd level. But that would make accumulated hits equal to 2D+1. Surely you wouldnt roll D-1 at 2nd level to make it come out to 2D even? So my ruling would be:

1st: roll d6+1
2nd: add d6
3rd: add d6
4th: add d6
5th: add d6+1
6th: add d6
7th: add d6+1
8th: add d6+2
9th: add d6+3
10th: add d6+1
for a total of 10d6+9 at 10th level.

Using this idea, at 8th level you would have accumulated +5. It seems reasonable

BUT...
On page 18 it says a Superhero (8th level) gets 8 dice +2. This ruling would then mean the following hit dice progression

1st: roll d6+1
2nd: add d6-1
3rd: add d6
4th: add d6
5th: add d6+1
6th: add d6-1
7th: add d6+1
8th: add d6+1
9th: add d6+1
10th: add d6-2
for a total of 10d6+1 at 10th level, or 8d6+2 at 8th level.

Am I just being weird?

[jrients]

My proposed solution is to reroll all hit dice at each level. Yes, that means your second level fighter could have fewer hitpoints than he did at first, but them's the breaks.

As an alternative, roll hit points at the start of each session. That would even out the average points per session, ensuring that most of the time a 2nd level fighter has more HP than a 1st.

[dwayanu]

I've seen both of jrients' approaches in use. A variation on the first is to keep the old score (or even add a pip) if the new one is not greater. As you have observed, the idea of simply adding another die's worth upon attaining a new level doesn't work so well in practice with the original progressions! Of course, one may think of that first if one is accustomed to the method introduced in Supplement I and used in later editions.

If you play past the levels for which hit dice are given (Lord 13, Wizard 18, Patriarch 13), there appears (at least to my eye) no definite pattern for further development. One might then plug in the addition of +2/level for F, +1 for MU, +1/2 for C.

Supplement I gives Fighters more HP and Magic-Users fewer. The desireability of that may depend on what else from the supplement is added, or on your own experience with the original setup.

[coffee]

The way Gary Gygax has been doing it lately is that Fighting-Men get a straight 1d6+1 at each level (and +1 if their Con is 15+). I think it makes more sense that way.

The final decision in your game is of course up to you.

[korgoth]

In Empire of the Petal Throne, you reroll hit dice upon when reaching a new level. The old score is retained if the new result is lower than the old one (i.e. you never lose hp).

I assume that since EPT was released not long after OD&D, that this was the method intended for OD&D as well.

[foster1941]

The Hit Dice charts in vol. I are broken (or at least insufficiently explained -- which suggests they may have been a direct carryover from Arneson's original Blackmoor rules). Make whatever sense of them you can; there's no single right or wrong answer.

[tgamemaster1975]

makofan said:

Now I assumed that you would roll a die and add 1 at first level. Then you would just roll another die at 2nd level. But that would make accumulated hits equal to 2D+1. Surely you wouldn't roll D-1 at 2nd level to make it come out to 2D even? So my ruling would be:

1st: roll d6+1
2nd: add d6
3rd: add d6
4th: add d6
5th: add d6+1
6th: add d6
7th: add d6+1
8th: add d6+2
9th: add d6+3
10th: add d6+1
for a total of 10d6+9 at 10th level.

Using this idea, at 8th level you would have accumulated +5. It seems reasonable.

Am I just being weird?

In practice, we do it the way you have outlined where 8th level would be an accumulated +5. We just ignore the fact that is not consistent with other text in the book, ie we just house rule it this way. And no you are not being weird, giving up OD&D now that would be weird.

[philotomy]

korgoth said:

In Empire of the Petal Throne, you reroll hit dice upon when reaching a new level. The old score is retained if the new result is lower than the old one (i.e. you never lose hp).

This approach appeals to me.

[Deleted]

I second that. I like that, korgoth.

[jdrakeh]

foster1941 said:

The Hit Dice charts in vol. I are broken (or at least insufficiently explained -- which suggests they may have been a direct carryover from Arneson's original Blackmoor rules). Make whatever sense of them you can; there's no single right or wrong answer.

Yeah, I had just always assumed that at level one you would roll 1d6 +1 and then, at level two, roll two more dice and add them to the existing total, ad infinitum. Why?

A Hero in Chainmail is worth four figures (later retconned to mean four men -- but originally four figures). A figure is typically representative of a ten man unit in Chainmail.

The hit dice tables of Book 1 seem to cleave very closely to that vision of the Ubermensch Hero, as well as the divide between said heroes and normal men present on the Man to Man combat tables (and the fact that normal men had no entry on the Fantasy combat table).

And, in fairness, this 'one man worth forty' approach is much more in line with a great deal of D&D's cited inspiration material than the 'all men are equal' or the 'one man worth four' approach. I mean, look at most of the heroes in said source material.

These folks were movers and shakers, legends in their own time -- not merely "skilled" or "slightly better" than the average man.

[Finarvyn]

korgoth said:

In Empire of the Petal Throne, you reroll hit dice upon when reaching a new level. The old score is retained if the new result is lower than the old one (i.e. you never lose hp).

I assume that since EPT was released not long after OD&D, that this was the method intended for OD&D as well.

This notion has been supported on several occasions when I have chatted with some of the old-timers in the early days of the Greyhawk and Blackmoor campaigns, although we never did it that way in our group.

[mauricio]

makofan said:

Surely you wouldnt roll D-1 at 2nd level to make it come out to 2D even?

Why not? I can see there might be a problem at the higher levels where you may have to roll d-2 and get weaker, but what's the problem with d-1?

[makofan]

It just seemed cumbersome

[Finarvyn]

Well, if you pre-suppose that a character never gets weaker as they advance, it would be easy enough to assume that any number of zero or negative would instead represent a roll of one. (Heck, if you think that HP are too cheap then assume that any number of zero or negative would instead represent a roll of zero.)

This would mean a couple things:
1. Characters never lose HP due to advancement.
2. Characters can gain a minimum of one HP per level. (Or zero, if you like.)
3. At certain levels, rather than a standard percentage of rolling each number, the D-2 would simply mean that there was a greater chance of rolling the minimum. It certainly would slow down HP growth.

Not too tricky, in my opinion, once you decide which option to go with.

[James Maliszewski]

admin said:

This notion has been supported on several occasions when I have chatted with some of the old-timers in the early days of the Greyhawk and Blackmoor campaigns, although we never did it that way in our group.

Take this as you will, but I recently asked Gygax about this very question and his reply was that the EPT-derived interpretation was incorrect. In his games (and, he claimed, the games of everyone he knew), hit dice were simply additive and there was no re-rolling at each level. You simply rolled an additional hit die at each level and added its result plus Constitution bonuses, if any, to your previous hit point total.

[foster1941]

jamesm said:

Take this as you will, but I recently asked Gygax about this very question and his reply was that the EPT-derived interpretation was incorrect. In his games (and, he claimed, the games of everyone he knew), hit dice were simply additive and there was no re-rolling at each level. You simply rolled an additional hit die at each level and added its result plus Constitution bonuses, if any, to your previous hit point total.

That's the same answer he gave when I asked him about this a couple years ago.

[korgoth]

jamesm said:

admin said:

This notion has been supported on several occasions when I have chatted with some of the old-timers in the early days of the Greyhawk and Blackmoor campaigns, although we never did it that way in our group.

Take this as you will, but I recently asked Gygax about this very question and his reply was that the EPT-derived interpretation was incorrect. In his games (and, he claimed, the games of everyone he knew), hit dice were simply additive and there was no re-rolling at each level. You simply rolled an additional hit die at each level and added its result plus Constitution bonuses, if any, to your previous hit point total.

I saw the post on EN World that I assume you're talking about. I agree that may be what he meant... but I thought his answer was somewhat confusing. He said to the effect of "what is rolled upon gaining a level remains ever thus"... I found some ambiguity in that.

Did he understand your question (which was phrased pretty well), or did he think you were asking about rerolls in some other sense (like allowing players to reroll their hit points because they were too low, etc.)?

You may be right... while I think my interpretation (the EPT interpretation) is the only one that actually makes sense, that doesn't mean that it's correct. On the other hand, from the ambiguity in his answer I wondered if perhaps Gary was confused. I really don't know.

[James Maliszewski]

korgoth said:

I wondered if perhaps Gary was confused. I really don't know.

Nor do I with 100% certainty. The EPT-style interpretation is one I have encountered elsewhere, so it was not an unknown interpretation and the fact that Phil Barker used it in his own OD&D-derived RPG suggests to me that there is textual support for it, even if it's not what Gygax meant. On the other hand, it was over 30 years ago and I'm sure Gary's brain -- like my own -- is so cluttered with AD&D-derived notions that it might make it hard to see the original as clearly now.

FWIW, I am actually quite intrigued by the re-rolling of hit dice at each level gain. I think it's actually a very interesting mechanic and one that serves as a nice counter to many of the frequent complaints about hit points and what they represent.

[foster1941]

FWIW, here's Gary's response to my question on the same topic from back in January 2005.

[korgoth]

foster1941 said:

FWIW, here's Gary's response to my question on the same topic from back in January 2005.

Thanks for that.

What a peculiar method! It make mah brain hert.

[philotomy]

I like the EPT approach, no matter what EGG says.

I like the "averaging effect" over levels. For example, the PC isn't chained to low HP rolls; he's not still carrying that 1 he rolled for 2nd level when he's 8th level. On the opposite end, he doesn't lose his high rolls, but if he has a bunch of high rolls, he's less likely to increase hit points when he rolls again. It's an averaging effect that is slightly skewed in favor of the PC.

I also like the way it affects level loss from undead (or other sources). Lose a level? Roll your hit points, again. Gain the level back? Roll your hit points, again. Anyway, this eliminates any need for special house rules on how to handle the hit point loss, or for recording every hit point roll for every level, in case of level loss. It's not a huge deal, but it just feels simpler and cleaner, to me.

[coffee]

I've always recorded my hit die rolls, just in case of level loss. It's a holdover from AD&D, where such a thing was likely, and I wanted to not get shorted on any good hit die rolls I might have made. (Of course, I took the crummy rolls, too.)

But the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a total re-roll at each level.

[James Maliszewski]

philotomy said:

I like the EPT approach, no matter what EGG says.

But of course!

Truthfully, what I am finding most liberating about OD&D -- thanks in no small part to your gentle tutelage, Philotomy -- is precisely this: there is no right interpretation. There are, naturally, widely accepted interpretations, many of which enjoy a de facto "canonical" status and indeed may work optimally under most conditions, but they are still interpretations. That's the crux of it for me.

I've often been known to remark that older RPGs, D&D foremost among them were literary creations primarily, in the sense that they were inspired by the books read by their creators. I know, as a young man, the bibliographies at the back D&D books turned me to authors I'd never heard of, let alone read. Over the years, I've become more and more convinced that D&D -- and perhaps gaming in general -- lost its "soul" when books ceased to be the primary source of its inspirations. Nowadays, D&D seems more inspired by visual media (or, self-referentially, itself) than by books. That makes a difference.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this "literary" quality carries over the D&D rules, where there is often "scholarly" disagreement between competing schools over how to interpret this rule or that. Sure, "authorities" may weigh in at various times and, as I noted, certain interpretations may hold greater sway, but they remain interpretations -- interactions with a living text rather than reading instructions in a technical manual on how to assemble an automobile engine. I'm reminded of high school English classes of long ago, arguing about the motivations of Shakespearean characters who tell us nothing directly but imply much through their actions, leading to many possible ways to read these plays.

That's old school gaming to me. (I hope that made sense)

[dwayanu]

I also like the averaging effect of the EPT approach. On the other hand, I found delightfully "in the spirit" the suggestion by someone ("oldschooler"?) on another board that a lower roll for a new level might reflect old injuries that didn't heal quite right.

"There's that 'orc elbow' again, telling me rain's a-coming; reminds me of the Iron Crown affair -- ever tell ya 'bout that?"

[ffilz]

One thought I would have on the re-roll hit points at each new level is that hit points MUST go up. Conversely, with such a rule, I would rule that if you are level drained, you re-roll hit points and they MUST go down. Probably I would just say that if the roll wasn't larger (or smaller for level loss), you add (subtract) one hit point, but it might be interesting to keep re-rolling until you actually come up with a higher total.

I'm not sure how I feel about the averaging effect. Keeping re-rolling until the new total is higher would counter some of the averaging effect.

I've also heard of the option where you re-roll hit points for each adventure. In that case of course hit points would go up and down from adventure to adventure. A neat advantage of that is that hit points would totally not need to be on the character sheet, you would just put them on a piece of scratch paper (perhaps you could have a "session" sheet, which the player fills in with his hit points for that session, and his current to hit charts for his weapons - that would save a lot of erasing and re-writing on the character sheet).

Frank

[philotomy]

ffilz said:

One thought I would have on the re-roll hit points at each new level is that hit points MUST go up.

In the EPT approach, when you go up a level, your new HP total may not go down (i.e. if your new roll is equal to or less than your current total, you keep your current total).

Conversely, with such a rule, I would rule that if you are level drained, you re-roll hit points and they MUST go down.

That would make sense. I'd rule that if you lose a level, your new roll may not go up (i.e. if your new roll is greater than or equal to your current total, you keep your current total).

[coffee]

jamesm said:

I've often been known to remark that older RPGs, D&D foremost among them were literary creations primarily, in the sense that they were inspired by the books read by their creators. I know, as a young man, the bibliographies at the back D&D books turned me to authors I'd never heard of, let alone read. Over the years, I've become more and more convinced that D&D -- and perhaps gaming in general -- lost its "soul" when books ceased to be the primary source of its inspirations. Nowadays, D&D seems more inspired by visual media (or, self-referentially, itself) than by books. That makes a difference.

I agree with this so totally it's scary.

I remember discussing this with some of the old gang, back in the day. I explained my theory, that wargames were simulations of battles (or wars, depending) and that RPGs were simulations of stories.

(Of course, that sort of thing led to railroad plots where the DM made his story happen despite the PCs, but that's another argument.)

[crimhthanthegreat]

jamesm said:

philotomy said:

I like the EPT approach, no matter what EGG says.

But of course!

Truthfully, what I am finding most liberating about OD&D -- thanks in no small part to your gentle tutelage, Philotomy -- is precisely this: there is no right interpretation. There are, naturally, widely accepted interpretations, many of which enjoy a de facto "canonical" status and indeed may work optimally under most conditions, but they are still interpretations. That's the crux of it for me.

I've often been known to remark that older RPGs, D&D foremost among them were literary creations primarily, in the sense that they were inspired by the books read by their creators. I know, as a young man, the bibliographies at the back D&D books turned me to authors I'd never heard of, let alone read. Over the years, I've become more and more convinced that D&D -- and perhaps gaming in general -- lost its "soul" when books ceased to be the primary source of its inspirations. Nowadays, D&D seems more inspired by visual media (or, self-referentially, itself) than by books. That makes a difference.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this "literary" quality carries over the D&D rules, where there is often "scholarly" disagreement between competing schools over how to interpret this rule or that. Sure, "authorities" may weigh in at various times and, as I noted, certain interpretations may hold greater sway, but they remain interpretations -- interactions with a living text rather than reading instructions in a technical manual on how to assemble an automobile engine. I'm reminded of high school English classes of long ago, arguing about the motivations of Shakespearean characters who tell us nothing directly but imply much through their actions, leading to many possible ways to read these plays.

That's old school gaming to me. (I hope that made sense)

It makes sense to me. I agree and have an Exalt!