|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 29, 2013 13:01:14 GMT -6
Why do we randomize player hitpoints? I don't understand why this is considered better than a set level of HP per class per level. I fully understand why combat should be randomized. I support the chaos and uncertainty of combat, but why double the randomness by having player hit points also be randomized?
It seems to me that many house-rules have been created to address hitpoints, usually some kind of "re-roll if too low" rule. Why randomize something if one is not really OK with all the possible results?
It seems to me that a set number of hit points would be better able to accomplish class balance. Instead of fighters having, say, a 60% chance of having better HP than a cleric, you could make it so that fighters always have better HP than clerics, given the same level of experience.
I know I've seen rants on this and other boards where a player has achieved level 5 or so, and consistently rolled poorly on HP every single level. At the outset of a player's career, everybody of a given class has equal chances to have such and such level of hitpoints at level 10, but by the time you've rolled low one or two times, your chances of having equal HP to another player's go way down.
Some people address some of this by having a "reroll HP at every level" policy, which seems to fit well with the weird way HP are accumulated in OD&D. I understand this is the Empire of the Petal Throne approach, popular in OD&D circles. All this does is have the effect of causing people to zero in on the average value of their hit dice. If that is the goal, why not just do it in the first place by giving a set number of HP's per level?
Discuss!
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Aug 29, 2013 13:22:14 GMT -6
I always allow it when a player asks me, "Hey, can I just have average hp for my character instead of rolling for them?" Of course, this request has to be made before hp are rolled. I often give monsters the average rather than rolling for hp. I am also partial to Dave Hargrave's hp method. Scroll down to the 4th post here: odd74.proboards.com/thread/7928/arduin-alternative-hit-point-systemYou'll notice that there is very little randomness in Hargrave's approach. Only the indirect randomness of one's constitution score affects a character's hp total.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Aug 29, 2013 13:22:55 GMT -6
I think rolling for HPs adds to the fun of the game, since they are rolls done with lots of tension, because of their long term effects. They are a pretty dramatic moment, that's very enjoyable. I also think it adds to the variety of challanges players can face (ok, I rolled low, so I will have to play a more archery stay-in-the-back type of character).
Without rolling, an aspect of the game is lost in the name of "balance", which I think is overrated when related to fun.
Anyway, I apply the OEPT rule where you get to re-roll all HD each level, adding 1 if you roll below your current total. That way player's can catch up from bad rolls, and it keeps them desperate and earger to level!! Player's never get the feeling that their character is "screwd" forever due to low rolls, and they keep the hope that in the future the problem can be fixed.
No rolls give you a sameness and uniformity I find unappealling.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on Aug 29, 2013 13:27:38 GMT -6
The idea does not immediately appeal to me, although I'll admit that this is purely based on personal preference. Game wise I see no reason why it wouldn't work, and would probably be unnoticeable after the first few levels.
This does raise some questions, however. First, what would the set hit points be? Max per level, average per level, max at 1st and average thereafter, or something else entirely? Second, would monsters have random hit points or would they too have set hit points? And if hit points are set should damage be random, or perhaps only less random? For example, should a fireball do 1d6 + 3/caster level instead of 1d6/caster level? What about healing spells?
I don't know. It seems like an awful lot to think about and play test just to end up with something that won't usually be noticeably different after the first few levels . . .
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Aug 29, 2013 14:03:32 GMT -6
The point is that one character isn't the same as the next. You get characters who are lucky and have high HP or ones who are unlucky and have low HP. It does tend to gravitate towards the average after a few levels, but it makes the early game have a bit of variety. OD&D characters are already fairly similar mechanically, why make them even moreso?
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Aug 29, 2013 14:58:48 GMT -6
What about not rolling HP at all? Character (and monsters) would only have Hit Dice. When a hit is scored the attacker rolls a damage dice, the défendant rolls a hit dice. If damage > hit points, the défendant loses one Hit Dice.
(I realize this works better with an "all D6" Policy; and would need adjustments with multiple dice attacks like a fire ball)
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 29, 2013 15:42:16 GMT -6
Cool, Geoffrey! Thanks for sharing that bit from the Arduin stuff.
To address some of the general comments so far: 1) I am NOT advocating getting rid of the randomness of combat; I made it explicit that I like combat to be random. A hit can be lucky and do some serious damage, or maybe it just scraped you a bit. That makes good sense to me. Combat in my game can be highly variable, as I am happy to let certain fearsome monsters do multiple dice worth of damage, or d10, d12, d20, etc, depending on the monster in question.
2) In my two class game, the idea is fighters start with 5hp, and gain 4 every subsequent level. Wizards start with 3, and gain 2 every level. They will thus have 1/2 fighter HP +1. My present game will have no bonuses due to constitution; superior constitution may be represented by higher levels.
3) Addressing Mechanical Sameness: I think game design has two competing strands (relevant to this discussion); one wants to mechanically represent as much as possible, and one wants to mechanically represent the least amount necessary to have a working game. I've talked with some game buddies that aren't happy without a big skill system (like 3e) because they want to "know what a character is good at." They want it to mean something, in actual numbers, that one character is better with a bow than another.
At this stage in gaming, I'm on the other side of that fence. I think a lighter game allows people to "imagine the hell out of" stuff. If players need to see different HP's on the various character sheets in order to feel that one character is different than another, then my game is not right for them. They should be using their imagination to imbue their characters with unique qualities. While mechanically identical, one player may be playing an acrobatic thief type, relying on finesse and cunning to do battle with foes, and the other may be playing a brute, relying on raw strength and force to smash enemies. The numbers (HP, to hit, AC) don't tell you in precise terms what is happening; you use your imagination. That's what we, as referees, do all the time with our monsters and NPC's. We don't need a set of numbers to tell us how one orc differs from another. We use our imagination to work that stuff out. A light and abstract game gives you the freedom to unleash the imagination, and simultaneously solves lots of balance issues and weird mechanics.
Note: I'm not telling anyone how they should play, merely stating my own priorities at the moment. I have enjoyed all the comments thus far. Please continue.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 29, 2013 15:43:36 GMT -6
Cool post Porphyre. I think RedBaron has a system somewhat like that, based on chainmail. Maybe he can elaborate.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Aug 29, 2013 15:55:19 GMT -6
Paradoxically, another way to avoid the problems of random hp (such as a 5th-level fighter with 7 hp) is to increase the randomization. Carcosa includes dice conventions that have characters re-roll their hp at the beginning of every combat. If that's too much, the PCs could re-roll hp at the beginning of each game session. Since hp are abstract in OD&D, this varying number of hp represents "good days", "bad days", and "average days". Thus, if our 5th-level fighter on Sept. 15th rolled a wretched 7 hp, he can consider that part of the fun of the game, knowing that he gets to re-roll his hp next week on Sept. 22nd, and on every week after that.
A 5th-level fighter with 7 hp is a lot of fun in this set-up. ("Hey, guys, I'm really out of the zone today. Let's run away!") But that same fighter with 7 hp until he turns 6th level (at which point he might roll another 1 and have 8 hp) can be very disappointing. ("Our 3rd-level magic-user has more hp than me!")
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on Aug 29, 2013 17:10:28 GMT -6
What about monster hit points?
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Aug 29, 2013 18:11:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 29, 2013 18:58:17 GMT -6
I like how you do that Zulgyan; I remember reading that thread some time ago and appreciating it then, too.
I don't care if the monster HP is random or just based on an average. I'd probably just do an average, since that is fast to compute anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Aug 29, 2013 19:07:36 GMT -6
At this stage in gaming, I'm on the other side of that fence. I think a lighter game allows people to "imagine the hell out of" stuff. If players need to see different HP's on the various character sheets in order to feel that one character is different than another, then my game is not right for them. They should be using their imagination to imbue their characters with unique qualities. While mechanically identical, one player may be playing an acrobatic thief type, relying on finesse and cunning to do battle with foes, and the other may be playing a brute, relying on raw strength and force to smash enemies. The numbers (HP, to hit, AC) don't tell you in precise terms what is happening; you use your imagination. That's what we, as referees, do all the time with our monsters and NPC's. We don't need a set of numbers to tell us how one orc differs from another. We use our imagination to work that stuff out. A light and abstract game gives you the freedom to unleash the imagination, and simultaneously solves lots of balance issues and weird mechanics. +1 I've tried to word this properly several times and haven't managed to phrase it quite as concisely, persuasively, and eloquently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2013 19:23:00 GMT -6
Different people like different things.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Aug 29, 2013 19:46:45 GMT -6
I think RedBaron has a system somewhat like that @lord Cias said:What about monster hit points? If you really want something simple and fast to compute than don't even mess with averages: A monster with 1 hit die has 1 hit; when its hit, it dies. A monster with 7 HD has seven hit points; it can take seven hits before it is slain. If you want some variability among your creatures, just slap on an extra hit die or two for a couple of them. This keeps the random aspect of combat intact, but makes it a hell of a lot easier to run, by taking out the unnecessary math and hit point rolls that bog it down. With only a few monstrosities its even possible to keep track of how many hits a baddy has left in your head. Brief (but brutal) skirmishes let the heroes can get on with their ventures, and makes combat something to be avoided because its lethal, not because it will consume the rest of the session. I'm still in favor of random damage when the heroes are hit though. It keeps players on their toes, gives them something to worry about and something to keep track of, and gives an impression that you're keeping track of monster hit points in a similar way (fools!).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2013 21:33:23 GMT -6
"Can I just say this is the first time I've ever been on television?" *smiles and waves*
Just stopping in for a moment in between job hunting searches.
The problem I find with the 1HD = 1 hit method is that it means a single hit at 1st level and you're out. Period. Granted, by the law of averages, that could be the result, but it might also be up to 6 hits for those with 6 HPs at 1st level. I had a character in an AD&D game about 10 years ago with 18 hit points at 5th/5th levels (half-elf C/MU). During one adventure, he had been struck so many times for 1 or 2 points of damage that I lost count, but he continued on. He could have just as easily been struck three times or less and been taken out.
But that brings up point two: the idea of re-rolling every adventure to represent a 'good day' or 'bad day' or whatever. Since hit points are random, and damage is as well, would not the example given above been considered a 'good day' for the character?
Prego! It's already in there! :-)
|
|
|
Post by llenlleawg on Aug 29, 2013 23:16:32 GMT -6
What about not rolling HP at all? Character (and monsters) would only have Hit Dice. When a hit is scored the attacker rolls a damage dice, the défendant rolls a hit dice. If damage > hit points, the défendant loses one Hit Dice. (I realize this works better with an "all D6" Policy; and would need adjustments with multiple dice attacks like a fire ball)I rather like this approach. What would you do with the "extra" points (e.g. the +1 of 5+1 of a Swashbuckler)? Always apply to the final die? Allow to be used whenever you like, but if you "lose" then you lose the extra point(s)?
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Aug 30, 2013 3:39:35 GMT -6
I've been playing in a Pathfinder game where PCs get maximum hit points at 1st level and average* hit point increases thereafter for a year now, and I like it. I used to get terribly anxious before rolling when a character gained a level. Anyway, it averages out in the end so it makes very little difference in most cases.
* Actually high average, i.e. 1d6=4, 1d8=5, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Aug 30, 2013 5:55:44 GMT -6
The problem I find with the 1HD = 1 hit method is that it means a single hit at 1st level and you're out. Period. Granted, by the law of averages, that could be the result, but it might also be up to 6 hits for those with 6 HPs at 1st level. Sorry. I meant to imply I do this for monsters. I still have players roll each adventure in the exact method you describe.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 30, 2013 6:04:54 GMT -6
What about not rolling HP at all? Character (and monsters) would only have Hit Dice. When a hit is scored the attacker rolls a damage dice, the défendant rolls a hit dice. If damage > hit points, the défendant loses one Hit Dice. (I realize this works better with an "all D6" Policy; and would need adjustments with multiple dice attacks like a fire ball)That's what Chainmail did, pre-OD&D.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Aug 30, 2013 8:39:43 GMT -6
What about not rolling HP at all? Character (and monsters) would only have Hit Dice. When a hit is scored the attacker rolls a damage dice, the défendant rolls a hit dice. If damage > hit points, the défendant loses one Hit Dice. (I realize this works better with an "all D6" Policy; and would need adjustments with multiple dice attacks like a fire ball)I rather like this approach. What would you do with the "extra" points (e.g. the +1 of 5+1 of a Swashbuckler)? Always apply to the final die? Allow to be used whenever you like, but if you "lose" then you lose the extra point(s)? For the sake of simplicity, I would "keep" the +1 until the end ( i.e. 5+1 HD; 4+1 HD, ..., 1+1 HD; 0+1 HP) the last strike putting the défendant to 0 HP automatically, no roll.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Aug 30, 2013 8:47:05 GMT -6
What about not rolling HP at all? Character (and monsters) would only have Hit Dice. When a hit is scored the attacker rolls a damage dice, the défendant rolls a hit dice. If damage > hit points, the défendant loses one Hit Dice. (I realize this works better with an "all D6" Policy; and would need adjustments with multiple dice attacks like a fire ball)That's what Chainmail did, pre-OD&D. With CHAINMAIL, a hit meant that the défendant loses 1 HD (or dies). That's what redbaron advocates for monsters. With this system , he might keep it . In other terms, the defendant's Hit Dice is some kind of "save versus damage", and this seems compatible with the D&D approach of Hit Dice (not just physical stamina, but also combat experience and luck).
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Aug 30, 2013 9:00:18 GMT -6
What about monster hit points? I think that it is better for monster's HP to be randomised: first , that keeps the players on their toes: the 6+1 HD troll could have 7 or 37 hp instead of "heck! another troll, we need another 22 damage to overcome him". Secondly, when you meet a wandering monster, it doesn't "pop" out of thin air. Maybe he just awoke from his bed, fresh and well-rested, but maybe he just had a bad fight with the two ogres in the adjacent room. I realize that the "roll HD to avoid damage" system takes out this impredictability. You're going to need at least seven hits to get rid of that troll. With the "classic" method, you might kill a troll in two hits, or seven hits. You never know...
|
|
|
Post by llenlleawg on Aug 30, 2013 9:48:30 GMT -6
(I realize this works better with an "all D6" Policy; and would need adjustments with multiple dice attacks like a fire ball.) I think it could work with the variable dice system of Greyhawk (i.e. d4, d6, d8, etc.) and variable weapon damage, making some monsters and weapons that much more dangerous, and MUs that much more vulnerable (rolling, say, a d4 to counter a d8 attack). The main kink to work out would be at higher levels (i.e. at the +1 or +2 hit points per level). For multiple dice attacks (e.g. fire ball), I would suggest a system like the game Risk. Say someone is hit by a 6d6 fire ball and fails his save. The opponent rolls the six dice for the fire ball, but does not total them. The defender must roll 6 dice as well. If he cannot, he rolls all that he has. Then the dice are compared in descending order. For example, say the fire ball gets 4, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1 and the spectre (6 HD) gets 5, 5, 5, 2, 2, 1. The spectre would lose two hit dice since 5>4, 5>4, 5>3, 2=2, 2>1, 1=1. If the fire ball had been thrown at, say, a medusa (4 HD), and she rolled 5, 5, 4, 3, she would not take any damage. It might seem a little fiddly, but I don't think too much (and no worse, really, than the more-or-less same mechanic in Risk, except that here I am presuming that a "tie" goes to the attacker and not to the defender). (Of course, if you are keeping it simple and stating that any hit on a monster, as opposed to a PC, means a hit, then any monster who fails a save vs. a 6-die fire ball would take 6 hits, and any that makes its save would take 3 hits. Easy and done.)
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Aug 30, 2013 10:16:08 GMT -6
That's what Chainmail did, pre-OD&D. With CHAINMAIL, a hit meant that the défendant loses 1 HD (or dies). Not exactly. A (normal, not fantastic) hit means a kill, unless the figure can take multiple hits. Some figures require cumulative hits to kill (e.g., Ogres); some require simultaneous hits to kill (e.g., Heroes). Lycanthropes are killed with one hit with magical weapons or four simultaneous hits with normal weapons. Some figures can only be killed in fantastic combat (e.g., Trolls), and all attacks on the Fantasy Combat Table are one-hit kills. Single Normal Hit to Kill Hobbits, Sprites, Pixies, Dwarves, Gnomes, Goblins, Kobolds, Elves, Fairies, Orcs, Wights (melee only), Ghouls (melee only), Zombies (melee only), Giant Wolves Cumulative Normal Hits to KillOgres (6), Rocs (4?) Simultaneous Normal Hits to KillHeroes (4*), Superheroes (8*), Wizards (2?, melee only), Lycanthropes (4), Giants (12), Basilisk (4) Immune to Normal HitsWizards (missiles only), Wraiths, Trolls, Ents, Dragons, Elementals * Heroes and Superheroes that are part of a unit cannot be targeted by normal attacks until the rest of the unit is killed. Rocs "require cumulative hits equal to a number sufficient to kill Heavy Horse to be killed themselves." I suspect this is missing the word four before Heavy Horse, since Rocs defend as four Heavy Horse. It's unspecified how many normal (melee) hits are required to kill a Wizard; I guess that since they defend as two figures it takes two hits to kill them.
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Aug 30, 2013 11:29:53 GMT -6
I'm not too bothered by random hit points. We play that at 1st level you get maximum hit points plus con bonus. This way, your character can take at least 1 punch before becoming croaked.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 30, 2013 11:47:08 GMT -6
I'd like to ask again the first question of the OP: WHY do we randomize hitpoints? What is the purpose of doing so? I realize this is fun for a lot of people, but I'd like to probe into why (with no negative judgment from me, just curiosity).
The question could be asked of me in reverse: Why NOT randomize hitpoints? My answer would be that you can more consistently guage power levels and more consistently reward players for achieving higher levels. You can also better balance each class against each other, so that you are less likely to have a puny warrior type next to a very tough wizard, given the same level of experience. This also has the effect of emphasizing power levels, since a level 2 character of a given class will definitely be superior to a character that is level 1. You also completely eliminate the disappointing experience of rolling consistently low for hit dice (I realize there are other ways of mitigating this problem, but this is the most direct and sure-fire way of doing so).
The main argument I've seen for random HP (aside from finding the randomness amusing) is that it gives one more way to differentiate PC's. Two fighters of the same level won't have the same HP, and that makes them feel "different." Again, I reject this approach because character's shouldn't be thinking of each other in terms of HP, but in terms of barbarians and thieves and diabolical sorcerers and the like. The numbers should be working "under the hood" so that the game can proceed smoothly.
By the way, interesting discussion of chainmail's system.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Aug 30, 2013 12:23:58 GMT -6
WHY do we randomize hitpoints? Because some specimens are greater or lesser without changing their overall statistics. D&D is Chainmail "zoomed in": each "hit" becomes one die, to be dealt or taken. A character with 1 hit point has a 100% chance of dying from a hit. A character with 2 hit points has an 83% chance of dying from a hit. A character with 3 hit points has a 67% chance of dying from a hit. A character with 4 hit points has a 50% chance of dying from a hit. A character with 5 hit points has a 33% chance of dying from a hit. A character with 6 hit points has a 17% chance of dying from a hit. If this were Chainmail-as- D&D, the above list would be reduced to: A character has a 100% chance of dying from a hit. The resolution of the game is greater, leading to uncertainty and manageable risk. It's basically a kind of saving throw. Essential? No, but more satisfying than just "Hit! You're dead." The whole point of hit points is to let you know when to quit. There's only so much game abstraction you can do before you lose touch with your characters. The game proceeds smoothly because "I have ten hit points left" is quick and easy to manage.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on Aug 30, 2013 13:45:47 GMT -6
I'd like to ask again the first question of the OP: WHY do we randomize hitpoints? What is the purpose of doing so? I realize this is fun for a lot of people, but I'd like to probe into why (with no negative judgment from me, just curiosity). Honestly, for me, the main reason is simply because I prefer a bit of randomness to the PCs. However, aside from that there are a few subtleties in the way the game plays with random hit points (and other random factors) vs. a game with non-random hit points. 1) In a game where the character's ability scores and starting equipment (amount of gold) are determined randomly, randomly determining hit points actually acts as an averaging agent. In other words, if you want most characters to be "created equal" then there are two ways to do this 1) have NO random elements (and thus all are truly equal), or 2) have a LOT of random elements (so that the law of averages ensures that each will have a fairly equal number of pros and cons). I came across this just a few days ago while rolling up a list of a few dozen pre-generated PCs. At first I rolled a very large number of characters, then went through and decided what class fit each set the best, then I'd go ahead and roll starting gold and hp as well. After this I would scratch out the obviously inferior characters (the ones the law of averages seemed to have skipped). Had I not rolled gp and hp as well then I would have scratched out a much larger number of inferior characters than I did because I found that some characters with ability scores just barely above average would have a large amount of gold or near max hp while some of the characters that had very high ability scores started with lower gold and hp totals. 2) Random PC hit points makes the game "fair" vs. monsters. Now I'm not one that believes that PCs and monsters should have to follow the exact same rules for everything all the time, I'm a big believer that the DM can and should create monsters and NPCs that "break the rules" that PCs have to follow. However, as it currently stands now, when it comes to the very basic and most fundamental aspects of combat, monsters and PCs all play by the same rules. Both PCs and monsters follow the same rules for initiative, the same rules for what types of actions can be taken during a round, each have to make the same type of attack roll to hit an opponent, AC works the same for both PCs and monsters, saving throws are the same, both roll random damage on a hit, and both have a random number of hit points within the range determined by their hit dice. Yes, a few individual monsters do not follow all of these normal combat rules, but if one makes PC hit points fixed while monster hp remains random then you've changed the rules not just for a few special cases but for each and every monster encounter. Alternatively you could give monsters fixed hp too, but that just creates an atmosphere of predictability like porphyre77 illustrated above with his 22 hp troll. 3) It helps with the differentiation of PCs. I totally agree with you that players should focus on using choices, actions, and role-playing to make their PCs different from others, but I'm of the mind that the random elements of character creation act to aid the player in this respect. The way I choose to role-play a fighter with scores of: str 13, int 9, wis 7, dex 12, con 16, chr 14 is going to be different from the way I choose to play a fighter with scores of: str 14, int 11, wis 15, dex 14, con 6, chr 8. Likewise, a player that starts with just 1 or 2 hp is probably going to play his character a bit differently than if the character had 8 hp. Also note that differentiation of PCs doesn't just apply to the PCs of different players, but also to the different PCs of one player. I'd find it boring if every time I played a fighter my PC started off the exact same as all the ones before it. 4) Sometimes its fun to play a game that forces you to play the hand your dealt rather than allowing you to choose the hand your dealt. Some people who don't play poker might be inclined to assume that the game is nothing but pure chance. But the strategy in poker isn't in selecting your cards, it's in how you play your hand. Do you call, raise, or fold? Do you play cautiously and fold on a weak hand or bluff? Do you go ahead and make an intentionally bad call now when the pot is small so that you can more effectively bluff later when the pot is large? Random hit points have a similar effect in D&D. Perhaps my level 2 character has below average hp, and so I play him cautiously. Then when I reach level 3 I roll the maximum on my hit die, which is fun because I've been itching to be a bit more reckless after playing it safe for the first 2 levels. Conversely, a player that rolled very high for hp for the first few levels may have established a habit of charging into battle, but if the player then rolls very low hp for the next few levels does that player have the presence of mind to reign himself in now that his hp total is dipping below average and the monsters he's facing are becoming stronger? And for the player that consistently rolls low for hit points at every level, well he'll be able to brag that he was able to get his character all the way to level 6 rolling nothing but 1's and 2's for hp!
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Aug 30, 2013 16:03:09 GMT -6
I realize that the "roll HD to avoid damage" system takes out this impredictability. You're going to need at least seven hits to get rid of that troll. With the "classic" method, you might kill a troll in two hits, or seven hits. You never know... Or, at an average of 3.5 hit points per die, a 6+1 HD troll could take between 2 and 11 hits. If the heroes encounter a troll (and in an act of self destructive insanity decide to fight it instead of pleading with it to spare them or fleeing for their lives) I'd just pick a number around six hits, maybe even roll 2d6 to give me a spread of 2-12 for some randomness (but still a bell curve centered around 7). If they encounter a half dozen trolls, I'd give each troll six hits for simplicity. I almost feel it would be fun to go even further into the idea of re rolling player hit dice each adventure, and expand this to each combat, so a player doesn't know how many hits he'll have and will have to think on his feet, also forcing the whole party to change up tactics each new encounter. The problem with this is I can't decide how to show the wear and tear of each combat, which should be taking a toll on their hit points. If the players just got in a tussle with an owlbear, they shouldn't be able to turn around and fight another battle immediately afterwards. Perhaps a player rolls their hit points each battle and for each amount of damage they take they loose a hit die to roll next battle they run into. I think this would allow random hit points each battle but still make combat take a toll on any heroes that manage to survive it. I have to think about his some more.
|
|