Should characters gain HD every level?

[Psychic Robot]

This was something brought up in the Grognardia comments section:

I feel that 3E broke stuff by allowing hit-dice rolls at all levels (game design by expanding systemization); that's what makes hp enormously high at upper levels. OD&D knew this wouldn't work from the start, and that's why hp gains were minimized at around 9th level.

Thoughts?

[Blasted]

TBH Once you pass level 9 in either OD&D or 1E AD&D, the only class significantly gaining in power is the magic user (+illusionist). You could probably argue that the peak happens earlier.
This means for any type of gaming with these classes, the goal must be more than 'get XP', and more into an alternate plot or character related goal.
In minimizing power increases to most classes, what you're doing is enforcing a change from dungeon crawling (as the monsters and challenges can't change much anymore) to alternate adventures.

[Winnah]

Hit point bloat and 'grinding' is generally regarded as a bad thing.

Inflating the numbers used by monsters means that the numbers used by player characters have to be inflated in order for them to keep up. Attacks, damage and defences also come to mind. Leveling mechanics inflate the number used by player characters which in turn inflates the numbers used by challenges. It seems pretty straight forward unless all of the character types used by players do not advance their options at the same rate.

Part (a small part) of the reason warrior types have trouble contributing in some mid or high level games is due to the amount of damage they can deal opposed to monster HP. When another character can regularly toss out a save or die effect, whittling down hit points can be a fairly inefficient use of actions. That is not a serious issue in a system where a Great Wyrm dragon has about 80 hp. It becomes a great deal more problematic when you're regularly facing monsters with several hundred hit points.

I dunno. I think I had a point in there somewhere.

[Josh_Kablack]

The poster from Grognardia is making an argument so full of bullshit that I can only assume they are counter-trolling you PR. As much as I would like to applaud such, this being the Den I gotta go with: Learn to fucking math!

AD&D: +1 HP per HD at 15 con, +2 HP per HD at 16+ con, unless you were a fighter, in which case you could get +3 at 17 and +4 at 18. Racial maximums of 18 con for everyone except Dwarves, Half-Orcs and Halflings, who could get 19s

AD&D +1, +2 or +3 HP per level above 9th.

2e (1989 printing): The big changes were setting all racial maximums to no more than 18 and then ironically including the mods for stats of 19-25 in the core book ( instead of in D&DG/L&L ) but really the only ways to get con that high were abusing houserules or Wish shenanigans.

3e: Characters receive a bonus of ( Con - 10 / 2 ) HP per HD and gain Hit Dice at all levels. Characters gain max HP at 1st level, starting racial maxima are 20 in the PHB, characters have access to class abilities, feats and spells which increase Con and HP. Characters explicitly gain stat increases every 4th level. Also, stat rolling methods are more generous and point-buy options are made semi-standard

So on the low end, a 10 con MU in 1e or 2e walks gets 1d4 per each of the 1st 9 levels and then +1 HP per level. That averages to 22.5 HP at 9th level and 33.5 HP at 20th level.

It 3e that same 10 con MU gets 4 HP at 1st level and then +1d4 per level. That's 24 HP at 9th level and would be 47.5 at 20 level - for about a 40% increase at the capstone level over the prior edition version. **BUT WAIT** The published stats for the 3 iconic wizard have her taking Toughness as a 1st level feat and gaining items that boost Con by +2 at 10th level and +4 at 15th level. So Mialee has 72 HP at 15th level, and presumably at least 94 HP by 20th level. If you're not on the congressional budget committee, you will have noticed that that's roughly a 180% HP increase over the prior edition version, and if you are not a mouthbreater you will have also noticed that half of mialee's HP come from sources other than raw HD (And this is not counting temp HP from False Life or Vampiric Touch nor inherent bonuses (which became much easier to get) not oughtright Polymorph cheese to push Con higher) )

Meanwhile on the high end So in 1e or 2e an 18 con fighter walks in with 1d10+4 HP per level up to 9th and then gains 7 HP per level up to 20th. Meaning that he has, on average,85.5 HP at 9th level and 162.5 HP at 20th level.

In 3e, the high end is actually the Barbarian, who if they walk in with 18 Con, they start with 16 HP and gain 1d12+4 per level forever, That averages out to 98 HP at 9th level and 214.5 at 20th level. By those numbers, that's only about 32% HP inflation for the 20th level comparison. But once again, the 3e version gets another pile of HP from sources that are not Hit Dice. Krusk is rockin the +6 con bracers by 15th level, which gives hit another +60 HP at 20th level for 274.5. More importantly by then he can tirelessly enter Mighty Rage lasting 14 rounds up to 6/Day for another 80 HP when he needs them. So, those 9 levels where he got d12s for HP instead of a flat number are pretty insignificant compared to the 354.5 HP he has in any encounter where it might matter.

[Kaelik]

Problem 2: Damage escalation.

A level 1 Fighter does X damage per round in 3e and 2e.

It does Y at level 20.

The ratio of X to Y is as important as the difference between HP on level up as well.

[Archmage]

Josh basically summarized what I was thinking when I initially read that comment, and did so with an elegant display of math--base hit die rolls aren't the cause for HP inflation, it's all the other modifiers and the gigantic amount of HP you can get from having a high CON. The fact that big monsters run around with CON 25 is way more significant than them having a lot of hit dice, and the same goes for PCs.

In short, the "problem," if it really is one, is bonus inflation, not hit die inflation.

[Psychic Robot]

Josh: I think that's what the guy I quoted was referring to. Obviously, I can't divine his intent, but I am assuming he included flat HP bonuses when mentioning "HD rolls."

[talozin]

Meanwhile on the high end So in 1e or 2e an 18 con fighter walks in with 1d10+4 HP per level up to 9th and then gains 7 HP per level up to 20th. Meaning that he has, on average,85.5 HP at 9th level and 162.5 HP at 20th level.

This is incorrect. Con bonuses in AD&D1 add to hit dice, they do not add to the hit points gained after name level. Our example fighter actually has a mere 118.5 HP at 20th level.

Conveniently, this actually makes your point even stronger. Con bonus inflation is much more to blame for differing hit point levels than are 9-11 additional hit dice. It's also the same reason a lot of monsters are much tougher in 3.5 despite having the same hit dice, and is also the same reason why Fireball sucks ass.

[CCarter]

Yeah - the limited # of Hit Dice also caps bonus HPs from Con in 1E/2E.
From a certain perspective rolling HPs forever does cause HP inflation moving to 3rd ed. - even though its not directly due to the dice but actually the bonuses you get on those dice.

I don't know if this is actually on topic but I think an actually balanced system would balance damage-bonuses from stat, with HP bonuses from Con. If you want characters to die after about 3 hits say, then you should get +Str mod to damage, and + [3xCon mod] to HP, and the level bonus to HP should be [3x expected damage increase from levelling up], whatever that is. Actually rolling HP is primitive, particularly if all the other stats are done with point buy.

[Username17]

Th AD&D Troll had six hit dice and 30 hit points. The 3e Troll has 6 hit dice and 63 hit points. Hit point inflation was a real thing, and it made Evocation suck ass, which may or may not be a problem depending on your expectations. But Hit Dice means precisely dick.

I don't know if this is actually on topic but I think an actually balanced system would balance damage-bonuses from stat, with HP bonuses from Con. If you want characters to die after about 3 hits say, then you should get +Str mod to damage, and + [3xCon mod] to HP, and the level bonus to HP should be [3x expected damage increase from levelling up], whatever that is. Actually rolling HP is primitive, particularly if all the other stats are done with point buy.

In general, I am not a fan of random advancement if the randomness is simply whether your character is better or worse. It encourages jealousy and cheating and suspicion and brings basically nothing at all to the table. Random advancement can be interesting, but only if it is between X and Y. X or more X is not interesting and is frustrating.

-Username17

[tenuki]

Seconded.

A house rule I used in a different RPG required players to roll ALL their hit dice at each level. If the new total was higher than the previous HP, the new value was used. If not, HP remained the same. This evens random advancement out a lot.

Of couse you could also simply use fixed intervals.

[Lago PARANOIA]

A house rule I used in a different RPG required players to roll ALL their hit dice at each level. If the new total was higher than the previous HP, the new value was used. If not, HP remained the same. This evens random advancement out a lot.

Unless this is contrition, you completely missed the point of Frank's rant.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Inflating the numbers used by monsters means that the numbers used by player characters have to be inflated in order for them to keep up. Attacks, damage and defences also come to mind. Leveling mechanics inflate the number used by player characters which in turn inflates the numbers used by challenges. It seems pretty straight forward unless all of the character types used by players do not advance their options at the same rate.

While I am against the idea of the only thing changing with levels is the numbers on your character sheet, I do disagree with the idea that numbers shouldn't increase with levels. This produces a three-fork path of shit.

[*] If people don't actually gain that much with their levels, what's the point of having people advance levels in the first place? Why not just, you know, not let people advance in levels? You can either put a cap on it or make the experience gain ridiculous, but actually putting the kibosh the levels themselves makes gaining them a waste of time.

[*] If people gain numbers asymmetrically (like what happens in D&D), then it pushes your gameplay towards padded sumo or rocket-launcher tag. Which is fine if that's what you want, but I get the impression that you don't.

[*] If you didn't gain numbers with your levels but something else (class features, powers, etc.) then what's the actual effect on gameplay? I mean basic game theory says that as the number of options you have goes up then the better your position is. So either you have real and strong options, meaning that what's actually going on is effect two, or your options are meaningless dick-waving like in Inuyasha, meaning what's actually going on is option one.

[Winnah]

While I am against the idea of the only thing changing with levels is the numbers on your character sheet, I do disagree with the idea that numbers shouldn't increase with levels. This produces a three-fork path of shit.

[*] If people don't actually gain that much with their levels, what's the point of having people advance levels in the first place? Why not just, you know, not let people advance in levels? You can either put a cap on it or make the experience gain ridiculous, but actually putting the kibosh the levels themselves makes gaining them a waste of time.

[*] If people gain numbers asymmetrically (like what happens in D&D), then it pushes your gameplay towards padded sumo or rocket-launcher tag. Which is fine if that's what you want, but I get the impression that you don't.

[*] If you didn't gain numbers with your levels but something else (class features, powers, etc.) then what's the actual effect on gameplay? I mean basic game theory says that as the number of options you have goes up then the better your position is. So either you have real and strong options, meaning that what's actually going on is effect two, or your options are meaningless dick-waving like in Inuyasha, meaning what's actually going on is option one.

I don't have a problem with getiing bonus points or modifiers once a character levels up. I like that aspect of RPG's. What I do object to is challenge inflation making your meaningful options during play limited. I'm not talking about things like not being able to wrestle a titan into submission because it's huge. I'm talking about jamming a Demon Slaying sword into a Balors face and having it laugh at you.

Somewhere between edition changes, jamming your trusty +3 demonslayer into it's hated foe became a less effective option than casting Holy Word or Seal of Binding. Number bloat is no doubt the cause of this in my opinion.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Somewhere between edition changes, jamming your trusty +3 demonslayer into it's hated foe became a less effective option than casting Holy Word or Seal of Binding.

This seems like a straight-forward complaint but this is actually a really ambiguous statement because the reason why this is so is complex.

[echoVanguard]

Random advancement can be interesting, but only if it is between X and Y. X or more X is not interesting and is frustrating.

-Username17

Two questions. One, what would be a good example of random advancement between X and Y? Maybe in an HP/MP system gaining 8 points of resources, but having them randomly distributed between the two?

and Two, what's the basis for your argument of 'X or more X' not being interesting? From where I stand, it seems to be the same logic as rolling to hit - you want high, because high is better. If you can't have substandard results, then good results become meaningless. Mechanics don't have to be interesting to have merit.

echo

[tenuki]

A house rule I used in a different RPG required players to roll ALL their hit dice at each level. If the new total was higher than the previous HP, the new value was used. If not, HP remained the same. This evens random advancement out a lot.

Unless this is contrition, you completely missed the point of Frank's rant.

Bullshit.

I just pointed out a way to mitigate the vicissitudes of random advancement somewhat for those who don't want to do away with HD altogether. If you can't see how that works, I suggest you extract your cortex from your rectum.

That said, personally I don't like per-level HP increases at all, especially if it involves a 100 % increase from 1st to 2nd level.

[Lago PARANOIA]

From where I stand, it seems to be the same logic as rolling to hit - you want high, because high is better.

Because rolling to hit does not really affect how you do on future hits and even if you have something like Crippling Strike (enemy has -1 to defense for each hit) or Risky Blow (double damage, but -2 to hit for the rest of the encounter no matter if you hit or miss) there's an upper limit to how far the Success or Death Spiral you'll go.

Rolling for hit points or action points or whatever encourages people to cheat and feel inferior and metagame because they'll never have a chance to turn around their fortune. That '1' you rolled for hit points at level 2 is still screwing you over 50 combats later. Because of a couple of good or bad rolls, Mark the Fighter will always be the MVP of a combat while Trevor the Fighter will always be a liability.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I just pointed out a way to mitigate the vicissitudes of random advancement somewhat for those who don't want to do away with HD altogether. If you can't see how that works, I suggest you extract your cortex from your rectum.

Giving someone the potential to screw themselves over for 10 combats instead of 100 mitigates doesn't eliminate the problem, meaning that you did indeed miss the point. I admit that I don't know the exact point where the drama of an unavoidable luck-based temporary setback is outweighed by the frustration it causes, but I bet it's pretty low--especially for something that has no drama in like hit points. Getting randomly affected by mummy rot or Curse of Hextor for an entire level can have some story potential squeezed out of it even if it's uniformly bad.

[echoVanguard]

From where I stand, it seems to be the same logic as rolling to hit - you want high, because high is better.

Because rolling to hit does not really affect how you do on future hits and even if you have something like Crippling Strike (enemy has -1 to defense for each hit) or Risky Blow (double damage, but -2 to hit for the rest of the encounter no matter if you hit or miss) there's an upper limit to how far the Success or Death Spiral you'll go.

Rolling for hit points or action points or whatever encourages people to cheat and feel inferior and metagame because they'll never have a chance to turn around their fortune. That '1' you rolled for hit points at level 2 is still screwing you over 50 combats later. Because of a couple of good or bad rolls, Mark the Fighter will always be the MVP of a combat while Trevor the Fighter will always be a liability.

This is a false dichotomy. Hitting or missing on an attack can be (and often is) vitally more important to your character's sum total of efficacy than a hypothetical differential in the amount of punishment that character can take. All other things being equal, your statement assumes both characters will take enough damage per combat to make the differences in their hit points meaningful, which is often not the case.

A character rolling any number on a d20 in combat usually involves either making an attack or rolling a saving throw - in any situation, a higher result is better. If a low result on any of these rolls results in character death, the impact is significantly more important than a percentile reduction in hypothetical survivability - even if the character is raised or resurrected, the cost of that effect on their WBL is both persistent and sustained.

There's no question that more hit points are better, but they're no more intrinsically valuable than any other roll. From my perspective, the primary problem is not that characters roll for hit points at all, but rather that the different classes have different hit dice and no die-based minimum, which widens the gap between good rollers and bad rollers - this is a big of a problem as if wizards rolled a d10 for saving throws, while fighters rolled a d20.

echo

[Lago PARANOIA]

This is a false dichotomy. Hitting or missing on an attack can be (and often is) vitally more important to your character's sum total of efficacy than a hypothetical differential in the amount of punishment that character can take.

Long-term setbacks frustrate and tire people. You can totally make up for the fact that you sucked in the first two combats via bad rolls by kicking ass in the third one. Rolling bad for your hit points for that level means that there's no way to make up for it until the next level. And it's just human nature to be more upset at bad fortune then enjoy an equal and opposite amount of good fortune, even though it all evens out.

[Psychic Robot]

I think we can all agree that rolling for HP as it currently exists is bad.

[Winnah]

This seems like a straight-forward complaint but this is actually a really ambiguous statement because the reason why this is so is complex.

I could be way off the mark. I do agree that it is a complex issue...Or perhaps I'm just overcomplicating it.

In games where effects are highly valued and sometimes more effective than raw damage, are hit points and random damage expressions even neccesary? Awww fuck it. Going to bed and if I have not properly forumulated my point by morning I'll let it lie.

[Lago PARANOIA]

All right, the reason why the +3 DemonSlayer is worse than the Holy Word/Seal of Binding is true for many reasons.

1.) The intended game balanced parameters are fucked up. The reason why the numbers are fucked up are huge, but they are. I think that this is what you're complaining about, just had to make sure.

2.) It might just reflect a shift in the tactical situation. Only a goddamn idiot decides to go toe-to-toe with a closet troll, even the best fighter of the level. This doesn't mean that swords are inferior to magic, it just might be that swords are inferior to magic in this situation. Of course stabbing balors in the face with swords are going to be ineffective; they got a ton of fuck-off anti-melee shit. If all of the monsters are like this then this just might be a problem, but... well, see below.

3.) It may just be an expression of the shift in gameplay. This may or may not be bad depending on how you value things. Ranged attacks in D&D, all other things being equal, are worth more as you gain more levels. Similarly, the fact that Holy Word and Seal of Binding are spells as opposed not not-spells may either be a reflection of intended game design or a failure of it. Some once-good things become obsolete and this isn't a problem as long as you have access to the shiny new stuff.

4.) Stabbing someone in the face with a sword being ineffective is defined ambiguously. This can either mean attacking someone with a 1st-level encounter power or using a 29th level daily power. If it's the former, this may in fact be an example of the game working correctly. I mean if Book of Nine Swords worked (which it doesn't), people would just sort of stare at you for complaining that you couldn't use your sword of Demonslaying to kill the Balor with non-strike manuevers.

[echoVanguard]

I think we can all agree that rolling for HP as it currently exists is bad.

Yes, but the reason why is what is important here. Do we advocate fixed HP growth in a manner similar to 4E? If so, does it remain a problem if classes gain more hp than others?

echo