How do you have your players roll hit dice?

[Kayolan]

Do any CKs here have their players roll hit dice by the book? I mean, without any house rules added, as in, no maximum hit points at first level, no rerolls, no averages taken etc.? I'm curious if anyone runs the game this way. I've never done it, but I'm thinking one day I should try it and let the hit dice fall where they may and see how the game works without tinkering with it.

[alcyone]

I usually do it by the book. People get killed at first level. After a while people get sick of it. Now I give out some temp hp on top of what they roll, or give them a one time god call at first level.

If you start a fighter at 10 + con, the fighter probably won't get one-shotted by a 1HD creature, unless you also have some kind of crit house rule. Since by the book a lot of monsters get several attacks, getting one-shotted is pretty possible with anything but max HD. Making it through one attack can make a big difference in the outcome, because they can retreat or come up with another strategy, or just gang up on it before its turn comes up again.

So, it works, of course. Just you'll have more deaths at level 1. The advantage though is you don't get hp inflation that carries through for all of their levels. I am not sure how big a problem that really is.

Remember at one time everyone had a d6 HD and all weapons did d6. So adding the other platonic solids was already an adjustment to mitigate this one-shot effect.

[pawndream]

Nope. Haven't played "hardcore" like that since my very early gaming days. Once I happened upon the max hit die at 1st level thing I never looked back. 1st level characters don't need any additional help becoming an ex-1st level character. Adventuring is hard enough as it is!

Max hit points at 1st level. Luck of the dice every level thereafter.

[alcyone]

The CKG has good advice too:

Instead of maxing out hit points at 1st-level, consider granting characters
a point of constitution. This allows characters to gain a hit point or two,
without affecting combat oriented encounters and gives them a long term,
balanced attribute that they cannot help but find useful countless times.

Something else to think about: what kind of monsters are you going to throw at them the first couple of levels? Look at their damage output and how many rounds the PCs will have to be standing to kill them on average. Also, if you are ok with people needing to roll new characters mid adventure.

[Revfan]

Its been a while, but I ran a group once that we tried to go hardcore as much as possible. One of the more seasoned Characters was playing a Fighter... and he rolled 2 for his Hit Points.

We all groaned and told him to roll "again" but he said, "no... I'll just work with this".

It ended up being one of the funnest groups/campaigns I have ever been part of. As that fighter was the first to roll his character, and it set the tone for all the others.

The group HAD to think A LOT in every situation. The fighter took on the "Cowardly Lion" personality... and it was a hoot! You rarely see fighter-types go that route.

If you are in a Tiger Tank, you can crest a hill and look for your enemies, even though you will become an obvious target for them.

But if you are in a US M2... you have to play a little more crafty... and wait for your chances.

And the Fighter did survive, by the way, his hit points increased and eventually it wasn't an issue, but he still continued to play in the same style... great stuff!

[pawndream]

Its been a while, but I ran a group once that we tried to go hardcore as much as possible. One of the more seasoned Characters was playing a Fighter... and he rolled 2 for his Hit Points.

We all groaned and told him to roll "again" but he said, "no... I'll just work with this".

It ended up being one of the funnest groups/campaigns I have ever been part of. As that fighter was the first to roll his character, and it set the tone for all the others.

The group HAD to think A LOT in every situation. The fighter took on the "Cowardly Lion" personality... and it was a hoot! You rarely see fighter-types go that route.

If you are in a Tiger Tank, you can crest a hill and look for your enemies, even though you will become an obvious target for them.

But if you are in a US M2... you have to play a little more crafty... and wait for your chances.

And the Fighter did survive, by the way, his hit points increased and eventually it wasn't an issue, but he still continued to play in the same style... great stuff!

I have similar memories of Dragonlance 1st edition AD&D campaign, where I played Unngh the Gulley Dwarf Thief...with 1 hit point! Combat would begin and I would immediately find a place to hide!

Was a lot of fun.

[Treebore]

I went "by the book" for the first 5 years or so. Then I got over it.

[Buttmonkey]

Nope. Haven't played "hardcore" like that since my very early gaming days. Once I happened upon the max hit die at 1st level thing I never looked back. 1st level characters don't need any additional help becoming an ex-1st level character. Adventuring is hard enough as it is!

Max hit points at 1st level. Luck of the dice every level thereafter.

Same for me. I try to play twice a month and I'm lucky if I can get most of the guys to show up once a month. Playing that infrequently makes it silly to have PCs with one hit point at first level. If we were playing 2-3 times per week, I could see playing by iron man rules, but not now when playing is a semi-rare and cherished experience.

[pawndream]

Nope. Haven't played "hardcore" like that since my very early gaming days. Once I happened upon the max hit die at 1st level thing I never looked back. 1st level characters don't need any additional help becoming an ex-1st level character. Adventuring is hard enough as it is!

Max hit points at 1st level. Luck of the dice every level thereafter.

Same for me. I try to play twice a month and I'm lucky if I can get most of the guys to show up once a month. Playing that infrequently makes it silly to have PCs with one hit point at first level. If we were playing 2-3 times per week, I could see playing by iron man rules, but not now when playing is a semi-rare and cherished experience.

Good point. One other thing I was just talking to one of my friends about, also a GM, is that I don't find anything particularly appealing about having adventuring groups stop and rest to heal up to get back into the adventure. I prefer game time to be spent on adventuring and not on sitting around the campfire wishing their arm wasn't wrenched out its socket so they can get back to adventuring.

More hit points equals more cool encounters I can set up and throw at them before they have to nurse their wounds.

[Treebore]

Nope. Haven't played "hardcore" like that since my very early gaming days. Once I happened upon the max hit die at 1st level thing I never looked back. 1st level characters don't need any additional help becoming an ex-1st level character. Adventuring is hard enough as it is!

Max hit points at 1st level. Luck of the dice every level thereafter.

Same for me. I try to play twice a month and I'm lucky if I can get most of the guys to show up once a month. Playing that infrequently makes it silly to have PCs with one hit point at first level. If we were playing 2-3 times per week, I could see playing by iron man rules, but not now when playing is a semi-rare and cherished experience.

Good point. One other thing I was just talking to one of my friends about, also a GM, is that I don't find anything particularly appealing about having adventuring groups stop and rest to heal up to get back into the adventure. I prefer game time to be spent on adventuring and not on sitting around the campfire wishing their arm wasn't wrenched out its socket so they can get back to adventuring.

More hit points equals more cool encounters I can set up and throw at them before they have to nurse their wounds.

I solve that by making sure they have plenty of healing resources. That way they only stop when all the spell casters need to recover spells, and then all we do is say, "We rest for 8 hours." then the CK says, "OK, your fully rested, spells are recovered/selected. What do you do now?"

Unless, of course, the CK wants to throw a encounter at us.

[Kayolan]

I went "by the book" for the first 5 years or so. Then I got over it.

It's funny because as good of a system as C&C is, nobody I've gamed with runs it as is (including myself as you know Treebore). It makes me wonder if C&C isn't just a game that promotes house-ruling, but actually demands it.

My house rules for my current campaign regarding HD rolls are that if you roll a 1d12 HD, you take 6 hps if you roll below 6, 1d10: you take 5 if you roll below 5, 1d8: you take 4 if you roll below a 4, and so on. This has given the PCs a big boost in their HP totals; the chances of having high HPs is greatly increased. While it works well for the game I'm running, which is a very combat intensive game with powerful monsters to the left and right (I'm using a 3e mega dungeon module), I'm thinking with the next C&C game I run, I'll only allow maximum HPs at first level, after that you must keep what you roll, even if it's a 1.

Actually, this is the way I ran D&D back in the day (in the Frank Mentzer basic set, it was a suggestion in the rules to allow PCs max. HPs at level 1).

[Litzen Tallister]

It's funny because as good of a system as C&C is, nobody I've gamed with runs it as is (including myself as you know Treebore). It makes me wonder if C&C isn't just a game that promotes house-ruling, but actually demands it.

I don't know if it's required, but because the rules system is so parsimonious, it's much easier to create specific house rules without potentially undoing whole aspects of the game. So, in the distillation, it becomes easy to tweak this rule or that to one's liking, rather than having to come up with a flow chart of all the variations resulting from one change.

And, on the topics of HP, I tend to run 1st level as max HP with subsequent levels based upon die rolls. It doesn't seem to make a huge difference long-term, but does help in a minuscule fashion the survival past 1st level in C&C.

[Arduin]

It's funny because as good of a system as C&C is, nobody I've gamed with runs it as is (including myself as you know Treebore).

In almost 40 years of gaming, on 3 continents, I've never played in a game that didn't have House Rules. C&C is no different.

[Kayolan]

It's funny because as good of a system as C&C is, nobody I've gamed with runs it as is (including myself as you know Treebore).

In almost 40 years of gaming, on 3 continents, I've never played in a game that didn't have House Rules. C&C is no different.

I guess personal experiences vary, because I had the exact opposite experience.

Most of the games I DMed or played in were "by the book" as far as what the rules covered. Anytime something happened that wasn't covered by the rules, the DM would ad hoc it with DM fiat and would not necessarily rule things the same way each time (as house rules do). Arguments were few and far between, but maybe I just got lucky having players that didn't disagree or argue over my on-the-spot rulings. Regardless, we had loads of fun playing.

[tylermo]

Max hp at 1st level.

[alcyone]

I went "by the book" for the first 5 years or so. Then I got over it.

Actually, this is the way I ran D&D back in the day (in the Frank Mentzer basic set, it was a suggestion in the rules to allow PCs max. HPs at level 1).

Nwelte's Sunday game had the goal of being "by the book" but even that isn't quite.

I am pretty sure there is no such thing. I try to run mine by the book but sometimes the book is unclear or doesn't make sense. I usually then reach for a different book until something does make sense, and only make something up as a last resort. Most people make something up first. It's certainly faster.

I usually prefer things to be as close to the book as possible, because then everyone only has one set of rules and one book they need to know, especially new players who shut down when you give them a stack of things to read, and have no context for what they do read.

Anyway, for the record, I'd be glad to play HP as rolled, 3d6 stats (even in order if that is what the book says). Whatever. As long as it's consistent. I'll roll up two or even three characters if you make me do that though . I might not even name them.

[Captain_K]

Max at first level for all, then roll after that, but all PCs are "blessed by the gods", so nothing less than half for further levels. So yes my PCs are better than average.. basically 3/4 of average.

But as noted, in the end, at least after 2nd or 3rd level it all works out because the challenges must be challenges and the risks must be mortal or at least potentially mortal.

But hey, in the end, a feather edged sword cares not how many hit points you have!

[Treebore]

It's funny because as good of a system as C&C is, nobody I've gamed with runs it as is (including myself as you know Treebore).

In almost 40 years of gaming, on 3 continents, I've never played in a game that didn't have House Rules. C&C is no different.

I guess personal experiences vary, because I had the exact opposite experience.

Most of the games I DMed or played in were "by the book" as far as what the rules covered. Anytime something happened that wasn't covered by the rules, the DM would ad hoc it with DM fiat and would not necessarily rule things the same way each time (as house rules do). Arguments were few and far between, but maybe I just got lucky having players that didn't disagree or argue over my on-the-spot rulings. Regardless, we had loads of fun playing.

I think that also is because of how many games you have played. Typically I have played in 1 to 3 games per week ever since I began. For the last 7 years I have been playing in 4 or more games per week. Not with all of the same people. In fact, I think only you and Aramis play in more than 1 of the games I am in. I do have to say, though, that rules arguments in C&C have been darn close to non existent. Whether I am the one running the game or not.

[Kayolan]

It's funny because as good of a system as C&C is, nobody I've gamed with runs it as is (including myself as you know Treebore).

In almost 40 years of gaming, on 3 continents, I've never played in a game that didn't have House Rules. C&C is no different.

I guess personal experiences vary, because I had the exact opposite experience.

Most of the games I DMed or played in were "by the book" as far as what the rules covered. Anytime something happened that wasn't covered by the rules, the DM would ad hoc it with DM fiat and would not necessarily rule things the same way each time (as house rules do). Arguments were few and far between, but maybe I just got lucky having players that didn't disagree or argue over my on-the-spot rulings. Regardless, we had loads of fun playing.

I think that also is because of how many games you have played. Typically I have played in 1 to 3 games per week ever since I began. For the last 7 years I have been playing in 4 or more games per week. Not with all of the same people. In fact, I think only you and Aramis play in more than 1 of the games I am in. I do have to say, though, that rules arguments in C&C have been darn close to non existent. Whether I am the one running the game or not.

Well we are a mature group of players that have a lot of experience running games, that certainly helps. Now that I think of it, Slimy runs his games pretty much by the book and uses ad hoc rulings. I've only played in a few of his games, but the bit I have played in, there was no arguing whatsoever, his rulings were final (and fair I might add) and we just moved on with the game from there.

[Arduin]

It's funny because as good of a system as C&C is, nobody I've gamed with runs it as is (including myself as you know Treebore).

In almost 40 years of gaming, on 3 continents, I've never played in a game that didn't have House Rules. C&C is no different.

I guess personal experiences vary, because I had the exact opposite experience.

Most of the games I DMed or played in were "by the book" as far as what the rules covered. Anytime something happened that wasn't covered by the rules, the DM would ad hoc it with DM fiat and would not necessarily rule things the same way each time

Exception proves the rule

[Kayolan]

Anyway, for the record, I'd be glad to play HP as rolled, 3d6 stats (even in order if that is what the book says). Whatever. As long as it's consistent. I'll roll up two or even three characters if you make me do that though . I might not even name them.

I'd love to have you in my game Aergraith. We played tonight, only had Slimy join so far. Check out the thread I posted for info.

If anyone else is interested in an old school btb game, shoot me a pm, we are looking for players.

[Captain_K]

I think consistency is indeed the key, if the whole group is in it together, the same for all, well then the CK's job is to make either the higher than average or the lower than average hps work.

One comment on hp, if I'm rolling up a group of say Hobgoblins or other "war-like" bad guys I don't mind the main body being random with no 1 hp guys (died early in that society) but the leader, the best and strongest only got to that position by being the toughest.. so by definition of their society the weak would not have that position and the higher HD typical of the leader type. Random could have a 2 HD leader have 2-4 hp half what a tough normal 1 HD guy could have.. so in some cases I random the dice in others when the story or history or logic dictates I assign the hp within the normal limits.

Following that logic, if your group of PC is destine to be "heroes" should they be random? Their levels already make them stand out above the normal folks so I think only at the early levels should the dice be messed with, after that, random is nice, but again, consistency and fairness and fun should rule the day.

[jdizzy001]

I usually give my players max hd for level 1. After that, depending on the campaign, I'll do 1 of 3 things. HD as written (with a variation allowing them to reroll 1's), max hd every level, or average hd per level (so a fighter gains 5+CON mod or a wizard earns 2+CON mod).

[Rigon]

I do max at 1st level, then let the die fall how they may. It allows the 1st level character to survive just a bit easier. After that, the player better be lucky or smart.

R-

[serleran]

Depends a great deal on the game and expected longevity of the campaign.

I decided, for this one, to roll HPs. The magic-user/thief rolled a 1... for both. At least he had a +1 Constitution.

Other times we do maximum. Others, Constitution score + maximum for 1st level. Others, Constitution in HD (so an 18 Con barbarian rolls 18d12) but you never (without some severe magic) get more HP.

Really, mostly, it comes down to "what do we want to try?" We haven't done a hardcore game for a while.

[mbeacom]

We play both ways, depending on the campaign and what we're going for. I tend to prefer rolled HD from first level because going max HP starts to look the same after a while. Would every fighter really have the same HP more or less? As another poster said, without rolling HD, you'd never get that 2HP fighter "cowardly lion" character that can shake up a game from the normal "oooh, wow, look at my fighter with super HP" mindset. Those are the kind of experiences I tend to enjoy the most. Same thing with attribute scores. It's been the low STR fighters, low INT magic users, etc that tend to be the most enjoyable to see overcome challenges. When I've been more flexible with HP/Stat generation, I've found the games tend to get much more "the solution is combat!" because the characters have fewer risks and much more easy healing (overly rapid healing was one of the real drawbacks of systems like 4E and I have no desire to push C&C in that direction). Playing to their strengths is a natural occurrence. When we've played with grittier HP and less available healing over the decades, I start to see a lot more creativity in play, creative approaches to problem solving. You see more planning and much more thoughtful approaches to situations. Not to say that OP combat with lots of healing is bad. Certainly it's not. But it starts to feel pretty samey for me after a while. Which is why we go back and forth between schools of thought with how we generate HP and how much ingame healing is available. Just to keep it fresh.

[Tadhg]

For FTF games . . per the PH!

Online games . . max HP at 1st level only. Then roll per PH after advancing.

[maasenstodt]

My group uses random rolls for HP at each level, including 1st. It does make life as a low level character dangerous, but I really like the unique challenges that such an approach creates. In my experience, it leads to more skillful play from the players and also makes exceptional characters ("10 HP at first level!") a lot more exciting.

[AndyMac]

I use a system like Kayolan.

It gives the players a minimum of half maximum hp per HD and it only shifts the average by 1 hp per level. I afford the monsters the same courtesy.

I've been playing RPG's for 30+ years. House rules are necessary as no system can cover every contingency. C&C has fewer specifics (as opposed to 3.5 or Pathfinder for example). That is what makes it better in my opinion.

[Warunsun]

For my recent Forgotten Realms C&C game I awarded maximum HP at both first and second level. Then for levels 3 to 10: I allowed them to roll twice in front of me and take the best result. I wanted some randomness to the hit points to feel "old school" but not so much to grief anyone. C&C already has a lot less healing options than any other games my group had been playing when we started. Most of my players do really enjoy C&C.

I just started a Greyhawk campaign and am using fixed hit points this time around. I nearly always use fixed hit points under any D&D campaign. It works out as maximum hp at level 1 and then a percentage of maximum for all other hit dice levels.