Why just HP? Roll for BAB, Saves, and Skills too!

[gr8artist]

So, how come HP is the only thing we roll at level up? Why are all fighters equally good at hitting things? Why are all monks equally good at ignoring spells? These questions have brought about an interesting homebrew option: rolling for static stats.
The mechanics are simple: at every level, you have a chance to increase each stat, and these chances are independent and rolled separately. The stats, with each growth rate and chance for increase:

BAB
Full: 100%
Hybrid: 75%
Bad: 50%

Save (each individually at each level)
Good: 50%
Poor: 33%

Skills
Characters gain less skill ranks every level, but have a chance for more.
8 (best): 6, 33% +2, 33% +4
6 (good): 4, 33% +2, 33% +4
4 (avg.): 2, 33% +2, 33% +4
2 (poor): 0, 33% +2, 33% +4

Ability Scores
25% chance to gain a +1 point to any ability score each level.
(for more randomness, use 1d6 to randomly select ability score, and increase the odds of occurence to 35%)

So... Opinions? Thoughts? Would you like this system or would you hate it? What do you think about it? What are your feelings about random health in a non-random world?

[eftexar]

Personally I think it's too much. Though d&d has variance, in the dice, it is not a 'random,' or mostly random, game like yahtzee or most versions of cards. I believe d&d's greatest asset to be customization.

Randomizing other statistics creates several problems:

The more random the game becomes, the less customization matters. The more swingy things become the less your personal decisions, in character creation and advancement, matter. And, as a I said before, the reason 3.5 is great, despite it's many flaws, is this.

3.5 is already swingy. By creating even more variance between characters it exacerbates this problem at higher levels.

Dealing with monsters would become a problem. They would likely need to be dealt with in the same way. If not they will become more powerful on average without the swing other characters are subject to.

My luck, and likely some other poor saps as well, is horrid. I have to over optimize my stats sometimes since my average on a d20 is more like 5 or 6. Even when I score high, like a 20, something else interferes with it from time to time.

Although 3.5 is far from realistic it is still a simulation-like game as compared to the more gamist construction of some of the other versions or even other role playing games. Hence the large set of skills and environmental factors.

Sort of touching on customization again, but another problem is that d&d, like other high fantasy games, is about choice in decision. If I'm incapable of doing something because of bad luck, my character is in the control of fate, rather than their own choice mattering.

It unbalances class capabilities even further. While it's fine for a fighter to have the best saves, hp, and maxed out skills, this could create an absolute god of a wizard with some luck. It would also cripple skill monkeys.

And, finally, it doesn't make any sense. Why is it possible that I suddenly might get better at hitting things if I'm a meek scholar who fights with spells? Kinda ruins my character's persona.

[Amnoriath]

So, how come HP is the only thing we roll at level up? Why are all fighters equally good at hitting things? Why are all monks equally good at ignoring spells? These questions have brought about an interesting homebrew option: rolling for static stats.
The mechanics are simple: at every level, you have a chance to increase each stat, and these chances are independent and rolled separately. The stats, with each growth rate and chance for increase:

BAB
Full: 100%
Hybrid: 75%
Bad: 50%

Save (each individually at each level)
Good: 50%
Poor: 33%

Skills
Characters gain less skill ranks every level, but have a chance for more.
8 (best): 6, 33% +2, 33% +4
6 (good): 4, 33% +2, 33% +4
4 (avg.): 2, 33% +2, 33% +4
2 (poor): 0, 33% +2, 33% +4

Ability Scores
25% chance to gain a +1 point to any ability score each level.
(for more randomness, use 1d6 to randomly select ability score, and increase the odds of occurence to 35%)

So... Opinions? Thoughts? Would you like this system or would you hate it? What do you think about it? What are your feelings about random health in a non-random world?

No, just no, it is already annoying enough if someone keeps rolling bad in which then everyone is sympathetic so they roll at least until average. It is one thing to roll in the beginning and take away a couple bad dice but this could just outright wreck what a person is trying to do at each level or qualify for. If you want to make something like this random make it part of a reward.

[AuraTwilight]

Yea, no. As it is a lot of people hate that you have to roll for HP.

This is just terrible.

[gr8artist]

To be honest, I wouldn't use this system myself. It came up in conversation and I thought I'd get everyone's opinion.
In my next campaign, we won't be rolling for health. We'll be using max -2 for each HD.
I am curious to see if there's anyone who actually likes this method though? It averages out to exactly the same end result at 20, so short of having really good or really bad luck, a character shouldn't get too far out of their proper level of power.

[Xefas]

We need more! Lets think of some other static values that can be randomized. How about one that we all just kind of casually assume?

Number of Characters
At the beginning of a campaign, each player rolls 1d4-1. The number rolled is the number of player characters they build and play as.

(Although, that could lead to some large parties. Maybe 1d3-1 would be better.)

Number of Classes Per Level
Upon gaining a level of experience, each player character rolls 1d4, and chooses that many classes that they qualify for. Their gained level is a gestalt of all chosen classes.

(Any more?)

[Theoboldi]

Would the different classes use the same probabilities for these rolls? As in, would a fighter have the same chance to get high BAB as a sorcerer? Because if that is so, I see no reason why anyone would play one of the mundane classes under these rules. Except maybe the factotum. Or one of the ToB classes.

[Glimbur]

We need more! Lets think of some other static values that can be randomized. How about one that we all just kind of casually assume?

Number of Characters
At the beginning of a campaign, each player rolls 1d4-1. The number rolled is the number of player characters they build and play as.

(Although, that could lead to some large parties. Maybe 1d3-1 would be better.)

Number of Classes Per Level
Upon gaining a level of experience, each player character rolls 1d4, and chooses that many classes that they qualify for. Their gained level is a gestalt of all chosen classes.

(Any more?)

Adventures they are doing at once. 1d100.

[BladeofObliviom]

Don't forget to roll for DM cruelty! And number of Overpowering Encounters per session! :smalltongue:

[JBPuffin]

YOu know, if everyone at a table likes this idea, stat up a essentially featureless class and have them roll for class features...

Honestly, once I had that, I'd use this on occasion, although it's really just another way to gonzo-up your 3.5 experience.

[gr8artist]

Theoboldi, that is not the case. A fighter gains a BAB every level (100%). A wizard has a 50% chance to gain a BAB every level. So, with luck, a low level wizard might have the BAB of a fighter or rogue... but with bad luck he could have a BAB of 0.
Essentially, look at the level 20 version of the class. Divide each static value by 20, and multiply the result by 100% to find the odds of gaining a point in that value each level. (Good saves are an exception because of that +2 they get at level 1).

So the idea is universally hated. What if the odds were in your favor? If the fighter gained not only a bab each level, but had a 10% chance to gain a second? If the rogue had an 85% chance to gain a BAB, and the wizard a 60%? At what point would you opt to roll for stats instead of taking static fractional values?

[Amechra]

Xefas, Xefas, Xefas...

Not random enough.

I propose that everyone rolls 1d4 - 2 for the number of characters they run.

I leave it as an exercise for the player as to how you play a negative character.

[Lix Lorn]

Xefas, Xefas, Xefas...

Not random enough.

I propose that everyone rolls 1d4 - 2 for the number of characters they run.

I leave it as an exercise for the player as to how you play a negative character.
You play the BBEG/linear guild.

[Glimbur]

YOu know, if everyone at a table likes this idea, stat up a essentially featureless class and have them roll for class features...

Honestly, once I had that, I'd use this on occasion, although it's really just another way to gonzo-up your 3.5 experience.

I have a thing (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14588327&postcount=8) for you. It's similar to what you describe. Possibly balanced. Definitely random.

[Ghost Nappa]

If you're really going to do it, you might want to automate the rolling too.

This reminds me a lot of Fire Emblem's form of stat growth actually, although FE has more stats than just the basic 6 (HP, (Physical) Attack, Magic, Skill, Speed, Luck, (Physical) Defense, (Magical) Resistance, Constitution/Size, Movement Rate...and even the mechanics and the inclusion of some stats varies between games).

Every character has base stats, and base growths and receives bonuses to both based on their class. (Roll D20's to create your character's personal growths, and add on the classes growths. Upon levelling up, you roll D20's to see if each stat incremented or not. A stat exceeding 100% automatically levels, but you still roll to see if it increments by +1 or +2, using the excess over 100 as your target.) But this is A LOT OF ROLLING. Most people don't want to do that, and having some values as pre-determined, while random or unique, is less of a headache.

Fire Emblem is not too kind to the concept of multi-classing but I supposed a modified version of Awakening could work.

[Cloud]

...I, well, the basic idea is terrible, truly, I mean I think I've rolled for attributes once, and then never used it again. HP more often than not I've just taken some set value, and the 4 or so times there was rolling involved, there was re-rolls or minimums in place to safeguard against poor rolls. Personal opinion aside variance is always more harmful to the players just by sheer numbers.

...But the maths nerd in me insists I take a look anyway.

If you're trying to introduce variance, shouldn't rolling give you the average on well, average, but set a different min and max? Like, for BAB, IDK, a Good BAB means you roll 0.5 + 1d3, an average BAB is 0.25 + 1d3, and a poor BAB is 0 + 1d3, with each 1 on the die being another 0.25 BAB, give you the range of;
Good: 0.75-1.25
Medium 0.5-1
Poor: 0.25-0.75

...You'd obviously need to use fractional BAB to make that work, and I suppose good rolls might completely break how many attacks you get, but anyway.

Anyway for skills you did basically the same thing I did for BAB just then, 1/3 chance for under, 1/3 chance for equal, 1/3 chance for more. ...Again, I should stress this is a terrible idea, but if you were going to roll, that would be how I would do skills too. *Shrugs.*

[yougi]

Would you also have casters roll to see if they gain a caster level?

[AmberVael]

You know, something like this could actually be fun for certain styles of play. I wouldn't want this anywhere near my normal games, but if I were doing something kinda like Paranoia, or perhaps something with a roguelike flair... (I thought of Rogue Legacy when I first saw this, and can't get the comparison out of my head).

[Cloud]

Would you also have casters roll to see if they gain a caster level?

Oh, no, of course not, that would be too mean to casters.
=P

...Though while rolling for everything is going off the rails, sure, full casters should roll for caster levels like good BAB uses rolls for BAB, and you can even have half casters roll like the poor BAB uses.

[Arcanist]

Oh, no, of course not, that would be too mean to casters.


Why not just roll for spells per day, at what caster level and at what hours they can be casted (if you're a Cleric)? :smallconfused:

[Network]

Oh, no, of course not, that would be too mean to casters.
=P

...Though while rolling for everything is going off the rails, sure, full casters should roll for caster levels like good BAB uses rolls for BAB, and you can even have half casters roll like the poor BAB uses.
Non-casters too. Roll 1d3-2 at every level. A negative result reduces the character's caster level, which can in turn give negative spellcasting, and negative spells have a reversed effect.

[Rosstin]

No one rolls stats or HP anymore. Rolling for HP never made sense, which is why it has been done away with.

I think the OP and some of the responses are humorous. It could create a really ridiculous single-session game.

[gr8artist]

What do you mean, no one rolls HP anymore? What do you do instead?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

What do you mean, no one rolls HP anymore? What do you do instead?

The typical standard is max HP at level 1, half max roll (rounded down) at level 2, half max roll (rounded up) at level 3, and so on alternating between rounding down and rounding up. Some groups only round up.

This produces the estimated average over 20 levels, but avoids characters getting screwed over by bad rolls, or becoming invincible tanks due to good rolls. It also means that high hit dice are assured to be worth something, as having d12 hit points and rolling 3+ 1's when leveling SUCKS.

[Pesimismrocks]

So in theory a wizard could get lucky and get full bab and a monk may stay on 0 bab for th entirety of their life?

[Weiser_Cain]

One bad roll that derailed my build and you'd never see me again.

[Gorfnod]

What do you mean, no one rolls HP anymore? What do you do instead?

Max HP at every level. Really makes those d10 and d12 mean something.

[Cloud]

In most of my games for HP we've used either average (so full at first level, half maximum value at every even levels thereafter, and half + 1 at odd levels thereafter), or we're just been lazy and used Max for the first level, and then half + 1 for every HD thereafter.

When we have rolled, I've had either a minimum you could roll (d4 and d6 was 2, d8 and d10 was 3, d12 was 4), or you were allowed to reroll 1's until they weren't 1's anymore.

When I DM I go with the half + 1 option for HD after first.

[gr8artist]

Huh, I like the suggestions. The rules don't cover alternating between rounding up and down, so I'd never really considered it an option.
Half rounded up seems fair and straightforward. Alternating would be better phrased as half rounded down, and +1 every even level.
As I said, I plan to go with max-2 at every level (including first) for simplicity. I worry that max at each level makes the d10's and d12's a little too good, and throws of balance. Not that more power to the melee would be bad, but that giving the healthy guy more health while the squishy guy stays squishy makes it hard to balance enemy offense.
Unfortunately, our DM is sticking with the rules in the CRb... roll or take half rounded down. As the fighter/meatshield I know my odds are better if I roll, but I don't like it. Fortunately, for 10xLVL GP per day, I can train my endurance for 3 days and reroll my most recent HD, taking the better result.
On an interesting side note, the same DM that allows retraining HD thought that allowing me to retrain for +1 health over three days was overpowered. Go figure.

[faircoin]

The rules don't cover rounding up and down because it's implied. We don't want characters taking average to lose 0.5 HP every level, which would place them below average as the number of trials approach a large number. Since we want them to be average, we approximate the 1/2 HP as 1 every other level.

[Lord Raziere]

why stop at randomizing all that.

lets randomize what settings we are playing

roll 1d6-2 to determine the number of settings your playing in, how to play in a negative setting is left to your imagination.

then roll 1d8 to see which settings your playing in until you rolled them equal to the number of settings rolled. if you roll up the same setting twice, its left up to your imagination how that works out.

and finally, just for completion:

roll 1d20 to see what roleplaying game we are playing.

[Cloud]

To move away from the excellent roll for everything humour... XD

If your DM needs the whole average health thing in words, in a D&D book, to not use always round down, go to page 198 of the DMG.

[Raimun]

Everyone should also roll for the class they take each level, including the first.

If you have rolled your alignment as Chaotic Good and roll either Monk or Paladin as your class when you level up, you cease to exist as your paradoxical existence rends you asunder. Unless you roll 2 on the "Paladin Type"-chart and become a Paladin of Freedom.

[toapat]

Everyone should also roll for the class they take each level, including the first.

If you have rolled your alignment as Chaotic Good and roll either Monk or Paladin as your class when you level up, you cease to exist as your paradoxical existence rends you asunder. Unless you roll 2 on the "Paladin Type"-chart and become a Paladin of Freedom.

Roll d10 for alignment, reroll 10s.

Roll D10 for paladin class, Reroll 2d10 for each 10


Roll 1d100 to determine seriousness/silliness of game.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Guys guys guys. You're not thinking meta enough.

Why not roll to see what die you roll?

[Lord Raziere]

yea but first you have to roll to see whether you roll for your die or not. and roll to see whether you roll for that, and for which die you will roll to see which die you will roll for to figure out whether or not you will roll for the die to whether or not roll for the die roll you roll for. :smallbiggrin:

[Yakk]

With fewer percentages:

Skills: Roll 2dX, where X is the number of skill points you'd usually get (min d4s) (so an 8 skill point/level character rolls 2d8). You may choose to reroll any of the skill dice that lands on your int bonus or less. Do not add your int to your skill points gained.

Good Saves: +1d6-4, min 0
Poor Saves: +1d3-2, min 0

BaB Full: 1d6-3, min 0
BaB 3/4: 1d4-2, min 0
BaB 1/2: 1d2-1

Ability Scores: Roll 3d6, and look for pairs.

You can either use the pairs to increase the ability score in question (1s: Str, 2s: Dex, 3s: Con, 4s: Int, 5s: Wis, 6s: Cha), or reroll any pairs (to look for another ability score). Triples earn you +2 to the ability instead of +1.

Caster levels:
Full caster level: +1d3-1
Half caster level: +1d6-4 (min 0)

Spells known level: +1d6-3 (min 0)
Gain a spell/day: roll 1d3-1 and gain that many spells/day instead.
Gan a spell known: roll 1d3-1 and gain that many spells known instead.
Auto learn a spell: roll 1d3-1 and learn that many spells instead.

Feats gained: 1d8-6, min 0.

Fighter bonus feats: Gain one at 1st level. After that, gain 1d6-4 (min 0) feats/level.
Wizard bonus feats: Gain 1d12-10 (min 0) feats/level.

[Thrudd]

I think it's a fun idea. All you folks complaining about having your "build" ruined, if you were playing this game you wouldn't plan out a build. 3.5/PF has spoiled you all rotten.:smalltongue: You would "plan" for having a random character and seeing how long you can keep them alive. 1hp, 0 bab, highest ability score a 9? Go for it! How smart and lucky can you be?

[Weiser_Cain]

I think it's a fun idea. All you folks complaining about having your "build" ruined, if you were playing this game you wouldn't plan out a build. 3.5/PF has spoiled you all rotten.:smalltongue: You would "plan" for having a random character and seeing how long you can keep them alive. 1hp, 0 bab, highest ability score a 9? Go for it! How smart and lucky can you be?

Spoiled? I though we were here to have fun? If for you that's getting killed every fight, then that's fine.

Let me have my fun.

[Kornaki]

As I said, I plan to go with max-2 at every level (including first) for simplicity. I worry that max at each level makes the d10's and d12's a little too good, and throws of balance. Not that more power to the melee would be bad, but that giving the healthy guy more health while the squishy guy stays squishy makes it hard to balance enemy offense.

You're actually exacerbating this effect by doing a -2. Imagine we have a level 10 wizard and a level 10 fighter, each with 14 constitution. Under your system the fighter has 100 hit points and the wizard has 40 hit points, if you gave everybody max the fighter would have 120 hit points and the wizard 60 hit points. With max the fighter has twice the HP of the wizard, under your system he has 2.5 times the HP (which means when balancing encounters it will be harder to threaten the fighter without wiping the wizard)

[Cloud]

Everything Kornaki said. You probably at least want to maintain each HD on average giving one more health than the one under it, instead of making the difference two. Which would mean half + 2 is the most extreme you could go thanks to the d4.

If the issue was low health at low levels, I found adding constitution score instead of modifier on the first hit die (as well as normal maximizing that die) helps quite a bit.

[gr8artist]

Thanks for pointing out the flaw in my max -2 plan, though you made an incorrect assessment because I failed to provide more info. We play PF, so the wizard actually has a d6, meaning in your example, it would be 100 and 60. This gives the fighter 1.66 times the wizard's health.

Half +2 gives us
5.5 for the d6
6.5 for the d8
7.5 for the d10
8.5 for the d12
If we round the averages down, and add in a flat bonus (+3) we get
6 for the d6
7 for the d8
8 for the d10
9 for the d12
In the previous example, the wizard would have 80, the fighter 100 (125%). I feel like this is giving a serious boost to the casters. I think I prefer the max -2 distribution.