I understand some people house rule how ability scores are rolled or assigned, and house rule how to determine hit points on level up, that doesn't mean there needs to be errata to cover those groups. If you are already house ruling how to assign scores and limit h.p to only rolls, just house rule whatever you want for h.p on level up.
D&D 5E Negative constitution modifier
I understand some people house rule how ability scores are rolled or assigned, and house rule how to determine hit points on level up, that doesn't mean there needs to be errata to cover those groups. If you are already house ruling how to assign scores and limit h.p to only rolls, just house rule whatever you want for h.p on level up.
Herr der Qual
First Post
I wasn't trying to be ignorant, I was just trying to point out that this sounds like an issue where the OP was already in this predicament possibly because of these kinds of house rules already exist.
To that, I've seen as many threads claiming that the standard 1hp minimum from older generations remains in play, as I have threads that say "thank god, there are no guarantees anymore, you can lose HP on a level up". So to the OP, bring it up to the DM if you are DM then you need to decide if you will house rule old school or a take on the lack of a rule in the book.
To that, I've seen as many threads claiming that the standard 1hp minimum from older generations remains in play, as I have threads that say "thank god, there are no guarantees anymore, you can lose HP on a level up". So to the OP, bring it up to the DM if you are DM then you need to decide if you will house rule old school or a take on the lack of a rule in the book.
delericho
Legend
Well, that reather depends on what the designers intended. If it is indeed the case that they simply forgot to include the line from the playtest, then there should indeed be errata - it's a mistake, and fixing mistakes is the whole purpose of errata.
If, on the other hand, they decided to drop that rule, then it's a feature and not a bug, and so no need for errata.
But given that previous editions included the rule, and given that the playtest included the rule, my money's on it being a mistake.
Creating a character with low Con is valid per the rules. Choosing to roll hit points is valid per the rules. So this is a valid scenario, and it's not unreasonable to ask what the intended outcome is.
And if the intended outcome doesn't match the letter of the rules, and especially if that's because they made a mistake, then they should issue errata.
"Errata" isn't a dirty word.
Why is it inconceivable to reduce hit points on level up? If you are playing a sickly weak character (Con of 7 or lower) they could get physically weaker over time, play it as them being anemic or something.
That breaks the D&D leveling the leveling paradigm which has held for nearly 40 years. Specific events might make a PC weaker -- like level-draining from undead -- over time/the course of a PCs career, but the act of gaining a character level always made you stronger/better.
You certainly could change that paradigm... but if that was the intent, I'm fairly sure the the designers would have pointed it out!
Just because something was true in previous editions doesn't make it true in this one. And the ability to play the game as intended shouldn't require knowing the history of the game or reading the designers' Twitter feed.
Now, as it happens, I agree with you on the design intent. I'm almost positive they didn't want PCs to lose hit points on level-up. But based on the rules as presented in the book, it's not an obviously ludicrous interpretation.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
The method of generating stats is not a House Rule. It is one of many parameters which can be determined by the DM, at the start of the game. Rolling randomly is within the expected range of methods.
Likewise, taking the average for HP is an option, which may or may not be allowed on a table-by-table basis. Kind of like taking a Feat in place of increasing your ability scores, or allowing Gnomes in the game. None of these are wrong ways to play, and the game should remain playable in any configuration. That it's possible to roll a character incapable of gaining levels, because doing so would be instantly fatal, is an oversight.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
If they are getting physically weaker over time, that is best modeled by reducing the Con score itself. AD&D had optional aging rules for this.
There are certainly game systems where the PC acquires traits, both positive and negative and mixed, over time. But D&D is not one of those. The examples where the designers actually intended any kind of negative effect whatsoever from leveling are extremely rare (e.g. the 3.0 Alienist PrC).
Note I was answering "is it an inconceivable that hit points decrease with leveling?" and not "is that a reasonable interpretation assuming no prior experience with D&D and related game systems?".
I still think it kinda is. "Leveling" and even "hit points" aren't obscure niche-hobby concepts anymore thanks to all the video games that use systems originating in D&D and it's ilk. They're mainstream, and people completely ignorant of them and probably pretty few & far between.
Similar Threads
