D&D 5E A Compromise on Hit Points

[slobo777]

I prefer more combat, therefore more combat survivability, in my starting games.

However, I don't need that built into level 1. If level 1 characters turn out to be a little fragile - or as it is now, level 1 combat a bit too swingy for my taste - I will just start the game at a higher level.

 

[n00bdragon]

I like the solution of just starting at a higher level for more actiony games. Give people who want Diplomacy & Dirt Farmers their tiny hit points that die in one good sword swing. Then if you want a more powerful game start at whatever level seems right. There are two things this setup requires however:

1 - Character creation at any level has to be roughly equally simple. Creating a high level character in every previous edition has been an absolute nightmare if only for the sheer amount of choices you have to make.
2 - The value of a level needs to be equal between classes. A level 10 fighter needs to be just as useful and able to go adventuring in level 10 adventures as a level 10 wizard. Otherwise the "power level" of a game as defined by the level of its characters is utterly meaningless.

 

[ren1999]

I'm not satisfied.
Start characters at 3rd level?
Start the campaign with fewer fights?
I don't understand. Do your 1st level monsters need a natural 19 or 20 to hit?
I'm not making any exceptions for wizards in the back who get shot in the eye with a crossbow bolt. They are dead.
First level characters are not novices. They have become adventurers because they've got something more than your average non-player character.

I need a constant factor to design games.
I liked 4th edition because I roughly knew how many hit points the party had and how much damage they could take before I had to scale down the challenges.
I think that when 5th edition comes out I'm going to give all the players the option of having static hit points added to their constitution scores at 1st level or let players such as yourselves roll 1 hit die.

That's the best way to resolve this.

 

[Dozen]

I'm not satisfied.
Start characters at 3rd level?
Start the campaign with fewer fights?
I don't understand. Do your 1st level monsters need a natural 19 or 20 to hit?
I'm not making any exceptions for wizards in the back who get shot in the eye with a crossbow bolt. They are dead.
First level characters are not novices. They have become adventurers because they've got something more than your average non-player character.

I'm not saying they aren't more. I'm saying they are not enough. And if they do die so soon, it could be just as the DM's fault(when he presents them with an encounter that is unsolvable at said level by the group's standards) as the player's(who Leeroy right into an otherwise easy encounter, then whine if they are riddled with javelins). Or maybe, just maybe, they died because dung happens. What is there to complain about, exactly?

A point you're missing is that most NPCs are worse than the players already. And I say most because nobody stops the DM to throw an optimized character with PC classes in your face that one-hit kills an optimized wizard of the same level, just as you could play a Commoner with the Chicken-Infested Flaw or an Adept with support spells only. PCs are better because they are controlled by players. That makes them special, not class abilities, feats, and especially not a ton of hit points you want to give them because you can't handle the fact you can fall over dead exactly as easily like any other living being, and the universe doesn't bend to your will by making you double as though as someone of your class, NPC or not, is otherwise supposed to be. Where would they get those hps anyway? Do you just say 'they are the goddamn PCs' and be done with it? That makes a hilariously good joke, but people might look weird at you after they realize you're serious.

I need a constant factor to design games.

You need more practice, then.

I liked 4th edition because I roughly knew how many hit points the party had and how much damage they could take before I had to scale down the challenges. I think that when 5th edition comes out I'm going to give all the players the option of having static hit points added to their constitution scores at 1st level or let players such as yourselves roll 1 hit die.

Well, nothing keeps you from playing 4th edition. There is nothing bad with playing what you like, and I'm sure you'll find people who share your opinion on hit points as well, if you'd rather "upgrade" to 5th ed. I remember how many whiners where around back then at the dawn of 4th ed to whom never occured that with a new release, not a goddamn frickin' thing changes. Don't be one of them. People play the Edition they like more, changing sides is not a necessity. Newer Editions are never 'better' than the last one, they are different, with a different target audience. The Wizards' main directive is money, and nothing in the D&D franchise beats the millions of dollars Magic:the Gathering drops into their pockets. The chance somebody will care what complaints we have as individuals is microscopic, so you'd have to invest your all of your time into grabbing their attention and convincing them, which, in the end, wouldn't really amount to anything. Don't waste your life on this argument, you and your pockets are better off playing whatever edition you prefer and houseruling it to your heart's content.

 

[FireLance]

Standard Option: Maximum of hit dice plus Constitution modifier hit points at 1st level.

Heroic Option: Maximum of hit dice plus Constitution score hit points at 1st level.

Old School Option: Average of hit dice (or roll hit dice) plus Constitution modifer hit points at 1st level.

Frankly, it makes the most difference at 1st level. Assuming hit point gain per level remains the same across all the options, the difference in hit points (whether higher or lower) becomes an increasingly smaller percentage of total hit points at higher levels.

 

[Cadence]

I'm not making any exceptions for wizards in the back who get shot in the eye with a crossbow bolt. They are dead.
First level characters are not novices. They have become adventurers because they've got something more than your average non-player character.

I need a constant factor to design games.
I liked 4th edition because I roughly knew how many hit points the party had and how much damage they could take before I had to scale down the challenges.

I'm missing how starting the characters off at 2nd or 3rd level (using 3.5/PF style hp and abilities) in your campaign hurts your game experience in any way except that you can't (canonically) use the words first level anymore. If you made the hp max-hd type at 1st level and avg. after that you'd get the fixed design you want and they would be the experienced, non-novice, party you wanted. It would also leave a place in the rules for those who wanted to start the game as cannon fodder in the old style or the 3.5/PF style start.

On the other hand, making the 1st level default start at 4e-ish hp and power levels means that those wanting an old-style or even 3.5/PF style are either left in the cold or the game has to have some extra sections to help them balance the encounters and the like. (Do we call them 0 or -1 level and have the powers for those levels buried in the back... seems less elegant than just calling the way you want 2nd or 3rd level).


The solution @FireLance offers is another way to go, but should the XP and treasure, etc... all be adjusted down for the Heroic characters at 1st level since the things aren't nearly as much of a challenge? But I guess we don't worry about that now for the different ways of generating character abilities, so maybe it isn't a problem.

 

[Blackbrrd]

My suggestion:
HP = Con score + (HD*level)

Typical hp:
Wizard-1 14hp (10con, 1d4 roll 4)
Cleric-1 12hp (10con, 1d8 roll 2)
Fighter-1 22hp (14con, 1d10, roll 8)
Rogue-3 25hp (12 con 3d6 roll 13)
Fighter-3 40hp (18con, 3d10 roll 22)
Wizard-7 27hp (8con, 7d4 roll 19)
Cleric-9 55hp (13con, 9d8 roll 32)

I feel that adding con mod to hp every level like in 3e made waay to much difference between low and high con score. I also feel that doubling hp when going from level 1 to level 2 makes for a much to big power jump and makes the difference in what's challenging much to big.

Typical variant rules:
Not below average hp at first level, roll for later levels (I would probably go for this one)
Average hp (Wizard 3, Rogue/Cleric 5, Fighter 6)
Max hp at first level, roll afterwards
Max hp at first level, not below average after first level

It might be a good idea to do as in AD&D(?), capping hp after name level (9-12th?), so you only get a small increase after that. For instance +1/level for wizard, +2 for rogue/cleric and +3/level for fighter. It would fit pretty well with the flatter math theme of 5e.

 

[B.T.]

Standard Option: Maximum of hit dice plus Constitution modifier hit points at 1st level.

Heroic Option: Maximum of hit dice plus Constitution score hit points at 1st level.

Old School Option: Average of hit dice (or roll hit dice) plus Constitution modifer hit points at 1st level.

Frankly, it makes the most difference at 1st level. Assuming hit point gain per level remains the same across all the options, the difference in hit points (whether higher or lower) becomes an increasingly smaller percentage of total hit points at higher levels.

Heroic Option: Roll 1d20. On a roll of 10+, you win the fight. On a roll of 9 or less, you reroll.

Old School: Roll a saving throw. You die anyway.

 

[FireLance]

Heroic Option: Roll 1d20. On a roll of 10+, you win the fight. On a roll of 9 or less, you reroll.

This makes fights way too grindy. Why, if you never roll 10 or higher, the combat could continue indefinitely!

 

[Rhenny]

I'm for low default HP, but definitely want optional generation methods, double HD at 1st level (like the 1st Ed monk and ranger), or something like 4th Ed (Con score +), HP are an easy area of the game to tweak.

I agree. My problem with the playtest now is that 1st level was really the only level that had any real challenge for my group. I have to boost the "to hit" scores and the hit points of many of the creatures now that the PCs have gotten to 3rd and 4th level. The fighter is nearly impossible to take down unless I swarm him or rain arrows upon him, or have him fall into a nasty trap. (not that I try to kill the PCs in the party...but I do like them to have some fear of death to add tension to the game)

I think overall, I'd like an option that gave slightly more hp to begin the game, but add less as the PCs level up. If we can avoid HP bloat at the higher levels, I believe the game will be more exciting at all levels. It also fits with the bounded notion that they are applying to AC and "to hit" scores.

For that reason, I like Con Score at 1st level...then just add hit die or average hit die each level (without adding Con bonus)-- oh...now I guess I agree and disagree...well...I agree that there should be options.