D&D General Hit Points. Did 3.0 Or 3.5 Get it Right?

[DarkCrisis]

Man do I hate the HP bloat on both sides. Just drags combat out. Ass easy access to healing and bleh.

 

[Zardnaar]

Man do I hate the HP bloat on both sides. Just drags combat out. Ass easy access to healing and bleh.

It's mostly healing word.

Magical healing rates very similar to 3.5 outside a few spells.

 

[Voadam]

3.0 had a big difference from 3.5 in some outsider design for a lot of fiends that had a big effect on hp. In general 3.0 monster outsiders had lots of spell like abilities but the same HD they had in AD&D. So they were essentially glass cannon wizards with low hp and high spells with a high CR. 3.5 took a bunch of fiends and made them much more able to stand up to blows at their CR, usually by bumping up their HD at the cost of some spell like abilities.

A 3.0 Vrock had 8 HD the same as in AD&D. In 3.0 it had 60 hp and a CR of 13.

a 3.5 Vrock had 10 HD, for 115 hp at a CR of 9.

In 3.0 a vrock had "Spell-Like Abilities: At will: darkness, desecrate, detect good, detect magic, mass charm, mirror image, telekinesis, and teleport without error (self plus 50 pounds of objects only). These abilities are as the spells cast by a 12th-level sorcerer (save DC 11 + spell level)."

In 3.5 they lose the at will mass charm, darkness, desecrate and detects: "Spell-Like Abilities: At will—mirror image, telekinesis (DC 18), greater teleport (self plus 50 pounds of objects only); 1/day—heroism. Caster level 12th. The save DCs are Charisma-based."

Succubi were an exception in being mostly the same in 3.0 and 3.5 with at will suggestions and AD&D 6HD for 33 hp for a fairly wizardy vulnerable charmer feel. Pathfinder 1e continued the 3.5 trend and bumped them up to 10 HD and 84 hp at a CR 7

 

[ECMO3]

3e got it wrong in my opinion. From 3e onward a fireball was no longer scary due to the increase of hit points of monsters. It used to be that a 5th level wizard could through a fireball and have a decent chance of killing an ogre, or at least put them in range of a single hit required by warriors; 5e retains this issue and is much of the reason why combat is so bogged down.

Things like dragons could do with more hp in 2e and earlier but that could be resolved by the typical "+X hit points" added to their hit dice.

I think the main reason combat is bogged down has nothing to do with hit points or attacks. It is the turn system and action system. It gets to your turn and you decide what to do for your action and your move and occasionally your bonus action. Then it goes to the next persons turn and they do the same thing over and over and over. Then maybe you stick a reaction in here and there on top of that.

The wy to speed up combat is do it like 1E. Everyone states their intentions at the start of a round. Then roll initiative for that round and everyone does what they said using a specific sequence - winners ranged attacks, losers ranged attacks, winners movement, losers movement, winners melee attacks, losers melee attacks, winners other actions, losers other actions if someone can't do something because someone else did something (I am going to run up and stab the troll ... but the troll won initiative and moved to far away), in that case you get to do nothing.

No deciding turn after turn based on what everyone else did so far. Such combats are much much faster, but less tactical and less immersive IMO.

 

[Stormonu]

Here lately in 5E as a player, I feel like I'm armed with a wiffle bat.

Most frustratingly, in our latest adventure it was a stealth mission and we botched group sneaking past a guard. With the way 5E hit points are set up there was no way to dispense with the (CR appropriate) guard before he could raise the alarm - our attempt to use an upped-level sleep spell (at 3rd level) failed miserably and even the rogue assassin's surprise sneak attack couldn't take him down in one shot.

At times, the games focus on "epic combat, all the time, every time" grinds my gears and plays against a good story moment.

 

[Voadam]

Here lately in 5E as a player, I feel like I'm armed with a wiffle bat.

Most frustratingly, in our latest adventure it was a stealth mission and we botched group sneaking past a guard. With the way 5E hit points are set up there was no way to dispense with the (CR appropriate) guard before he could raise the alarm - our attempt to use an upped-level sleep spell (at 3rd level) failed miserably and even the rogue assassin's surprise sneak attack couldn't take him down in one shot.

At times, the games focus on "epic combat, all the time, every time" grinds my gears and plays against a good story moment.

For some situations the 4e minion rules would work really well narratively.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Kind of a start. I will point out a 3.5 fireball is comparatively better tha a 5E one except maybe lvl 5.

"Better" on what scale and compared to what?

• Compared to the hit points of an equivalent target? Yes. (My normal comparison here is that an AD&D ogre had 19hp, a 3.X ogre had 29hp, and a 5e ogre had 59 hp)
• Compared to significant and meaningful threats? Thanks to the magic of bounded accuracy low level monsters like goblins are a much more meaningful threat to 10th level characters in 5e than they are in 3.5. And fireball will nuke them whether they save or not.
• Compared to offensive save-or-suck spells of similar level? Spell save DCs are harder in 3.5 (10+ Stat (unbounded) + Spell level + modifiers vs 8 + Prof + Stat). More importantly there's Concentration - and save or suck spells generally do less; some examples are below
  • Stinking Cloud on a failed save costs you your action in 5e; in 3.5 you also lose it for 1d4 +1 rounds after you leave.
  • Blindness gives a save every round in 5e and ends after a minute; in 3.5 it's permanent until dispelled if you fail your save
  • Slow in 5e gives a save every round and lets you move at half speed and use your action or your bonus action; in 3.5 you can move at half speed or take an action. And you get one save.
• Compared to the higher level spells a high level wizard can cast? By comparison there simply aren't many objectively better spells a 5e wizard can cast than fireball. Comparing Int 20 level 9 evocation wizards in 5e and 3.5
  • In 5e you get 1 5th level spell, 3 4th, 3 3rd, 3 2nd, and 4 1st. Plus five spell levels from Arcane Recovery
  • In 3.5 you get 3 5th level (1 from specialisation, 1 from Int), 4 4th, 5 3rd, and 6 each of 2nd and 1st.
  • It gets even more extreme at high level (and with the 3.5 wizard's Int continuing to go up); ignoring Arcane Recovery a level 17 5e wizard can cast 6 level 3-4 spells/day and another 6 at level 5+ for a total of 12. Meanwhile a high Int 3.5 wizard might be able to cast 6 spells per spell level per day from level 3-6 and another 12 spells at level 7+for a total of 36 spells that should be at least as good as fireball.

And no, 3.5 did not get hit points right. If you take 3.5 hit points and then use 5e casters that might be right.

 

[Dausuul]

Here lately in 5E as a player, I feel like I'm armed with a wiffle bat.

Most frustratingly, in our latest adventure it was a stealth mission and we botched group sneaking past a guard. With the way 5E hit points are set up there was no way to dispense with the (CR appropriate) guard before he could raise the alarm - our attempt to use an upped-level sleep spell (at 3rd level) failed miserably and even the rogue assassin's surprise sneak attack couldn't take him down in one shot.

At times, the games focus on "epic combat, all the time, every time" grinds my gears and plays against a good story moment.

To me this is not a problem with the 5E rules but with adventure design, particularly adventure design that is too heavily informed by video games: Making every single monster and NPC in the game "CR appropriate."

I don't know what level your party is, but if you could upcast sleep to 3rd, you must have been at least 5th level; so I'll assume this is a CR 5 guard. You know what else is CR 5? A hill giant! I bet if the DM had described the guard as a three-ton giant 16 feet tall, you wouldn't have felt hard done by when you couldn't KO it before it got to act. But because the DM described the guard as just a guard, you were (legitimately!) annoyed when this random sentry was as tough as a hill giant.

In D&D, you don't have handy stat bars or green/yellow/red color codes floating over a monster's head to tell you how tough it is. That means you have to rely on what your character knows in-universe. And that means the universe needs to follow consistent rules, which do not change just because you level up. The Monster Manual has stats for a typical guard. It's CR 1/8 and has a whopping 11 hit points. CR 5 is... well, it's somebody who could take on a hill giant in single combat and have even odds. If the opposition has so many of those guys that they can afford to use them as sentries, that is an important fact which the party should have a chance to discover in advance: "Every single person in this fortress is an elite warrior, hired from across the realms at extravagant cost."

(I don't put all the blame on DMs for this. The level treadmill is nearly universal in video games and it creeps into published adventures as well. I dare say it doesn't even occur to many DMs that it's not the only way to do things. Nevertheless, it's bad and should stop.)

 

[Stormonu]

To me this is not a problem with the 5E rules but with adventure design, particularly adventure design that is too heavily informed by video games: Making every single monster and NPC in the game "CR appropriate."

I don't know what level your party is, but if you could upcast sleep to 3rd, you must have been at least 5th level; so I'll assume this is a CR 5 guard. You know what else is CR 5? A hill giant! I bet if the DM had described the guard as a three-ton giant 16 feet tall, you wouldn't have felt hard done by when you couldn't KO it before it got to act. But because the DM described the guard as just a guard, you were (legitimately!) annoyed when this random sentry was as tough as a hill giant.

(I don't put all the blame on DMs for this. The level treadmill is nearly universal in video games and it creeps into published adventures as well. I dare say it doesn't even occur to many DMs that it's not the only way to do things. Nevertheless, it's bad and should stop.)

Your point certainly stands, and checking back on what the DM told us (afterward), the guard was a mere Veteran (CR3, we were 5th level, the bard rolled 30 on his 9d8 hit points to put to sleep - the Veteran has 58 hp). Really seems that dropping a 3rd level spell (one player's most powerful once-per-adventure resource) on a single such minor target should have had a better than 50% chance of taking the individual out. Would've had to roll better than 6's on all the dice, and my tired brain can't math the chances of that working out for us.

 

[Celebrim]

Your point certainly stands, and checking back on what the DM told us (afterward), the guard was a mere Veteran (CR3, we were 5th level, the bard rolled 30 on his 9d8 hit points to put to sleep - the Veteran has 58 hp). Really seems that dropping a 3rd level spell (one player's most powerful once-per-adventure resource) on a single such minor target should have had a better than 50% chance of taking the individual out. Would've had to roll better than 6's on all the dice, and my tired brain can't math the chances of that working out for us.

I never had this problem is past editions because sleep always put to sleep a number of HD worth of targets, so hit points is irrelevant.

A typical veteran (2HD) in my 3.X inspired game (a suitable guard against a party of 5th level) would have like 21 hit points. RAW, you'd be looking at more like 13 hit points. In 1e more like 9 hit points. A 5th level rouge in my game, would be expected to sneak attack for about 17 hit points, assuming no critical hit. Not necessarily enough to drop the guard in one action, but certainly enough that if they won initiative, they could get a second blow in before the guard could scream. The RAW guard (lacking my bonus hit points from size class) would go down hard.

The two problems here are joined, not just over protection from save or suck and not just the bloat on HD and hit points where an ordinary guard has as much hit points as a 12HD 1e monster. I mean how many HD does a "veteran" need anyway? I feel like my 3.X tweaked hit a sweet spot where a 2HD guard on its own would go down fast to a PC, but where 2-3 of them per PC was a challenge, and 4-5 of them per PC was a serious problem. What has all the redone math accomplished really?