D&D 5E Player Hit Points

[humble minion]

Does the difference noticeably impact play in those games?

I'll give you a more conclusive answer once we've reached higher level!

The big difference is that you find yourself playing Healing Word jack-in-the-box a bit less at 2nd/3rd level. You're a bit safer from getting knocked straight to 0hp by one good critical hit .

The by-the-book game is actually Iron Kingdoms, which is a pretty lethal setting (as far as D&D goes) with very little healing magic (we have no cleric in the party) and ranged weapons that do 2d6 or 2d8 damage available from very low levels. My PC is second level in that game, rolled a 2 for her 1d8 for hp at level-up, and has not yet in the entire campaign landed a hit that would NOT have one-shot her from max hp straight down to 0. It's bred a noticeably more cautious game style.

The max-hp-to-level-5 game is a Storm Kings Thunder game, which is now very close to the end. I think the DM in this one wanted to throw giants at us relatively early in the game, rather than having us twiddling our thumbs and fighting filler encounters for the early levels of what is supposed to be a giant-centric campaign, but giants can really deal out the damage if they get into melee, and the extra hp buffer made it less likely that a few bad rolls would TPK.

The max-hp-to-3rd level game is one that I'm GMing. I went with that because we were going to have some inexperienced players and i thought it'd be a good little extra safety net and add to the 'your PCs are the Big Damn Heroes of this world' feel that i was aiming for in a Dragonlance campaign. So far, so good, though admittedly my poor NPCs have had a wildly incompetent run of to-hit rolls so far. I'm a little worried about one PC in the longer term - a barbarian with Dex 18 and Con 16. At 2nd level, AC 17, 30hp and half damage from physical attacks when raging makes him REALLY hard to hurt (I count myself lucky he chose to dual-wield rather than carry a shield I guess..) but he may end up being just so resilient that I'll have to chuck stuff at the group with would be lethal to other PCs in order to even worry him. But I'll see how that goes in the longer run.

 

[TwoSix]

You could even do it after each LONG rest!

I tried that in one game; there was a general agreement that it was a bit tedious, so we moved back to once per level.

I've been using the WWN roll system for the past few years in all my games, with one change; you roll all your Hit Dice and max the lowest value, to mimic 5e's "max at 1st level" system, but it gives a bit more of an advantage to the player.

 

[TwoSix]

Does the difference noticeably impact play in those games?

I've played in a max HP game up until 16th level, that made a noticeable difference in the pacing and endurance of the party. Other hit point systems aren't really that noticeable in play; the only exception I've seen is in the "roll every level" system when someone makes a real jump in hit points from a lucky roll to become much less squishy.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You always end up with at least one more Hp than the previous level regardless of how crappy your roll is.

How so?
If you have 40 hp (after rolling with 9d6) and now you woll 36 with 10d6, how do you end up with 1 more hp? Is there a specific rule that you increase your hp by 1 no matter what, that the poster I answered to did not mention?

 

[TwoSix]

How so?
If you have 40 hp (after rolling with 9d6) and now you woll 36 with 10d6, how do you end up with 1 more hp? Is there a specific rule that you increase your hp by 1 no matter what, that the poster I answered to did not mention?

First post that mentioned the WWN method.

I like how WWN does it. Always roll all your HD at every level. If you roll lowers HP than your previous level, you get your previous level’s HP+1.

At first level, you can end up with only 1hp but over time, it averages out or, if you roll luckily on a given level, you can have lots of hp.

I wonder how it would work in 5e.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

First post that mentioned the WWN method.

Ok. I responded to a different post. But you can still land under the average in the long run. But most probably you end there.

 

[TwoSix]

Ok. I responded to a different post. But you can still land under the average in the long run. But most probably you end there.

Yea, it works out pretty close to the average. But the system isn't really designed to boost the average; its intent is to make rolling poorly on a Hit Die roll into a temporary penalty rather than a permanent consequence.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yea, it works out pretty close to the average. But the system isn't really designed to boost the average; its intent is to make rolling poorly on a Hit Die roll into a temporary penalty rather than a permanent consequence.

Which is a nice idea. I like it. I just would make the floor higher than current hp + 1. Especially when you remember that in 5e you start with max hp on the first die.

 

[TwoSix]

Which is a nice idea. I like it. I just would make the floor higher than current hp + 1. Especially when you remember that in 5e you start with max hp on the first die.

Makes sense. My own variation I use in my game is to maximize the lowest die rolled, which mimics the 5e “max at first” but is slightly more advantageous to the player.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which is a nice idea. I like it. I just would make the floor higher than current hp + 1. Especially when you remember that in 5e you start with max hp on the first die.

I'm with the poster who said the one thing PCs in 5e don't need is more hit points.