Note that even if only (or mostly) PC hit points were improved without effects on NPCs/monsters, the increased survivability does equate to increased power level in my mind and shifts the baseline.
You are really, really vastly overstating the value of hit points with regards to their effect on game balance-- and especially to the balance between classes.
Let's say a player in your game plays a cleric with a 10 CON. Will you forbid the wizard player from having a 14 CON? Your argument is that all sorts of bad things will happen, from diluting the flavor differences between the classes, to prolonging combat, etc.
You surely realize that the difference between those two CON modifiers (2 hit points/HD) is exactly the same difference between d4 HD and d8 HD.
It's very, very small in the long haul.
Increasing the wizard HD from d4 to d6 is a difference of 1 hit point per level on average and 2 hit points per level at best.
So I respectfully submit that your response to this "power escalation" is almost purely an emotional one. You're seeing "bigger HD!" and having a bit of a freak out.
Actually, I mostly agree with you on this one. I have explicitly chosen not to criticize the idea of a starting hit point bonus (if done right), because that is well-targeted at a real issue: low level survivability. Hit dice increases, by contrast, grant hit points over levels and are poorly targeted at helping low-level survivability.
1 hit point per level on average, 2 hit points per level at best.
Still, even without doing that, a starting hit point bonus is something I feel generally positive towards, because it is so well targeted and does not increase with levels, thus becoming less and less significant over time.
Your argument is presented rationally-- deceptively so.
The difference between the HD is almost entirely superficial. Clearly there is a difference between a d4, d6, d8, d10, and d12. We can compare any two and easily determine which is "better;" and if therefore there is such a thing as a better HD, it certainly seems "meaningful" to raise them.
But it's a very superficial judgment. Because the mechanics really aren't fine tuned enough to distinguish between a 1 or 2 hit point difference per HD.
You need to make a big change-- for example the big hit point boost at 1st level, as we discussed-- to make the difference felt. And yes, that is a very good and very targeted change, made when its impact will actually make a mechanical difference.
It's certainly valid now to ask, "Well, then why raise the HD at all, if the impact will hardly be felt at high levels?" and I would have to admit that it is very superficial, almost purely psychological. From a design standpoint it's helpful to put everyone on the same footing with respect to HD, because at least then we can make other apple-to-apple comparisons when we're balancing other things out.
Wizards are the only creature-- regardless of what
type of creature they are-- that use a d4. That's certainly odd.
I don't know how exactly you implement Action Points, but I use what I call Luck Points in my game, which essentially enable the character to boost a roll. If that is what you mean by action points, than I agree that they are a good idea.
That's what I meant.
It also has the advantage of mitigating the various effecting save or die effects that are not death effects, such as turn to stone/petrification and so on.
Yep, exactly.
