D&D 5E A Compromise on Hit Points

[Jester David]

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.

I very much expect to see something like this in the final game. Right now they need to fine tune the baseline.

 

[FireLance]

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.

I would say that the pace of advancement and the rate of gaining treasure should be another dial that the DM can set independently of how tough he wants 1st-level characters to be. (And I highly suspect that DMs who want slower advancement and less treasure would be more likely to prefer the old school level of toughness than the heroic level of toughness, anyway.)

 

[Jester David]

First level characters are not novices. They have become adventurers because they've got something more than your average non-player character.

They are novices. They quite literally have zero experience. They may have more potential and raw talent but 1st level is still their rookie season in the minors. They're the best in their small town but they have a long way to go.

 

[GameDoc]

You could also just grant all the PC's the Toughness feat for free at 1st level. They get 1d8 (or 5) extra HP and a bonus hit die.

 

[the Jester]

I see that we have a pretty wide view of what makes a "1st level adventurer". Any argument that proceeds from the assertion that "1st level characters are novices" or "1st level characters are better than your average peasant" is flawed because it assumes that we all play the same way.

Because we don't, I think that the best course is to have 1st-level hit points on a dial, like so many other things. I think "Con score + HD" is too much; the idea of giving pcs a second HD at 1st level is a good one for my tastes, and could be tweaked (for instance, maybe all pcs have a level of "humanoid" that underlies their class level?).

I think that, like fighters, this is an area where the game MUST have multiple choices for the dm in order to satisfy everyone.

 

[timASW]

I see that we have a pretty wide view of what makes a "1st level adventurer". Any argument that proceeds from the assertion that "1st level characters are novices" or "1st level characters are better than your average peasant" is flawed because it assumes that we all play the same way.

Because we don't, I think that the best course is to have 1st-level hit points on a dial, like so many other things. I think "Con score + HD" is too much; the idea of giving pcs a second HD at 1st level is a good one for my tastes, and could be tweaked (for instance, maybe all pcs have a level of "humanoid" that underlies their class level?).

I think that, like fighters, this is an area where the game MUST have multiple choices for the dm in order to satisfy everyone.

Hmm "humanoid level" before a class level? I like that better then any option provided yet. Might just houserule that in no matter what the designers end up doing

 

[Blackbrrd]

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.

Con +HD*level which then flattens out to +1/2/3 per level after around level 10. If the rules doesn't go that way, I will probably run a E6-ish game that has those rules.

Anyway, monsters not posing a threat due to monsters not hitting the fighters is a problem with the to-hit numbers or AC, not HP. I think they are way of when monsters hit less than 30% vs the highest AC of a party. 40-50% should probably be a minimum, meaning they hit the easiest PC maybe 70-80% of the time. Which I am fine with, the typical Wizard should just avoid being targeted by flying, being invisible and so on.

 

[Jester David]

I see that we have a pretty wide view of what makes a "1st level adventurer". Any argument that proceeds from the assertion that "1st level characters are novices" or "1st level characters are better than your average peasant" is flawed because it assumes that we all play the same way.

Because we don't, I think that the best course is to have 1st-level hit points on a dial, like so many other things. I think "Con score + HD" is too much; the idea of giving pcs a second HD at 1st level is a good one for my tastes, and could be tweaked (for instance, maybe all pcs have a level of "humanoid" that underlies their class level?).

I think that, like fighters, this is an area where the game MUST have multiple choices for the dm in order to satisfy everyone.

Multiple choices? Agreed.

This is one of the rare places where the different play styles and assumptions leads to mutually incompatible design. We cannot have experienced and tough level 1 heroes and rookie Everyman level 1 heroes with the same rules. Reflavouring can do a lot but only goes so far. If the "Everyman" are killing dozens of orcs without pause or the "natural heroes" are getting slapped around by goblins then no amount of reflavouring will help.
WotC does have to make the call.

Personally, I think assuming Everyman is easier, as it is easier to add options and rules than take away. As mentioned, it's easy to add hit dice or hit points or other options. Both styles of play can even be handled even without house rules by starting at a higher level.
If you assume heroes as badassess then you cannot play as Everyman without optional rules. And there's more player resistance as you're taking things away. And there's still the power problem, as the heroes can kick some butt as long as they aren't hit.

Erring closer to the middle is also a good idea, as that does allow a little reflavouring in either direction. There heroes aren't chumps and have some skill but neither are they experienced heroes.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Right now, I think they've got the perfect set-up. Fighter HD is 10, Cleric is 8, Rogue is 6, and Wizard is 4. Right now the default is Max HD + Con. All they need to do is just add a sidebar that says, "For a more lethal, older style of play, don't add Con to HD for starting HP. Or you can even roll one HD for starting HP. This will make characters more fragile at earlier levels, but will emulate earlier editions' playstyle."

Done and done.

Or, the default could be hd + con mod, and add a sidebar that says "for a wimpier play experience, give characters max hd + con."

 

[jeffh]

Right now, monsters are so badly calibrated that this discussion is almost meaningless. Give me a solid idea of what monsters can do and then we can meaningfully discuss PC hit points. (WotC really should have designed the two in tandem, but the ship appears to have sailed on that.)

It makes a huge difference whether the typical first level monster is doing about 1d6 damage (as in pre-3E editions), about 1d8+4 damage (as in 4E), or somewhere in between (as in 3.x/Pathfinder); the second option is more than double the first, and just as importantly its minimum is five times that of the first (profoundly affecting the possible designs for low-level characters would even have a chance against such a beast).

If Next is sticking closer to the first of those options, the current system, two hit dice at first level, or a uniform bonus of say 1d6 hit points at first level are all reasonable, some people might be okay with even less, and it's pretty clear that adding your entire Constitution score is WAY too much, no matter what playstyle you're running. Half Con, perhaps, at most ("half Con" is essentially a fancy way of saying you're just giving everyone a +5 bonus across the board). If it's going to move closer to the second option, then adding your entire Con starts to seem more reasonable.

A bigger problem right now is that monsters have "bounded" accuracy in the sense that they appear to be fighting with their weapon arm bound behind their back. Hit points don't matter at all beyond about second level because nothing is a legitimate threat after the point where it can no longer one-shot you. But enough has been said about that, I think.