D&D 5E A New Way to HP

[Ashkelon]

Yes, I know, and I addressed that.

Since your meat is "fixed" at level 1 (you don't "grow more" or "better" meat as you level, obviously), all that is left to increase with level is your ability to endure fatigue. Why would your ability to endure fatigue (which is just another way of saying endurance - they are synonyms) go up as your level increases? It might make sense for a fighter who swings their sword all day long, but for a lot of classes, why would their ability to endure fatigue increase as they overcome challenges?

Do not think of it as gaining an increased pool of endurance as you level. Instead think that you are becoming more effecient at using your existing body. If you are skilled enough, it takes you less enerfy to roll with it when you are hit by the ogres club. So your HD represent your short term fatigue and ability to completely avoid attacks through dodging, blocking, and parrying, your HP represent your ability to turn great wounds into minor scratches or to otherwise take a hit.

This is why when you take HP damage you still only suffer scrapes and bruises instead of having your limbs chopped off. Another good module to this would be that whenever you suffer HP damage greater than 1/2 your Max HP (after reducing it with HD), you will suffer a major wound.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Take a moment to imagine a world where both camps who enjoy HP = slowly recovering meat and HP = stamina/fatigue/moral/luck/etc can play the same game and not have any issues with how the game portrays HP. Yeah, that is a lofty goal, but I think we can reach it, or at least get close.

I agree, but I think the solution is actually a lot simpler. People who viewed HP as mostly meat and people who viewed HP as mostly luck shared this game once upon a time before.

All D&D needs to do to support both is to (1) not have morale-based healing, (2) not have any specific injury mechanics, and (3) have HP come back with a rest that is long-ish.

Then, you can have an HP-as-morale module that adds (1) and changes (3) so that your extended rests are an hour.

And you can have an HP-as-injury module that adds (2) and changes (3) so that your extended rests are a month.

And you can have the rumored HP-as-physical-objects module that says that when you get injured, HPs just pop out of you and that you have to run around and pick them up again before they disappear to remain alive that dismisses all three and adds (4), use a move action to heal up to x% of your HPs.

 

[Mistwell]

If my bard is really good at talking the party out of trouble, solving political intrigue cases, and those sorts of things, and they rise in experience level because of it, why are their HPs going up?

You're assuming that casting a spell or firing an arrow are not as fatiguing as swinging a sword.

Personally, I just see at as your ability to not die from your injuries, which increases as you take successively greater injuries without dying. Not that real people work exactly like that, of course, but it's a decent enough model for a game that includes a lot of people getting hurt.

Why would the bard in my example become fatigued more, and thus get better at enduring that fatigue, as they increase in levels?

The current system gives some logical reason to fit other things into HPs, but this proposed system does not seem to have the room for that.

 

[Mistwell]

Do not think of it as gaining an increased pool of endurance as you level. Instead think that you are becoming more effecient at using your existing body.

But you're not. The bard isn't using their body any more as they gain levels. They're doing the same thing, with the same physical effort, for each level. They get more efficient at their diplomacy and investigation and contacts and such, but they're not actually running or jumping or swining a sword or doing any of the things which would increase efficiency in using your body. It's not like it's a mystery what increases human endurance - actual exercise is what does that. But there is no connection between amount of exercise you get, and your level.

If you are skilled enough, it takes you less enerfy to roll with it when you are hit by the ogres club.

Ah, see now skill at dodging, "rolling with a hit", is definitely not covered by "meat" and "ability to endure fatigue". Now you're adding something to HPs that was not in your original definition. And, as it's one of the controversial elements of HPs, I think we're back to the same problem D&D has always had.

I say again - why would the bard in my example gain more meat, or more ability to endure fatigue, as their level goes up? I'm not seeing any connection between gaining experience in the things that bard does, and meat or ability to endure fatigue.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Too complex. I prefer my system. HP up to CON Score = meat; HP above CON score = luck plus fatigue. A short rest can restore HP above CON score in small chunks; HP meat damage require magical healing or extended (as in multi-day) rest.

 

[Ashkelon]

Ah, see now skill at dodging, "rolling with a hit", is definitely not covered by "meat" and "ability to endure fatigue". Now you're adding something to HPs that was not in your original definition. And, as it's one of the controversial elements of HPs, I think we're back to the same problem D&D has always had.

I say again - why would the bard in my example gain more meat, or more ability to endure fatigue, as their level goes up? I'm not seeing any connection between gaining experience in the things that bard does, and meat or ability to endure fatigue.

I admit that your example of the bard who levels up does not make sense. I mean how come the bard who levels up only through talking to people gets better at swordfighting? Or at casting spells? Or at climbing, jumping, swimming, sneaking, and dancing? But, that is how 5e works, as you gain levels, you get better at things. You kind of have to accept that the game is a rather poor model for reality. But, right now, why would the bard gain HP through leveling up if all they do is diplomacy? Your example is equally absurd in both my suggested method for HP as well as the current 5e model.

The only way for things to make sense isto assume that at camp, while traveling, and during downtime, the PCs aren't just sitting there. They are practicing their current skills, and learning new skills. They spar against eachother, read over the wizards shoulder, or and try out new tricks.

Finally, it is not very believable that anyone would gain levels without combat. Combat experience and levels are just so interrelated that it seems almost silly that anyone could gain new capabilities without experience in combat. Most of the D&D leveling process is devoted to combat capability afterall from proficiency bonus to attacks, to increased HP, to new abilities only applicable to combat, it is basically assumed that experience and combat effectiveness are related to one another. So I would say the bard in your example would still be level 1. He might be a grand advisor to the king, but he is not skilled in the ways of battle.

 

[Mistwell]

I admit that your example of the bard who levels up does not make sense. I mean how come the bard who levels up only through talking to people gets better at swordfighting? Or at casting spells? Or at climbing, jumping, swimming, sneaking, and dancing? But, that is how 5e works, as you gain levels, you get better at things. You kind of have to accept that the game is a rather poor model for reality. But, right now, why would the bard gain HP through leveling up if all they do is diplomacy? Your example is equally absurd in both my suggested method for HP as well as the current 5e model.

Hmm. I agree. Fair point.

The only way for things to make sense isto assume that at camp, while traveling, and during downtime, the PCs aren't just sitting there. They are practicing their current skills, and learning new skills. They spar against eachother, read over the wizards shoulder, or and try out new tricks.

Finally, it is not very believable that anyone would gain levels without combat. Combat experience and levels are just so interrelated that it seems almost silly that anyone could gain new capabilities without experience in combat.

This I disagree with. I think a fair, meaningful minority of campaigns out there have very little to no combat for several levels. For example, I am reading an old AD&D 1e module right now (UK1), and most of that adventure is non-combat, and experience is rewarded for overcoming challenges without combat. The rules, for pretty much all editions in one way or the other, assume experience can be gained for overcoming challenges without combat. I think it's folly to assume that, because your campaigns involve combat, that all campaigns do.

Most of the D&D leveling process is devoted to combat capability afterall from proficiency bonus to attacks, to increased HP, to new abilities only applicable to combat, it is basically assumed that experience and combat effectiveness are related to one another. So I would say the bard in your example would still be level 1. He might be a grand advisor to the king, but he is not skilled in the ways of battle.

Well, he wouldn't be though, under these rules or under any rules I know of for D&D. He'd be gaining XP for gold in older editions, and for overcoming challenges without combat in new editions. If you're not rewarding your players for overcoming challenges without combat, then you're houseruling the game.

Here is the 5e rules:

If characters successfully complete a tense negotiation with a baron, forge a trade agreement with the surly dwarves, or navigate their way across the Chasm of a Thousand Deeps, you might decide that’s an encounter worth an XP reward. Don’t award XP, though, unless there was a meaningful risk of failure. As a rule of thumb, gauge the difficulty of the encounter (easy, average, or tough) and award the characters XP as if it had been a combat encounter of the same difficulty. You can also award XP when characters complete significant adventure objectives. You can treat major objectives as average encounters, and minor objectives as easy encounters.

There are indications (from recent adventured published for 5e) that 5e is moving closer to the "award a new level after a significant goal has been reached during an adventure" as well, or even after a certain number of play sessions.

 

[Ashkelon]

I agree that the game is moving towards exp awards that are not related to combat, and I also think that is a good thing...but it doesn't make sense from a "realism" standpoint. If you look at class features, 90% of them are related to combat, so getting better at combat without actually having combat is "unrealistic". I am absolutely fine with that however as I feel too much "realism" ruins a fantasy RPG. So I am fine with the bard who only talks to people getting a little better at combat as he levels up and having both his HP and HD increase.

 

[Mistwell]

I agree that the game is moving towards exp awards that are not related to combat, and I also think that is a good thing...but it doesn't make sense from a "realism" standpoint. If you look at class features, 90% of them are related to combat, so getting better at combat without actually having combat is "unrealistic". I am absolutely fine with that however as I feel too much "realism" ruins a fantasy RPG. So I am fine with the bard who only talks to people getting a little better at combat as he levels up and having both his HP and HD increase.

Agreed. But given the decrease in realism with the level system...it makes me even more willing to shrug about hit points and not want to change that system.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Hp work fine as originally designed. Unless you want to start with the assuption of a much less abstract game they work great.

The only issues have been the bloating of both HP and damage over the years. All such efforts when boiled down and the chaff has been skimmed off amount to an attempt to justify doing really stupid stuff and not getting killed because of it. This is better known as a form of neo-heroism.

" I'm heroic so I shouldn't have to think" is the source of all the hit point woes of D&D.