D&D 5E So it looks as if the mountain dwarf will still make the best overall wizard.

[Olgar Shiverstone]

+2 HP/lev is now considered "completely overpowered"? There was widespread agreement that +1 HP/lev was "completely underpowered" so is this really that sensitive a number that .5 in either direction is "completely out of line"?

1.333 hp/level is appropriate. 1.334 hp/level is wildly overpowered.

 

[Dausuul]

That's pretty near maximum: CON 20 + 10d6 gives a maximum of 110 HP.

Edit: I see you're using a playtest feat which seems completely overpowered. Still that's pretty near maximum for CON 16.

If you spent that same feat slot to buy a Con boost, you'd get +1 hp/level, +1 to Con checks, and +1 to Con saves (including checks to maintain concentration). I don't see why it's so overpowered to get +2 hp/level instead.

 

[KarinsDad]

+2 HP/lev is now considered "completely overpowered"? There was widespread agreement that +1 HP/lev was "completely underpowered" so is this really that sensitive a number that .5 in either direction is "completely out of line"?

I think it is very strong.

Let's look at what it is replacing. Say a PC has 14 CON at level one. He could bump up CON four times to get a similar result, or he could bump up something like DEX 4 times (assume not DEX for main ability score) and once his main ability score got to 20, use his next Action Improvement to get Tough.

So instead of having +1 to two ability scores for that Ability Score Improvement, he now has +4 to DEX instead of CON. He doesn't get the +2 to CON saves, but he does get the +2 init, +2 for 3 skills (including the worthwhile Stealth), +2 DEX saves, and in no or light armor, +2 better AC.

Yeah, it should be +1 hit per level.

I see this as a nearly must feat for low hit point spell casters. With one feat, wizards have better hit points than clerics. Meh.

 

[Branduil]

+1 hp per level makes the feat worse than just booting your CON.

 

[KarinsDad]

+1 hp per level makes the feat worse than just booting your CON.

Well, for some PCs.

For a PC with CON 20, this is not the case.

But, I get your point. Course, CON saves and CON checks will probably be relatively rare, and the +1 or 5% difference will very rarely affect game play.


Maybe this is why I read that it will be +2 at the level you take it, and +2 each level afterwards (which is not what Mistwell read).

This makes it typically better than +1 per level, but worse than +2 per level (except if it is taken at real high level). It takes 5 levels to boost CON 2 points, so say level 4 and level 8, that would give +8 at level 8. +2 at level 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 gives +10 points at level 8 plus additional points at the earlier levels.

 

[KarinsDad]

Smart NPCs SHOULD be played intelligently, but not-smart NPCs shouldn't. There are usually more of the latter than the former, especially among monsters.

As to adventure design... don't think along the lines of Encounters. If you open the door and make enough noise for the nearby monsters to hear, they SHOULD come running if it makes sense for them to do so. For example, in Against the Giants (1E), if you make noise during combat in the children's room, the adults overlook it because they assume it's just the kids playing, but if you make noise in the chief's bedroom, they'll come a running. A lot of earlier adventures (TSR) assumed the DM would determine how much noise was made and adjust events accordingly. WotC has focused too much (IMO) on "Encounter Design" for game balance, which can easily throw realism out the window.

Agreed. I dislike the Encounter Design mentality as well.


But, the problem I have is that the non-smart NPCs (including monsters without hands) always close the doors behind themselves. WT?

 

[Prism]

But, I get your point. Course, CON saves and CON checks will probably be relatively rare, and the +1 or 5% difference will very rarely affect game play.

I think you are underestimating the amount of con saves that will be needed. Concentration checks, poison, undead, most of the necromancy school of magic and much of the transmutation school will be con checks. In fact a lot of the really bad stuff

 

[Dausuul]

I think you are underestimating the amount of con saves that will be needed. Concentration checks, poison, undead, most of the necromancy school of magic and much of the transmutation school will be con checks. In fact a lot of the really bad stuff

Agreed. Con and Wis are the two types of saving throws you really, really do not want to fail: Bad Things happen when you blow a Con save.

Plus there's hunger, thirst, suffocation, forced marching... Con is very important to exploration. Not every DM is going to make a big deal out of exploration, but many will.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think you are underestimating the amount of con saves that will be needed. Concentration checks, poison, undead, most of the necromancy school of magic and much of the transmutation school will be con checks. In fact a lot of the really bad stuff

Say we have a PC that wants to boost CON as his second ability score boost and he starts out at level 1 with an even CON score, and is a class like Cleric or Wizard that gets it at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19. Compare that to the same PC that takes Tough at level 4, but still boosts his CON. For seven levels, he has a better +1 CON mod. For 17 levels, he has much better hit points. Granted, he's also lowering his main ability score by 1 for 7 levels as well, but that's the price for more hit points. Hit point damage can occur nearly every encounter.

So, level, CON save bonus without Tough, extra hit points without Tough, CON save bonus with Tough, extra hit points with Tough 2/level

01 +2 0 +2 0
02 +2 0 +2 0
03 +2 0 +2 0

04 +2 0 +2 8
05 +2 0 +2 10
06 +2 0 +2 12
07 +2 0 +2 14

08 +3 8 +2 16
09 +3 9 +2 18
10 +3 10 +2 20
11 +3 11 +2 22

12 +3 12 +3 36
13 +3 13 +3 39
14 +3 14 +3 42
15 +3 15 +3 45

16 +4 32 2 +3 48
17 +4 2 34 +3 51
18 +4 2 36 +3 72

19 +4 2 38 +4 76
20 +4 2 40 +4 80

This PC jumps up 8 hit points (over everything else) at level 4, 14 more at level 12, and 19 more at level 18. The bold levels are the one where not taking the feat Tough gives a CON save bonus of +1.

Going from 17 hit points at level 3 for a CON 12 wizard to 30 hits points at level 4 nearly doubles his hit points in one level. This is fairly significant.

He can get hit for hit points damage nearly every encounter, but he gets hit for CON saves once in a while. In the Starter Set, there appears to be 5 monsters out of 22 that require CON saves (but not necessarily every attack). So rough rule of thumb, that's 5% of the hits that it will matter (+1 more on CON save), for 7 levels out of 20, for 5 out of 22 attacks or 0.04% of the time.

1 hit out of every 2500, it matters.

The CON save issue seems like a quibble to me.

 

[Mistwell]

I think it is very strong.

Let's look at what it is replacing. Say a PC has 14 CON at level one. He could bump up CON four times to get a similar result, or he could bump up something like DEX 4 times (assume not DEX for main ability score) and once his main ability score got to 20, use his next Action Improvement to get Tough.

So instead of having +1 to two ability scores for that Ability Score Improvement, he now has +4 to DEX instead of CON. He doesn't get the +2 to CON saves, but he does get the +2 init, +2 for 3 skills (including the worthwhile Stealth), +2 DEX saves, and in no or light armor, +2 better AC.

Yeah, it should be +1 hit per level.

I see this as a nearly must feat for low hit point spell casters. With one feat, wizards have better hit points than clerics. Meh.

I don't understand your analysis on this comparing to Dex. The comparison should be +2 to Con, as the other hit-point related influencer. Comparing to Dex just needlessly confuses things by one step. And pretending it's +4 to Dex makes it even more confusing by a second step (since that's not it either).

Lots of things in the game require Con saves so it's a very good save (plus some other ability checks). And it alone would supply a +1 hit point per level.

So the tradeoff is +1 to Con Saves and +1 to Con checks and +1 to hit points, vs +0 to Con saves and +0 to Con checks and +2 to hit points. Seems like a fair trade to me. Definitely not a no-brainer, and also not comparable to +4 to an ability.