D&D 5E Will we see a DMG option to cap hitpoints?

[heptat]

For example, like earlier editions where you only got +1/+2 after 9th level. Do you expect to see any options like that in the DMG?

Currently you could expect (on average):

Lower bound (wizard, let's say -1 for CON):
At 10th Level = 32
At 20th Level = 62

Upper bound (barbarian, say +3 for CON):
At 10th Level = 105
At 20th Level = 205

For my sensibilities (and not necessarily anything to do with good design) these are too high. I might let characters get HPs until level 3, then every second level after that. I do like making things *hard* for the PCs...

 

[keterys]

They did not balance damage accordingly to match that, so no. A basic conceit of the system is that hit points and damage scale more instead of attacks and defenses.

 

[Mort]

For example, like earlier editions where you only got +1/+2 after 9th level. Do you expect to see any options like that in the DMG?

Currently you could expect (on average):

Lower bound (wizard, let's say -1 for CON):
At 10th Level = 32
At 20th Level = 62

Upper bound (barbarian, say +3 for CON):
At 10th Level = 105
At 20th Level = 205

For my sensibilities (and not necessarily anything to do with good design) these are too high. I might let characters get HPs until level 3, then every second level after that. I do like making things *hard* for the PCs...

I think we need to see what kind of damage monsters are putting out before thinking about HP caps.

For example, HPs in 3e looked impressive compared to prior editions, but once you took into account monster HPs and (especially) damage they really were not!

Also, and this may just be a personal thing, the fighter gets enough grief, I'd like to make sure he has enough HPs to do his job in the front line.

 

[heptat]

I think we need to see what kind of damage monsters are putting out before thinking about HP caps.

For example, HPs in 3e looked impressive compared to prior editions, but once you took into account monster HPs and (especially) damage they really were not!

Also, and this may just be a personal thing, the fighter gets enough grief, I'd like to make sure he has enough HPs to do his job in the front line.

Fair point about the fighter...and about waiting. These days I tend to avoid house-ruling and just get on with it and better to spend some reasonable time playing 5e first. I only asked this question because I prefer gritty over high fantasy. Oh well, DMG will get here sooner or later...

 

[Mort]

Fair point about the fighter...and about waiting. These days I tend to avoid house-ruling and just get on with it and better to spend some reasonable time playing 5e first. I only asked this question because I prefer gritty over high fantasy. Oh well, DMG will get here sooner or later...

One thing that worked very well for 3e (making a more gritty game) - don't allow consecutive caster levels. For example a level of wizard must be followed by a level of fighter, rogue or other noncaster. This really tended to tone down the power level, quite appropriate for lower magic settings.

Initial indications are that multiclassing in 5e will be similar to 3e (though with stricter requirements and presumably better balance) and if so, this might work well for 5e as well. Guess we'll see in less than a month!

 

[doctorhook]

I sure wouldn't mind lower hit point totals, but I like my games pretty lethal. (Low-magic, Game of Thrones/SoIaF-style lethal.) However, I wouldn't muck around with any of it until I knew more about the math.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For example, like earlier editions where you only got +1/+2 after 9th level. Do you expect to see any options like that in the DMG?

Currently you could expect (on average):

Lower bound (wizard, let's say -1 for CON):
At 10th Level = 32
At 20th Level = 62

Upper bound (barbarian, say +3 for CON):
At 10th Level = 105
At 20th Level = 205

For my sensibilities (and not necessarily anything to do with good design) these are too high. I might let characters get HPs until level 3, then every second level after that. I do like making things *hard* for the PCs...

I don't see why not.

It would likely have the effect of making high-level fights still quite swingy, due to monster damage output vastly outstripping PC HP, but if that's a vibe you want (or if you don't mind jacking down monster damage at the same time)....eh, sounds easy enough to do. Not sure it'll be "official," but whatev.

 

[MarkB]

I could see it working for a grittier feel if you limited the monsters' hit points in similar fashion. That way, at higher levels, both the PCs' and the monsters' damage output ramps up faster than their hit points, making for much faster and deadlier fights, but still without greatly favouring either side.

 

[Beleriphon]

I could see it working for a grittier feel if you limited the monsters' hit points in similar fashion. That way, at higher levels, both the PCs' and the monsters' damage output ramps up faster than their hit points, making for much faster and deadlier fights, but still without greatly favouring either side.

My only word of caution is that by 20th level a great weapon fighter can output an average damage of around 240 for two rounds using action surge. If you limit HPs too much for monsters you'll kill stuff much faster than you might expect.

 

[keterys]

My only word of caution is that by 20th level a great weapon fighter can output an average damage of around 240 for two rounds using action surge. If you limit HPs too much for monsters you'll kill stuff much faster than you might expect.

Could you breakdown the 240? (or the 120 you're repeating with action surge, whatever)