Alternate Method of Calculating Hit Points

[Yaarel]

Maybe experiment with the idea of removing Constitution from the abilities, and instead assigning hit points and fortitude to the race, especially correlating with size. Similarly, longevity is a feature of race, rather than hit points.

So, fighters will have more class hit points on top of their choice of race.

Treat all class hit points as nonphysical damage. And all race hit points as ‘meat points’.

 

[Blue]

Up through AD&D 2ed, after you reached 9th level* you stopped gaining HD and starting gaining a small amount per level. Since it was no more HD, CON wouldn't add.

For example, a Paladin at first would have d10+CON, and would gain the same up through 9th, but at 10th would gain a flat 3 HP.

(That edition also capped CON to HD at +2 unless you were a fighter or one of their "subclasses" like paladin or ranger, though subclass didn't mean the same thing back then.)

Would that do what you want? If so it's got a retro feel and a pedigree.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I am so tired of seeing Constitution being used for nothing but hit points! Why don't any other stats have a say in it? Do they not say something about the character beyond mere characteristics?? I for one would like to see these insignificant attributes get a little more attention on the one aspect that matters the most: freakin hit points!

So start with Constitution score at first level. Then add your Strength modifier. You can't be strong if you're not healthy! Right? Now Dexterity modifiers are going to adjust negative hit points. That's right! A fast character doesn't need more hit points because he can avoid getting hit in the first place. And, if he's fast, then he's probably small. Small creatures have fewer hit points! Ask any kobold or goblin.

Intelligence works just like Dexterity. If you're smart, you probably sucked in physical education and showered wearing a bathing suit, even at home. But if you got good Wisdom, double your hit points. Because the wise character knows the only way to survive is more hit points!

Charisma does nothing for hit points. It's already doing too much and nobody really knows how it does anything. But it looks good in a bathing suit, even if you're showering in your own house.

 

[KenNYC]

As I remember OD&D the system they had was every class had a cap at somewhere around 10th level for rolling dice, and then after that you only get 1,2 or 3 HP per level depending on your class or maybe even less for wizards. So Wizards while getting more and more powerful were more and more fragile compared to the fighter. This sounds like exactly what you are looking for.

 

[Wightbred]

I’m planning something similar. To me HP need to be a bit higher at 1st level and increase a little more slowly. I understand it is not for everyone, but I’m comfortable with the complications and implications of doing this to get the game exactly the way I want.

(100 posts! It only took me 11 year... although there were some gaps for 3.5 and 4e. Happy that 5e has brought me back into the food.)

 

[Pauln6]

Up through AD&D 2ed, after you reached 9th level* you stopped gaining HD and starting gaining a small amount per level. Since it was no more HD, CON wouldn't add.

For example, a Paladin at first would have d10+CON, and would gain the same up through 9th, but at 10th would gain a flat 3 HP.

(That edition also capped CON to HD at +2 unless you were a fighter or one of their "subclasses" like paladin or ranger, though subclass didn't mean the same thing back then.)

Would that do what you want? If so it's got a retro feel and a pedigree.

1e DnD had a curious system and it's quite difficult to say how balanced it was. Fighters and paladins only rolled hp up to level 9 and only they (plus rangers) could benefit from a con bonus above +2. Rangers rolled twice at level 1 and, along with thieves and illusionists only rolled to level 10. Wizards rolled 11, assassins 15, druids 14, monks 17, clerics 9.

Based on my experience of that system, I'd probably recommend giving everyone max hp plus 1HD at level 1 and apply the con bonus up to level 10.

 

[KenNYC]

1e DnD had a curious system and it's quite difficult to say how balanced it was. Fighters and paladins only rolled hp up to level 9 and only they (plus rangers) could benefit from a con bonus above +2. Rangers rolled twice at level 1 and, along with thieves and illusionists only rolled to level 10. Wizards rolled 11, assassins 15, druids 14, monks 17, clerics 9.

Based on my experience of that system, I'd probably recommend giving everyone max hp plus 1HD at level 1 and apply the con bonus up to level 10.

Balance is overrated. I want my wizards having different worries than my fighters, and there should be a price/reward for choosing a certain class. Rangers may have got an extra HD but they didn't get built in Prot From Evil or lay on hands. Wizards had crummy HP but they could cast fireballs. Then when the big bad monster shows up it can't be everyone attack because not everyone could guarantee making it out of melee alive. To this day in 5e I still opt to roll a die while my friends punk out and take the 5 avg or whatever. If you roll low, just hang on to the next level when you might roll high. If you roll low again just work it into your game play and not be on the front lines. Wizards and clerics can get by rolling 2s, but a fighter rolling a 2 would severely suck. However a 2nd level fighter with 20something HP is a rock star.

 

[Pauln6]

Balance is overrated. I want my wizards having different worries than my fighters, and there should be a price/reward for choosing a certain class. Rangers may have got an extra HD but they didn't get built in Prot From Evil or lay on hands. Wizards had crummy HP but they could cast fireballs. Then when the big bad monster shows up it can't be everyone attack because not everyone could guarantee making it out of melee alive. To this day in 5e I still opt to roll a die while my friends punk out and take the 5 avg or whatever. If you roll low, just hang on to the next level when you might roll high. If you roll low again just work it into your game play and not be on the front lines. Wizards and clerics can get by rolling 2s, but a fighter rolling a 2 would severely suck. However a 2nd level fighter with 20something HP is a rock star.

If you think balance is overrated, play 1e! ;-p

We've reached 14th level now and while the system is more balanced, you can still feel the vulnerability of wizards. Despite higher at will damage, they still do less than a fighter. I think this edition has been cleverly formulated so that, despite what you think on paper, in play, the strengths and weaknesses are still evident.

Be wary as well that at higher levels, hit points can drop fast and in combat healing is very limited.

 

[CubicsRube]

I've run some numbers on the exact same thing.

I like front loading hitpoints and then dialing back the per level benefits as it keeps pcs in that sweet spot for a while.

I had run with the idea of you con score at level 0, and then you class avg hitpoints without a con mid at all levels (including 1st).

Either way it makes 1st level much more survivable but really doesnt impact power much at that level as they still have 1st level offensive capability. What really changes is their ability to last a round or 2 extra, so the kid gloves come off earlier.

I also think it helps hitpoints getting to silly levels at high level.

So in other words, im a fan!

 

[Fanaelialae]

Up through AD&D 2ed, after you reached 9th level* you stopped gaining HD and starting gaining a small amount per level. Since it was no more HD, CON wouldn't add.

For example, a Paladin at first would have d10+CON, and would gain the same up through 9th, but at 10th would gain a flat 3 HP.

(That edition also capped CON to HD at +2 unless you were a fighter or one of their "subclasses" like paladin or ranger, though subclass didn't mean the same thing back then.)

Would that do what you want? If so it's got a retro feel and a pedigree.

I think you'd have to be careful with this. 5e is designed around the assumption that low level characters rely primarily on AC for survival, while high level characters rely on hp. Going this route, you might end up with 20th level characters who are effectively more fragile than they were at 5th level. For example, it would be much more likely for a 20th level character to be one shot by Power Word: Kill, since it's far less likely that they will have crossed the 100 hp threshold. Now, there's nothing wrong with that per se, if that's the style of play you're looking to evoke, but it is something to consider.

Personally, characters typically start at 3rd level in my games. (I did recently make an exception for a group that is new to 5e; they started at level 1, and after I nearly tpk'd them with animated brooms in their first encounter, I scaled back the difficulty a bit for them.) IME, experienced players tend to find the first two levels a bit boring due to a lack of options, and by 3rd level characters are robust enough that I don't have to hold back.