D&D 5E Removing the HP Bloat

[Ruin Explorer]

So, how is CON used then if not for Hit Points?

At 6 levels of exhaustion you die normally. Your CON modifier adds (or subtracts) to that number. For example, if you have a CON 16 (+3), you ignore the effects of the first 3 levels of exhaustion, and the 4th level would give disadvantage on ability checks. Now, you still have to recover all 4 levels as usual. It also means you would have to suffer a total of 9 levels of exhaustion before it kills you.

Since we play that going to 0 hp gives a level of exhaustion this is important, especially to warrior-types. You don't need the CON for hp, so you can still have a good number of hp and thus avoid going to 0 hp, and so avoid the level of exhaustion.

To me, this also makes more sense because exhaustion usually is tied to physical trauma affecting the body (no food or water, forced marches, extreme cold, etc.) which is what CON is about.

It also removes some of the hp = "meat" argument, enforcing the idea of hp being more abstract.

Now, if you prefer more the "meat" side of hp, or maybe using a variant of the vitality concept, it still works. You would use your CON (or half CON IMO) for physical meat and then hp otherwise becomes totally abstract. I've thought about it, and it would work fine if you wanted to use it in some form.

I like what you're doing here and I think if I started a new campaign I might do something similar (though I'd probably just go with having them roll HP + best stat mod and then halve that, rounding up, each level).

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

The nice thing about D&D is that everybody can play it the way they like. I personally have the problem that my monsters don't last long enough so I wouldn't reduce their HP.

I also wouldn't reduce the players' HP, because it makes them squishy. If the tank of the party can go down in 1-2 hits every time then that's no fun.

But then we sometimes have entire sessions without combat - only roleplaying - so when we finally get to a fight the players don't mind if it takes some time.

 

[DND_Reborn]

How long do your combats take?
How many rounds?
How many minutes?
What’s “too” long?
What’s just right?
What’s too short?

RAW is too long. My idea is just right.

Seriously, though, if you have read about a combat we had against the drow two sessions back, it took nearly 4 hours to play out. Now, a lot of groups that would be nearly the entire session, for one battle. We play for 10-12 hours generally, and I don't like using so much of the session to resolve combat. It is my personal preference for pace.

Rounds is an interesting point but also the apparent might of the characters. Consider our high elf barbarian: STR 19 +4, Rage +3, Dueling Fighting Style +2, magic weapon +1. Using her longsword, he only has a 50/50 chance to kill a CR 1/2 orc. To me, a character so designed for combat at 11th level should pretty much autokill an orc at that point. It follows the cinematic feel more of what you see in movies.

Now, when we finally get to play test this, maybe 1/2 hp will be too drastic of a shift? I won't know until we try it out, but I am more inclined to this it will work than not (but hey, I've been wrong before.... )

If I'm divining your goals correctly, it seems like doubling all damage would be a mathematically less laborious way to get the same basic time-saving/threat-heightening effect.

Your ideas about ability scores, hit points, and exhaustion are interesting. It might be redundant if you rolled Constitution saves to avoid exhaustion a lot, but weirdly, you don't -- most exhaustion comes automatically in 5E. So since I think most everyone would agree that high-Con characters ought to be harder to exhaust, what you're doing there makes a lot of sense.

I'm of two minds about changing the key ability score for hit points. I get what you're trying to do there, big picture. But what you propose makes maxing out your key ability score even more important, and in my eyes one-ability-score-itis is already a problem in 5E. I'd suggest using your third-highest ability score instead, or even something crazy like a random ability score (rerolled each time you level up), but those both seem awfully contrived. If we're going with the "hit points don't represent meat and which ability score makes them better is arbitrary" route, I think the Gordian solution is to not use an ability score to determine hit points at all. For people who are fine with the basic 5E damage balance: use proficiency bonus instead. For people like you who want to cut the bloat: just use the dice straight.

Yeah, I thought of doubling damage instead, but that would take longer because we would have to roll twice as many dice for damage and doing more math (especially for some of our group) would be burdensome. This way, other than adjusting their HP when they level, the players have no burden at all. As DM, I only have to half the HP when I prep the adventure, which is simple enough.

I see your point about maxing out the one score but IME at most tables in 5E that happens anyway, in fact, is is pretty much assumed. I am not happy about that, as I see even a +3 modifier as good enough personally. Your idea of the third-highest is pretty much what happens with most PCs CON as is as I see it. The idea of rolling randomly is appealing, but goes against the idea that your strongest ability should naturally contribute the most. Now, proficiency bonus is intriguing... I'll have to give that some thought.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I have the opposite problem - I think most monters don't live long enough. Most monsters, even those with lots of hp, would be lucky to live to Round 3.

If you halve the HPs of monsters, i dont think combat will be fun or balanced. Every fight would be a matter of who goes first and who strikes first. Damage would be too important, and abilities that inflict conditions, control the battlefield or utility would vastly be useless. Even healing (especially healing numbers) would be made even more useless, as enemies are always one good hit away from dying (and thus reducing the damage taken).

I can't say I am surprised given how little we've agreed in the past.

It would be interesting to watch how your battles play out so I could see it first hand. The only battles we have that quick are usually against a single foe or two and if the party is well-rested.

Your point about going first, etc. is well taken, but to my way of thinking more realistic. A single hit or two often does end a fight cinematically. However, with fewer hp for monsters, the desire to get a lot of damage would be lessened because you don't have to be able to do it. As it is, with monsters having so many hp, the need to be able to inflict as much damage as possible is already there.

Obviously you're talking about in 4e, right?

Because I've never experienced combat taking too long in BECMi/1e/2e/3x/PF or 5e because of HP bloat.
Often the opposite. Everyone wants to get 2-3 rounds of attacks in on foes, but their HPs vanish after about a round & a half. And that's with me giving most things max HP instead of the average listed.

Nope. 5E. I thought that was pretty clear given the tag for the post. As with @Immoralkickass , I would be interested in watching your table play out. I have a feeling your style is vastly different than ours because most battles take 4-6 rounds, and some longer ones (with more foes) have taken 10-15 rounds! We have had nearly half a dozen battles take 3+ hours of table time to resolve, about one every 5 or 6 sessions. I get this are "big" important battles, but still at half the time would be memorable.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@dnd4vr note that using the hp and damage ranges in the monster manual while not explicity laid out, is RAW. So you can easily use the ranges in the book wothout a special rule to make weak or elite versions of monsters.

Players are a different story.

For the same reason as you, I don't like the necessity of CON. I'd prefer if CON or any other modifier was not added to HP at all. CON is already very useful for a number of important saves. But your way works too.

Good point. I took the time to examine a few monsters and it seems the minimums of the ranges are typically about half the average.

Still, the same is true of PCs. With our average PC having about 90 hp, it takes forever to whittle us down. The DM has to throw really crazy stuff at us to make it an even fight. With reduced hp, lower CR monsters, even if they go down after a hit or two, are more effective.

I think if you make that change you'll end up with the game being rocket tag, which is significantly not in the players' favor. (Monsters are disposable, but in any campaign where players invest in their characters, the PCs are not.)

I'm running a high level (18th) campaign right now and I haven't seen the issue you're referring to. And this is my newbie group, meaning the characters aren't at all optimised. Are you adding additional monsters to encounters to increase the challenge, or something to that effect? Is it that many of your monsters have resistance and the PCs don't have the right tools to pierce it? Note that it's not that I don't believe this is happening to you; it's simply that it isn't happening to me and I'm trying to find the cause of the difference.

I would suggest starting out by decreasing monster HP by 1/3rd and increasing damage by 50%. If combats are still dragging, you can always increase to -50% / +100%, but like I said that seems to me like it would be overkill.

I see your point but to me that is a feature of this idea. I makes players really think about battle more because it could go badly quickly for them. The idea of charging into every fight should quickly disappear.

Our DM does add monsters, but that was the point of BA, so many low CR could be a threat to more powerful PCs. But, because those monsters have so many hp it takes too long to defeat them all, even if some run when their morale breaks.

As I've said in response to others' posts, I would be interested to see how your group plays to compare as well. I think I will try this out first, and if it doesn't have the desired effect I can rethink it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I like what you're doing here and I think if I started a new campaign I might do something similar (though I'd probably just go with having them roll HP + best stat mod and then halve that, rounding up, each level).

That might work as well. I would simply like to reduce the dependency on CON for hp.

The nice thing about D&D is that everybody can play it the way they like. I personally have the problem that my monsters don't last long enough so I wouldn't reduce their HP.

I also wouldn't reduce the players' HP, because it makes them squishy. If the tank of the party can go down in 1-2 hits every time then that's no fun.

But then we sometimes have entire sessions without combat - only roleplaying - so when we finally get to a fight the players don't mind if it takes some time.

Yeah, customizing the game is a great thing about D&D, in every edition!

But the point is tanks wouldn't go down in 1-2 hits because I won't have to use crazy powerful monsters to make it a challenge. I can use lower CR foes to good effect, which is partly my goal.

As I have mentioned, our sessions are much longer than most (10-12 hours), but we typically have 3-6 combats, sometimes more if they are little ones that do play out quickly. Given that most tables have sessions half to one-third ours, I suppose we would average 1-2 combats in a more typical-length session.

 

[Oofta]

I've played and DMed up to 20th level. In 5E I've never had a single combat run 3+ hours, even when I did a "crossover" event with 9 players.

So I think there may be something else going on.

But even in your situation is just double (or triple) damage and increase to hit proficiency for monsters. Then lower the number of monsters. Much easier, simpler math

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The longest fight I've had was maybe an hour an a half. It was eight vs eight and lasted four rounds.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I've played and DMed up to 20th level. In 5E I've never had a single combat run 3+ hours, even when I did a "crossover" event with 9 players.

So I think there may be something else going on.

But even in your situation is just double (or triple) damage and increase to hit proficiency for monsters. Then lower the number of monsters. Much easier, simpler math

The longest fight I've had was maybe an hour an a half. It was eight vs eight and lasted four rounds.

Do either of you recall what PCs were involved and what foes?

I'll freely admit most of the group at our table is "newer" but even then all but one has been playing for a year now (he joined about five months ago). I know part of the delay in them deciding what do to, but I've talked to our DM and he tracks the monsters hp and how many rounds the encounters take, so I am working from his numbers.

 

[JeffB]

Here is your easy solution

I like your system, but I think there are easier ways to handle it in more modern D&D systems- It's mostly on the DM side of the screen so players do not feel like they are "losing" anything AND players tend to like it better because they feel like badasses.

Get rid of cyclic initiative- nothing is more boring/makes combats drag as players tune out until their turn. Roll it each round on a d6 or d10, no modifiers, and then when it's your Players turns jump back and forth as the in game fiction dictates.

In 4E, I reduced monster hit points by 1/3 ish. sometimes half. 5E could use some whittling down for lower level threats. i.e,. Minions-1 or 2 hit minions- have the PCs roll damage and everything normally. But a hit or two takes 'em out. Goblins and Kobolds are 1 hit- Orcs, Hobs, Gnolls are 2. They usually are taken out in 1-2 hits by the Fighter anyway- why bother tracking HP at all and compensating for that 1 goblin that sticks around with 1 or 2 HP left.

Exploding damage dice- roll a 6 on that D6? roll again. This goes for monsters too.

This may be controversial for hardcore sim types- but if the PCs are having a dramatic battle, stakes are high, they are low on spells, HP, etc and the in game fiction and fun would be better served by the Fighter slicing clean through the throat of that Marilith on his successful attack rather than going through the motions of another round and whittling down those last 25 HP -I go with the dramatic ending- either I, or depending on the player, have them describe that final slice/cut/thrust. 180 HP, or 150 HP for the Marilith- who cares.

There are two things I absolutely hate hearing from my players- or having to tell my players

1) When the rules squash a great fiction/fun adventure moment- out the game goes. Ok, my Rogue draws his dagger, runs over to the table, jumps onto the chandelier, swings over and kicks a sea reaver with each leg. OK, but- you don't have enough movement and actions- you can pull your dagger, run to the table, and make an athletics check to get onto the table. Next round you can try to swing with an athletics check, but you don't have two attacks per round so at most you can kick one pirate. I had this situation in PF with my young players years ago and I could see the dejected look on this poor kid's face. I knew I could fudge it- but then knew one of the other kids would cry foul (rules lawyer in the making)- Bottom line-that was our last session of PF(BB) for anything other than a one shot here and there.

2) "Geez..this thing is still up? OK..." followed by a sigh and a rifle through their character sheet papers to see what they can do to end the thing here and now.

I like combats that are quick and flow and it's a constant OK, what do you do? What do you do? what do you do? Real life combat is chaos. So too should RPG combat be. Post TSR D&D games don't handle this very well unfortunately- long combats are just a symptom of "system depth", in the character combat options available to the players, the removal of one minute combat rounds and a strictly codified "action economy" defining exactly what your PC can/can't do in that 6 seconds.

In OD&D (or T&T or DW, or whatever) my example in #1 would easily have been taken care of in the round/on the PC's turn- as the game focuses on rulings and not rules, I would have let the rogue draw, run/jump/swing (with some kind of roll- maybe) and an attack roll- if the PC succeeded I would narrate the scene out, having the PC kick both reavers and knocking them back across the floor for a point or two of damage, or maybe knocking them out. Or if they failed, the PC might trip or roll across the table and fly into one of the reavers and end up prone on the ground. Or the chandelier chain breaks and they go flying past the reavers and crash into a table of burly Barbarians in the back , or...And whatever happened, I would consistently apply this type of ruling to action situations in the future. And it would have been a whole lot of fun whether the stunt worked, or the PC tripped, or the chandelier chain broke, or whatever and it would have taken about 10 seconds to adjudicate with the dice rolls- rules be damned.