D&D 5E Removing the HP Bloat

[DND_Reborn]

I think 5-6 rounds is about par for a Deadly encounter. However, I can't imagine either of these combats taking more than 30 minutes from rolling initiative to the last opponent falling.

Honestly, I still can't conceive of a combat taking 4 hours unless something really strange was going on like a dynamically shifting environment.

I know that you run a lot of house rules based on your posts to other threads. What house rules are you using? Are you using Greyhawk Initiative, weapon speed, flanking or some other house rule that might add to the administrative overhead of the combat? Are you using miniatures or theater of the mind? How experienced are you and your players? Are you playing in person at a table or are you on like Roll20? Are you using any digital tools as DM? Are you flipping around the monster manual or do have a way to have all the monster listings at your fingertips? Do you have children or the television on or lots of texting or other frequent interruptions/distractions during play? Are your players descriptive, or do they just say, "I attack the guy in front of me again!" and roll a die?

Actually, most of the house-rules our tables uses speeds UP combat. We only roll once for Initiative, and the DM uses an excel spreadsheet to put in the numbers and it has a macro that auto-sorts the list. It is on the wall mounted TV so everyone can see the list and knows their place in Initiative.

Our DM never rolls damage for monsters, just using the averages, and crits deal max damage. Players (such as myself) can also do this. Most of the players still roll damage though.

About 75% of the time is theater of mind. We have a battle map and use dice/minis for major battles sometimes, but other times we even use theater of mind for those.

Flanking is advantage per RAW, determined by the battle map if used or by DM discretion for theater of mind.

The DM and myself are the most experienced (decades for each of us). The other three are all sort-of new. Two have been around about 13 months, the newest only 5 months.

The DM has everything on his laptops (he uses two, one for the game and one for reference), but has monster stats directly on his spreadsheet where he tracks everything else. He showed me how it works and it is pretty cool IMO. He just types in the damage when a monster takes it, and the current HP cell updates instantly.

For one of the players, a cell phone is a distraction at times. We've talked to him about it and told him if it doesn't get better he'll have to leave it on the back table.

Play is normally "I cast fireball at them." or "I attack the closest wolf." etc.

Some of the players have spell casts to hep them in referencing their spells, to that helps.

 

[Prakriti]

The only thing that is sort of weird about it is how the numbers work out. For example, an orc does 9 damage on average. Changing that to 18 doesn't work the same because at 1st level PCs won't have more than 16 HP or so (18 hp is impossible for level 1 PCs). So, while normally a PC could have 12 hp or more and the 9 damage wouldn't kill him, you way doesn't accomplish that.

Ah, true. I guess the end result isn't exactly the same in the early levels, since your method isn't as simple as halving PC HP. But do you really feel the need to change anything in the early levels? Personally, I'm happy with the pace of combat in levels 1-4. It's only around level 5 that thing starts to bog down.

Maybe one solution is to use the method I mentioned earlier starting at level 5, and for levels 1-4 to do this: give monsters the minimum HP (or half) and have them do maximum damage (instead of average). So an orc would have 8 HP (2d8+6) and do 15 damage (1d12+3); a goblin would have 2 HP (2d6) and do 8 damage (1d6+2); and a skeleton would have 6 HP (2d8+4) and do 8 damage (1d6+2). That seems a little more reasonable.

 

[DEFCON 1]

At higher levels, this makes all spells that deal direct damage so much more effective than any other spells on them. Considering that players will usually only have 2-3 decent saves and the rest don't go up with level, and now their buffer of HPs do not go up by level, it means there is literally no scaling to protect against many damage spells - which are scaling by spell slot. You'll quickly get back to save-or-die for damage spells, often in area of effect, followed not long after by just-die, where even making your save doesn't reduce the damage enough.

Which would be a problem, if I didn't already know this and had taken those kinds of things into account.

High-level spells aren't much of a problem if you don't play at high levels. My plans are also coupled with playing E6 style, because that way all the monsters and creatures I enjoy using (humanoids, beasts, magical beasts and the like) are all threats throughout the campaign without having to re-do all the statblocks. And it also means that yes, a really strong and supposedly dangerous monster like an adult dragon, actually can and will kill someone straight away if they try and tank and spank it. Should the players wish to actually engage with it, they will have to really decide "Okay, we're doing this!" and make plans and strategies and probably get a lot of help. And usually... that engagement will be communication, rather than combat.

I'm just tired of running games where the PCs decide to just blitz the beholder because they can fight through the pain without much thought or concern.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Ah, true. I guess the end result isn't exactly the same in the early levels, since your method isn't as simple as halving PC HP. But do you really feel the need to change anything in the early levels? Personally, I'm happy with the pace of combat in levels 1-4. It's only around level 5 that thing starts to bog down.

We've had things bog down sooner, but for the most part you're right. Although I still think bloated HP is a problem, at higher levels analysis paralysis for the newer players is also to blame.

Maybe one solution is to use the method I mentioned earlier starting at level 5, and for levels 1-4 to do this: give monsters the minimum HP (or half) and have them do maximum damage (instead of average). So an orc would have 8 HP (2d8+6) and do 15 damage (1d12+3); a goblin would have 2 HP (2d6) and do 8 damage (1d6+2); and a skeleton would have 6 HP (2d8+4) and do 8 damage (1d6+2). That seems a little more reasonable.

It still creates the same problem since you have the orc doing 15 damage and a PC will have maybe 10-13 hp at level 1. Keeping damage average still makes an orc a threat, and giving them fewer HP makes it so a good hit or two would drop one. As you and another poster suggested, minimum hp is roughly half, so I could go with either and it would work.

Actually, for the PCs, I was thinking instead of maybe doing max hp and hit point modifier at level 1, and then only hit dice (no modifier) per level afterwards. (I think someone might have suggested this but I don't want to reskim through the posts ). This will work well with having hp modifier being based on highest score and not just CON. Also, it is much easier to explain....

 

[DND_Reborn]

Which would be a problem, if I didn't already know this and had taken those kinds of things into account.

High-level spells aren't much of a problem if you don't play at high levels. My plans are also coupled with playing E6 style, because that way all the monsters and creatures I enjoy using (humanoids, beasts, magical beasts and the like) are all threats throughout the campaign without having to re-do all the statblocks. And it also means that yes, a really strong and supposedly dangerous monster like an adult dragon, actually can and will kill someone straight away if they try and tank and spank it. Should the players wish to actually engage with it, they will have to really decide "Okay, we're doing this!" and make plans and strategies and probably get a lot of help. And usually... that engagement will be communication, rather than combat.

I agree. I like the idea that powerful creatures don't have to be insanely so in order to keep the party wondering...

I'm just tired of running games where the PCs decide to just blitz the beholder because they can fight through the pain without much thought or concern.

Yep. Our DM tosses pretty crazy stuff at us in order for us to think, "Should we fight this?"

Even though one of our normal players is DMing CoS, none of us batted an eyelash when we faced to deadly encounters. Some dire wolves? No problem. Bunch of scarecrows? Bring 'em on! The way the encounters played out, I would rate them more between moderate and hard.

 

[Oofta]

It still creates the same problem since you have the orc doing 15 damage and a PC will have maybe 10-13 hp at level 1. Keeping damage average still makes an orc a threat, and giving them fewer HP makes it so a good hit or two would drop one. As you and another poster suggested, minimum hp is roughly half, so I could go with either and it would work.

Just to play devil's advocate, that's why you don't throw orcs at 1st level PCs. You throw bandits instead. Orcs become the scary monster they should be. Or, of course, just take it on a case by case basis. But if you roll for damage instead of using the average, there's a pretty good chance that those orcs are going to take out a level 1 PC with one blow anyway. Personally I don't have a problem with that - I want my orcs to be a bit scarier.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Just to play devil's advocate, that's why you don't throw orcs at 1st level PCs. You throw bandits instead. Orcs become the scary monster they should be. Or, of course, just take it on a case by case basis. But if you roll for damage instead of using the average, there's a pretty good chance that those orcs are going to take out a level 1 PC with one blow anyway. Personally I don't have a problem with that - I want my orcs to be a bit scarier.

No problem--I love devil's advocates!

So, you don't throw orcs at 1st level PCs in 5E. You did in 1E and 2E, all the time. Orcs were strong, but not STR 16 burly brutes. You have things like Warcraft to thank for that and anime-style stuff. Nothing wrong with it if that's your preference, but it isn't mine. If the average human has STR 10, I am fine with orcs being stronger and having an average STR 12, with their "stronger" warriors maybe STR 14?

Here is more my idea of what a typical orc warrior would be like:

At least when I see movies like LotR and such. Now, the stronger Uruk-hai reminds me of your standard 5E orcs, but I suppose those are supposed to be the orogs?

Now, my orc is more comparable with a 5E goblin. Of course, I don't want restat every monster and giving them half or minimum hp works strongly towards my goal.

 

[JeffB]

I've found having to re-poll each player every turn both adds length to combats, and also breaks any flow / kills inertial. We just use cards / clothespins and just constantly move - there's no gap between players or between rounds and it's all very smooth - plus everyone know when they are up next so they have their action ready.

In addition, one of the things D&D 5e does in it's streamlining is that there are a number of spells and effects that last "until the start|end of your next turn" which assume that each other creature will have exactly one action during that time. Not more, not less. Because of how redoing initiative interacts with that streamlining (instead of a proper duration), this has a lot of ripple effects and unintended consequences in 5e.

I'm not sure what you mean by "re-poll" every turn? Players have to declare what their PCs are doing on each turn regardless if the initiative is cyclic or rolled round by round. …?


As for "until the end/start" business. I've done it in 3E and 4E and 13th Age as well- I'm aware it does create some wonk- however I have found it fairly well evens out in the long run between being a positive/negative to the PCs or Opposition. The Cyclic initiative adds more positive in the long run. As stated though- I'm all about fast flowing combats (as fast as possible) and not letting the game/mechanics get in the way of making the combat more dramatic/intense/exciting.

Ken St. Andre (or possibly Liz Danforth) said something to the effect of

"The GMs power to kill characters is unlimited. The power to scare the players half to death is the real skill. Don't confuse the two"

I don't let any modifications to a game to make things run faster/more intense/more flow-y , "hose" the characters- I always compensate in some way shape or form.

 

[JeffB]

Interesting idea. I would be more inclined to boost damage instead of hitting though since with BA hitting isn't typically hard (easily better than 50/50 in most cases).

Adding up more dice for extra damage is not an issue for me, but it does take longer if everyone is having to take more time to add them up each round. (I also don't use static damage for monsters).

Going back to my initial post- this is why I prefer doing things on the DM side- e.g. minions. No tracking, doesn't matter what the players roll for damage - no need to increase damage, etc.- (but they roll anyway). Does the job and simplifies my life.

 

[Blue]

Which would be a problem, if I didn't already know this and had taken those kinds of things into account.

High-level spells aren't much of a problem if you don't play at high levels. My plans are also coupled with playing E6 style, because that way all the monsters and creatures I enjoy using (humanoids, beasts, magical beasts and the like) are all threats throughout the campaign without having to re-do all the statblocks. And it also means that yes, a really strong and supposedly dangerous monster like an adult dragon, actually can and will kill someone straight away if they try and tank and spank it. Should the players wish to actually engage with it, they will have to really decide "Okay, we're doing this!" and make plans and strategies and probably get a lot of help. And usually... that engagement will be communication, rather than combat.

Playing within the boundaries of E6 makes a huge difference.

As a side note, mentioning major changes like this upfront may help others to comment in context. I was calling out what would be an issue in normal play.