D&D 5E D&D Should Have Less HP Bloat

[Argyle King]

flat values should exist too. Some classes operate with lots of smaller attacks, others with fewer larger attacks. Exclusively using a percentage rather than flat values puts the advantage on the death by a thousand cuts who get to ply the odds & are less likely to miss all of those attacks than a character who has it all on the line with one attack.

The fact that equipment modifiers tend to multiply across each attack but only apply once when there is one big attack amplifies the effect of that slanted stacking of benefits by ensuring the many attack character will never encounter a situation where they are at a disadvantage to the all or nothing one big strike character.

Perhaps. That's something to consider.
I haven't done in-depth calculations, but my proposal wouldn't drastically change how things currently work.

Resistance
10 in half is 5
5 in half twice is (2.5*2) 5, or 4 if you round down for simplicity

Minor Resistance
10 - 25% (2.5) = 7.5, or 7
5 - 25% (1.25) = 3.75, or 3... 3*2 = 6

The one big attack comes out slightly ahead. I assume the difference becomes more as numbers increase, but I'm not sure I see that as a problem. The character who has opted to build around one big attack for more damage is (I think) operating as intended.

I would need to look at how accuracy scales the numbers too. This was just a quick thought while eating lunch.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I can't say I've had this problem in 5e (if anything, I have to increase important monster's HP to make the fights last long enough for interesting things to happen), but it sounds like the old Arduin Grimoire alt HP system might be of use:

The Arduin Hit Point System

There was a recent post at The Tao of D&D about how low-level humans are unrealistically wimpy in D&D. Well, David Hargave proposed a solu...

cyclopeatron.blogspot.com

I've never used it in play, but I like how it gives starting characters more backbone while slowing HP increase over time. Not sure how it would play with 5e, though.

 

[tetrasodium]

Perhaps. That's something to consider.
I haven't done in-depth calculations, but my proposal wouldn't drastically change how things currently work.

Resistance
10 in half is 5
5 in half twice is (2.5*2) 5, or 4 if you round down for simplicity

Minor Resistance
10 - 25% (2.5) = 7.5, or 7
5 - 25% (1.25) = 3.75, or 3... 3*2 = 6

The one big attack comes out slightly ahead. I assume the difference becomes more as numbers increase, but I'm not sure I see that as a problem. The character who has opted to build around one big attack for more damage is (I think) operating as intended.

I would need to look at how accuracy scales the numbers too. This was just a quick thought while eating lunch.

except it's usually more like 3x (2d6+10+5) vrs 1x 6d6+1d8+5 or 1x10d6. If each of those misses one attack the loss is massive compared to the rounding error that can result in a point getting dropped here & there

 

[Jd Smith1]

I limit PCs HP to 100 + Con bonus. I would trim it a bit less, but that makes it very easy to calculate monster risk levels.

 

[Argyle King]

except it's usually more like 3x (2d6+10+5) vrs 1x 6d6+1d8+5 or 1x10d6. If each of those misses one attack the loss is massive compared to the rounding error that can result in a point getting dropped here & there

How is that different with the current version of 5E resistance?

 

[Argyle King]

I limit PCs HP to 100 + Con bonus. I would trim it a bit less, but that makes it very easy to calculate monster risk levels.

How do your encounter difficulty calculations change with that change?

Also, do you trim monster HP?

 

[tetrasodium]

How is that different with the current version of 5E resistance?

Look at it this way. It starts from level 5 up but is more magnified as it goes so I'll use level 11 PCs

• +1 Rapier wielding rogue makes one attack for 1d8+1+5(dex)+6d6(sneak). That averages to 31.5.
  • Things get complicated by a possible offhand attack but ignore that for now as it really complicates the explaining needlessly.
• GWM +1 greatsword wielding fighter makes three attacks each dealing 2d6+1+5+10. That averages to 23 each attack for a possible 69.
• Sorcerer uses their one 6th level slot to cast the 6th level spell harm for 14d6. This averages to 49.

Each of those is treated identical by a percentage based resistance but not by hit rates.

• If the fighter misses one attack & hits on the others average damage drops to 46.
• If the rogue misses on that one attack... average damage drops to zero.
• If the sorcerer is resisted after using their one first level spell slot average damage drops to zero.

Obviously at this point the 3 attack fighter has the odds in their favor big time at this point since they deal the most damage at both ertain hitrates & very low miss rates but get treated the same for percentage based resistances. There are two situations where flat damage value resistance is better for one or the other

• If the hit rate is very low things change a lot. Lets say roll a 15 or better is needed before mods are added. This works out mathematically to about a 25% hit chance for each attack.
  • the sorcerer is going to be rather out of the running due to spell slot consumption. Ignore them for now they come back in the next group
  • The fighter gets 3 chances to hit for an average of 23 each. Since the results of one die roll have no impact on the next this can be zero one two or three successful attacks. each successful attack deals an average of 23.
  • The rogue makes one attack to the fighter's three & has the same hit chance but if they get lucky they get to deal an average of 46 damage.

The high damage dealer is hurt with a greater loss of damage but the fighter with three attacks has three times as many chances to hit

While that low hit chance is a problem, there are a lot of factors that complicate it & sometimes it's just a bad matchup deliberately intended to be tough for a PC. This next one is where it becomes super obvious
Say the monster is one of the 4 pages of necrotic immune monsters here. Given that there are only nine slash immune monsters (all oozes too) lets show how a flat damage reduction of 5 10 & 15 to their respective damage types affect each PC, assume high hit rates

• Start by looking at the 3.5 monster manual page 300 recommendation for adding DR & spell resistance at various monster CRs. cr3-5 recommends a 5 point reduction. CR6-13 recommends 10 point reduction. CR 14-20 recommends 15 point reduction.
• DR2/Resist5. Fighter still hits three times but 23 drops to 19 for a possible total of 57. Rogue hits once 26.5. Sorcerer hits once for 45
• DR/resist10. Fighter still hits 3x & is starting to feel the pain the other two felt whenever they roll really bad & lose the entire chance of damage. He hits 3x for 13 each for a total of 39. Rogue hits once & drops 10 off it to 21.5 damage. Sorcerer hits once for 39 This reduction is also the sweet spot for this group level.
• DR/Resist 15. Fighter is feeling the pain big time each attack only dals 8 damage for a possible 24. Rogue deals 16.5. Sorcerer deals 34 & for the first time consuming a spell slot outdamages the fighter consuming nothing.

If the fighter has an option between a +3 greatsword & a +0 greatsword with a lesser pr no bonus that deals +1d6 fire damage the choice becomes subjective with flat reductions in the mix as the +3 will help hit more often & the average damage of a d6 is 3.5 making the damage almost the same in percentage based reductions only. With any of that 5/10/15 point dr/resist though it becomes complicated because that +3 add to the part where damage reduction is hitting slashing while the 1d6 is only reduced if the target has resistance to fire & even then it's reduced by a flat value. That reliability can be seen as a strength worth choosing it over the one with a greater flat bonus

 

[Jd Smith1]

How do your encounter difficulty calculations change with that change?

Also, do you trim monster HP?

At the higher levels, I adjust NPC HP based on the PCs having 100 each, which makes for easy calculation interns of both monster defense and attacks.

At the lower levels, nothing changes.

It makes fights at high levels fast and brutal, and it forces PCs to spend a lot of time casting healing or defensive spells.

 

[Argyle King]

Look at it this way. It starts from level 5 up but is more magnified as it goes so I'll use level 11 PCs

• +1 Rapier wielding rogue makes one attack for 1d8+1+5(dex)+6d6(sneak). That averages to 31.5.
  • Things get complicated by a possible offhand attack but ignore that for now as it really complicates the explaining needlessly.
• G....

Under the current system, 5E has resistance (take half damage). That's it.

I chose 25% (1/4) and 75% (3/4) as steps based upon the half (2/4) currently used by the system.

I'm not opposed to more granularity or different ways of doing it. I'll read through what you've posted more thoroughly.

 

[tetrasodium]

Under the current system, 5E has resistance (take half damage). That's it.

Yes... im aware.

I chose 25% (1/4) and 75% (3/4) as steps based upon the half (2/4) currently used by the system.

I'm not opposed to more granularity or different ways of doing it. I'll read through what you've posted more thoroughly.

Granularity is not the problem. Using only percentages is.