D&D 5E 10HP Bonus for Level 1 Characters. Thoughts?

[Mercule]

Straightforward answer: It probably wouldn't break anything, especially if it was just "credit" from higher levels. By that, I mean that you wouldn't actually get any more hit points until you advanced enough that your total would be higher.

Better option is to give all PCs third level hit points at first level, then they start gaining normally at fourth level. Similar results, intuitive, and easy math.

Even better, just start everyone at third level. It's been said that third level is the new first. If you have concerns with survivability, just run with it and ignore the problem levels. Honestly, the PCs wouldn't even be seriously impacted by still just giving them the PHB starting wealth -- if it really bugs you, give them each an extra 150 gp, which is probably extremely generous, based on my experience.

As others have said, I wouldn't jack with the system, in this way. I'd either start at first or third, with a slight preference for first.

 

[S'mon]

If not using the standard XP system & wanting to make level 1 feel like a real level that takes a few sessions of play, then yes something like this is a good idea. I tend to think a maximised hit die (inc CON bonus) might be a better way to go, and would fit well with how NPCs are statted out since all combatant NPCs get at least 2 hit dice. If you give +10hp with no extra hit die then short rest healing will be much weaker at level 1.

 

[Al2O3]

If it is a good idea depends on the goal.
New players learning the game and should get a bit at a time, but you don't want one critical to kill the PC? Just remove instant death for levels 1-3. Worked well when I DMed LMoP with my (experienced) group.

For SKT when we found levels 1 and 2 boring but wanted the full story we started at level 3 and then ignored leveling up at the first two milestones. Our DM still told us where they were so we got that sense of progression. Still ended up with 1 dead character in LMoP (and one with two failed death saves before stabilising) due to splitting the party and bad rolls. We also we close to provoking a TPK in an encounter designed to happen at level 2 in SKT.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using EN World mobile app

 

[Amatiel]

I don't like having to pull punches. My firstr campaign in 5e was RAW, and I masacred the PCs innumerable times until they hit about 3-5th level. It took only a little bad luck to tpk the whole party. My new campaign I adopted the rules from 13th age. 1st lvl PCs get hps x 3. So basically as they progress, they always have hps of their class as if they were 2 lvls higher. It has worked out well so far. They are a lot more robust (heroic), and not peasents with pointy sticks getting masacred by the first group of angry kobolds they encounter.

 

[JValeur]

I think that the easiest way to do this fairly - and I will be during this or a close variant in my next campaign - is to start players of with HP = HD max + CON score. On subsequent levels you round average HDs down instead of up (all my players take average hit points on leveling) or allow them to roll as usual (which is already statistically slightly worse than taking the average). This does make the CON slightly more important, but who are we kidding, most players will try to put at least 12 there anyway.

Example: Fighter with 14 con has 24 hit points at level 1 (as opposed to 12), 52 hit points at level 5 (as opposed to 44), 94 hit points at level 11 (as opposed to 92) and 157 at level 20 (as opposed to 164). So stronger level 1-12, weaker level 13-20, but fairly close past level 5.

Alternatively, you can do a more punishing variant where you remove the CON mod on subsequent levels - i. e. you only get HP from your HD when you level up. This takes some of the importance off the CON score - which is a nice change of pace - but obviously reduces the staying power of your PCs at later levels - and can be quite a nerf to the Barbarian especially.

Example: Fighter with 14 con has 24 hit points at level 1 (as opposed to 12), 44 hit points at level 5 (as opposed to 44), 84 hit points at level 11 (as opposed to 92) and 138 at level 20 (as opposed to 164). So stronger level 1-4, even at 5, and then weaker from there on forward. Obviously the differences will be bigger with a CON of 16+.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Personally I feel like if 5e has a first level hit point issue, it's with what happens after you get dropped, not before. It's fairly easy for first level characters to go from alive to dead without hitting unconscious in between.

Meanwhile at high levels, it's basically impossible for the same thing to happen.

Seems like the whole instant death threshold needs to be something like "half hit points plus your constitution" or thereabouts, making instant death a lot less likely at low level, but more likely at high level.

 

[BrockBallingdark]

I just ran my party of 4 players through their first session at level 1, and things could have gone super south super fast. My dice were really hot that night, so I fudged my dice behind the screen into misses. If you're against fudging your dice, you can just give players more HP.

I would also consider having players start at a higher level, but this is our first campaign in 5e, and I want to see what the play experience looks like.

Same situation here, 4 players, two never played 5e before (but previous versions) and they are feeling the excitement and fear of being 1st level characters. We are half way through the first adventure after 1 night and they will be level 2 after the next game.

I role in front of my characters as that's a 5e thing that I like but if I sense they are cold rolling or I'm on fire rolling, I pull back on tactics or not add Str. or to Attack bonuses when I roll. They only see the dice, not the mods. When I'm a player, I want to start from 1st level, it gives me a chance to figure out what I want to be like as a player and feel that I'm just an ant right now. Never been a fan of playing at higher levels, unless I'm at a Convention.

 

[Shiroiken]

In general, I don't think this would be a problem. The PCs will be able to take on much more combat than most 1st & 2nd Level characters, but you can always design more combats per day if you want. I had considered adding half Con score myself, because I don't like the large jump in HP between 1st & 2nd Level (~ +55%), and this would help mitigate that.

Another option would be to simply start at level 3. I choose to do this because Levels 1 & 2 are designed to be pretty inconsequential, requiring about a sessions worth of XP each. If you are adding extra HP and want to make levels 1 & 2 more consequential, you can increase the XP required (I'd go with 500 & 1,200, probably increasing the XP for each level after that by 300), which might bring them in line with other levels for duration.

 

[FrogReaver]

Options I would prefer to your proposed one:
1. Start at 2nd or 3rd level instead of first.
2. Change how crits work. Instead of extra damage they could give you advantage against the creature the next turn or something similar. (See it as an attack so strong it knocks the enemy off balance for a short time).
3. Give everyone the half Orc ability instead of more hp. Then give the half orc 2 uses of that ability in a day.

 

[Caliban]

Hello All!
I'm considering adding 10 HP to all level 1 characters for my game. My reasoning:
1. Lessens the chance of character death at early levels.
2. Adds a touch more realism, as new levels are not such a dramatic increase in HP at low levels.

Overall I'm wondering if anyone here has done this and if the house rule has had a good effect on their games? Are there other solutions to early character death that you've successfully used?

Thank you.

I just start everyone at 3rd level and be done with it. I consider level's 1 and 2 to be the "training wheel" levels and my players don't really need that anymore.