An alternative way of fixing HP per level

[Quartz]

I've mentioned this a couple of times in other threads, but I think it deserves its own, so I propose my alternative for calculating Hit Points per level.

First you decide to fix the HP of the lowest HD class, the wizard. Say you choose 3 HP. Then you note that this is not the average of the hit die, but 3 less than the maximum of the hit die. You then propagate that to the other classes. So a fighter with d10 HP per level would get 7 HP per level (10-3) instead of 5, and a barbarian with d12 would get 9 HP per level instead of 6. If you had chosen 4 HP per level for the wizard, 2 less than the maximum, the figures would have been 8 and 10 respectively.

This does rebalance the game in favour of the combat classes a bit but it does give them extra survivability.

 

[Valetudo]

I didnt know ther was a problem to begin with. The only problem i have with 5ths hps is the rocket tag aspect of the fisrt couple of levels.

 

[Ath'kethin]

What, specifically, was the problem that needed fixing? You mention other threads, but I don't remember seeing complaints about the subject before (aside from vulnerabilities at low levels).

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

Alternatively just give players max hp for every level. I don't think it really breaks anything. It just makes the characters a bit heartier.

 

[Mercule]

Congratulations on having the only thread started this season.

I am a bit confused in that your numbers, above, seem off. You reference "instead of" a number multiple times, implying that the number listed is the 5E RAW, but none of them are. In all cases, classes get mean HP, round up. Wizards get 4, not 3. Fighters get 6, not 5. Barbarians get 7, not 6. Am I misinterpreting something?

Regardless, if I just look at your suggestions, I still don't think I like it. The bigger concern, for me, would be that what you propose would widen the gap between just Wizard and Sorcerer and all other classes. Because those are the d6 classes, their hit points actually go down under your system. The d8 classes break even, and d10/d12 classes get a bump (+1 and +2, respectively). I haven't noticed any problems with survival for combat classes, so I don't see any "solution", there. If anything, the tanks will hit a point just north of the balance point. Meanwhile, I have genuine concerns about whether the arcanists would cross a southern border on survival -- which was an actual issue in previous editions that needed fixed.

So, this really looks like a solution in search of a problem. I think it would actually be somewhat disruptive, if it had any impact at all. IMO, 5E hit the sweet spot on PC hit points. Now, if you want to talk AC, I might be open to that.

 

[Blue]

What are you trying to fix? Right now it's the average, rounded up. This widens the gap between classes, did you feel wizards/sorcerers had too many HPs and barbarians not enough?

I don't have a problem with the existing HPs so I'm not sure what you are trying to solve.

 

[aco175]

I think it depends on the type of game you want to play. I tend to let players role HP and then take average if they roll low. This makes higher HP characters than average or even your solution. It works for my game and does not seem to break anything. Mercule explained above the lower HP for soft characters and a bump in HP for fighters and barbarians. I would favor something neutral or even bumping softer characters a bit.

I also agree with several others where HP does not seem broken.

 

[delericho]

The issue the OP mentions is something that one of my players used to complain about when using fixed hp in 3e - that giving Wizards a fixed 3 (out of d4) and Fighters 6 (out of d10) meant that the former got 75% of max while the latter only got 60%. But I largely ignored him.

I'm pretty happy with 5e's fixed hp per level, so don't really see this as a problem in need of a fix. The one thing I would change would be to give the same fixed value at every level but also to give every character a one-off +5 bonus, just to give them a bit more resilience at low levels. (So a 1st level Wizard would start with 5+4 = 9 hp, rather than the current 6; a Fighter would get 5+6 = 11 instead of the current 10.) Which, in theory at least, is to clear up the oddity where a Rogue/Wizard has slightly more hit points than a Wizard/Rogue. But then, if I run another campaign, I'm probably going to ban multiclassing anyway...

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The issue the OP mentions is something that one of my players used to complain about when using fixed hp in 3e - that giving Wizards a fixed 3 (out of d4) and Fighters 6 (out of d10) meant that the former got 75% of max while the latter only got 60%. But I largely ignored him.

I was a complexity addict in my 3E days and actually used the true average for fixed hit points (i.e., 2 at even levels, 3 at odd). But yeah, low-level 3E wizards could use the help, and high-level 3E wizards were doing something wrong if their hit points ever became relevant, so whatever.

Which, in theory at least, is to clear up the oddity where a Rogue/Wizard has slightly more hit points than a Wizard/Rogue.

And also skill proficiencies.