D&D General Are Hit Points Meat? (Redux): D&D Co-Creator Saw Hit Points Very Differently

D&D co-creator Dave Arneson wasn't a fan of hit points increasing with level. According to the excellent Jon Peterson's Playing at the World he felt that hit points should be fixed at character creation, with characters becoming harder to hit at higher levels.

Of course, this is an early example of the oft-lengthily and vehemently discussed question best summarised as ‘Are hit points meat?’— a debate which has raged for over 40 years and isn’t likely to be resolved today! (but no they’re not)

Arneson's Hit Points for Characters

Game Wizards is very decidedly not a book about who invented which system in D&D. But early drafts of the book did track one design choic...

playingattheworld.blogspot.com

Arneson later created a hit point equation in his 1979 RPG Adventures in Fantasy which was a game in which he hoped to correct "the many errors in the original rules".

 

[Dausuul]

Call me cynical, but given this would require recognizing that 4e did something genuinely right, and that 5e failed to sufficiently learn from...yeah. Snowball's chance in Avernus.

I'm not quite that cynical. We've seen a few 4E-isms creep back into D&D lately; for example, monstrous spellcasters are returning to the 4E style where their powers are laid out in the statblock. And "more hit points at 1st level" would be a fairly easy thing to do in the 50th Anniversary Edition.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not quite that cynical. We've seen a few 4E-isms creep back into D&D lately; for example, monstrous spellcasters are returning to the 4E style where their powers are laid out in the statblock. And "more hit points at 1st level" would be a fairly easy thing to do in the 50th Anniversary Edition.

Not as a default rule but maybe the 2024 books might have more variants for my HP, clear distinction of meat and stamina, or more direct design to tiers.

 

[loverdrive]

Hit points are hit points and they are represented by a red bar over the character's head. That's a hill I'm going to die on.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The problem isn't starting at level 1 really.
The problem is adventuring at level 1.

Fans don't have a good concept of Tiers. Only 4e taught that well. So DMs and Players think level1 characters are heroes and not the raw green novices with no exp they are. A level 1 character* is just barely not rookies but most level 1 adventures treat them at vets.

Some of the adventures for level 1 PCs are crazy in game. Who sends greenhorns on escort missions and execution quests?
"Oh no they ded fiteing a beeg monster with no trainers around."

*except in 4e where the game plainly states that level 1 PCs are veteran heroes of the heroic tier.

Yeah, there's a thing that came up with the early version of RuneQuest where people got it in their heads that the game didn't assume characters started out using the previous experience system (which, admittedly, was reinforced by that being in the appendix, but since I was friends with the main author, I'm comfortable saying that was not RAI). This meant you'd be starting off with, basically, older teenagers untrained except to the extent just being in their culture trained them (i.e. the base skill values). As I commented at the time, if you were going to do that, for the sake of the gods have them starting off doing things like searching the woods for a lost child (and possibly dealing with a rogue wolf) not anything more demanding.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And in 1e where a first level fighter is explicitly a veteran. And in 5e where a first level wizard can firebolt at will and that's scary. (I could make a case for other editions).

Except that AD&D1, like OD&D would effectively have been lying to you in how things played out. Bottom level characters were simply too brittle for that to work out unless you were okay with heavy turnover early (not as heavy as a DCC funnel, but heavy enough). Especially given rolled hit points it was just too easy for "one hit and you're done".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Call me cynical, but given this would require recognizing that 4e did something genuinely right, and that 5e failed to sufficiently learn from...yeah. Snowball's chance in Avernus.

4e did many things right, but I don't agree this was one of them. It was jarring how first level characters were already fully fledged action heroes. You can't have 'from zero to hero' if you start out as a hero!

5e approach is better. One and two are novice levels. The game could communicate this better, but that's it. And if people can't follow instructions, that's on them.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Except that AD&D1, like OD&D would effectively have been lying to you in how things played out. Bottom level characters were simply too brittle for that to work out unless you were okay with heavy turnover early (not as heavy as a DCC funnel, but heavy enough). Especially given rolled hit points it was just too easy for "one hit and you're done".

This is more a difference between the oD&D/1e intended playstyle and the one 2e locked in for first level and there's a good case it wasn't lying to you.

In 1e at first level as a fighter you were a veteran. Stronger and tougher than those around you - but intended to play as one of a group, bringing hirelings with you to the dungeon. A 1e character can do that at first level (and the first level one-spell wizard was the radio operator who could call in an air strike 1/day).

What you are looking for, the adventurer who isn't just significantly ahead of his peers but could take on a dungeon as one of a tiny team rather than a large one isn't a veteran but a hero. Which is the level 4 fighter title. oD&D wasn't lying to you - it's just that most people wanted to do something else.

 

[Lanefan]

The problem isn't starting at level 1 really.
The problem is adventuring at level 1.

Fans don't have a good concept of Tiers. Only 4e taught that well. So DMs and Players think level1 characters are heroes and not the raw green novices with no exp they are. A level 1 character* is just barely not rookies but most level 1 adventures treat them at vets.

And how and why are DMs and players getting that impression? Ah, yes, because the box doesn't tell them any different; which means it's either a design fail or a marketing fail.

Contrast this with 1e, which implies pretty strongly in the PH that when you start out you really are just starting out; you have limited (sometimes very limited, depending on dice luck) funds with which to equip yourself, and that after you've done some adventuring you'll be a hero but you're not one yet (the rather poor Cavalier class write-up notwithstanding).

Put another way, you start out as Frodo or Sam or Pippin, with not much going for you and pretty much your entire hero's journey still ahead.

Contrast this with starting out as Strider or Gimli or Legolas who when first met are already well into said journey and have a well-developed a series of skills and abilities. This is what modern D&D seems to want.

Some of the adventures for level 1 PCs are crazy in game. Who sends greenhorns on escort missions and execution quests?
"Oh no they ded fiteing a beeg monster with no trainers around."

Yes, some low-level adventures - particularly in 1e and 3e - are pretty harsh. Personally I don't mind this; but then I've always seen the low levels as kind of a slow-motion version of the DCC funnel anyway.

 

[Lanefan]

It's not uncommon in video game RPGs to start higher than level 1. FF VII starts you off at level 6, and you automatically increase to level 7 after the first fight. FF VIII starts you at level 7.

Then what's the purpose of the lower 5 (or 6) levels. if they can't be played?

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that true newbs don't see any obligation to begin play at level 1.

I would. Just like any other game the default is to start at the as-written start and go from there.

Starting at level 3 or level 5 or whatever is equivalent to starting Monopoly with each player already having a pile o' cash and hotels on several properties: playable, sure, but not what the game expects.

 

[Lanefan]

How about if we instead phrase it as, "D&D player and DM culture has, overall, rejected a particular design idea. We should change the game to the idea they've accepted instead."?

That's a pretty broad statement. What are you basing it on?