D&D 5E Capping Hit Points

[Jd Smith1]

I don't think it's a good house rule because it devalues a number of things that aren't overpowered to begin with:

1. Bigger hit dice
2. Toughness feat
3. Hill dwarves

I don't ascribe to the idea of hp as primarily meat, but even if you do, it doesn't make sense that a frail wizard with 8 Constitution will have the same number of hp as an indomitable barbarian with 24 Con at 20th level. That's like saying Ali could take the same kind of impact as Tyson at the height of their respective careers. They're both legendary boxers, but no way Ali could take a hit like Tyson. They literally weren't in the same weight class.

If the goal is to prevent hp bloat, then just cap hp at a certain level. Given that it sounds like you give characters max hp every level, if you cap it at 10 they'll be in the ballpark of same hp as if you went by the book, albeit 10 levels sooner than going by the book. Or just don't give them max hp every level.

Punching with a padded glove is a far different situation than being hit by an axe, arrow, or bullet.

IMO the difference between the wizard and the barbarian would be 10-15%, tops. A barbarian would be harder to hit, though.

 

[Scott Christian]

I really don't see that a warrior and a wizard would have that major of a difference in hit points. Flesh is flesh. Hence the flat cap. Of course, a warrior type would hit the cap a lot sooner than a non-warrior, and thus would see a distinct benefit.

If you are using HP as actual damage to the body, then yes, flesh is flesh. But, I would add that pain tolerance is not pain tolerance. And someone who spends their life's training getting hurt has a greater pain tolerance than someone reading books. I think an MMA fighter might have a greater pain tolerance than a librarian.

 

[CubicsRube]

No, it had just become more pronounced. HP bloat has been a concern of mine for quite a while, but since we're playing a modern game I had it on the back burner.

It doesn't impact character growth. It just impacts stats. Players cause PCs to grow,

I'd recommend switching to max damage for enemies. It really does wonders for the devil may care attitude and it Makes Monsters Scary Again(tm).

I appreciate your wanting to install a cap however. If I were to do it, I'd likely cap HP at level 10, which I think would be about a sweet spot for me.

 

[Dausuul]

It seems to me like you're pushing hard for realism here, and that... isn't going to work with hit points. The whole premise of hit points is grossly unrealistic. They are designed for simplicity and fun gameplay, not realism.

I don't generally approve of saying "Find a different game!" when someone expresses an issue with D&D. For most issues, it is easier to tweak the game we've got than to set out on a quixotic quest for The Perfect RPG (which doesn't exist). But in this case, it really does seem like you're looking for a kind of game that D&D is not equipped to deliver. With enough work, you might be able to force it, but the system will fight you tooth and nail.

 

[Jd Smith1]

It seems to me like you're pushing hard for realism here, and that... isn't going to work with hit points. The whole premise of hit points is grossly unrealistic. They are designed for simplicity and fun gameplay, not realism.

I don't generally approve of saying "Find a different game!" when someone expresses an issue with D&D. For most issues, it is easier to tweak the game we've got than to set out on a quixotic quest for The Perfect RPG (which doesn't exist). But in this case, it really does seem like you're looking for a kind of game that D&D is not equipped to deliver. With enough work, you might be able to force it, but the system will fight you tooth and nail.

At my table realism is valued.

It can work, if you match weapon damage to potential PC hit point totals. Every damage system (and I've used a lot since 1979) is an abstraction.

I left D&D back in the AD&D days, and only returned recently. I like the Advantage system and the better balance and rules coverage of 5e; I've already re-done virtually all weapons, and have employed a number of rules from Aces & Eights as well. I haven't really ever used 5e as the designers intended it.

 

[Jd Smith1]

If you are using HP as actual damage to the body, then yes, flesh is flesh. But, I would add that pain tolerance is not pain tolerance. And someone who spends their life's training getting hurt has a greater pain tolerance than someone reading books. I think an MMA fighter might have a greater pain tolerance than a librarian.

Again: punching with a referee. Does not compare to the effects of steel or gunfire.

Blood loss is the #1 killer on the battlefield (through the effects of shock), and how well you handle pain has zero impact on that.

CubicsRube][/B]

I'd recommend switching to max damage for enemies. It really does wonders for the devil may care attitude and it Makes Monsters Scary Again(tm).

I appreciate your wanting to install a cap however. If I were to do it, I'd likely cap HP at level 10, which I think would be about a sweet spot for me.

All maxing out enemy HP does, IMO, is pointlessly drag out a fight. Taking down a Human in a real fight is not like chopping down a tree; a couple solid hits with an axe, for example, will end nearly everyone.

I like 100. It makes gauging various outside factors mathematically simple. But if I went with a level, I would go with around 7 or 8; however, I have house rules that 'front load' low-level PCs so they have a more realistic staying power. If I wasn't using my house rule, 10 would likely be optimal.

 

[Jd Smith1]

double post

 

[NotAYakk]

All maxing out enemy HP does, IMO, is pointlessly drag out a fight. Taking down a Human in a real fight is not like chopping down a tree; a couple solid hits with an axe, for example, will end nearly everyone.

No, he said max enemy damage. Not max HP.

An orc, instead of doing 1d12+3 (average 9.5), does 15. On a crit, either 27 or (if you feel generous) 15+1d12.

An adult red dragon does 28 bite 20 claw 24 tail and fire damage is 108 (save for half).

That is a quick and easy way to ramp up lethality of enemies in the game.

 

[dave2008]

All maxing out enemy HP does, IMO, is pointlessly drag out a fight. Taking down a Human in a real fight is not like chopping down a tree; a couple solid hits with an axe, for example, will end nearly everyone.

You miss-read. He said, as I did earlier, max damage. If you haven't tried it, you should. It really makes fights much faster and more brutal.

 

[Jd Smith1]

No, he said max enemy damage. Not max HP.

An orc, instead of doing 1d12+3 (average 9.5), does 15. On a crit, either 27 or (if you feel generous) 15+1d12.

An adult red dragon does 28 bite 20 claw 24 tail and fire damage is 108 (save for half).

That is a quick and easy way to ramp up lethality of enemies in the game.

I always use a die roll rather than averaged damage for NPCs.

An Orcish falchion, back when I was running a fantasy campaign, had a base 2d8 damage, with strength and doctrine bonuses would, depending upon tribe, add +6 to +9 damage. Now that we're in a post-apoc campaign with firearms, a full-auto burst from a MP-5 clone can deliver eight hits, each d10 if FMJ, up to 4d10 each if very expensive and specialized ammunition is used. Of course, you seldom hit with every round in a burst, but that's how it goes.

Crits are much expanded and deadly.

I'm not as interested in quick and easy as I am in logical and grounded in realism.