Constitution and HP

[triqui]

Bassically it's about if you want HP being primarelly about class, or about CON. Who should have more hit points? A wizard with a very high CON, or a fighter without it?

If you add CON by level, then in the long run CON is much more important than class for hp. In 3.0, a wizard might have CON 14 and then get, eventually, a +6 item. That means a lvl 10 wizard will have 10d4 (average 27, including first level maximum) from class, and 50 hp from con alone. A lvl 10 fighter with CON 10 would have (if such thing exists and survives) 59-60 hp

If you add CON each level, CON becomes an uber-important stat for everybody. It's simply too rewarding to raise CON, and to dangerous not doing so. The difference between a CON 10 wizard and a CON 18 wizard (with stat boosters) is simply too high. Much more important than any other stat: WIS 10 or 18, or DEX, or STR or CHA won't give you such a big bonus.

 

[Hassassin]

Bassically it's about if you want HP being primarelly about class, or about CON.

No, it's about whether the importance of Con should stay the same at every level or change in some way. You can have the effect be constant but small or variable but huge.

The magnitude of the effect is another, though related matter.

 

[Minigiant]

Bassically it's about if you want HP being primarelly about class, or about CON. Who should have more hit points? A wizard with a very high CON, or a fighter without it?

If you add CON by level, then in the long run CON is much more important than class for hp. In 3.0, a wizard might have CON 14 and then get, eventually, a +6 item. That means a lvl 10 wizard will have 10d4 (average 27, including first level maximum) from class, and 50 hp from con alone. A lvl 10 fighter with CON 10 would have (if such thing exists and survives) 59-60 hp

I'd have a wizard with 16 CON have the same HP as a fighter with 10 Con.
(I'd also have a lvl 1 wizard with 16 Str have the same attack as a lvl 1 fighter with 10 Str, but that's another story)

Being a Fighter is equivalent to training to almost double your stamina.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

An idea for the proverbial ideas board:

You get your full CON score at 1st level + class bonus.
At each subsequent level you get your class bonus + 1 until your level exceeds your CON score.

So a wizard with 18 CON starts with 22 HP, and gets +5 per level until he reaches level 19, then it's +4. A barbarian with a meagre 12 CON starts with 18 HP and gets +7 per level until he reaches level 13, then it's +6.

Lvl: 1, 2, 3, 4... 12, 13, 14... 18, 19, 20
Wiz: 22, 27, 32, 37... 77, 82, 87... 107, 111, 115
Bbn: 18, 25, 32, 39... 95, 101, 107... 131, 137, 143

You could of course change the spread of HP and initial differences by amending how many HP each class gets per level. I would also consider not giving the full CON bonus at first level, but instead 3x or 4x the class bonus. The amount gained through CON per level could also be adjusted higher, or indeed made complicated with +X for CON score above 10, +Y thereafter.

 

[delericho]

Of the existing editions, IMO 3e is the closest to having it right.

My preferred approach would be to give each class fixed hit points at every level (including first), applying the Con modifier at each level (but vastly reducing the numbers here). And, for beginning players (and just those who prefer better survivability), add a "hit point advance" rule - characters get triple the normal allocation at 1st level, but then don't get any more hit points until they reach 4th level.

 

[Tallifer]

One of the least important considerations I can think of at the moment.

 

[Wulfram]

The influence of constitution should remain constant.

(Ideally, this should be achieved by not increasing HP by level)

 

[tlantl]

Constant application of con bonuses over 30 levels goes counter to the stated intent of flatter numbers in D&DN.

I don't really care how the system is implemented but I would think that there needs to be some kind of limits along the way to reduce the HP bloat that this method generates.

Maybe the answer is all of the above. Maybe the game could outline how these different systems could be used in the modular framework of the game. A system where DMs could choose the methods of using ability bonuses in different ways.

Even if they don't the individual could always use their own take on things.

I can see the complication of using three different systems in monster stat blocks being unwieldy, but it could make the game more appealing to groups with different gaming styles.

 

[DogBackward]

I would love to see HP totals (and damage totals) scaled down quite a bit. One thing I did with a homebrew very-low-power game was implement decaying Hit Dice. Everybody gets their Constitution bonus in HP at each level. But each class's Hit Die grants HP equal to the maximum, -2 per level. So at first level, a Barbarian gains 12+Con. HP. At second level, a Barbarian gains 10+Con. HP. At 6th level, a Barbarian gets 2+Con. HP. Finally, from 7th level onwards, even a Barbarian gets only Con. HP per level. (In this system, a negative Con. modifier granted 0 HP).

On the same token, a Wizard would gain 6+Con. HP at first level, 4+Con. at second level, 2+Con. at third level and be stuck with only Con. from levels four and up. (This was using Pathfinder as a base, where Hit Die was tied to BAB, and low BAB got a d6).

This means that a Barbarian with 10 Con. (silly Barbarian...) would have, at 6th level, 42 Hit Points. A Wizard at with 20 Con. at 6th level would have 42 Hit Points as well. It allows a high Constitution to bridge the gap between low HD and high HD, but only when the difference is truly vast. And Constitution is still important, as that same Wizard with a 10 Con. instead would only have 12 HP. This danger would be mitigated by the drop in damage (none of this "1d6 per level" stuff), but that Wizard would still be in near constant danger of taking a deadly hit.

I'm not much into old-school DM'ing, with the adversarial nature and the insta-kill traps and the like. I'm not even a fan of old-school adventuring: I'd take an overland trek or city adventure over a dungeon-crawl any day. But old-school class design has its place: I like the Wizard that can wreak havoc on the enemy, but can't take a hit. My 4e Wizard could go toe-to-toe with some pretty massive beasties for a few rounds without much of a problem, and that seemed very incongruous to me. On the other hand, given a high Constitution and the fact that everybody's HP growth drops off within 6 levels at most, you can still build a Wizard that can take the hits as well as a more combat-oriented class... you just have to sacrifice some of your other stats to do so. Especially if spellcasting power it more closely tied to stats than simple level: if you want staying power, you should lose offensive power. It's the oldest trade-off in the book.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I believe the 4e model is relative good. Hitpoint inflation of 3.x was usually due to the constitution bonus which was uncapped and easily raised with magic.

ADnD was ok. Non fighers were capped to a +2 bonus. Only 20 extra hp max. Everything was in reasonable levels.

4e is my favoured model, as I want to see non-con hp as vitality points. And constitution as some last resort.
Also constitution in 3.x was a too important stat. In 4e, you really have a choice, taking low constitution. You are a little less durable in a fight, but more impoartant, if you try not to get hit too much, you can easily survive an adventuring day. A 3.x wizard with con less than 10 is dead weight.