D&D 5E First Level Hit Points Need to Increase

[Jester David]

I was talking about upper-end weapon attacks and 1st level spells (which do an average of 13.5-18 damage). I'm not saying that every weapon will reliably kill a character that easily, just that some can. A 2h weapon does d12, and assuming just a 14 str that's an average of 8.5 damage. It can do up to 14 damage. That has the potential to kill characters even with the HP totals I am proposing in 2 non-critical hits, maybe 3. Keep in mind, the 32 HP barbarian with 20 Con is the extreme end. Most characters would have HP in the high teens to low 20s. Obviously, not everything is going to do that much damage, but even the weak 1st level monsters in the bestiary (doing 3 or 4 damage) could bring down most characters in a few hits. But I also think they made many of the 1st level monsters really weak because they expect characters to have such extremely low HP totals right now.

Compare them to actual monsters. We don't see monsters with offensive 1st level spell until level 3. So it's a boss fight for second level characters.

At 3-4hp a pop, it's going to take goblins a loooong time to get through a barbarian's 32hp. Especially if it's raging and resisting damage.

 

[Jester David]

You can inflate 1st-level hit points without inflating overall hit points, though.

For example, if a PC gets 1d8 hit points per level, starting at Con 14 and increasing Con every 4 levels.
A (d8+Con mod per level): 1st = 7, 6th = 39, 12th = 90, 18th = 153
B (Con score + d8/lvl): 1st = 19, 6th = 42, 12th = 71, 18th = 99

So, B is much higher at 1st, much lower at 18th.

A fighter can do 13 average damage at 1st level, if that's his goal, with an upper range of about 20. A rogue more like 11. A 1st level spell deals 13.5 - 18 damage. What can we extrapolate PC hit points from that? They should probably start with more average hit points than many of those options, though it's fine if a good roll or crit drops them.

Alternatively, you reduce damage. How far down can you go? 1d12 + 4 damage for a two-handed sword with 18 Str (not hard to get) assumes no damage added by class, magic, feat, etc. Are people willing to allow below that? Cause that's still 10.5, 16 high.

Monster damage is very different than PC damage. PvP is rare in D&D and should be rather swingy.
10.5 is very high, as goblins only do around 2-4 while kobolds do 5. Compared to actual monsters and not PC numbers, starting hitpoints are fine.

It all comes down to number of hits. Even if you start with 56hp, if monsters are doing 25-35dmg per hit PCs will be fragile. And if monsters are doing 1-3 damage but PCs have 12hp they'll see hard to kill.

But my design philosophy is that it's easier to add. If the game is playable it's always easier to add power, making the PCs hardier and deadlier. Adding extra hitpoints is easy, but if the game works taking them away is much trickier because it might make the game too hard or swingy. Err on the side of caution and boost hp with modules.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Compare them to actual monsters. We don't see monsters with offensive 1st level spell until level 3. So it's a boss fight for second level characters.

That is true, but I'd remind you that the current bestiary is incomplete. Besides, fighting 1st level NPC spellcasters is something that could easily happen in a campaign.

At 3-4hp a pop, it's going to take goblins a loooong time to get through a barbarian's 32hp. Especially if it's raging and resisting damage.

I think the reason they made monster damage so low is because player HP are so low. Low-level monsters in 4e, for example, did more damage, at least as far as I recall. You may wonder why I'd want monster HP to go up, as wouldn't that just cancel the gain of more HP? Well, yes, it would. But it would also make damage more consistent. Further, one of their big goals with bounded accuracy is that you should be able to use things like goblins as threats for more than just the first couple levels. But if they only do 2-4 damage on average, how is that a threat to, say, a 5th level character that has around 50 hp? This is also why I want player HP to decrease more slowly. HP bloat ruins many of the benefits of bounded accuracy.

 

[GSHamster]

Further, one of their big goals with bounded accuracy is that you should be able to use things like goblins as threats for more than just the first couple levels. But if they only do 2-4 damage on average, how is that a threat to, say, a 5th level character that has around 50 hp?

I think you are reading too much into this. The idea is not that the one goblin remains a threat at 5th level, but maybe 10 goblins do. In the unbounded system, it is unlikely that those 10 goblins can even hit the PC. So most of the goblins miss, and the few who do connect do pitiful damage. In the bounded system, they still do pitiful damage, but many more of them will connect.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I think you are reading too much into this. The idea is not that the one goblin remains a threat at 5th level, but maybe 10 goblins do. In the unbounded system, it is unlikely that those 10 goblins can even hit the PC. So most of the goblins miss, and the few who do connect do pitiful damage. In the bounded system, they still do pitiful damage, but many more of them will connect.

I understand that, but the problem is, the lower their damage, the more of them the DM must use to be a meaningful threat. And with every additional monster, that's one more thing the DM has to keep track of and more creatures that need to take actions and attack rolls each and every turn, greatly slowing down play.

 

[Jester David]

That is true, but I'd remind you that the current bestiary is incomplete. Besides, fighting 1st level NPC spellcasters is something that could easily happen in a campaign.

Yes, but they're deliberately avoiding changing the monster math & numbers. Easier to change 8 classes than 50 monsters.

I think the reason they made monster damage so low is because player HP are so low. Low-level monsters in 4e, for example, did more damage, at least as far as I recall. You may wonder why I'd want monster HP to go up, as wouldn't that just cancel the gain of more HP? Well, yes, it would. But it would also make damage more consistent.

Given monsters and PCs don't need to obey the same rules, I don't see why they need to have symmetrical damage.

Further, one of their big goals with bounded accuracy is that you should be able to use things like goblins as threats for more than just the first couple levels. But if they only do 2-4 damage on average, how is that a threat to, say, a 5th level character that has around 50 hp? This is also why I want player HP to decrease more slowly. HP bloat ruins many of the benefits of bounded accuracy.

Let's do the math.

Well, if you gain 5-8 hp per level that means an extra one to three goblins per level negates any extra hitpoints in a single round.
How are goblins a threat to a level 5 character? Well, a level 5 fighter with 14 Con will have 44hp (12+8+8+8+8). If he's in splint with a shield he's rocking AC 19, which is pretty high.
The rules say an Easy encounter for a L5 character is 150, an Average is 250, and a Hard is 500. A straight goblin is 10 xp. So an "easy" encounter is 15 goblins!
Still thinking that near-50hp is going to make him unkillable?

Goblins have a +4 to hit melee and a +5 range. Given there's 15 of the buggers, half will be attacking en mass from a distance. At range they need a 14 on the die to hit, so they're going to miss 65% of the time, hit 30% of the time, and crit 5% of the time. And at melee the numbers go down by a percentage.
Average damage is 1.6 and 0.8. It will take the fighter at least fifteen rounds to kill all the goblins, assuming he never misses (which he will given he still only has a +5-6 to attack and goblins have an AC of 14, but he'd also have multi-attack by that point so we'll call that even). Assuming the goblins are spread out so only a couple are in melee at any given time, the fighter takes over 20 damage the first round, is near dead in the second, and quite dead in the third. Of course, he's likely parrying so that might buy him a few extra rounds.

Now, in actual play, the fighter will hopefully be sticking to cover and will have friends blasting the goblins with AoEs so the tone changes dramatically. But a horde of goblins is quite an effective threat.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Yes, but they're deliberately avoiding changing the monster math & numbers. Easier to change 8 classes than 50 monsters.

Laziness or easiness shouldn't be what drives design decisions. IMO, the monster stats need a lot of work. They shouldn't be avoiding that.

Besides, there aren't 50 first level monsters. There are just a few.

Given monsters and PCs don't need to obey the same rules, I don't see why they need to have symmetrical damage.

Because consistency leads to a more believable world. Monsters may not need to be built with the same exact rules that PCs are, i.e. they don't need to have feats, or a certain number of skills, etc., but they should follow the same rules as far as things like how ability scores work, how damage and HP are calculated, and so on, IMO. In fact, they already do, so I have no complaints there. They just put their numbers deliberately low. They can easily raise them a bit if they need to.

Let's do the math.

Well, if you gain 5-8 hp per level that means an extra one to three goblins per level negates any extra hitpoints in a single round.
How are goblins a threat to a level 5 character? Well, a level 5 fighter with 14 Con will have 44hp (12+8+8+8+8). If he's in splint with a shield he's rocking AC 19, which is pretty high.
The rules say an Easy encounter for a L5 character is 150, an Average is 250, and a Hard is 500. A straight goblin is 10 xp. So an "easy" encounter is 15 goblins!
Still thinking that near-50hp is going to make him unkillable?

I'd rather not have to use 15 goblins to pose a challenge to a 5th level character. IMO, that's a lot!

 

[keterys]

Monster damage is very different than PC damage. PvP is rare in D&D and should be rather swingy.
10.5 is very high, as goblins only do around 2-4 while kobolds do 5. Compared to actual monsters and not PC numbers, starting hitpoints are fine.

Sure, so let's look at the level 1 adventures in the playtest packet and what monsters are in them.

Level 2 Dark Adept deals 4d8 damage with its inflict light wounds.
Level 3 Wight deals 2d8 + 4 with its multiattack. Ditto Level 4 Drow.
Level 4 Ogre also deals 2d8 + 4.

Orcs, often encountered in fair sized groups, deal 1d12 + 2 each, while the accompanying Orogs deal 1d12 + 3. Not to mention, the Orc Leader can grant all of them a +5 damage bonus or do 2d12 + 6 himself.

It becomes important to know what PC damage looks like, because invariably it actually does matter.

 

[Jester David]

Laziness or easiness shouldn't be what drives design decisions. IMO, the monster stats need a lot of work. They shouldn't be avoiding that.

Besides, there aren't 50 first level monsters. There are just a few.

There are 143 monsters in the book. They cannot change the damage numbers, defences, xp totals, and general math for each and every package. It's simply not an effective use of time when they could change the class numbers - classes they're modifying anyway - for the same effect.

Because consistency leads to a more believable world. Monsters may not need to be built with the same exact rules that PCs are, i.e. they don't need to have feats, or a certain number of skills, etc., but they should follow the same rules as far as things like how ability scores work, how damage and HP are calculated, and so on, IMO. In fact, they already do, so I have no complaints there. They just put their numbers deliberately low. They can easily raise them a bit if they need to.

Except a small annoying goblin should be doing less damage than a burly human fighter. They're a pest monster. There are monsters that do damage equivalent to a PC. Orcs are comparable. And there are monsters that do much more damage than a PC.

Monsters have a greater range than PCs. So you can have that moderate fight of eight goblins against four PCs.
This doesn't change regardless of starting hp. There'll always be monsters that can take a PC apart with a good hit in a single round and ones that need five or six hits. You needed a lot of minions to really hurt a PC in 4e.

I'd rather not have to use 15 goblins to pose a challenge to a 5th level character. IMO, that's a lot!

So then use seven goblin bosses. Or a hobgoblin leader with six goblins as back-up.

 

[Falling Icicle]

There are 143 monsters in the book. They cannot change the damage numbers, defences, xp totals, and general math for each and every package. It's simply not an effective use of time when they could change the class numbers - classes they're modifying anyway - for the same effect.

I never said that they should change all 143 monsters in the book! We've been discussing first level characters and what is an appropriate challenge for them. There aren't that many 1st level monsters in the book, and it wouldn't be very much work to change them. They may not even need to. I merely mentioned it as a possibility.

Except a small annoying goblin should be doing less damage than a burly human fighter. They're a pest monster. There are monsters that do damage equivalent to a PC. Orcs are comparable. And there are monsters that do much more damage than a PC.

I never said that a typical goblin should be doing as much damage as a burly human fighter.

And orcs do a lot of damage. Since most people consider orcs to be appropriate threats for 1st level characters, this supports my argument that 1st level PCs should have more HPs.

Monsters have a greater range than PCs. So you can have that moderate fight of eight goblins against four PCs.
This doesn't change regardless of starting hp. There'll always be monsters that can take a PC apart with a good hit in a single round and ones that need five or six hits. You needed a lot of minions to really hurt a PC in 4e.

Minions in 4e could do just as much damage as regular monsters. The only difference was their hit points, which were always 1.

So then use seven goblin bosses. Or a hobgoblin leader with six goblins as back-up.

No.