D&D General Hit Points are a great mechanic

[kermit4karate]

I agree that's a cool thing at low levels.

However, there is a big 'but' here, because once you get to mid levels (or even earlier in modern editions of the game) you have so many hit points that you pretty much know you are insulated against these worries. The anxiety, the feeling that any mistake could be fatal, the effects that has on gameplay decisions... all go away. Instead play is like 'I have enough hit points to just leap off the top of this building and not really notice', 'Ah well an ambush, it's OK I can take a few hits'.

Other games that don't rely on a hit point mechanic, or at least not an inflating one, do not tend to feature this drop-off in vulnerability and suspense.

This is also why I think old school level drain is a cool mechanic, because when it occasionally shows up, generally in mid levels, you get to feel that anxiety again.

Here's that house rule I was referring to:

The thing about this discussion and HP in D&D is... It's a nothingburger to fix.

HP remains a historically effective, balanced mechanic. It's not as though more complex calculations and tables to apply the concept of damage differently don't introduce more complexity, and complexity is the killer of pace. It destroys immersion. It destroys flow.

So even though I add a house rule to rolls for damage (the aforementioned max die rolled = roll die again + add to total), that's as far as I'll go.

HP is a fantastic mechanism, IMO. Incredibly simple and fast to roleplay. The most significant issue with it, IMO, is when it eliminates player fear and uncertainty -- the threat of death -- because there is no drama without tension.

So it becomes mathematically possible (although still statistically highly unlikely), that a hit from a 1d4 dagger could conceivably do 200 HP damage. HIGHLY unlikely, but still possible, which is enough to influence gameplay, in my experience.

It is relatively common to see someone roll a 4 on their d4 dagger damage roll, then a 4 again, then a 3, say, for a combined 11 HP damage plus their regular modifiers. That makes the dagger appear to be something more than totally insignificant.

I've used this house rule for many years and love it. Your mileage may vary, of course.

 

[soviet]

Here's that house rule I was referring to:



So it becomes mathematically possible (although still statistically highly unlikely), that a hit from a 1d4 dagger could conceivably do 200 HP damage. HIGHLY unlikely, but still possible, which is enough to influence gameplay, in my experience.

It is relatively common to see someone roll a 4 on their d4 dagger damage roll, then a 4 again, than a 3, say, for a combined 11 HP damage plus their regular modifiers. That makes the dagger appear to be something more than totally insignificant.

I've used this house rule for many years and love it. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Well, that might extend the 'level one' type experience for another level or so, but I don't think it would have any significant effect once you're at mid levels.

 

[kermit4karate]

Well, that might extend the 'level one' type experience for another level or so, but I don't think it would have any significant effect once you're at mid levels.

I think you might be surprised. Since it affects all damage die rolls, it comes into play pretty often overall.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Agreed. That should be made to be a rare occurrence, which is what "DM magic" and house rules are for. Drama = fun in most TTRPGs. A lack of suspense/fear/anxiety/worry at the table doesn't equate to the kind of fun that TTRPGs can deliver.

I mean, if a table is having fun playing a game that lacks suspense/fear/anxiety/worry, then that same group of people would probably have just as much fun playing Pictionary or Charades.

Both games are far too abstract for my tastes.

 

[soviet]

If you feel "safe" in every or even the majority of combats I'd say the DM is not running challenging enough encounters if that's what you want. I've knocked one or more character down to zero in a combat at all levels up to 20th. Meanwhile there's far fewer accidental deaths where you're walking along, don't notice that pit trap and now you have to roll up a new character. Different strokes and all.

You can put characters into a position of being 'one or two hits away from zero', sure, but there are a lot more ablative hit points to get through first. So it becomes something that players feel 'sometimes, towards the end of big fights' rather than 'always or nearly always'.

 

[AlViking]

You can put characters into a position of being 'one or two hits away from zero', sure, but there are a lot more ablative hit points to get through first. So it becomes something that players feel 'sometimes, towards the end of big fights' rather than 'always or nearly always'.

I don't want to play a game where every single attack could be the difference between life and death, that would be too swingy for me. Even in our current game my character leapt into the action to distract the enemy from attacking some innocents and I got taken from full health to 0 in one round a session or three ago. I knew it would be dangerous, the DM ensured that it was by planning an appropriate encounter and it was dangerous. Just like it should be.

That's far different from being paranoid about worrying that at any moment I could be shivved by a goblin hiding in the alley. If that was the kind of game I wanted to play I'd play a different game. Fortunately there are plenty of games to choose from.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You can put characters into a position of being 'one or two hits away from zero', sure, but there are a lot more ablative hit points to get through first. So it becomes something that players feel 'sometimes, towards the end of big fights' rather than 'always or nearly always'.

Sure, but I think having this sort of buffer is the point of D&D style hit point. They're a "defeatometer" that makes things more predictable. They inform you that things are starting to get dire and but you've couple of turns to course correct. And I think this is mostly a good thing, even if it might lessen the tension of each roll a bit. And it was actually Rolemaster that made me appreciate how D&D does things. Having your brand new character one-shotted by the first attack of the first monster or your character one-shotting the supposed big bad when they are first introduced just isn't fun to me. (Yes, both of these happened.)

And I am not even sure it flattens the overall tension, it just becomes more of a longer term suspense as you look the hit points to dwindle. In game like Rolemaster it is harder to get invested in the course the battle takes, as a lucky roll might completely change the situation any moment.

 

[kermit4karate]

I don't want to play a game where every single attack could be the difference between life and death, that would be too swingy for me. Even in our current game my character leapt into the action to distract the enemy from attacking some innocents and I got taken from full health to 0 in one round a session or three ago. I knew it would be dangerous, the DM ensured that it was by planning an appropriate encounter and it was dangerous. Just like it should be.

That's far different from being paranoid about worrying that at any moment I could be shivved by a goblin hiding in the alley. If that was the kind of game I wanted to play I'd play a different game. Fortunately there are plenty of games to choose from.

Characters don't literally have to be under threat of dying every time they do something that requires a roll. They just have to feel some risk. I think the key is simply eliminating the "sure thing" mentality, because once they're certain they'll succeed at something based on some core mechanic, that's what hurts the drama, IMO. All the DM has to do is introduce just enough uncertainty to make a player think twice.

Really, how absurd is it that a player with 7 HP knows they'll survive a fall of 10' since it only does 1d6 damage? That's crazy to me. By simply introducing a 1 in 6 chance (rolls a 6 on the d6, so rolls the damage die again and adds to the total) of that same fall doing 2d6...it changes the player's thought process.

 

[soviet]

I think you might be surprised. Since it affects all damage die rolls, it comes into play pretty often overall.

Someone attacks me with a longsword and there is a 1 in 8 chance that I take an additional d8 damage. A d8 does an average of 4.5 damage. So this is just over an extra half a point of damage every time I get hit.

If the extra damage d8 is also an 8, this happens again. I think this brings the average up to about 0.6? With further diminishing average effects as you go up.

I get that the threat of a spike may be more effective than the average over time. But I think stat bonuses and other damage mods are generally about half the value of the dice at low levels, and then about equal in mid levels? So you're talking about a 1 in 8 chance of doing less than double damage. Which I think can be significant at low levels, particularly in older editions (where you don't start at maximum 1st level hit points). But a level 1 fighter in 5e has what, 13 hit points? And 22 hit points at level 2? And 31 at level 3? I think by that point a 1 in 8 chance of taking an additional 1d8 damage is not enough of a threat to affect most people's feelings about the scariness of combat.

 

[soviet]

Sure, but I think having this sort of buffer is the point of D&D style hit point. They're a "defeatometer" that makes things more predictable. They inform you that things are starting to get dire and but you've couple of turns to course correct. And I think this is mostly a good thing, even if it might lessen the tension of each roll a bit. And it was actually Rolemaster that made me appreciate how D&D does things. Having your brand new character one-shotted by the first attack of the first monster or your character one-shotting the supposed big bad when they are first introduced just isn't fun to me. (Yes, both of these happened.)

And I am not even sure it flattens the overall tension, it just becomes more of a longer term suspense as you look the hit points to dwindle. In game like Rolemaster it is harder to get invested in the course the battle takes, as a lucky roll might completely change the situation any moment.

OK. I had read the poster I was responding to as saying that 'low HP paranoia' was an advantage of D&D style HP systems in the sense of it being a constant concern, but on re-reading your defeatometer/occasional flavour interpretation is probably what was meant.

Personally I love Rolemaster and I have had level 1-3 characters fight trolls with no fudging and all roles and numbers said in the open