How much should HP scale?

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

Well to me HP should be CON score + a class bonus per level, like 4e but with lower numbers. So a 14 con fighter should have like 18 hps and a 10 level one 54, so it is more like 3x.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Warrior classes x9. Special cases could have more or less, ala the 1e monk.

 

[Libramarian]

5-7x

 

[kitsune9]

I'm flexible when it comes to hp. If a 1st level fighter gets 10 hp flat or 50 hp + Con + Con modifier + class bonus, that's okay with me too.

As for scaling, it really depends. If combats are to be really quick, then there should be low-hp thresholds versus high-damage output and if combats are to be long(er), then either scale up the hp thresholds or lower the damage output (or both).

I like two systems--Castles and Crusades and Pathfinder's for hp.

 

[airwalkrr]

It is interesting that you pick level 10 as your comparison to the "standard" of level 1. That is approximately when characters stopped gaining hit dice in AD&D and it is still one of my favorite ways to approach the idea. I suppose in the sense that humans use a base 10 number system for most things it is a nice round number to top things off at. But whatever number you pick, in D&D I generally like the idea that one level should be just about as important as any other level up to a certain point. If hit points are an important part of that equation, then level 1 should not get you any more hit points than level 10. But I do believe it should stop, or at least slow down immensely at some point. As I mentioned, I believe AD&D did this best. Up until level 10 or 11 you got hit dice. After that, a small number of set hit points per level and no Constitution bonus. You had fulfilled a large portion of your potential by this level. There is something about fulfilled potential that appeals to me.

 

[Sunseeker]

It varies by class and by HP system. Rolled? Die-based average +1 ?

In 4e, a Paladin started with 30 and gained 60ish by 10th level, putting them at 90, only 3x as much.

In 3.5 a fighter started with 10 and on average wound up with +50 by 10th level, total of 60, but 7x as much(not including Con mod, say, 2-3), including con mod for another 25ish HP, rounding their total out to 85-90. Making their final HP almost 10x as much. If we use full-die+con mod we're looking at +125 for a total of 135, 13x as much.

Though the numbers didn't change vastly between 3.5 average and 4e, the multiplier certainly did. Personally I think a larger amount of health at lower level and a slower HP-pool advancement by 10th level is the way to go.

Perhaps not as much as 4e to start though. I would give everyone 10+1lvl of class HD+con mod. The average fighter/paladin would sit around 20, while the average wizard would be around 15. As the levels progress, I favor a Class HD+Con mod system(I mean, we need to make con realistically useful over the long-term). Giving heartier classes an average of 7-8 points per level, and weaker classes 4-6.

We'd still wind up with about the same totals, tougher classes would sit between 80 and 90, while squishier classes would sit around 50-70. I think those are good numbers for their respective classes throughout all levels between 1 and 10.


ADDITIONALLY: I don't know if I feel a lot of variant HP rules should be in Core or not, but I wouldn't mind HP(and general stat) multipliers for say, multiple tiers of pay, "gritty" @ 0.5x, "normal" @ 1x, "heroic" @ 2x and "epic" @ 3x, allowing of course for the DM to adjust those numbers as they want(say, maybe 1.25x or 1.75x). Just something simple telling GMs to consider the style of the game they want to run, and adjust HP accordingly.

 

[nightwalker450]

I like front-loading the hit points, so adventurers don't die before they begin. So somewhere between x3 and x4 would work.

 

[airwalkrr]

I tell you one thing, I really do not want to see classically squishy classes get not-so-squishy because that is the whole point of the strategic trade-off you make when you pick those classes. A wizard/magic-user is SUPPOSED to have a small pool of hit points because they spend more time learning magic and less learning how to fight. If the trend from 4e continues to where we are making hit points even more generic to just about every class then you can totally count me out.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sorry, but hp differences in 4e are felt in game. You really notice the difference between a hit to the mage and to the fighter.

With lower AC overall and AC scaling with level, the factor needed to be lower. Actually with a perfect scaling of AC, the factor should have been even lower. So It really depends how AC bonuses work

If every class's Armor scales at the same progression, the HP factor of fighters should be higher.
If we assume a fighter gets more AC on average than the wizard, the factor should be about the same.

 

[Rhenny]

I'm for keeping PC hit points lower overall so that monster hit points don't have to proliferate.

Flatten the curve for everything. The sweet spot in almost all iterations of the game has always been levels below 12th. Let's try to keep the sweet spot for more levels if possible.

x3 or x4 maybe - with starting hp at about 16 for a Con 16 fighter.