D&D 5E How should hit points be gained? [5E specific]

[Lanefan]

Now you are just creating invisible hit points. It doesn't actually result in "not Superman" which was the stated goal.

Perhaps, but in theory not-Superman characters would be going up against not-Superdragon dragons, right?

 

[nevin]

It's worth noting that a lot of 5e DMs may have monsters cast attack spells without adjusting the damage dice (they're balanced for players using them against monsters instead of the other way around), which can result in a skewed perspective of player hit point values.

why would you adjust the damage dice for the monsters spells?

 

[Storyteller Hero]

why would you adjust the damage dice for the monsters spells?

Because the spells are designed for PCs to use as written, but won't necessarily fit within the monster damage guidelines nor be balanced for actual play when given for monsters to use. PCs and Monsters being built using different methods, especially their hit points, means that spells will not automatically be balanced for both at the same time.

As such, giving PC-balanced spells to monsters can result in either not enough damage or too much damage.

 

[Reynard]

Perhaps, but in theory not-Superman characters would be going up against not-Superdragon dragons, right?

Again, no. That's shifting the goal posts. I recognize you didn't make the original comment I responded to, but trying to get around "increasing HP" through DR or or dodge pools or whatever is a distinction without a difference.

Honestly, though, if one desires a system where there is no survivability increase associated with skill increase, Play GURPS. Seriously. I'm not being flip. GURPS is a great game for just that experience. People that demand to play D&D while obviously not wanting to play D&D baffle me.

 

[Shardstone]

Now you are just creating invisible hit points. It doesn't actually result in "not Superman" which was the stated goal.

Invisible hit points aren't necessarily bad. It depends on the exact design of the game.

My preference is to model something like Mythic Bastionland. In this game, you have your Vigor (which is also an ability score you have to roll under sometimes), your Armor, and your Guard. Your Armor is variable -- it depends on your armor, helmet, and shield. Your guard is your Armor + 1d6, which you roll when you make your character. In combat, damage goes to your Guard first (which replenishes outside of combat), and then to your Vigor. At half Vigor, you get a wound (not good), and at 0 Vigor you need to be saved in a round or else you die. All damage is reduced by your Armor before it gets applied to your Guard.

The reason I like this is because I really like damage reduction mechanics and I like the idea of essentially temp hit points a lot. I think leaning more on temp hit points that quickly replenishes during an adventure and having damage negation just flatout feels better for both parties. Now, in Mythic Bastionland, there is no to-hit roll; you roll damage and, if your damage beats the opponent's armor, the overfill goes against their Guard/Vigor. This makes combat very fast. You know immiedietly if you were able to hurt someone, and the Guard temp HP serves as a narrative tool to inform you of what the fictional world looks like afterward.

Technically, none of this is necessary. Hit points wrap all this into one. But, I often find myself feeling unsatisfied with hit points as they are in typical D&D. I think my favorite version of D&D hit points was in the otherwise ill-designed Dark Souls 5E RPG. In that game, you have your typical hit points (average), but when combat begins, you roll all your hit dice and gain that much temp HP. Temp HP + HP can be spent in increments of 1/2/3 to use special weapon maneuvers, and the temp HP comes back at the start of every combat. This represents a very cool idea in my mind where even though a warrior may be severely wounded, if they get ambushed, fighting spirit and adrenaline and desperation kick in, allowing them to fight on despite said wounds. It also lets you do some cool things with fleeing a combat and then setting up an ambush when chased. The enemy had you on the ropes, but in the last 10 minutes, you were able to gather yourself, and when combat starts again, your normal HP is low but that temp HP gives you a "shield" to potentially turn the tides with.

What these ideas have in common is that they manipulate BOTH the MECHANICS of hit points AND the fictional meaning of them in interesting ways. Now, anyone who is really comfortable with D&D as a game might be thinking, well, I don't need all that fancy stuff to do that, hit points works just fine for me! And that's fine. But in the same way that I don't need initiative to run fun and fair combat, I still use it because it lets me do interesting things in ways I find satisfying. Like Gygax said, the secret is that no rules are needed at all, but having these kinds of rules can change the feel of the game, and I find that very valuable.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Maybe the dragons get toned down some as well?

Yeah probably, as well as increased ability to mitigate whole attacks and other damaging abilities, but still less of that than the current HP bloat.

Combine it with 0hp meaning death saves but not unconsciousness, and I think the game would be dramatically more fun at high levels.

My go-to example of a combat "upset" is low-level-Fighter Merry taking down a Ringwraith, one of the most powerful monsters in Middle Earth. This is the flip side of @doctorbadwolf 's example of the farmer being able to, with luck, take down a powerful PC. Both outcomes should be possible (if highly unlikely) and the only way to achieve this is to somehow flatten the power curve between low and high level for both PCs and their opponents.

Your 10th level character with 9 hp is not going to survive against the dragon.

Why would the PC have 9 HP? Why would the dragon do more damage than a lower level threat?

If you require that people write up an entire system in order to answer your hypothetical, put that in the OP. Otherwise, you’re going to get answers that only address one part of the system, and leave the necessary secondary changes undefined because they don’t matter for answering the question.

And if you’re going to shart on people’s answers to your thread with pointless nitpicking, then find someone else to bother. I replied to thread presented as a friendly hypothetical discussion under the assumption that that was the intention of the thread.

That's a pretty aggressive change from standard 5e. Since this is a 5e thread, how would you change the system such that a high-level character could still do high-level things while never gaining hit points?

You did say "none at level up", were you thinking of a system where hit points were gained in other ways?

More HP at level 1, and less damage scaling. I assume that less damage scaling is assumed if someone is talking about dropping the HP scaling, since the two only exist to justify the other.

I’d be okay with both damage and HP having some very small scaling potential that can be earned in game, but new damage mitigation abilities are just flatly better than increased HP for the game, IMNHO.

 

[Lanefan]

More HP at level 1, and less damage scaling.

Does more h.p. at level 1 also correspond with more h.p. at level 0, or for commoners? If not, please fill the design space gap with extra levels.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I think my favorite version of D&D hit points was in the otherwise ill-designed Dark Souls 5E RPG. In that game, you have your typical hit points (average), but when combat begins, you roll all your hit dice and gain that much temp HP. Temp HP + HP can be spent in increments of 1/2/3 to use special weapon maneuvers, and the temp HP comes back at the start of every combat. This represents a very cool idea in my mind where even though a warrior may be severely wounded, if they get ambushed, fighting spirit and adrenaline and desperation kick in, allowing them to fight on despite said wounds. It also lets you do some cool things with fleeing a combat and then setting up an ambush when chased. The enemy had you on the ropes, but in the last 10 minutes, you were able to gather yourself, and when combat starts again, your normal HP is low but that temp HP gives you a "shield" to potentially turn the tides with.

...wait. wait, that's awesome, what the hell? why did the dark souls 5e rpg give us an idea this good??? i'm tempted to steal this (or at least the idea).

 

[Zio_the_dark]

I don't think 1st level being too flimsy to face a few rats makes sense, when a week later many mundane sources of damage have long ceased to affect them. So... I'd like to raise the floor and lower the ceiling.

1st level: survivable, somewhere around 20, so like Constitution score + racial hitpoint bonus
after: quite low, like 2-3hp depending on class

That's almost what I do in my current game:
1st level: CON score + 1/2 HD value (d6=3, d8=4, etc...)
after: 1/2 HD value, no modifier

At first level you can push a bit more between each long rest, and when going up in level you become much more careful against high-damage output monsters. CON still affect your hp but much less than using modifier at each level when reaching higher levels.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Does more h.p. at level 1 also correspond with more h.p. at level 0, or for commoners? If not, please fill the design space gap with extra levels.

Probably, if using those game elements. I don’t use level 0, nor do I have a clear distinction between “commoners” and adventurers. So, in my game, they’d have the same HP range, and the PCs would just have more ways to negate attacks and to special attacks.