D&D 5E Losing HP as you level up

[Li Shenron]

So apparently now the "official" rule is that if you have a negative Constitution modifier and roll for HP at level up, your maximum HP might actually decrease.

While this might make for an occasional interesting story, it is likely the result of an oversight when writing the rules, and in fact Mearls (who may not always remember the RAW, but clearly knows the RAI) have previously always said there is a minimum of +1 HP when levelling up.

Not that this will have any real implications on anyone's game, considering that few players ever play a low-Con PC, and if they do they will probably now ask the DM for permission to gain average HP at level-up instead of rolling.

 

[cbwjm]

So apparently now the "official" rule is that if you have a negative Constitution modifier and roll for HP at level up, your maximum HP might actually decrease.

While this might make for an occasional interesting story, it is likely the result of an oversight when writing the rules, and in fact Mearls (who may not always remember the RAW, but clearly knows the RAI) have previously always said there is a minimum of +1 HP when levelling up.

Not that this will have any real implications on anyone's game, considering that few players ever play a low-Con PC, and if they do they will probably now ask the DM for permission to gain average HP at level-up instead of rolling.

Where does it say this?

The signature of champions.

 

[Li Shenron]

Where does it say this?

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/938885709783384064

 

[cbwjm]

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/938885709783384064

Sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about so it's safe to ignore him.

The signature of champions.

 

[Lanefan]

Sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about so it's safe to ignore him.

Yeah, given that this is the same guy who ruled that it takes a whole hour of combat to interrupt a long rest - ignoring seems wise.

Lan-"surprised that the other WotC types don't step in and correct these rulings"-efan

 

[CapnZapp]

Li Shenron, why did you post this?

Because you like it, or because you dislike it?

Or because it was news to you? I don't think it's news to anyone else, though.

It's simply basic arithmetic that d6-2 can result in -1. It can hardly be surprising. I mean, this edition allows characters to stay at a +0 saving throw bonus despite epic creatures easily throwing DC 21+ effects at ya. To me it's apparent its designers didn't think the extremes of their math needed fixin'. If they can leave a hero with zero chance of making a save they can leave a hero with fewer hit points upon levelling.

 

[Li Shenron]

Sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about so it's safe to ignore him.

I am already ignoring Sage Advice, but it's hard to ignore the mobs of followers.

 

[CapnZapp]

Plus, personal bugbear:

Why would anyone ever roll for hit points when "taking the average" is actually yielding a higher score?!?!

To me it's fundamental game design to couple risk with reward.

That is, if you risk rolling the dice (and thus may roll a 1) you need to, on average, be rewarded with something greater than the no-risk option (taking a static number) in order to be incentivized to take said risk.

To me it's utterly baffling they changed the "average" from round-down to round-up.

Anyone with even an inkling of basic math will never roll for hit points as long as the risk-free number is also the higher average. To me, this is just a low-education "tax" where people addicted to slot machines will, on average, squander their characters' hit points.

 

[cbwjm]

I am already ignoring Sage Advice, but it's hard to ignore the mobs of followers.

Nah, it's easy to ignore them. Just tell them that they can lose hit points on level up if they want but you will always gain a minimum of 1 hit point on level up.

The signature of champions.

 

[Li Shenron]

Lan-"surprised that the other WotC types don't step in and correct these rulings"-efan

Well, I think they are all effectively nice people who don't step on each other's work...

The problems I usually have with Sage Advice is that they are way too focused on justifying the RAW at any costs, more like being a Rules Lawyer Advice than a "Sage". It sometimes sounds a bit like "we wrote it like that, so we must have been right", self-oriented instead of customer-oriented if I may say.