D&D 5E Losing HP as you level up

[CapnZapp]

To make the better, more stable option the preferred one. Keep in mind that the main reason there's a choice at all is because WotC are trying to appease both modern and old-school players alike. Some DMs may simply not allow their players to take the average score. Others will insist upon it.

You do not adress any of my points.

Essentially your reply reads as "they did it that way because they decided to".

Again, why would you make option both safe and better when the rolling option is already riskier? Why did it have to worse too?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

People gamble all the time despite the odds being in the houses favor.

Now you too are only explaining why people like to roll.

Again:

Why build D&D like a casino, where the best option is not to roll?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Maxperson]

We always just gave a minimum of 1 hit point when you roll to level. It seemed wrong to allow 0 or negative hit points for getting better.

 

[redrick]

Now you too are only explaining why people like to roll.

Again:

Why build D&D like a casino, where the best option is not to roll?

I question the assertion that, with regards to hp, D&D was built like a casino. The casino option is there, but the assumed option, and the only option for organized play, is not to roll for hit points.

If rolling for hit points were statistically better than average, more players would want to roll for hp so as to get the best outcome for their characters. As it is, the system discourages rolling for hp, so the only players who will do it are those for whom the act of rolling the dice is, in of itself, a reward.

I believe that rolling for hp adds very little to the game, unless you just like more random and arbitrary in your life. (Roll for how many slices of pizza you get, and then roll for how much you pay me.)

As for losing hp on leveling up — if you have a negative con modifier and are rolling for hp, I think there is a part of you that wants the possibility of a bad outcome. That's the fun of it. Playing stupid in D&D isn't fun if it sometimes doesn't come crashing down. So hell yeah, that frail individual is getting sickly, spending too much time inside with their books and their Great Old Ones.

---EDITED TO ADD-----

I would warn the player with low constitution before they rolled, of course, that this is a possible outcome, and, if they prefer, they can just take the average. I would never force a player to roll for hp in 5e. This isn't B/X.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

As for losing hp on leveling up — if you have a negative con modifier and are rolling for hp, I think there is a part of you that wants the possibility of a bad outcome. That's the fun of it. Playing stupid in D&D isn't fun if it sometimes doesn't come crashing down. So hell yeah, that frail individual is getting sickly, spending too much time inside with their books and their Great Old Ones.

---EDITED TO ADD-----

I would warn the player with low constitution before they rolled, of course, that this is a possible outcome, and, if they prefer, they can just take the average. I would never force a player to roll for hp in 5e. This isn't B/X.

Jeremy actually mentions that if you have a -3 Con modifier and roll for HP, your character might have a terminal disease that will manifest over time.

 

[redrick]

Jeremy actually mentions that if you have a -3 Con modifier and roll for HP, your character might have a terminal disease that will manifest over time.

Ha, for real. If your D&D character has a Constitution of less than 6, all sorts of non-standard things are going to happen. And I would hope that a player is only playing a character with a Con that low because they want to engage with that. Rolling for hp every level would be a way of seeing how the terminal condition progresses — there's a 50% chance things will improve, and a 33% chance that things will actually get worse. And, yes, there's a good chance that your Wizard will die from their illness before reaching 5th level.

 

[jaelis]

The problem with Sage Advice, is that sometimes it really clarifies, but other times it sounds like a dude or two on the web noticed a WTF line in the RAW, and Crawford instead of admitting that they never actually noticed it or intended it to be that way, becomes preoccupied only with justifying that RAW at any costs.

I don't seem him "justifying" anything, except in the sense of confirming the rule says what it says. He's many times said people should adjust the rules to do what works best at their table.

considering how divisive this sort of thing becomes every single time (see the recent troubles with identifying spells) I don't think it does a good service.

You think it would be less divisive if he was making official errata on the fly whenever someone convinced him a rule didn't make sense?

Had he just considered that they never intended a PC to lose HP while levelling up, but they forgot to make it explicit (pretty much because they didn't even think about it the other way around), they could have issued an errata, and nobody would have come up saying they've always played it the way he's saying now.

Maybe they will issue an errata eventually, but since this has got to be a very rare issue, I'd probably vote for them to spend their time on other things.

 

[FrogReaver]

Now you too are only explaining why people like to roll.

Again:

Why build D&D like a casino, where the best option is not to roll?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Isn't that obvious? When gambling on average gave you the best results then everyone gambled on hp. It's both "more fun and more efficient".

Now there is a choice. Most fun vs most efficient. It's a fine trade As evidenced by many taking the less efficient option

 

[Sacrosanct]

Re: rolling, seems you can't win. If the average from rolling was better than taking the standard, then CapnZapp would be making a post how you're in idiot for taking the standard instead of rolling. So it's a no win with some people.

Here's the reality of it though. Just because you (general you) might never want to roll, doesn't mean a lot of people don't like to and want take that risk. It's all about risk vs reward, and like everything else that is chance, people decide if the risk is worth it. You have a MUCH greater chance of losing in gambling, and yet casinos are pretty popular and full all the time. Taking a risk always grants the opportunity of being better than the safe bet, but also on average is less. That's how it works. That's why a lot of people like a d12 over 2d6, because you have a 1 in 12 chance of getting a 12 as opposed to a 1 in 36 chance, even if the average of 2d6 is a bit higher. It's preference, and people aren't crazy or dumb for doing one over the other.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Had he just considered that they never intended a PC to lose HP while levelling up, but they forgot to make it explicit (pretty much because they didn't even think about it the other way around), they could have issued an errata, and nobody would have come up saying they've always played it the way he's saying now.

Why does it matter though? From a practical standpoint, what does them making "errata" actually give a player that they can't already get just from deciding on their own that how things are written in the PHB are unwanted for their game and making their own ruling? The satisfaction that they can now "Play RAW!" officially? Yeah, great. Whoop-di-doo. Congratulations, you can now claim you only "Play RAW". Your medal and certificate will arrive in the mail for you shortly.

They've said all along that errata is only for editing mistakes, and that any questions of intention or interpretation would be handled through Sage Advice and that every table could take it or leave it. Thus all Jeremy does is either re-iterate what the rules actually say because the person asking didn't fully read them... or tell us what they intended for us get from the rules based upon how they wrote it (because many people parse language differently.) And if that results in rules you think are stupid, then you ignore the Sage Advice for that rule because no one gives a rat's ass whether you follow it or don't it.

I find the Sage Advice for Barkskin to be stupid. Thus I don't use it. But I do use many other bits from Sage Advice because there's no problem picking and choosing only certain parts of it-- Sage Advice is not an "all or nothing" proposition. And if someone out there *does* treat Sage Advice as an all-or-nothing fountain of game edits because they have this insane need to "Play RAW!"... then neither Jeremy nor the rest of us need feel bad for that person nor change how things are done to accommodate them. They're deliberately ignoring the "Rulings Not Rules" mantra for 5E for whatever bizarre reason they have in their head... so that's on them.