D&D 5E Losing HP as you level up

[DEFCON 1]

I prefer someone open minded and amenable to change if presented with good reasons why. That's how I run my own games. But then I'm not a jerk who says "I run games how *I* want, and screw you for having a different opinion!"

Which is good! Being amenable to change is wonderful! And it's a sign of a good player and a good DM who is!

But you don't need an errata document to play that way.

In fact... being amenable to change is exactly the reason why "clarifying" every single little rule by continually revising an errata document is unnecessary. If YOU are amenable to change, and the DM is amendable to change... then you both get together, talk it over, decide how you want the rule to work... then change it.

There ya go! Nice! Tidy! And you don't need 25 to 30 pages worth of errata to PROVE the change is okay.

 

[mikal768]

Which is good! Being amenable to change is wonderful! And it's a sign of a good player and a good DM who is!

But you don't need an errata document to play that way.

I never said you did? You're the one saying who cares. I provided reasons why someone would care and why rules are important to have, even if you choose to later change them.

In fact... being amenable to change is exactly the reason why "clarifying" every single little rule by continually revising an errata document is unnecessary. If YOU are amenable to change, and the DM is amendable to change... then you both get together, talk it over, decide how you want the rule to work... then change it.

A process easier to do when a rule is clarified so you know how it actually operates in the first place.

There ya go! Nice! Tidy! And you don't need 25 to 30 pages worth of errata to PROVE the change is okay.

If a single rule requires 25-30 pages of errata, then it might be time to play a different game.

 

[DEFCON 1]

He also said rule clarifications and rules don't matter, because house rules and DMs. So the logical conclusion of rules not mattering is... not wasting time and money on the PHB, MM, and DMG. After all, if you're just going to house rule it, why bother with the rules at all? Just make it up as you go along.

And if any of us wanted to do that... then we would. But I have no problem whatsoever wasting my time and money buying and reading foundational rules so that I don't have to make them up. But I also have no problem if I DO have to make them up. It's not all of one and its not all of the other. I'm in a happy middle place.

But it's the people who require every single rule clarification hammered out and written down so no interpretation is possible (let alone wanted) that are actually the ones who fall on an end of your hyperbolic claim.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If a single rule requires 25-30 pages of errata, then it might be time to play a different game.

Are you intentionally trying to misinterpret my fairly obvious statements just so you can try to be "right"? Or did you actually believe my saying "25 to 30 pages worth of errata" was about a single rule and not every rule that people would demand clarification on?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

By your tone, I sense you disagree with me in some way. In trying to understand what your point is, if I read you in the best possible light, you basically reiterate what I just said about taking the average at low levels?

Take the average if you want your current character to have the highest expected value of hit points.

But roll the dice if you want a character to have the highest expected value of hit points. Because Darwin.

The calculation is not as simple as you claim.

 

[cbwjm]

Just imagine if using this clarification a character could die just by levelling up. A group might like to roll for everything, a player rolls his stats in order and gets a 3 constitution but an 18 intelligence, gonna be a wizard. I'm assuming they gain max hit points at level one since I've used that rule since 2e so they start with 2 hit points, they manage to hit level 2 without dying and then they roll for hit points. They roll a 2. They gain -2 hit points and die at 2nd level, not from an arrow to the knee but from levelling up, their body apparently couldn't handle that extra 1st level spell or maybe their anxiety at choosing a tradition caused their max hit points to drain away.

 

[Lanefan]

... And you don't need 25 to 30 pages worth of errata to PROVE the change is okay.

Er...how would fixing this take 25-30 pages of errata?

All it needs is to add two words in parentheses when defining the con-based h.p. modifier: "minimum +1".

I think they could fit two words in there somewhere.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Er...how would fixing this take 25-30 pages of errata?

All it needs is to add two words in parentheses when defining the con-based h.p. modifier: "minimum +1".

I think they could fit two words in there somewhere.

Ugh. Really? Okay... let me explain this the long-winded way since people are not getting it.

The errata document right now is for editing errors only. That's why it's short.
As soon as we start putting in "rule clarifications" into the errata for every single rule that "should be" corrected (as was demanded by our OP when I commented off of him in the first place)... pretty soon your errata document will SWELL to around 25 to 30 pages (if not more) to include every single little freaking rule "tweak" demanded by the nitpicky "Only Play RAW!" community so that there's no dispute or interpretation over any rule in the game ever again.

Just like the 4E errata document swelled to become a massive beast that pretty much became an entire extra rulebook that people had to keep lugging around so that they could cross-reference every single thing. All so that they could "Play RAW!"

Because if you honestly think THIS situation here... this obscure, barely ever going to come up situation that says "Hey, if you have a negative CON mod and you roll your HP and it ends up being less than 1 hit point, you still gain 1 hit point"... and you think THIS warrants being written down in an errata document... then those people who believe that are going to demand every other rule-- ones much more likely to actually occur-- to get added too. And pretty soon we're right back to where we were with 4E... an errata document so large that yes... could get upwards of 25 to 30 pages.

Or you know... you could just ask your DM to let you have a minimum of 1 hit point if you choose to roll and you end up rolling poorly. You know... like the other 98% of tables do when certain rules in the game don't seem to make sense or play the way they think they should.

I'm sorry I didn't get this "clear" on what I meant the first time... but silly me was giving people credit for being able to figure what I meant out. I won't make the same mistake again.

 

[Satyrn]

Roll for how many slices of pizza you get,

There's the attack roll.

and then roll for how much you pay me.

and there's the damage roll!

 

[Shasarak]

I know people like to roll.

The question is why should you be actively penalized for this desire?

If you have a -2 to HP then rolling low is not actively penalising you, it is just working as intended.

Its not rocket science, its just maths.