D&D 5E Losing HP as you level up

[hawkeyefan]

I played a character with a negative Con modifier a while back, in 3rd edition. We ruled that he could indeed lose HP when leveling up if I rolled low enough. The concept for the character was indeed that he was ill and expected yo get worse with time.

This was me playing a particular character concept that I thought would be challenging, so why take away the thing that makes it challenging? In 5E, with the expectation of point buy or array for stats and of average HP per level, I don’t really see the issue. Most characters won’t have a Con lower than 8, which is a -1. So even if they roll for HP, the worst case scenario is a 0.

Regardless, most players would realize the situation and would act accordingly. For those that disn’t realize, Crawford was clarifying.

 

[Hriston]

The real question is whether losing hp this way counts as taking damage. Technically, unconsciousness and death are caused by being reduced to 0 hp by damage. If it isn't damage, it may possibly just leave you un-dead.

 

[redrick]

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.

This would be a merciful way for that Wizard to die. Seeing as they'll have, at absolute best, 10 hp if they make it to level 5. Every hit is going to run the risk of insta-killing them. If they manage to avoid that, they are definitely turning to stone somewhere.

 

[cbwjm]

This would be a merciful way for that Wizard to die. Seeing as they'll have, at absolute best, 10 hp if they make it to level 5. Every hit is going to run the risk of insta-killing them. If they manage to avoid that, they are definitely turning to stone somewhere.

Been like that in previous editions and people still managed to level wizards. Might be a little harder in this edition due to higher average damage but at least the wizard dies during an encounter instead of after an encounter when they're safe and tally xp and level up.

The signature of champions.

 

[Iry]

It doesn't matter.

It's such a fringe and specific situation that it becomes almost impossible to cause unless you intentionally try to cause it, or get really unlucky in a "roll stats in order" game. It also creates an interesting (incredibly rare) scenario that could be fun for some people to roleplay, where Minimum 1 HP creates no additional interesting scenarios.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

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.

Actually, no. Some of the things in the errata document, and thus put into newer printings of the books, were originally in the Sage Advice Compendium that were considered important enough to make into official errata.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Actually, no. Some of the things in the errata document, and thus put into newer printings of the books, were originally in the Sage Advice Compendium that were considered important enough to make into official errata.

It was not about "importance", those things ended up in the errata because they were actual errors.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I guess I don't see why one needs to denigrate those who want to play RAW. A lot of people play AL, and that's all RAW.

Now, granted, this situation doesn't come up in AL, where they use standard/point buy and don't roll. Sage Advice is recommended, but not required.

 

[guachi]

And if we were talking about foundation rules of the game, then you'd possibly have a point. But we're not. We're talking about WotC wasting their time and scrapping their editorial policy just so a couple people can have it down in writing that an obscure, practically never-to-come-up situation has an "official" rule connected to it... presumably so that they can then go to another table and dictate to their new DM "Well, uh... actually... should one of us choose to play a PC with a negative CON modifier and choose to roll for our hit points... we can at the very least get 1 hit point when we level up even if we roll poorly."

There didn't need to be a Sage Advice for you to be able to lose HP upon leveling up if your Con is sufficiently low. It was always the case. Because it's always been in the rulebook. Crawford answered because somebody asked. And now you are having a fit because Crawford answered a question.

The rule was "official" with or without Crawford answering the question.

I put this to you: Without reference to anything tweeted by Crawford how do you determine, by the rules, HP upon leveling up? And, by following the rules, is it possible to lose maximum HP?

A player never needed this tweet to go to a table and say that you could lose HP upon leveling with a sufficiently low Con and rolling for HP.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There didn't need to be a Sage Advice for you to be able to lose HP upon leveling up if your Con is sufficiently low. It was always the case. Because it's always been in the rulebook. Crawford answered because somebody asked. And now you are having a fit because Crawford answered a question.

The rule was "official" with or without Crawford answering the question.

I put this to you: Without reference to anything tweeted by Crawford how do you determine, by the rules, HP upon leveling up? And, by following the rules, is it possible to lose maximum HP?

A player never needed this tweet to go to a table and say that you could lose HP upon leveling with a sufficiently low Con and rolling for HP.

By RAW, following the rules, sure, if the player decides to. What I mean by that is that RAW, by the rules, you can always take the standard HP value and never lose HP when gaining a level. You'd only lose HP by choosing to roll instead, and then roll minimum.

Personally, I think this is a non issue not worth spending any time on. How many PCs have a -2 to their CON modifier? And how many of them, in that scenario, would roll for HP instead of taking the default value?