D&D 5E Losing HP as you level up

[cbwjm]

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.

Because people like to roll. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The signature of champions.

 

[CapnZapp]

Actually, this is interesting - I would argue that rolling low hurts you more than rolling high helps you, at least at the lowest levels (first tier).

Assuming this is true, you should probably take the average even if we apply the house-rule it is rounded down.

That is, a Fighter levelling up to level 2 should probably take 5+Con rather than rolling 1d10+Con, even though the latter is on average half a point better.

At higher levels (from level 5 or so) this doesn't matter as much since you are by now much more likely to survive a single crit from an Orc or somesuch plentiful monster and so you can withstand the occasional low roll, hoping for some high rolls, and - on average - coming out on top.

To convince you of this, take the relative strength of your character compared to the others in your group into account.

If you are one level higher than the rest of your party, that's great - for you, but since D&D characters can't really protect each other, it doesn't really help the group that much.

In contrast, if you are one level lower than the rest of your party, that's a serious liability (remember, talking low levels here). The chain isn't stronger than its weakest link. Each new level almost doubles your capacity and survivability at first, while, say, the difference between 13th and 14th level is minimal at best.

That is why I am making the argument that
1) you should house-rule that taking the average hp gets the rounded-down number
2) despite 1) you should still take the average for levels two, three and possibly four as well!

 

[CapnZapp]

Because people like to roll. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The signature of champions.

I know people like to roll.

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

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

My understanding is that this approach is very deliberate, and there is a valid customer-oriented reason for it: They want to be able to promise that the book they sold you for $50 contains the actual game of Dungeons & Dragons. They don't want to introduce new rules or modify existing ones through the medium of a trickle of disconnected tweets that most players will never see.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

Treating a random variable as equivalent to a fixed value at its average is very basic, but not in the sense of "fundamental and definitely true" so much as "reductionist and possibly overlooking some important details". Tell me, O mathematician, what is the actual average result of rolling for hit points, given that low rolls directly increase the risk of character death (and thus, rolling a new character) while high rolls decrease that risk?

 

[Horwath]

You have no place adventuring with 4 con anyway.


There is a huge chance that you will die with 1st attack that hits you. So level up HPs are the least of your problems.

 

[pukunui]

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

Because JC has been appointed the official rules guru on Twitter.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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

The signature of champions.

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

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.

I think that you might be misunderstanding Crawford's role in the Sage Advice.
He gives clarifications to existing rules. Not how he would rule it (that is Mearls). Not how he suggests that you would rule it. Not "official rulings".
Just what the actual rules say.

If the PHB doesn't state that there is a minimum HP gain on levelling, then he isn't going to say that there is a minimum HP gain on levelling.
If you want a 'how a designer would rule' ruling then ask Mearls. If you want a 'common sense' ruling then ask your DM, or Mearls of you're the DM and you need some sort of official decision on ruling.

But you don't ask Crawford for a rules clarification then whine that his answer is too 'by the book'. Its what he does.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Silly them...

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.

It was kinda like that back in 1e days too when Sage Advice was in Dragon...nice to see some things never change...

 

[cbwjm]

I think that you might be misunderstanding Crawford's role in the Sage Advice.
He gives clarifications to existing rules. Not how he would rule it (that is Mearls). Not how he suggests that you would rule it. Not "official rulings".
Just what the actual rules say.

If the PHB doesn't state that there is a minimum HP gain on levelling, then he isn't going to say that there is a minimum HP gain on levelling.
If you want a 'how a designer would rule' ruling then ask Mearls. If you want a 'common sense' ruling then ask your DM, or Mearls of you're the DM and you need some sort of official decision on ruling.

But you don't ask Crawford for a rules clarification then whine that his answer is too 'by the book'. Its what he does.

Refer back to my post you quoted.

The signature of champions.