hawkeyefan
Legend
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.
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.
Last edited: