D&D 5E More HP - was it a good idea?

[Ancalagon]

Hello

So, one of the big changes from 2nd to 3e and beyond was more hitpoints for characters. First, con bonuses are a lot easier to get. You used to need 15 in con to get a +1, now a 12 will do. Second, the hit dice of rogues and wizards went from 1d6 and 1d4(!) to 1d8 and 1d6. Lastly, you keep getting full hit point dice at high level instead of a small, flat numerical bonus.

Of course, this was sort of needed because damage also went up (strength bonuses to weapon damage are also far easier to get...). Monster HP also went up (an ogre used to have about 20-25 hp!). But, interestingly, spell damage didn't go up and *some* healing didn't go up - a healing potion does exactly the same amount of healing in 5e as 2nd ed.

Those low HP really helped balanced out the might of the 2nd ed wizard. Was this a good move to increase HP? Or did we lose "something"?

 

[Lanefan]

A minor but significant change also was that unlike earlier editions, in 3e (and beyond?) you get auto-max h.p. at 1st level, giving a nice foundation to build on.

If the monster h.p. go up by the same proportion as the PCs - which they mostly did - all that happens is an arms race escalation. In 3e it sort of worked because both PCs and monsters could give out damage fast enough (at low-ish levels anyway) to chew through all those hit points in a reasonable amount of time. In 4e it seems not to have worked; the damage given out was cut but the overall hit point totals increased (except for minions, which went the other way), leading to longer combats.

Low hit point totals also serve to make combats more swingy - one good crit can ruin someone's day. Some people (such as me) don't mind this. Others do.

High hit point totals work against blast mages, as their spell damage hasn't changed much. Again, to some a feature, to others a bug.

Can't speak to what happens at really high level in any edition as I've never played such.

Lanefan

 

[Xeviat]

I feel like HP needed to scale to keep up with spell damage, and thus weapon damage needed to scale to keep up with spell damage. I do get the idea of wanting to normalize things, make things more believable, but I think that is best handled with a lower level cap. Maybe an "old school" game could stop at 10th level and then drastically change scaling.

But, I also think low level characters have too little HP and high level characters have too much (or more specifically, Con feels too valuable at high levels).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Low hit point totals also serve to make combats more swingy - one good crit can ruin someone's day. Some people (such as me) don't mind this. Others do.

Of course, critical hits weren't promoted to core rule until 3E, alongside crit ranges and crit multipliers. It was entirely an optional rule in 2E, and I know that Gygax in particular argued against their inclusion for much the reason you state. For as long as they've existed in the core rules, they were balanced by the 3E-era HP inflation.

As for the topic at hand, I am strongly against the inflation of Hit Points, because it reduces the consequences of getting hit. If it takes you three fireballs or a dozen arrows before you drop, then that makes it hard to care about getting hit by a fireball or an arrow, and that leads to a weird narrative. It should never be okay to get shot. I mean, you should be prepared for it to happen, but it should be a terrible thing that you try to avoid if at all possible.

Just starting with maximum HP at first level, and gaining a new die at every level, should be enough to make characters reasonably survivable without letting them ignore hits entirely. Of course, the issue is compounded by the ludicrous natural healing rate in 4E and 5E, where you can take in excess of your full maximum HP in damage every day without ever slowing down.

 

[Diem]

I think of it in a simple way. You're a hero. You're a cut above the rest of the population. Those HP are a sign of it.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using EN World mobile app

 

[Lanefan]

I think of it in a simple way. You're a hero. You're a cut above the rest of the population. Those HP are a sign of it.

You're a cut above...but how big of a cut is too little/about right/too much, is the question.

Of course, critical hits weren't promoted to core rule until 3E, alongside crit ranges and crit multipliers. It was entirely an optional rule in 2E, and I know that Gygax in particular argued against their inclusion for much the reason you state.

Gygax might have argued against them in 1e but IME nobody really listened. Ditto for fumble rules.

Lanefan

 

[snickersnax]

I feel like HP needed to scale to keep up with spell damage, and thus weapon damage needed to scale to keep up with spell damage. I do get the idea of wanting to normalize things, make things more believable, but I think that is best handled with a lower level cap. Maybe an "old school" game could stop at 10th level and then drastically change scaling.

But, I also think low level characters have too little HP and high level characters have too much (or more specifically, Con feels too valuable at high levels).

I've been toying with the idea of play testing Hit point dice increases from proficiency bonus. So level one characters would start with 3 hit dice (maxed of course, because PCs are heroes), and then 7 total Hit dice at level 17. This solves first level fragileness, and hit point bloat. This keeps the high levels edgy and encourages a few other rule changes that I like as well.

1) Proficiency bonus to armor class: because something you are proficient in should give you a proficiency bonus. I know the argument... bounded accuracy!!!, but its WAY too easy for high level characters to hit monsters and each other. Adding this in doesn't break anything, and solves a lot when character hit point bloat is also fixed.

2) Proficiency bonus for the number of saves characters are proficient in. Obviously first level characters start with 2 proficient saves, but they get to have an additional proficiency each time their proficiency bonus goes up. Which conveniently maxes out at +6, so at level 17+ all characters are proficient in all saves.

3) Cantrip scaling can be eliminated. I really don't like cantrip scaling, for some reason it just feels wrong to me. I think that its partly because at-will cantrips quickly outscale low-level damage spells, and partly because very little else in the game follows this mechanic so it feels out of place.

4) Some additional rule changes need to be made to tone down damage scaling. I haven't got all these worked out, but some choices may include:
eliminating or reducing multi-attack from all or most classes, eliminating the divine smite option from paladins, eliminating damage from hex and hunter's mark, fixing polymorph, eliminating extra damage fluff that was added to the game to compensate for hit point bloat.

As I write this, the game seems so much more exiting to me. It feels dangerous and compressed into the sweet spot of D&D (levels 3-10, IMO).

 

[Azzy]

Was this a good move to increase HP?

Objectively, it is really neither a good thing or a bad thing—it's just a thing. Personally, though, I'm not sure that I like it, but it is what it is.

 

[Rhenny]

What I find interesting is how the entire concept of "Bounded Accuracy" keeps most numbers lower (like AC, to hit modifiers, saves, etc.) so Hit Points are really the only number that for determining overall might and survive-ability. It actually makes it easier to modify encounters at the most basic level (just adjusting monster hit points).

So far in play, I've liked the way it feels to be a player of a wizard or fighter type. The difference in hit points seems to make sense, but being a wizard type doesn't make you as frail as in the old days.

In my ideal game, I'd probably like the players to begin with more hit points and augment them slowly over time, but there is a certain thrill in the way lower level D&D characters with very few hit points and higher level PCs that have larger piles of hit points feel/play differently. I think overall that's a bonus for the system because it allows for more variety.

 

[Sacrosanct]

HP aren't up though. They are down from the previous edition, sometimes by A LOT. And adult red dragon has 750 HP in 4e, and 256 in 5e. An ogre in 4e has twice as many HP than the 5e version. Classes got more HP as well, along with a lot more healing surges.