D&D 5E Restoring Name Level to 5e

[Pauln6]

That's one of the traded off points for the added versatility some classes have. It doesn't make sense to me to work on marginalizing the hit point drawback in having taken theses classes. That drawback is there because the higher hit points in other classes are meant to be a significant advantage.

Up to a point, I agree but it certainly doesn't feel to me like paladins and barbarians are lacking in options, plus, if the constitution modifier after say level 10 level is removed from all classes equally, the effect may not be quite so big as it seems.

I'm more of a fan of front loading hp, so I prefer to give max hp plus one hit die at level 1. So on the maths front, the fighter with a +2 con bonus would be 34hp shy by level 20 (6 -20-20), rangers and paladins 44hp (6-30-20), the d8 classes would be 35hp (5-20-20), and d6 classes 36hp (4-20-20). It's only really characters with higher con that suffer, likely to be fighters, barbarians, or sorcerers? A Barbarian with 20 con would be 64hp shy.

I'm not convinced that the effort in rebalancing monster damage would be worthwhile. I'd only bother if I had a one size fits all formula. Multiple attacks mount up with poison damage etc.

 

[tetrasodium]

I've run a fair amount of high level 5e and I haven't had this issue with tanks. They're certainly more resilient than the other party members, but that is by design. Not anywhere near as tough as you're describing though.

Are you handing out armor and shields with bonuses? That is something that I've always been very careful about in my 5e campaigns, so it's possible that's what's making the difference.

Personally, I would be careful about making such a change. Without modifying monster damage, you need to be aware that you are going to make the game harder (and that difficulty curve is going to grow steeper as they approach level 20). If you do modify monster damage, I think you'll throw CR 8 and lower monster damage out of whack with CR 9 plus monster damage (because there's no reason to nerf monsters before the HP soft cap, but then creatures after the cap are weaker due to the damage penalty).

5e is fairly robust and may be able to handle the changes you're proposing. These are just a few things to consider should you choose to go this route.

I've not seen t either, but there is something related that I have see over & over again. In prior editions those tanky types were very concerned with their hp. In 5e because of how going from zero to negative (maxhp-current hp) only needs a single 1hp heal to bring you back to a point you feel completely safe continuing in the fact of something. ... That second point might be what's giving the OP the feel that tanks are too able to shed damage. Bringing back negative 5hp=dead might help with that to some degree

 

[Fanaelialae]

I've not seen t either, but there is something related that I have see over & over again. In prior editions those tanky types were very concerned with their hp. In 5e because of how going from zero to negative (maxhp-current hp) only needs a single 1hp heal to bring you back to a point you feel completely safe continuing in the fact of something. ... That second point might be what's giving the OP the feel that tanks are too able to shed damage. Bringing back negative 5hp=dead might help with that to some degree

I mean, maybe, but I'd hardly characterize that as getting "through several fights with barely a scratch". As long as I can knock the tank to zero, I'll walk away from the encounter feeling quite satisfied, even if I wasn't able to press anyone else too seriously.

IMC the players do everything in their power to prevent the tank(s) from dropping because as soon as they do, they know I'll peel away and go after the squishies. Obviously, it doesn't always work out that way due to initiative, but since the tank is probably going down on the enemy's turn, it is quite likely.

 

[Helldritch]

Back to the Whack a mole syndrome?
This is pretty much what tetrasodium is describing. If this is the problem, then have the enemy gang up on the downed PC. He should die in a pinch and the Whack a mole syndrome will disappear immediately.

Note: Of course the gang up should be done by intelligent enemies after the first fall/spring up. Enemies are not dumber than the PC. They too can learn. In my campaigns, players have learned to call 911 (character in need of healing...) as soon as they are below 50% of their HP or if they are within 2 or 3 strikes to fall down, whichever is less.

 

[Ashrym]

Up to a point, I agree but it certainly doesn't feel to me like paladins and barbarians are lacking in options, plus, if the constitution modifier after say level 10 level is removed from all classes equally, the effect may not be quite so big as it seems.

I'm more of a fan of front loading hp, so I prefer to give max hp plus one hit die at level 1. So on the maths front, the fighter with a +2 con bonus would be 34hp shy by level 20 (6 -20-20), rangers and paladins 44hp (6-30-20), the d8 classes would be 35hp (5-20-20), and d6 classes 36hp (4-20-20). It's only really characters with higher con that suffer, likely to be fighters, barbarians, or sorcerers? A Barbarian with 20 con would be 64hp shy.

I'm not convinced that the effort in rebalancing monster damage would be worthwhile. I'd only bother if I had a one size fits all formula. Multiple attacks mount up with poison damage etc.

How are you determining high CON classes here?

There's no reason to think barbarians or sorcerers would have more CON than rogues or wizards. It's more likely the rogue would have better CON because of the bonus ASI.

It's not like a barbarian caps his or her STR and then also has another ASI to add CON by 10th level. The ASI at 12th level could go to CON but that's true for wizards or rogues too, and it's often argued a barbarian would be picking up grrat weapon master in there somewhere.

 

[dave2008]

Given the bounded nature of 5e, would it be possible to bring back name level for player characters?

Essentially, this limited the hit points, narrowed the gap between high and low Con characters and limited hit point bloat once the PCs had a decent chunk of hp in the bank. At Name level (9-11 for most classes) the players ceased to roll for hit points and we're given a flat rate with no con bonus. This was typically 4hp for fighters and barbarians, 3hp for fighter subclasses like Ranger and Paladin, 2hp for everyone else, except 1hp for wizards (and sorcerers in 5e).

Given that save or die is now hp damage, I was wondering what changes might need to be made to mid and high level monsters to try and facilitate this change. Is there a simple formula that could be applied across the board to damage, such as reducing the size of dice rolled?

I've considered doing this in my next campaign (except 3/2/1). I think if you do that you don't need to do anything for monsters. They just become threats sooner. Right now a 10th level party can take on monsters in CR 15-20 range. Keeping everything else the same and just limiting HP of PCs would mean lvl 20 PCs could be challenged by monsters in the CR 25-30 range. Which works better than the current system really.

 

[dave2008]

I've not seen t either, but there is something related that I have see over & over again. In prior editions those tanky types were very concerned with their hp. In 5e because of how going from zero to negative (maxhp-current hp) only needs a single 1hp heal to bring you back to a point you feel completely safe continuing in the fact of something. ... That second point might be what's giving the OP the feel that tanks are too able to shed damage. Bringing back negative 5hp=dead might help with that to some degree

Why not 0 HP = dead. I just don't get the love for negative HP.

 

[Pauln6]

Well, I'm not looking to kill PCs, I'm looking to make squishies less vulnerable, I suppose. The game isn't as much fun if you spend most of the fight unconscious or about to go unconscious. The problem is far less of a problem than 1e, where wizards and thieves were super vulnerable though. If monsters dish out less damage, it would make it harder to challenge the tanks. Giving more hp to some classes also smacks of direct favouritism, whereas I prefer indirect favouritism.

I'm not making assumptions about ways that players formulate their stats. I'm just trying to future proof any ideas and some PCs may pump a lot into Con. PCs still get to add con to hp recovered when spending hit dice, so they will still be able to spend resources on a short rest to get to full hp even easier at high levels.

 

[tetrasodium]

Why not 0 HP = dead. I just don't get the love for negative HP.

nothing wrong with it. The main difference is that -5 lets you take an unexpected high damage attack when a pc knows they are walking a razor's edge but thinks they can risk it while zero means tgey know they can't & more quickly treat combat like tomb of horrors exploration.

The -5 also helps massively with avoiding the DCC funnel feel of the early levels

 

[dave2008]

nothing wrong with it. The main difference is that -5 lets you take an unexpected high damage attack when a pc knows they are walking a razor's edge but thinks they can risk it while zero means tgey know they can't & more quickly treat combat like tomb of horrors exploration.

The -5 also helps massively with avoiding the DCC funnel feel of the early levels

I guess we use other house rules that mitigate that issue.