Starting Bonus HP

[Blue]

13th Age starts 1st level characters with 3xHD + Con. Keeps them from being too fragile to start. It has three tiers of play and during the first tier you go up by HD per level, second you up by two HD per level, and the highest you go up three HD per level.

Back in AD&D (yes, 1st ed, no numbers back then) had a DM who gave out either d6 HPs for Human (and potentially other for other races) in addition to starting HPs for the same reason.

 

[Celebrim]

I play a house ruled version of D&D 3.0e.

All creatures, including PCs, receive bonus hitpoints based on size class. I believe you will find this much more realistic, balanced, and have fewer edge cases than basing bonus hitpoints on age, to say nothing of being easier to calculate.

Bonus hit points as a function of size class:
Fine: 0
Diminutive: 1
Tiny: 2
Small: 4
Medium: 8
Large: 16
Huge: 32
Gargantuan: 64
Colossal: 128

So, why do I do this?

A) It solves the "kill rats in the basement" problem. It makes 1st level characters much more survivable. With 8 bonus hit points, a first level character can reasonably survive almost any single unlucky hit barring a critical hit or a brute with a large weapon. This extends the games 'sweet spot' down into 1st level, and lets the DM be a bit more creative in monster selection.
B) It solves the "house cat vs commoner" problem. D&D has traditionally been very bad at dealing with small creatures, because fractions of 1 HD are still basically 1HD, and you don't have any more granularity than '1'. So you can have a situation where a 1st level commoner framer with a hoe, is severely disadvantaged in combat with his housecat, because they both have just a couple of hit points but the cat has higher dex, better to hit bonuses, better AC, and 3 attacks while the commoner gets minimal advantage from his much larger size (basically, just reach). It also becomes a problem that a wasp, a mouse, and a cat might each have 1 hit point and do 1 damage on an attack, meaning none is the reasonable predator of the other.
C) It solves the "Moby Dick" problem. In D&D, traditionally large animals - even large herbivorous animals - are very high HD. They have to be in order to have the sort of hit points we'd expect a large creature to have. But high HD comes with high attack bonuses, high saving throws, and other artifacts of great combat ability, and often as not this doesn't make a lot of sense. Hit point bonuses due to size allow for animals with less than god like combat ability, if you want them.
D) It generally feels more realistic. And in general it solves a problem in 3.X that its generally a straight up advantage to be small (or smaller). If you don't drop your ability scores to do so, you'd almost always prefer to be Fine sized - +8 to AC, +8 to attack bonus(!!). Now, there is a significant penalty to shrinking, and you can legitimate run a "Puss in Boots" scenario where if an Ogre were to shrink to mouse size, he'd suddenly become a more manageable foe.
E) In general, it adds an extra round to combat that 3.X very much needs. 3.X tends to have glass cannon issues where things go down hard in 1 to 1 1/2 rounds. 4e over compensated and dragged out combat too much, but the small bump in hit points to monsters and PCs in 3e adds in my experience another 1/2 to 2 rounds to combat, and gives it more opportunity to play out without normally running so long it starts to drag. I should also mention that under these rules, undead and oozes get double the normal size class bonus. This is much more elegant than the kludgy fixes 3.X used, of either giving undead a special kludge ability that gave bonus XP based on charisma (and then forced undead to have high charisma), or of giving oozes a fixed amount of hit points based on size class that was completely unrelated to any other class of creature.

There are a few problems, but they are tiny compared to the gains.

1) It exaggerates the "White Tailed Deer" problem. D&D has always had a bit of trouble explaining how humans hunt game animals, given than a 1d6 damage arrow shot isn't going to do much to a 2HD or larger creature and is only minimally useful against even a 1HD creature that has a CON bonus. Once you start factoring in bonus hit points, arrows are even less use in hunting. There are some ways to handle this and yes its ugly you need a critical to have a reasonable chance of killing a deer with a bow shots (although, arguably that's realistic, what is not realistic is that D&D doesn't track blood loss, which is how arrows usually kill), but compared to the gains the loss of realism and gameplay here is small.
2) If you do refactor animal HD, it can create problems with balancing animal companions.

 

[Einlanzer0]

I play a house ruled version of D&D 3.0e.

All creatures, including PCs, receive bonus hitpoints based on size class. I believe you will find this much more realistic, balanced, and have fewer edge cases than basing bonus hitpoints on age, to say nothing of being easier to calculate.

Bonus hit points as a function of size class:
Fine: 0
Diminutive: 1
Tiny: 2
Small: 4
Medium: 8
Large: 16
Huge: 32
Gargantuan: 64
Colossal: 128

So, why do I do this?

A) It solves the "kill rats in the basement" problem. It makes 1st level characters much more survivable. With 8 bonus hit points, a first level character can reasonably survive almost any single unlucky hit barring a critical hit or a brute with a large weapon. This extends the games 'sweet spot' down into 1st level, and lets the DM be a bit more creative in monster selection.
B) It solves the "house cat vs commoner" problem. D&D has traditionally been very bad at dealing with small creatures, because fractions of 1 HD are still basically 1HD, and you don't have any more granularity than '1'. So you can have a situation where a 1st level commoner framer with a hoe, is severely disadvantaged in combat with his housecat, because they both have just a couple of hit points but the cat has higher dex, better to hit bonuses, better AC, and 3 attacks while the commoner gets minimal advantage from his much larger size (basically, just reach). It also becomes a problem that a wasp, a mouse, and a cat might each have 1 hit point and do 1 damage on an attack, meaning none is the reasonable predator of the other.
C) It solves the "Moby Dick" problem. In D&D, traditionally large animals - even large herbivorous animals - are very high HD. They have to be in order to have the sort of hit points we'd expect a large creature to have. But high HD comes with high attack bonuses, high saving throws, and other artifacts of great combat ability, and often as not this doesn't make a lot of sense. Hit point bonuses due to size allow for animals with less than god like combat ability, if you want them.
D) It generally feels more realistic. And in general it solves a problem in 3.X that its generally a straight up advantage to be small (or smaller). If you don't drop your ability scores to do so, you'd almost always prefer to be Fine sized - +8 to AC, +8 to attack bonus(!!). Now, there is a significant penalty to shrinking, and you can legitimate run a "Puss in Boots" scenario where if an Ogre were to shrink to mouse size, he'd suddenly become a more manageable foe.
E) In general, it adds an extra round to combat that 3.X very much needs. 3.X tends to have glass cannon issues where things go down hard in 1 to 1 1/2 rounds. 4e over compensated and dragged out combat too much, but the small bump in hit points to monsters and PCs in 3e adds in my experience another 1/2 to 2 rounds to combat, and gives it more opportunity to play out without normally running so long it starts to drag. I should also mention that under these rules, undead and oozes get double the normal size class bonus. This is much more elegant than the kludgy fixes 3.X used, of either giving undead a special kludge ability that gave bonus XP based on charisma (and then forced undead to have high charisma), or of giving oozes a fixed amount of hit points based on size class that was completely unrelated to any other class of creature.

There are a few problems, but they are tiny compared to the gains.

1) It exaggerates the "White Tailed Deer" problem. D&D has always had a bit of trouble explaining how humans hunt game animals, given than a 1d6 damage arrow shot isn't going to do much to a 2HD or larger creature and is only minimally useful against even a 1HD creature that has a CON bonus. Once you start factoring in bonus hit points, arrows are even less use in hunting. There are some ways to handle this and yes its ugly you need a critical to have a reasonable chance of killing a deer with a bow shots (although, arguably that's realistic, what is not realistic is that D&D doesn't track blood loss, which is how arrows usually kill), but compared to the gains the loss of realism and gameplay here is small.
2) If you do refactor animal HD, it can create problems with balancing animal companions.

That's a pretty good idea, but it really highlights the problems with HP in general. I really wish they'd moved to a somewhat more realistic system in this edition.

 

[Celebrim]

That's a pretty good idea, but it really highlights the problems with HP in general. I really wish they'd moved to a somewhat more realistic system in this edition.

Realistic systems have their own huge drawbacks, and the more realistic you get, the bigger the problems.

Hit points aren't perfect, but they make game play somewhat predictable at least to the extent that you can dial up or down challenge levels in a predictable way. And that's on the whole a good thing, which is why pretty much every video game there has ever been relies on the hit point model. Also, ablative hit points greatly reduce the 'suck' of playing compared to a realistic system. Realistic systems are extremely poorly suited to fantasy combat games, and really only should be adopted if you are play a game in a real world inspired setting in which combat will be a very rare and not central aspect of the game play.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Realistic systems have their own huge drawbacks, and the more realistic you get, the bigger the problems.

Hit points aren't perfect, but they make game play somewhat predictable at least to the extent that you can dial up or down challenge levels in a predictable way. And that's on the whole a good thing, which is why pretty much every video game there has ever been relies on the hit point model. Also, ablative hit points greatly reduce the 'suck' of playing compared to a realistic system. Realistic systems are extremely poorly suited to fantasy combat games, and really only should be adopted if you are play a game in a real world inspired setting in which combat will be a very rare and not central aspect of the game play.

Well, video games aren't trying to represent any degree of realism in their combat systems, so it's not quite the same. Also, I've seen some pretty slick wound based systems that seem to be pretty realistic, balanced, and easy to play. But, that's a whole different discussion. I think my preference is to keep HP but to also use a modular injury system as an overlay to it.

Regarding your HP for size bonus - one thing that seems a little strange is the effect of scaling, especially in the context of PC races. Since we have small and medium playable races, the 4 HP difference is significant at 1st level but not significant at all by the time you gain a few levels. Do you think that small PC races should also have slightly reduced HP scaling as well? I mean, honestly, that would make sense to me if it could be demonstrated that the benefits of being small are comparable.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, video games aren't trying to represent any degree of realism in their combat systems, so it's not quite the same.

Well, neither is the average RPG.

Also, I've seen some pretty slick wound based systems that seem to be pretty realistic, balanced, and easy to play. But, that's a whole different discussion. I think my preference is to keep HP but to also use a modular injury system as an overlay to it.

I'm familiar with a lot of systems, and of "realistic, balanced, and easy to play" I would say at most you pick two features when designing a system, and realistically you end up with just one. I'm a child of the 80s, and I remember all the fetishizing of realism in RPG design back in the day, and I've been there. Most tables will not want realism as a major aspect of play. What they really want is verisimilitude to the story they want to tell, which is generally speaking not a realistic one. Hit points play very very nicely with having overarching narrative goals in your play, which is one of the big reasons cRPGs have pretty much always stuck with them.

As for wound overlays, 3e D&D already has a built in granular, modular, wound overlay system - it's call ability damage. Most wounds can be modeled by ability damage... and most of the time blows should not cause wounds unless you are trying to turn the D20 engine into some sort of gritty survival horror game. Indeed, all my wounds, even 'lose limb' are modeled primarily using hit point and ability damage, with occasional references to a Disadvantage system (that allows you to play a lame, one armed, character if you really want).

I occasionally generate wounds from critical hits, coup de grace type attacks, and falling damage. But I don't real having it happened to a PC in 6 years of play. That's basically by design.

Regarding your HP for size bonus - one thing that seems a little strange is the effect of scaling, especially in the context of PC races.

The problem 3e has is that the standard small sized races treat small as almost a straight up benefit and are in theory balanced accordingly. The only real drawbacks of small in 3e are reduced speed and reduced grappling bonus - and the reduced speed tended to get dropped. The upside of increased stealth, superior AC, and increased attack bonus. This is because 3e protects small sized PC's from the main penalties of small size - reduced reach and reduced ability scores. The way STR and CON scale in 3e, a creature the goes down a size class should get a -4 penalty to STR and a -4 penalty to CON, in exchange for a +2 bonus to DEX. So a typical small sized race should have unbalanced net negative ability score modifiers. Instead, a typical small sized race like Halfling only has a -2 penalty to STR and no penalty to CON at all. Pretty much any 3e race would get better by shrinking if it kept it's stats - after all, your grappling bonus doesn't matter in the long run as you start facing high HD gargantuan creatures with 30+ strength. You either have some sort of near absolute resistance to grapples, or you get squashed basically no matter what your bonus is.

I'm basically avoiding those problems because none of my small races in my homebrew are standard races. They are balanced as small creatures with unbalanced net negative ability scores but large bonuses elsewhere.

Since we have small and medium playable races, the 4 HP difference is significant at 1st level but not significant at all by the time you gain a few levels.

Quite right. As I said, most small sized races have at least 2 more CON than they should. In general, the CON of most creatures in the game is too high. This can be easily shown by the fact that basically nothing, not even a mouse, has lower CON than an elf. Something like a rat should have no more than 4 CON. That's tremendously high CON for a 2-3lb creature.

Do you think that small PC races should also have slightly reduced HP scaling as well? I mean, honestly, that would make sense to me if it could be demonstrated that the benefits of being small are comparable.

All I can say is my races are fairly well balanced (except half-elf, which kinda sucks, but people take it anyway). Tweaking the balance for your game isn't something I can do. But all of my small races have at least a -2 CON penalty to ensure proper scaling.

 

[Einlanzer0]

All I can say is my races are fairly well balanced (except half-elf, which kinda sucks, but people take it anyway). Tweaking the balance for your game isn't something I can do. But all of my small races have at least a -2 CON penalty to ensure proper scaling.

Hmm... interesting. In my games, other than HP, con mostly represents resistance to disease and endurance (injury is primarily governed by strength). Neither of those things should necessarily relate to a creature's size.

I think maybe I'll try using your bonus HP rules, but also impose a -1/level to HP increases for the small races without adjusting their con scores.

 

[Celebrim]

Hmm... interesting. In my games, other than HP, con mostly represents resistance to disease and endurance (injury is primarily governed by strength). Neither of those things should necessarily relate to a creature's size.

If CON relates to hit points, then CON relates to resistance to injury. In my games, CON is a primarily a measurement of two things: body size and general fortitude. The bigger you are, the more general fortitude you have. The relationship between size and CON is not necessarily perfect - dogs of the same mass have higher CON than cats for example, both in terms of endurance and resistance to disease - but it's very strongly related.

If a very small creature is particularly resistant to disease, the proper way to model that would be something like: "Healthy (Ex): You have a +4 bonus on Fort saves to resist disease." Small creatures are often extremely susceptible to disease and die quickly if they catch one. However, they often have various immunities to specific diseases occurring in the environment (often passed on from mother to offspring in the case of mammals). However, a rat doesn't try to keep itself clean for no reason. More to the point though, disease is just one small class of Fortitude saves. Resistance to poisons very much depends heavily on body mass, as a dose that would barely make an adult human sick may be lethal to anything with lower body mass. A spider bite barely hurts you; it kills what a spider normally bites. A snake bite makes you very sick or even kill you after a few hours; but it kills a mouse in just seconds. The vast majority of fine sized creatures should have 1-2 CON. Diminutive creatures should have 2-4 CON, Tiny ones 3-7 CON, and small ones normally 5-9 CON. A very healthy small sized creature, say a small dog or a small bovine, might have a CON bonus of +0, corresponding to an average of 14-15 CON in a medium sized creature. Creatures on the largish end of the scale of their size category might be slightly higher, so say a 400lb medium sized creature built for endurance (a very large wolf or modest sized herd animal) might average 16 CON or so. But in general, HD doles out CON way too freely.

Likewise, if the creature is very small but has very high endurance, the better solution isn't to boost CON, but simply give the creature Endurance as a racial bonus feat. So for example, a terrier might have 6 CON and Endurance as a racial bonus feat. This is a more realistic approach than across the board higher CON. And 6 CON is a fairly high CON for such a small animal, it just looks low because we are used to everything (but an elf) having a CON bonus.

 

[Einlanzer0]

So, then, do you increase con scores for larger creatures?

 

[DeathMutant]

In my Primeval Thule game, where you need to be tough to survive, the hit points of 1st level PCs are calculated as the maximum value on their class Hit Die + CON score -- not CON bonus. At 2nd level and beyond, it is always the average value on the new class' Hit Die + CON bonus; as per normal.

In my Curse of Strahd game, where I want the characters to be "fragile" when they first start adventuring, I use the normal rules.