The HP sweet spot for 5e

[TwoSix]

Usually about 40 HP, I feel pretty safe getting up into melee combat. That's assuming the DM is comfortable taking out downed characters, which a lot of DMs don't do. If the DM deprioritizes characters at 0, I usually feel safe at 25-30.

 

[Salamandyr]

I find player's hp ranges to be okay. I find monster hit points to be about a third to twice as many as I would prefer. Monsters being big bags of hit points is one of the major causes of the pillow fight feel of many 5e combats.

 

[jgsugden]

It depends upon campaign and play style.

When I run a Dwarven Frenzied Berserker Barbarian, I was happy for every HP I had - because I found ways to use them. He lept off 200 foot tall towers, took OAs by the bucket while charging at an enemy, and found the best way through a trap was ... through the trap. He had over 230 hps when the campaign ended, and he rarely was under 50 hps.... but I sure as heck wasted a lot of hps...

When I run my Deep Gnome Enchanter Wizard, I sometimes think I wasted resources getting a 13 Constitution. It has been several sessions since he last took damage - and when he has been hurt in the past, the cleric and paladin in the party are really quick on the healing.

The number of hp you need does scale with your level and the challenges you face, but in general, how many is "enough" is a function of way too many variables to give a reasonably comprehensive answer that doesn't span many pages.

 

[5ekyu]

Well as a personal preference as a player.

I generally prefer games where characters progress in abilities, but there's not such a big divide in starting and ending hitpoints.

I like the idea in 5e of starting with con score and then not getting con modifier to hp on level up. In theory it seems fine balance wise, but there'd probably be a lot of more subtle consequences of doing that.

Gotta say next 5e based game i amgonna shove bonus hp into backgrounds and races... So at 1st rank not so much "one crit from dead".

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well as a personal preference as a player.
I generally prefer games where characters progress in abilities, but there's not such a big divide in starting and ending hitpoints.

There are a great many such games.

I like the idea in 5e of starting with con score and then not getting con modifier to hp on level up. In theory it seems fine balance wise, but there'd probably be a lot of more subtle consequences of doing that.

It's almost exactly what 4e did, and it did mean that damage & hps for PCs & monsters ballooned less in 30 levels than they do in 20 levels of 5e (not that anyone plays 5e for the full 20 levels, of course). Really, it's just a matter of where you want your scaling. Scaling gives you a sense of progress, while, at the same time, being matched (like a 'treadmill,' yes) by the challenges you face. 5e BA means most of the heavy lifting is done by hps/damage and spell progression.

 

[Sleepy Walker]

I think somewhere around 50 hp is good. Just seems like a nice number. Allows for enough hp to absorb common AOE and still have a little bit to duke it out with something. Good for both PCs and opposing creatures. Around 30 is where most spells or a deadly opponent can dispose of you in a single turn with a bit of luck. 50 has a bit more staying power and is appropriate from level 5 to about level 11 or 13 (increase numbers as appropriate, actual results may vary with PC progression and/or opponent selection).


On the note of health progression: I like the formula being double the con score added to rolling the class die without adding con modifier. If con is reduced, every point reduces HP by 2 points. Has some odd math stuff where 0 con results in still having HP, but not that hard to compensate. To make things different I added a modifier to monster size, so size small is just con + rolls, size large is 3xcon + rolls, etc. So far it seems to do a really good job of making an opponent easier to judge before getting into a fight and makes low level threats even more credible through the entire game, but the difference in damage and things one can do changes with an increase in level. I did more house rules onto of this system, but I find it neat how the premise of lowing high level hp and boost the lower level hp was viable enough for me to invest a lot of time going through it. Now I can make encounters with orcs that are credible threats, but still evaporate in a satisfying way.

 

[Horwath]

Gotta say next 5e based game i amgonna shove bonus hp into backgrounds and races... So at 1st rank not so much "one crit from dead".

One crit from dead is the fate of many 1st level characters.

They are pvt rank in the army. Cannon fodder. Ones that survive first few battles of their lives learn(get a level) where to be inside the battle and how to defend yourself(more HP).

https://youtu.be/DSKerypwUDM?t=102
those that survived that day are lvl2 or lvl3 even

 

[5ekyu]

One crit from dead is the fate of many 1st level characters.

They are pvt rank in the army. Cannon fodder. Ones that survive first few battles of their lives learn(get a level) where to be inside the battle and how to defend yourself(more HP).

I gamed back in the days of dead during chargen traveller and when a fiend filio house cat (claw claw bite for 1 1 1-2) could slay a first level wizard (rolled d4 hp) without a crit.

So, been there done that and all that jazz.

Now i like things to play out differently.

Its just preference.

No privates... Characters.