Playing with lower HP

[Calimehter]

It is often said that one of the big changes between 2e and 3e was the large increase in HP that everybody got. It is also often said that this large increase in HP has made it very tough for some classic modes of damage dealing - archery, plain-ol-fireballs, any melee style not involving great weapons and power attack - to keep up, since they didn't scale up nearly as fast when they came over from 2e like HP did. This came up in the recent Evocation thread, and its come up many times before too.

So, what if we just gave everything less HP? Say, 1-2 HP less per die, or even just calculating HP normally and multiplying it by 0.5 tor 0.75 or something in that range.

Things that were already deadly would . . . still be deadly, but it would (hopefully) open up some of the 'classic' attack modes I mentioned above as (more) viable options that can compete with more high-op attack modes like ubercharges or Save-or-Die type spells. Or so I hope.

Do you think it would be viable?

[Zweisteine]

And wizards and sorcerers will be like water balloons full of blood.

But it might work.

The biggest problem I see is that players will be easier for minuets to kill. Especially at low levels, this will make dying much easier.

[Red Fel]

Not to mention how, like many proposed changes, it hurts melees more than anybody else.

Casters who can stay in the back and sling spells from safety aren't in nearly as much danger as long as melees can keep the bad guys off of them. A loss of HP doesn't hinder them as much, because if an enemy can damage a caster, there's a reasonable chance it could kill the caster anyway.

But melees are always subject to violence. Always. A loss of HP is crippling to classes that are constantly taking hits.

End result: Melees are dead, casters are mildly perturbed.

[Z3ro]

Not a terrible suggestion, but if you're going to implement it, look at actual 2e HP tables; everyone got hit-die plus con up until level 9, then they just got con. That way you're not even squishier at level 1, while still retaining the feel you're going for.

[BWR]

everyone got hit-die plus con up until level 9, then they just got con
Actually they got a flat class-dependant bonus each level, from 1 to 3.

[Z3ro]

Actually they got a flat class-dependant bonus each level, from 1 to 3.

My bad; we must have house-ruled that. It never made sense that a higher con didn't give you more HP, though I get why given the desires to limit HP in total.

[Seerow]

Not a terrible suggestion, but if you're going to implement it, look at actual 2e HP tables; everyone got hit-die plus con up until level 9, then they just got con. That way you're not even squishier at level 1, while still retaining the feel you're going for.

Also keep in mind that in AD&D con capped at a +2 bonus per hit die for non-fighters. A HUGE reason for HP inflation isn't hp per hit dice (what the OP proposes to change), but Constitution inflation. Any creature with 20 con or more is getting more than half their hp from con. Take a guess how many player characters and monsters that represents.


The other big thing is the sheer number of hit dice most creatures get. I'm not sure if this changed from AD&D, but I'm pretty sure it did. In 3e creatures having 2-4 hit dice per CR isn't uncommon at all (in fact the monster advancement rules frequently give 2-4 hit dice per CR as what should be granted). Combine that with outrageously high con scores, and of course hp values bloat extremely quickly.


If you really want to fix HP inflation, that's where you need to start. Cut down hp benefits from con, reduce monster hit dice. But that means basically rewriting the entire monster's manual, and nobody wants to actually go through that kind of effort.

[Calimehter]

- Good point about the nature of the HP bloat as far as CON being the main culprit. I'm liking more and more the idea of a flat % reduction of HP rather than a penalty per die, just to catch all methods of HP bloat (excess dice and excess CON) equally.

- Also a good point reminding me about the nature of HP progression from 2e, where for PCs the HP buildup was still pretty good, at least for the first 9 levels. Adding something like that would be a good idea, esp. for melee PCs.

So, a more concrete version of the idea takes form. I'm envisioning it as a two-part sort of rule:

Step 1. Calculate HP normally, but then reduce the final total to a fraction of that value. I'm liking the 2/3 fraction at the moment, but I could see going even down to 1/2.

Step 2. Once step 1 is done, add a PC-only bonus to give them some HP back. I'm thinking of front-loading it in the fashion of 2e, and also weighing it toward melee and/or full BAB classes. Exact details would probably depend on what fraction was chosen in step 1.

What do you think?

Edit: Generalized the numbers a bit to avoid getting bogged down in detail and turning it into (too much of) a homebrew evaluation. Details matter, but I'm looking more for concept evaluation at this point.

[Dimers]

- Good point about the nature of the HP bloat as far as CON being the main culprit. I'm liking more and more the idea of a flat % reduction of HP rather than a penalty per die, just to catch all methods of HP bloat (excess dice and excess CON) equally.

- Also a good point reminding me about the nature of HP progression from 2e, where for PCs the HP buildup was still pretty good, at least for the first 9 levels. Adding something like that would be a good idea, esp. for melee PCs.

I'm pretty pleased with 4e's implementation of hit points. Your Con score determines part of your initial HP (having high starting HP means that 1st-level characters don't fall over from one hit). Class determines the other part of initial HP. After that, each level gives you a flat amount rather than a roll, again based on class. So burly warrior types are always tougher than robe-wearing 98-pound-weaklings, guaranteed, and there's no possibility of runaway hit point inflation.

This works in part because the PCs' Con modifiers do let them recover hit points better ... sorta like saying you can only be healed a number of times per day equal to 3 + ConMod, something like that. If it weren't for that limitation, Constitution would barely have any impact on toughness at all. With it, it's a major determinant of how long your hit points can really hold out.

[Phelix-Mu]

- Good point about the nature of the HP bloat as far as CON being the main culprit. I'm liking more and more the idea of a flat % reduction of HP rather than a penalty per die, just to catch all methods of HP bloat (excess dice and excess CON) equally.

- Also a good point reminding me about the nature of HP progression from 2e, where for PCs the HP buildup was still pretty good, at least for the first 9 levels. Adding something like that would be a good idea, esp. for melee PCs.

So, a more concrete version of the idea takes form. I'm envisioning it as a two-part sort of rule:

Step 1. Calculate HP normally, but then reduce the final total to a fraction of that value. I'm liking the 2/3 fraction at the moment, but I could see going even down to 1/2.

Step 2. Once step 1 is done, add a PC-only bonus to give them some HP back. I'm thinking of front-loading it in the fashion of 2e, and also weighing it toward melee and/or full BAB classes. Exact details would probably depend on what fraction was chosen in step 1.

What do you think?

Edit: Generalized the numbers a bit to avoid getting bogged down in detail and turning it into (too much of) a homebrew evaluation. Details matter, but I'm looking more for concept evaluation at this point.

You will reduce the spread, but the variance will still be there. Step 2 fixes some of this, but it's really the rolls that are problematic. As Dimers suggests, the rolling amounts to a big issue, and one that is more likely to come into play for characters (who have to live with a roll for their entire career) than for monsters.

Personally, I am of the opposite inclination. Combats are too fast in my mind, so I benchmark monsters at 90% or max hp, and regularly boost their HD. Players can roll, but they always get at least 80% (I like rolling). If you think damage can't keep up, it's easier to boost martial sources of damage, in my mind.

The whole thing will end up as a bit of an arms race either way.

[jedipotter]

So, what if we just gave everything less HP?

Do you think it would be viable?

Works in my Game. We roll for Hit Points, Every Level.

And we roll for abilities too, ignore the re-roll rules, so often have character's with abilities of 8, 13, 10, 14, 9, 10.

It works out great for us.

[Ziegander]

Works in my Game. We roll for Hit Points, Every Level.

And we roll for abilities too, ignore the re-roll rules, so often have character's with abilities of 8, 13, 10, 14, 9, 10.

It works out great for us.

What? HOW??? What are you fighting that isn't curbstomping you all over the campaign setting? Blind goblin-children? Or are your games just very combat-lite with lots of out-of-combat experience given? Even still... I don't understand how its even possible to survive such a game unless every encounter is much lower-stakes than usual.