Low HD game: How to?

[The Shadowdove]

Hey folks,

My table has entertained the idea of playing a game wherein most of the encounters are humans or similarly low CR creatures/races. Probably still keeping rests as they are.

If you were to do this, how would you balance it?

The whole purpose is to be able to play with a strategic, high-risk game. Where a human who is snuck up on and successfully hit by a sneak attack would likely die, but failing to do so results in a risky situation.

We discussed things such as:

-Only staying level One.
-Leveling, but never raising HP.
-Completely simplifying the classes and reworking abilities
-Having a uniform class that everyone would use, while specializing on different skills/weapon styles.
-Making it so players cannot advance beyond 3rd level
-Limiting the CR of monsters
-Nerfing abilities and health of monsters of higher cr
-Utilizing high DCs on things that would normally kill someone. (Poisons, traps, sleep potions, etc)
-Using body part accuracy somehow
-Using some alternative form of hit/miss identifier
-Nerfing some spells and abilities

Has anyone else played a game like this?

What kind of ideas do you have in regards to running this sort of game?

What kind of tweaks and rules would or wouldn't help a game that has a more lethal sort of game?

Thanks in advance!

-Dove

[MarkVIIIMarc]

You have some good ideas already.

Not sure on the fine math but when in doubt make the society as much like ours or a lawful middle ages society as possible.

All of us posting and even folks in the Navy Seals essentially have the same number of hit points to work through, just more or fewer skills. So characters can gain skills or levels, they can get more difficult to hit or become better sword fighters. We all just get killed pretty similarly by axes and swords even if we are Marines or Mailmen.

[Cespenar]

Low HD/HP is all well and good, but the variance of d20 + bounded accuracy would easily make it pretty much a dice game.

I'd suggest adding:

-Something like 3d6, 2d10, or 3d20 take middle; instead of a 1d20.
-The ability to take 10 with your proficient skills.

Also consider:

-The ability to "stagger", or move at half speed, at 0 hp. Since falling to 0 hp would happen more often, this would still let the players not lose their agency all at once.

[Knaight]

I definitely wouldn't have everyone be level one - there's skill variation in humans, and that counts for something. Similarly not increasing HP has some issues, as HP is one of the major ways that 5e chose to model this - if it goes, it needs replacement, probably by drastically increasing the rate at which Proficiency increases at the very least.

You're also suggesting some pretty drastic changes - a uniform class, effectively tossing the level mechanic, body part accuracy, etc. You're suggesting tossing much of the content, with monsters practically stripped out. Given all that, why are you using D&D at all? Every change pretty much represents opposition to a core design goal, at that point a system that fits the goals of the game is likely much better. Said games are ubiquitous.

[Grod_The_Giant]

So "Epic 3?" It... might work; most classes get their whole schtick by then. I agree with Cespenar that you might want a stronger bell curve to the RNG.

But... I also kind of agree with Knaight that you're basically talking about writing a totally different game. I'm all for hacking, but when you take D&D and strip out the classes, the levels, and most of the monsters and spells, you're really not left with anything usable beyond "d20+number and roll high." Which isn't bad! Just be aware that it sounds like you'd be starting from scratch, and that there are almost certainly non-D&D systems out there that do similar things. Fudge, perhaps. Lamentations of the Flame Princess. Savage Worlds. Warhammer games. Riddle of Steel. Dungeon World. STaRS (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?361270-STaRS-the-Simple-TAbletop-Roleplaying-System-5-0&p=17752487).

[pangoo209]

Personally I think the first few levels are extremely repetitive, not offering enough variability. Personally, I think that leveling without increasing health is a sound idea, and something I would definitely try

[Grod_The_Giant]

Personally I think the first few levels are extremely repetitive, not offering enough variability. Personally, I think that leveling without increasing health is a sound idea, and something I would definitely try
Boosting defense instead of health makes sense from a realism perspective, but there's an element of danger from a gamist one: it's boring. I call it the whiff-whiff-splat problem-- you either miss, which is dull, or you kill/die in one hit, which is also kind of dull. I much prefer something like the Dresden Files RPG or Exalted 3e's approach, where you sort of have to build up a significant advantage before you can launch a killing blow-- that keeps an element of back-and-forth to things without the D&D's weird "meat-and-luck" hit point inflation.

[HidesHisEyes]

I definitely wouldn't have everyone be level one - there's skill variation in humans, and that counts for something. Similarly not increasing HP has some issues, as HP is one of the major ways that 5e chose to model this - if it goes, it needs replacement, probably by drastically increasing the rate at which Proficiency increases at the very least.

You're also suggesting some pretty drastic changes - a uniform class, effectively tossing the level mechanic, body part accuracy, etc. You're suggesting tossing much of the content, with monsters practically stripped out. Given all that, why are you using D&D at all? Every change pretty much represents opposition to a core design goal, at that point a system that fits the goals of the game is likely much better. Said guames are ubiquitous.

I agree with this. True 20 comes to mind - a generic d20 system rooted in 3.5, in which instead of hit points you have damage conditions, and your ability to resist damage stays pretty much the same from level 1 to level 20 (although your attack bonus and AC increase rapidly). I'm sure there are various other systems out there that could be suitable too. The changes listed would amount to rebuilding 5E into a whole new game system - crucially one that hasn't had extensive play testing.

[Knaight]

I agree with this. True 20 comes to mind - a generic d20 system rooted in 3.5, in which instead of hit points you have damage conditions, and your ability to resist damage stays pretty much the same from level 1 to level 20 (although your attack bonus and AC increase rapidly). I'm sure there are various other systems out there that could be suitable too. The changes listed would amount to rebuilding 5E into a whole new game system - crucially one that hasn't had extensive play testing.

True 20 isn't really ideal either - the whole structure of a level system conflicts with the goals a bit here.

[MrStabby]

If you don't level up HP then there is going to be a lot of re-balancing needed. The best spells will all be damage spells as they will effectively be instant kill spells. Everyone max hp corresponding to level 3 and they get hit by a fireball? Even if you save there is a good chance you will die.

[Gignere]

Yes maybe adopt/update E6 rules for 5e instead of doing it from ground up. Everyone level caps at level 6. When they gain enough xp to level beyond 6 they either gain feats or certain higher class features but without additional hp or proficiency gains. There are other modifications I don't recall offhand but do a search on E6 and you should find a ton of good ideas on level capping D&D.