Comparison of two simple mechanics

[hymer]

I have my own views, but I'd like to pick your brains - off the top of your heads, or with deeper analysis, as you like.

Mechanic 1: You have one extra hit point for every level you have.

Mechanic 2: You can heal yourself for 1 hp per level once per long rest as a bonus action.

Any thoughts on which is better, by how much, when, why, etc.?

[Lombra]

The first is ok, I mean, it's up to 20 more HP, no big deal.

The second isn't overpowered or anything like that, but I find it hard to justify in-game. Woudn't it be better like: "you heal1 more hit point for each hit die that you expend to heal on a short rest" effectively changing the short rest healing in: "at the end of a short rest, you can roll any number of hit die, add 1+CON to each of them, and you regain that much HP"

[Zejety]

I think option 1 is usually stronger.

Advantages of option 1 over option 2:
* Can't use o2 when you get downed between two of your turns.
* O1 makes you more resistant to instant death from high damage.
* O1 doesn't mess with your action economy.
* Both options effectively give you +level HP per rest, but O1 gives you more max HP that you can fill multiple times via rests and healing
* Higher max HP might save you against certain HP-based spells like Sleep or Finger of Death.
* O1 helps against life-drain style abilities that reduce maximum HP (and kill at 0).

Advantages of option 2:
* More flexible; can use it between the rest when you most need it, instead of atbthe start of a day. Sonewhat offset by the fact that you can refill o1's max hp via healing.
* Synergizes with stuff that interacts with healing (life cleric?).
* Can surprise enemies that can tell you are at low HP.
* O2 helps you recover after taking an attack that instantly reduced HP to 0 (Banshee scream), whereas O1 is useless there.
* If o2 counts as magical healing, it can end certain negative effects, usually "bleeding" damage.

[hymer]

Two quite different perspectives, thank you very much for them! :smallsmile:

[sir_argo]

Option 1.

Option 2 is never better, period.



Suppose you're 10th level and have 50 base hit points.

Option 1 is +1hp per level, so you'd have 60hp.

Option 2 is 10hp of healing as a bonus action, usable 1 per long rest. So you still have 50hp, but you can heal 10hp with a bonus action.


Let's try some examples to show how option 2 is never better.



Joe is using option 1. Jack is using option 2.

Combat #1.

After 3 rounds of combat, Joe and Jack have each taken 45pts of damage. Joe is down to 15hp, and Jack is down to 5hp. Jack decides to use his bonus action to heal 10hp and goes back up to 15. That's the same as what Joe is at already since Joe took +10hp instead of the bonus heal.

Combat #2.

Both Joe and Jack are in a room when a glyph goes off. Both fail their saves and take 55hp of damage. Joe is still standing at 5hp. Jack takes a dirt nap.



I cannot come up with a scenario where option 2 ever results in having more hp than option 1. Somebody help me out here.


-- edit --

I just read Zejety's post


Advantages of option 2:
1 * More flexible; can use it between the rest when you most need it, instead of atbthe start of a day. Sonewhat offset by the fact that you can refill o1's max hp via healing.
2 * Synergizes with stuff that interacts with healing (life cleric?).
3 * Can surprise enemies that can tell you are at low HP.
4 * O2 helps you recover after taking an attack that instantly reduced HP to 0 (Banshee scream), whereas O1 is useless there.
5 * If o2 counts as magical healing, it can end certain negative effects, usually "bleeding" damage.

I numbered those bullet points so I can respond to them.

1 Is never better than having the extra hp.

2 As far as I can tell, all of a life cleric's bonuses to healing only applies to spells. so if this is not a spell, it is not applicable.

3 I don't think it would be of value but I guess that depends on the DM.

4 If you're at 0hp, you probably can't trigger this ability.

5 This one counts. So if you need to stop bleeding, yes, option 2 is better.

[Christian]

Combat #1.

After 3 rounds of combat, Joe and Jack have each taken 45pts of damage. Joe is down to 15hp, and Jack is down to 5hp. Jack decides to use his bonus action to heal 10hp and goes back up to 15. That's the same as what Joe is at already since Joe took +10hp instead of the bonus heal.



Not to mention that, if they then get healing from the party cleric back up to full, Joe has 60 HP and gets the advantage of those 10 HP again, but Jack only has 50 and no longer has his bonus action heal to fall back on.

I don't see how these two mechanics are at all comparable.

[Kane0]

Subtle differences but the first option is better.

- You always have it, and its one of those resources that get used a lot so its better to have extra in the tank than a way to replenish the same amount
- As a passive ability you don't need to do anything to get it, as small as that opportunity cost may be
- As a passive ability you get to reuse those extra HP if you get healed by other means, whereas in the second option its a one time deal, no double dipping.

If you want to make it a really tough choice perhaps double the HP provided by option 2, or change it to a short rest recharge.

[Pex]

I have my own views, but I'd like to pick your brains - off the top of your heads, or with deeper analysis, as you like.

Mechanic 1: You have one extra hit point for every level you have.

Mechanic 2: You can heal yourself for 1 hp per level once per long rest as a bonus action.

Any thoughts on which is better, by how much, when, why, etc.?

I prefer the former. The higher number of hit points will look aesthetically better on my character sheet. That's a me thing.

For a more practical reason, there are already plenty of ways to heal in 5E. One more is not going to make a difference. It'll save one HD of self healing, but in practice it won't matter unless the DM is very stingy on healing. I wouldn't be playing with such a DM anyway because that's a sign of a DM who hates his players when he can't stand it that PCs are at full or near full hit points for the non-first combat of the day. There are even DMs who hate full hit point recovery on a long rest, but I digress rant. Point is 5E healing isn't difficult to come by as is. I'd also rather not be anxious over another resource I'd have to wait for a long rest to get back. For classes that already have a means of self-healing, like Open Hand Monk, I wouldn't want to trade it away. Let them keep that. No need to stir the pot.

[bid]

I have my own views, but I'd like to pick your brains - off the top of your heads, or with deeper analysis, as you like.

Mechanic 1: You have one extra hit point for every level you have.

Mechanic 2: You can heal yourself for 1 hp per level once per long rest as a bonus action.

Any thoughts on which is better, by how much, when, why, etc.?
Action economy.

The only way m2 could end up better is if you go down, get back to 1 hp, use your BA, and somehow have enough hp to survive a single hit.

But even then, you'd have had enough hp to survive the hit that downed you, had you gone with m1.

[Arcangel4774]

If you have a gritty game where you don't regain hitpoints on a long rest, the second option could be better, but otherwise it only has the advantage if you are dropped to 0 by an amount greater than the amount it would take to drop to the increase health version.

[Zalabim]

If you're hit with an effect that drops you to 0 hp without caring about your current hp, then option 2 is better. This is stuff like a banshee's scream. Pretty rare.

If you're hit with an effect that returns you to max hp without caring about your current hp, then option 1 is better. This is stuff like Regeneration or Power Word: Heal. Pretty rare.

By action economy, option 1 is better. For preventing death from maximum damage or drain of max HP, option 1 is better. People also have a weird hangup about max HP, attributing benefits to it that actually come from something else.

They're both able to be skipped over when taking a lot of damage beyond what the extra health provides, but will have different circumstances where that applies. If a fight starts with a 70 HP breath weapon, both the 50 HP guy and the 60 HP guy go down. If they both get brought back up with magical healing roll a 20 on their death save, then option 1 has 1 hp and goes down to the next hit but option 2 could have 11 hp and might stay up past the first kobold's arrow. On the other hand, option 2 could go down earlier than option 1 if it doesn't use its healing and could still go down in one hit after getting up when damage is high enough.

[qube]

2 As far as I can tell, all of a life cleric's bonuses to healing only applies to spells. so if this is not a spell, it is not applicable.not his bonus healing - his channel divinity. In essence, Mechanic 2 sacrifices a bonus action, for a lower maximum amount of hp, and possibly a longer duration having either more, or less, then half hp.

instead of 120 = 60/60, a fast or late use of the bonus action turns (100+20) = 70/50 or 50/70.


edit: Iep ... wait a second ... that's wrong. since it's once per long rest that means that basically, this is only one encounter per day.

The ability to soak up to 120 damage during multiple combats is superior.

[Wondermndjr]

The second option also steps on the fighter's toes, as the bonus action heal is a unique fighter thing. For this reason alone, I would prefer the first option, also echoing the previously voiced arguments about action economy.

[Brawnspear]

I'm going to go Fiend's Advocate on this one. The problem I have with option 1 is that it generally relies on outside sources for using to its full ability. Same problem as the toughness feat or the dwarf racial +1 hp per level, or even rolling well on HP. You get this big ole pool of hit points, but your hit die is still dX+ con. Its hard to fill that back up using your short rest mechanic. And Hit Dice don't fully regen at the end of the day, you only get half back for a long rest I believe. Option 2 gives you the chance for that guaranteed extra hp, when it's needed.

Though to be fair, the hit die swinginess can work in your favor as well and over fill you into option 1 route and you do get that extra pool to pull from from the get go.
I sometimes have the problem of looking at HP as a percentage as opposed to a number, and it always frustrates me to not be able to get back to 100%, though its not a mechanical difference of being 100% of 90 or 90% of 100.

In typing this up, I guess I do agree with the consensus of the the previous posters that the extra starting hp is better, in the long run. I think this had led to a personal paradigm shift, so thanks for posing the question hymer and everyone else for your input!

[Zejety]

[...]

But regardless of hit dice, a long rest restores all of your hit points. So you ultimately end up with +level extra HP every long rest, just like with the 2nd option.


At the end of a long rest, a character regains all lost hit points. The character also regains spent Hit Dice, up to a number of dice equal to half of the character’s total number of them [...]

[CaptainSarathai]

I think the question is:
What are you attempting to achieve with this change?
You're giving everyone extra hit points and reducing the over-all impact of the hit-die variations. That's fine, but why? What do you see this adding to the game?

[DivisibleByZero]

From a balance perspective, the second option is better.
Permanently raising HP by any fixed amount permanently lowers difficulty.
A bonus action to heal (I'd make it an action) keeps the overall difficulty the same, while allowing for a *oh crap!* button.

[Cybren]

The first is ok, I mean, it's up to 20 more HP, no big deal.

The second isn't overpowered or anything like that, but I find it hard to justify in-game. Woudn't it be better like: "you heal1 more hit point for each hit die that you expend to heal on a short rest" effectively changing the short rest healing in: "at the end of a short rest, you can roll any number of hit die, add 1+CON to each of them, and you regain that much HP"

Isn't the entire thing a thought exercise? The change you suggest makes the comparison invalid, because there's no longer parallel functionality

[Tanarii]

Neither. This is the better option:

Woudn't it be better like: "you heal1 more hit point for each hit die that you expend to heal on a short rest" effectively changing the short rest healing in: "at the end of a short rest, you can roll any number of hit die, add 1+CON to each of them, and you regain that much HP"

[hymer]

Isn't the entire thing a thought exercise?

That's my intention. :smallsmile:

[Theodoxus]

Option 1 is already in game. Hill Dwarves and Draconic Sorcerers already get 1 HP per level bonus. (I believe there are a few UA options that do it as well.)

Option 2 is similar, if much weaker, than the fighter ability.

Since they both exist in game already, and Option 1 is so superior to Option 2 (as enumerated in the posts above, as well as my evidence), I'd pick Option 1. And then play a hill dwarf gold dragon sorcerer who specializes in fire magic, getting 3 extra HP a level - putting me on par with a fighter (using average HP per level) - grab Tough and you're on par with a barbarian! Maximize Charisma and Dexterity and you can frontline with the best of them :smallsmile:

[DivisibleByZero]

And then play a hill dwarf gold dragon sorcerer who specializes in fire magic, getting 3 extra HP a level - putting me on par with a fighter (using average HP per level) - grab Tough and you're on par with a barbarian!

d6 +1 (hill dwarf) = d8 average, on par with Rogue/Cleric/etc
d6 +2 (hill dwarf dragon sorc) = d10 average, on par with Fighter
d6 +3 (hill dwarf dragon sorc with option 1) = d12 average, on par with Barbarian
d6 +5 (hill dwarf dragon sorc with option 1 and Tough) = d16 average

Even without this choice, a Hill Dwarf Dragon Sorcerer with the Tough feat has more HP than your average Barbarian (assuming similar Con scores).

[Theodoxus]

d6 +1 (hill dwarf) = d8 average, on par with Rogue/Cleric/etc
d6 +2 (hill dwarf dragon sorc) = d10 average, on par with Fighter
d6 +3 (hill dwarf dragon sorc with option 1) = d12 average, on par with Barbarian
d6 +5 (hill dwarf dragon sorc with option 1 and Tough) = d16 average

Even without this choice, a Hill Dwarf Dragon Sorcerer with the Tough feat has more HP than your average Barbarian (assuming similar Con scores).

Dang, I was just spitballing... now I want to play a Hill Dwarf Draconic Sorc with Tough and a staff and beat down all the things. (Or use Shocking Grasp and run away from all the things on my stubby legs)

[DivisibleByZero]

Dang, I was just spitballing... now I want to play a Hill Dwarf Draconic Sorc with Tough and a staff and beat down all the things. (Or use Shocking Grasp and run away from all the things on my stubby legs)

The extra HP from class/race/feat are great, but they require more long rests or magical healing, as their Hit Dice from short rests don't scale to match.

But this just illustrates my earlier point.
Static total HP boosts across the board are problematic. Option 1 is basically just raising everyone's HD by a step (d6 becomes d8, d8 becomes d10, and so on), and that affects difficulty in a negative fashion. That's why Option 2 is better for balance.

[Cybren]

d6 +1 (hill dwarf) = d8 average, on par with Rogue/Cleric/etc
d6 +2 (hill dwarf dragon sorc) = d10 average, on par with Fighter
d6 +3 (hill dwarf dragon sorc with option 1) = d12 average, on par with Barbarian
d6 +5 (hill dwarf dragon sorc with option 1 and Tough) = d16 average

Even without this choice, a Hill Dwarf Dragon Sorcerer with the Tough feat has more HP than your average Barbarian (assuming similar Con scores).

And if Barbarian ever got a Rage Mage subclass...

[hymer]

Looks like it petered out, Thanks everyone for adding your thoughts! :smallsmile: