Does everything (players included) have too many HP?

[Schwann145]

In earlier editions of D&D, players had both smaller HD per class in many cases, but also completely stopped gaining HD-based HP after level 9. Also, no one but the Warrior-based classes gained any HP from exceptional Con, and even they stopped gaining that after level 9. From level 10 onward, it was a fixed value every level, and not very much at that (Warrior got 3 per level, Mages got 1, and Priests and Rogues each got 2).

These editions were quite lethal, and even smaller amounts of damage (say, spells such as Magic Missile or environmental effects like a falling rock or fire-lit oil, would be much more impactful in a fight overall).

~~~
Starting (I believe) in 3rd Edition, the HD values stayed the same, but you would continue to gain a die roll of HP at every level. Also, every class was entitled to bonus HP based on exceptional Con and that bonus HP continued at every level as well. The old cap at level 9 was no more.

This was a massive jump in the average amount of life for any given character after level 9, and was even a potentially significant increase for non-Warriors at any level.

~~~
(I didn't really get an opportunity to play enough 4e to know it well enough to comment, but it was sort of an entirely different game with a fundamentally different chassis, so we'll skip it.)

Now, in 5th Edition, it's much the same as it was in 3rd Edition, except some classes have even had their base HD type increased to grant even *more* HP.


What got me really thinking about this is somewhat twofold:
I started my D&D gaming right at the beginning of 3rd Edition, so my personal gaming experience is from that edition onward. Having said that, many of the damage options the game offers have always felt... well... weak. A short sword attack without some sort of class-feature or feat-support is rather pathetic. The utility of a Magic Missile spell always hitting doesn't mean much if the hit is so low as to be ineffectual. These things felt true to me in 3rd Edition and they continue to feel true to me in 5th Edition, and for a long time I couldn't really put my finger on why.
Here is where the 2nd half comes in - I eventually started delving through 2nd Edition material to dig into lore I was interested in (mostly FR lore, but other worlds as well) and eventually, as you'd expect, I started finding the mechanics and reading up on how those worked as well (especially helpful as Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale were still newish and popular and knowing *how* to play them right was great).
Well, eventually I noticed that attacks and spells were generally more powerful, and HP was generally lower, significantly so!
I remember being utterly shocked to find, while reading through the 2nd Edition Cult of the Dragon sourcebook, that Sammaster, one of the real "movers and shakers" of the Forgotten Realms, a powerhouse that only the most powerful of adventurers should even contemplate contending with... had only 38hp.
38!
This was as a younger man, a mere level 19 Mage and Chosen of Mystra! But even at the height of his power (in this book anyway), as a level 26 Epic Necromancer, he is listed with only 45!

Take a level 19 Mage by 5e standards, with a 12 Con (his score before the Chosen bonuses were applied) and he would have, on average, 86 HP.
Double the HP in 5e as he had in 2e.

~~~
Standard weapons and attack spells feel weak. They have for a long time. If your attack isn't wreathed in magic or supported by powerful feats and/or class abilities, then it's just incredibly unimpressive. And I don't think it's because they are weak; I think it's because they're holdovers from editions past where everyone was much less healthy. A Magic Missile does 1d4+1 because that's what it's always done. Being lit on fire does a continual 1 or 2 points of damage because that's what it's been for a long time.
But 1 or 2 points of damage per round isn't even worth putting out. Why waste the action?

So to me, it really feels like there is just too much HP going around for not only monsters, but players as well.
I'm curious to hear what you think.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Enemies don't have enough HP because they aren't meant to last more than a couple rounds. I find this sort of expendable enemy to be a waste of time entering combat.

3e, 4e, and 5e give the players quite a bit of HP, but it depends on when you start.

Level 1 5e is deadly due to how little HP you get.

Level 1 4e is less deadly, on paper, cause how many HP you get.

Level 1 3e depends on class.

Honestly enemy HP needs to be inflated based on the number of PCs.

Players should probably have their HP equal to Full Hit Die + Con Mod @ level 1 and then each level only gain their con Mod. They still get hit dice to heal themselves.

So @ level 5 the barbarian (with 4 Con) would have 12 + (4 * 5) = 32 HP. A lot less, but then HP damage still means something to the Barbarian at that level. The barbarian would have 5d12 hit die to replenish their HP (so, throughout the day, they could heal quite a bit by taking a short rest). All the danger of level 1 but not gonna suddenly die from one attack.

It also depends on what you want your game to feel like.

[Cry Havoc]

It was an intentional design choice in 5E to have HP be the main divider of levels of play, rather than attack bonuses/ AC and so forth.

HP (and HP attrition) are easier to balance around than hit bonuses and AC.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It was an intentional design choice in 5E to have HP be the main divider of levels of play, rather than attack bonuses/ AC and so forth.

HP (and HP attrition) are easier to balance around than hit bonuses and AC.

Too bad they messed it up.

Their own system doesn't work the way they present it to us
I mean, even the CR system is half baked.

And HP is a contributing factor in getting CR.

[Strigon]

Too bad they messed it up.

Their own system doesn't work the way they present it to us
I mean, even the CR system is half baked.

And HP is a contributing factor in getting CR.

In what way? Based on whose interpretation?

HP works pretty well, all things considered. The game is no longer based around the assumption that characters have a short life span and just surviving is a victory all in itself. Higher HP pools tend to remove the "swinginess" of a combat; a single good damage roll is no longer enough to turn the tides. This is important because the game is now meant to be about the heroes winning, and if they lose, it shouldn't be entirely because of bad luck. Reduce the HP of every creature, and you make PCs disproportionately affected because they're in every combat, and only one has to be unlucky for them to die.

Basically, the only way for a D20 system to have long-lived characters and actually meaningful battles is to have high HP. So saying that HP is too high is, in effect, saying that you dislike 5e's design philosophy. Which is perfectly valid, but the issue isn't really about HP at all.

[heavyfuel]

Yes. At least in my opinion.

It's too bad that stuff that should be dangerous (like non magical fire and falling) stop being dangerous at relatively low levels.

Unfortunately, scaling down HP means scaling down the entire system, including monsters, class features, and spells.

At least thanks to bounded accuracy, an army of longbowmen are no longer easily ignored by high level characters.

[Lupine]

I think 5e fixates on the lack of fun found when a character dies. A reasonable thing, but I tend to agree that HP is a strange system, and not one I particularly like (especially considering how easily hp is recovered)
Mostly, I dislike how it handwaves taking hits, because low HP doesn’t leave you disabled, and effectively is an abstract idea.


Honestly, I think that monsters should deal enough damage that they knock out a pc in two, maybe three hits. Combat should always be a gritty thing, where they barely get by. Resting should help, but shouldn’t be a reset.

[Yakmala]

It's not the amount of HP that is the issue, it's how unlikely true and lasting harm is in 5e.

With few exceptions, there is no point to wasting an action healing a character still on their feet.

A character with 100 HP fights just as well when they are at 1 HP as they do when they are at maximum HP.

And only an attack that takes them to -Max HP is going to kill them instantly.

And once at 0 health, even the smallest of healing spells or effects gets them back to 100% offensive capability.

So unless there is a very real threat that they are going to be rapidly attacked while they are down, burning through all of their death saves before they can be healed, there is no good reason for a healer to waste their turn healing a wounded party member.

[heavyfuel]

It's not the amount of HP that is the issue, it's how unlikely true and lasting harm is in 5e.

With few exceptions, there is no point to wasting an action healing a character still on their feet.

A character with 100 HP fights just as well when they are at 1 HP as they do when they are at maximum HP.

And only an attack that takes them to -Max HP is going to kill them instantly.

And once at 0 health, even the smallest of healing spells or effects gets them back to 100% offensive capability.

So unless there is a very real threat that they are going to be rapidly attacked while they are down, burning through all of their death saves before they can be healed, there is no good reason for a healer to waste their turn healing a wounded party member.

This is such a big problem with 5e. Characters from both sides (assuming the DM doesn't rule 0 HP enemies as insta killed) just getting back up from near death with minor healing. A character dropped? Just use a 2d4+2 potion on him and he's back on his feat.

[Amechra]

The big difference between 1e/2e and 3e+ is that combat went from something to be avoided to one of the main focuses of the game. On top of that, really early D&D had rules for morale and ways to use your Charisma to prevent combat from happening.

Another difference is that actual feel of combat radically shifted between TSR and WotC. In the TSR era, combat was basically just numberslam, but it was really fast numberslam. WotC era D&D has much more tactical combat, but as a result combat slowed way down. And since combat was much slower, they had to make ways to include everyone - waiting out a 10-minute combat is acceptable in a way that waiting out an hour-long fight isn't.

[Pex]

No.

I find it a feature death isn't so easily to happen quickly as the levels progress. I don't want to have to make a new character every three sessions. I don't want to be continually paranoid of death. Realism can only go so far before it interferes with fun.

[wookietek]

This is the only edition I've played where I feel like I have to up all the HP's of creatures just to make combat meaningful. Otherwise the PC's would roll through every CR appropriate combat in 2 rounds at most, and there would be no drama, no tension. It's also work to make sure that the PC's don't have options to long rest too often. Full HP restore on a long rest goes to far with all the HP PC's already do get.

[Alcore]

Personally? Yes.


Found this awesome supplement thing the other day... for 5e. So I've been looking through it now and from 3e and pathfinder i find it vary different. DR doesn't quite work (the way they did it is an improvement, i feel) and while i haven't flipped through the equipment yet it feels the same. The reason it feels the same is i went to my favorite PC races which are all regulated to monsters with no base given to easly build stronger or weaker variants without effort. sigh...


All the monsters look right... right until i glance at the HP. Even the classes look beefed up on the HP side with all high end features so laughably weak. I'm still stratching my head over what design philosophy they were following. It's not fast paced video game action 4e and not the simulation like feel of 3e.


Its certainly survivable. But i like grit.

[Jerrykhor]

No.

You can still make a frail character with negative Con mod, and pick a class with d6 hit die. There, now you have not-too many HP.

You will probably go down many times, and your party members will hate you, but you achieved your goal.

Monsters need to have more HP because players can do a lot of damage. Most DMs either use the standard HP listed in the MM, or increase the HP. They seldom decrease HP of monsters.

[Dragonsonthemap]

Yes and no, but as a couple of people have noted, the bigger problem is that, like in 3e/.5, losing HP just doesn't really matter until it hits 0.

I've found that in practice PCs only have a bit too much HP right at the end of a tier other than tier 1, which at least makes sense. With monsters it varies - random mooks you want to swarm your enemies have too much, but big boss monsters have too little. I do find myself missing 4e's minion & solo monster systems fairly often. I also miss its bloodied rule, where at least falling to half HP sometimes mattered a bit.

Honestly, I think the d20 system that has handled HP the best is the Star Wars d20, with its vitality-wound system. Vitality was mechanically hit points as we now them, but it explicitly didn't represent getting wounded, it represented narrowly dodging, blocking just in time, rolling with the punch, etc.; then, when you ran out, your character was too worn out to keep that up, and they started taking wounds, which were essentially constitution damage (though technically they weren't, which mattered once in a while). Enemies who were just random mooks simply didn't have any vitality. Losing any amount of wounds incurred penalties, and they took a while to heal. Of course, this being Star Wars, there wasn't really D&D-esque healing magic, and that gap is why I haven't managed to import this to 5e in a satisfactory way yet.

[EggKookoo]

This is such a big problem with 5e. Characters from both sides (assuming the DM doesn't rule 0 HP enemies as insta killed) just getting back up from near death with minor healing. A character dropped? Just use a 2d4+2 potion on him and he's back on his feat.

This is in contrast to what other editions?

[heavyfuel]

This is in contrast to what other editions?

3rd and (IIRC) AD&D, where getting into negative HP meant you could die. Fighting at 1hp was extremely dangerous because you automatically die at -10 HP, so a hit for 11+ damage means you're dead. No save, no chance to stabilize.

In 5e, because you only die at -max HP, there's no risk of fighting at 1hp beyond level 2 or 3.

[Man_Over_Game]

In what way? Based on whose interpretation?

HP works pretty well, all things considered. The game is no longer based around the assumption that characters have a short life span and just surviving is a victory all in itself. Higher HP pools tend to remove the "swinginess" of a combat; a single good damage roll is no longer enough to turn the tides. This is important because the game is now meant to be about the heroes winning, and if they lose, it shouldn't be entirely because of bad luck. Reduce the HP of every creature, and you make PCs disproportionately affected because they're in every combat, and only one has to be unlucky for them to die.

Basically, the only way for a D20 system to have long-lived characters and actually meaningful battles is to have high HP. So saying that HP is too high is, in effect, saying that you dislike 5e's design philosophy. Which is perfectly valid, but the issue isn't really about HP at all.

The issue comes from the fact that HP outscales damage fairly dramatically (like +3 damage per level vs. +7 hp, IIRC).

Not to mention that the time that you'd want your characters to have more HP to play with, per level, is when your characters have the least amount of HP.

So it has this weird effect where low levels die by accident or random chance, and high levels only die in scenarios where their life totals didn't really matter.

You want your veterans to feel constant tension, not your beginners.

It'd make sense to tie it into a sense of investment (that is, a higher level is more important than a level 1 due to the time spent on it), but that doesnt work when you don't start at level 1 when you die.

[EggKookoo]

3rd and (IIRC) AD&D, where getting into negative HP meant you could die. Fighting at 1hp was extremely dangerous because you automatically die at -10 HP, so a hit for 11+ damage means you're dead. No save, no chance to stabilize.

In 5e, because you only die at -max HP, there's no risk of fighting at 1hp beyond level 2 or 3.

Oh, I see. I thought you were referring to being fine at 1 hp, or bouncing back from being dropped with just an application of healing. All D&D editions AFAIK treat 1 HP as fully functional. Yes, 5e is certainly safer, although at higher levels it's also pretty easy to be the recipient of multiple hits in the same round after being brought to 0 HP, resulting in failed death saves. But it makes it hard to be killed outright from being > 0 HP, for sure.

[Xervous]

3.5e has troublesome hp growth for the assumed potato 4, but competent characters beat the curve and things glide more towards rocket tag if people are moderately trying. Power attack and other features paired to the ease of boosting attack rolls vs the difficulty of keeping up with AC meant that anything not IP proofing was liable to get hosed further down the road.

4e was clinical bloat as designed. They outright stated they wanted 6 round combats to start and that would grow to 8 on the higher end.

5e, well you’ve got an hp treadmill and barely increasing bonuses.

[Sindeloke]

The issue comes from the fact that HP outscales damage fairly dramatically (like +3 damage per level vs. +7 hp, IIRC).

Assuming that's true, how would you balance it? Seems like cutting either half of the die+con formula would do it, but removing Con bonuses and letting hit dice continue to accumulate makes Con a dump stat, and leaving Con bonuses and removing hit dice damages class balance.

[DeadMech]

No I'd say the opposite. You can't exactly feel out your opponent and change your strategy according to the flow of a battle if it's effectively over by the end of the first turn. Well you could but not if you want to care about your character since they would be too disposable otherwise.

Now if the game were about avoiding combat or about painstakingly preparing for a fight ahead of time so that it was as tilted in your favor as possible... then it would make sense for damage to out scale hp.

But if that were the case there would either be concrete and universal mechanics in the game on identifying enemies and their capabilities or else there would be clear and explicit guidance to DM's on how to foreshadow these things.

[NaughtyTiger]

This is such a big problem with 5e. Characters from both sides (assuming the DM doesn't rule 0 HP enemies as insta killed) just getting back up from near death with minor healing. A character dropped? Just use a 2d4+2 potion on him and he's back on his feat.

just use 1 hp from the paladin's pool and he's back on his feet.

[Man_Over_Game]

Assuming that's true, how would you balance it? Seems like cutting either half of the die+con formula would do it, but removing Con bonuses and letting hit dice continue to accumulate makes Con a dump stat, and leaving Con bonuses and removing hit dice damages class balance.

A group of us was working on it when my buddy MaxWilson realized the same problem and wanted a good fix. We looked at it from a lot of angles and came up with a bunch of ideas. I remember using an excel spreadsheet to compare standard HP rates of a Barbarian with the core rules vs. what different suggestions would provide.

Lemme see if I can dig it up, it's been a few.

[heavyfuel]

just use 1 hp from the paladin's pool and he's back on his feet.

Yup. Pally just used his action to grant an entire turn or more of actions to his team, and now the enemy will lose their actions trying to drop the 1hp party member again. So annoying.

[Yakmala]

Yup. Pally just used his action to grant an entire turn or more of actions to his team, and now the enemy will lose their actions trying to drop the 1hp party member again. So annoying.

And the Paladin isn't even the best example.

A Celestial Warlock can get party members back on their feet as a bonus action while still blasting away with EB. And because Healing Light is not a spell, it can't be countered.

And a Thief combining Fast Hands with the Healer feat can get a party member back up each round while still sneak attacking, or two downed party members each round if they are willing to use their action and bonus action. And assuming they brought enough healing kits, they can do this indefinitely. I don't think I've ever lost a party member when playing my Rogue Paramedic.

[heavyfuel]

And the Paladin isn't even the best example.

A Celestial Warlock can get party members back on their feet as a bonus action while still blasting away with EB. And because Healing Light is not a spell, it can't be countered.

And a Thief combining Fast Hands with the Healer feat can get a party member back up each round while still sneak attacking, or two downed party members each round if they are willing to use their action and bonus action. And assuming they brought enough healing kits, they can do this indefinitely. I don't think I've ever lost a party member when playing my Rogue Paramedic.

So true. I think for the next 5e game I DM I'll rule that dropping to 0 HP gives you one Exhaustion level or something. Probably make Exhaustions get reduced with a Short rest rather a long one as well.

[Satori01]

The 1 HP pop up, is a recipe for more resource expenditure as a party, and an interesting tactical dilemma, because until the character gets up to a reasonable amount of HP, the party will have to protect the character.

Many creatures have multiple attacks. If a character goes into unconsciousness on the first attack, the second attack is an automatic Death Save failure, and possibly Two Death Save failures if the creature is within 5 feet of the unconscious character.

A creature with three attacks, attacking at 5 foot range will Automatically kill a PC if the 1st attack brings the PC to zero HP.

I also rule that PC HP are still tracked even when at zero or lower.

Thus if a character with a 70 HP maximum is struck by a githyanki Knight, and brought to -8 HP, the next attack is going to autocrit due to being an unconscious target w/in 5e of the attacker, and you just took 50 dmg and two Death Save failures, and are at -58 hp.

At this point, the party Has To Save the PC, or death is imminent

Animals should eat downed PCs as a standard modus operandi, and a PC group commonly running around with 1HP PCs should get hit by an upcast Magic Missile spell cast at 2nd level...oops dead PC.....guess one does need to heal in 5e.

5e D&D is deadly, if you play as such.

If you want to play the game like an easier version of the movie Die Hard, go for it, but a 2nd level MM spell kills a John Mcclain with 1HP, every time.

[heavyfuel]

The 1 HP pop up, is a recipe for more resource expenditure as a party, and an interesting tactical dilemma, because until the character gets up to a reasonable amount of HP, the party will have to protect the character.

Not really, though. Even a melee fighter that runs away at low hp to throw his backup javelins is contributing enough that his friend's bonus action was probably worth it.

And because of AC, an opponent isn't likely taking him out in a single attack either.

[Satori01]

In the spirit of comity, and with extreme love for D&D and those that play it, you are welcome to play in my next online campaign, and we can put your statements to The Test! :)

[heavyfuel]

In the spirit of comity, and with extreme love for D&D and those that play it, you are welcome to play in my next online campaign, and we can put your statements to The Test! :)

I think your houserule of tracking HP into negatives is good and solves this problem. But with RAW in play, the healing back to low hp is just tactically sound in pretty much every situation if you can do it with a bonus action, and still incredibly good with an action.

[Satori01]

In no way was I advocating leaving your “mostly dead” friend on the ground to bleed out, or to receive a coup de grace.

What, I am saying, is once a character has been brought back to 1hp, the party best be considering options of retreat or defensive measures like an Otilukes Resilient Sphere, because that 1hp character is a tactical liability and in danger of getting outright killed all too easily.

So to ask a question: is it people’s experience that tactically savvy opponents do not attack unconscious or low hp PCs?.

[Theodoxus]

So to ask a question: is it people’s experience that tactically savvy opponents do not attack unconscious or low hp PCs?.

In the spirit of camaraderie, no, unless the character has been particularly annoying to the TSO and getting up will put some serious hurt on it, as a DM, I leave unconscious PCs alone. However, I have zero qualms with mindless undead or other critters (oozes, etc) eating the heads of unconscious PCs... you fight mindless stuff, you suffer for your own failed tactics...

To the OP: I tend to think everything has too many hit points. My "solution" was to steal a bit from 4th Ed and grant 1st level your Con score + HD, which makes for a very nice low level cushion, but then on grant the class HD average without Con Mod. I still allow the Tough feat, and I included a new feat "Warrior's Stamina" that grants your Con Mod at level up for those who are really worried about their "lack" of hit points. (No one at my table has taken the feat, but it's there.)

As I've gotten older, I've begun to really loathe combat, tracking HP, the length of rounds, etc. I might need to find a different system... it's just not fun anymore, and HP bloat is a part of that problem...

[SpawnOfMorbo]

In the spirit of comity, and with extreme love for D&D and those that play it, you are welcome to play in my next online campaign, and we can put your statements to The Test! :)

A DM that specifically wants to do something will be able to do something no matter what.

Assuming the game runs as it seems to want to be ran, is important for discussion.

[heavyfuel]

the TSO

The Trans-Siberian Orchestra? The Technical Standard Orders? :smallbiggrin:

Seriously though, what is TSO?

[Schwann145]

So to ask a question: is it people’s experience that tactically savvy opponents do not attack unconscious or low hp PCs?.

In my experience (and a bit of common sense), the tactically savvy opponent has conscious opponents to worry about and will leave the felled ones alone.
It's the tactically non-savvy (or mindless) opponents which still pose a threat to unconscious PCs.

~~~

The real problem with healing to 1 is that (I assume) most DMs don't actually enforce what happens when you fall unconscious; you fall prone, you drop your weapon/shield/spell components/etc., you lose awareness of your surroundings. Getting healed back into consciousness doesn't fix any of those problems (and what's to say that healing wakes you up at all? You can be stabilized without waking, after all Apparently the core rules do, and I just never bothered noticing - ah well).

[Man_Over_Game]

My rule on it is that if there is a reason for the enemy to engage an active hostile, they will. Otherwise, they'll probably go to finish someone off within range.

Of course, all you'd have to do is pose a threat to distract them. Throwing a rock would be enough. Waiting for your healer wouldn't.