Making Low Level Characters More Durable, Simply

[JNAProductions]

All PCs add their Constitution score to their HP.

[BenevolentEvil]

That's a pretty large change in character durability and would require a lot of re-tuning of early-level balance to make up for it. For example it makes healing and hit dice a lot less useful.

It does remind me of the way HP was calculated in 4th edition, which had 1st-level characters with the durability of 5e's 3rd-4th-level characters.

Perhaps it would be easier to just start a campaign at a slightly higher level, like level 3 instead of level 1?

[JNAProductions]

That's a pretty large change in character durability and would require a lot of re-tuning of early-level balance to make up for it. For example it makes healing and hit dice a lot less useful.

It does remind me of the way HP was calculated in 4th edition, which had 1st-level characters with the durability of 5e's 3rd-4th-level characters.

Perhaps it would be easier to just start a campaign at a slightly higher level, like level 3 instead of level 1?

I mean, it more than doubles (in most cases) a 1st level PC's durability.

But by level three, it's less than half even in niche circumstances.

And at level 20, it's a pretty minor amount.

I do agree one can just start at higher levels, but if you're dealing with newer folk who don't have the experience to handle a high level PC, this can be a simple change to decrease chances of a lucky crit taking someone out, without adding more complexity.

[Yakk]

Add a "species" HD (it is halved, like non level 1 hd, and adds con). Add a feat.

Balance for level 1.5 to 2.0.

[Breccia]

All PCs add their Constitution score to their HP.

Fourth Edition did that. 4th Ed monsters also did it. It's got to be both or neither. A Goblin Warrior was a CR 1 creature with 29 hit points.

I will admit, I run campaigns which intentionally boost player max hit points. The most recent version I made was "wake up each day with 5 temp hp". You could do something like that, or you could aim at the most likely cause of 1st-level death: lucky crit rolled out in the open. A fellow player in a game I was in a while back had their level 1 fighter take a 27 hp crit from a bugbear and instantly died. That sucked. The odds against that were staggering. But that was bad luck. They were a fighter, in melee with the dungeon's end boss was where they were supposed to be, and they were only down like 2 hp when the fight started. Nothing that happened was bad planning or foolish decisions -- it was a metaphorical one-in-a-million lucky shot. The DM would that evening tell me that, had she rolled the dice where they weren't visible, it would have been a 19 not a 20.

If you want to improve low-layer player durability, simply disable crits until level 2 or 3.

TL:DR Stop here.

Giving players permanently higher hp will encourage them to continue fighting longer, because most damage to most PCs is steady and slow. Take that same fighter and that same bugbear, and remove any chance of the bugbear critting. The bugbear does, on average, 3.85 damage per round and needs four rounds to drop the fighter (assuming no healing). Throw in your rule, the fighter lasts seven rounds.

It also takes away some of the threat of attacks against the softer targets. Take a 1st level wizard or sorcerer with 10 Con. They've got six hp when they step out of cover to cast a spell at the bugbear. The bugbear chortles "You've made a mistake leaving such an easy target!" and throws a javelin at them.

Assuming no crits, the bugbear has a roughly one-in-three chance of one-shotting the spellcaster, given their AC and max hp. Unless the bugbear crits (which we're assuming they won't) they won't die, just drop unconscious. One in three, the spellcaster is badly wounded but standing. One in three, the attack misses. Allowing crits as normal, there is a very small risk of death -- natural 20 followed by 12 or more damage on 2d6+2. That's a 1.25% chance, and I project without permission that most players would feel shocked and dismayed if that happened in the first session. Hence, why removing the crits relieving that stress might help.

Re-allowing crits, but giving the spellcaster +10 hit points, the bugbear has a zero percent chance of knocking the level one clothie out. Their maximum damage is 14 from a crit plus highest possible damage roll. The risk can be completely handwaved. Not only can the bugbear not instantly kill their target, they can't even drop them in a single throw. On average, even if the spellcaster just hangs out in the open and the bugbear throws javelin after javelin, it would take five whole rounds for this mistake to have significant consequences. In fact, that same level 1 clothie could just flat-out enter melee. Even if they took a hit, there's an over 90% chance they remain standing. And even if they took a critical hit, their much higher max hp means they have a 97% chance of living.

The chance the clothie in melee in the second chance survives a direct critical hit from a morningstar, is not that much higher than the same clothie in the first case just being attacked by a thrown javelin. (If the clothie in the first case does happen to take a crit from that same morningstar, by the way, they're 83% plus instantly killed)

Here's another way to look at it. The aforementioned level 1 fighter walks, falls, or is pushed off a cliff. Gravity can't crit. Under normal rules, a normal 1st level fighter will 100% survive a 30-foot fall (but are highly likely to be unconscious). A 40-foot fall might kill them instantly, but it's a 0.08% chance. Sixty feet, and they're 99% unconscious, 20% dead. Then, add his Con score to his max hp. A 60-foot fall has a 85% chance of leaving them standing, and cannot instantly kill them. To have the same 20% risk of instant death, it has to be a 130-foot fall.

At first level.

At this point, are falls scary to the party? Most of them could lemming-dive off any castle in any module, and they'd live. At first level.

Am I saying that giving everyone those new hp will encourage foolish risks or bad gameplay? Well, encourage yes, because anything that lowers the risk of penalty changes the rules of the game. That 1st level fighter, solo for whatever reason, by the core rules should be able to fight 3 goblins at the same time and survive, since against his AC and hp they'd need 7 attacks to drop him and they'd only get six even if they won initiative. (On average, of course) Give that same fighter the bonus hp, and he can take on four. That doesn't sound like that big of a deal, until you realize that
1) without the bonus HPmax, a 2nd-level fighter can't take on four and survive, and
2) what you're really seeing is "the bonus max hp lets the fighter completely ignore one opponent for 4-5 rounds without significant consequences aka dropping".

This is the benefit higher-level players have earned by being through the wringer. A fourth-level fighter knows gobling strike at the back of the leg, they know how to soften a fall by bending their knees or rolling with impact, and they know when the bugbear swings for the fences to duck. That's why they're rocking the 40-plus max hp that encourages them to wade into a room filled with standard goblins, to try to grab the key as it's thrown off a 40-foot castle wall, or taunt the bugbear into attacking them instead of the unarmed cowering prisoner farmers. They know a thing or two, because they've seen a thing or two.

At level one? They haven't. Not yet, at least.

P.S. I am only looking at "instant death" here. Most player parties have at least one member capable of, and probably tasked with, keeping unconscious party members from outright dying, which even a Medicine check or cantrip can do. As long as "the healer" lives, as far as I'm concerned, any death that isn't instant probably doesn't count as bad luck.

[JNAProductions]

Fourth Edition did that. 4th Ed monsters also did it. It's got to be both or neither. A Goblin Warrior was a CR 1 creature with 29 hit points.

I don't see any need to apply the same thing to NPCs. PCs are already different-this would just be another one.

As for the rest your example, two things:

1) You can build a level one PC, with the rules as they are now, who can survive a fall from orbit more than a third of the time, using point buy. If you're lucky and roll an 18, you can increase those odds to over three in four.

2) The complaint really seems to be "This change makes PCs more durable," which is kinda the point. I'm not saying this should be for every table-if you run a meatgrinder, then yeah, keep HP low. If you start at 5th level, this change is a nice little boost, but nothing major. But taking your examples, you could easily replace "Adds Constitution score to HP" with "Has two more levels under their belt".

A 10 Con Wizard has 6 HP at level one, and 14 HP at level three. They've gained virtually nothing else defensively (save more slots to spend on Mage Armor or Shield and some subclasses granting defensive boons, but most Wizard subclasses don't have defensive boosts at level two) and yet they're MUCH more durable than the level one Wizard.

Take a more extreme example-a level one VHuman (Tough) Wizard with 16 Con has 11 HP. They can be one-shotted (KOed, at least, not dead dead) by that Bugbear's javelin, and are unlikely to be standing after two hits. Compare to a level twenty Wizard with 8 Con-they've got 62 HP. It takes five maximum damage crits to knock out this spindly Wizard-at 5.5 damage per javelin hit, you can expect it to take more like ten to twelve hits.

For most of the played life of a PC, you can expect to take big hits and shrug them off-why should the lowest levels be different?

And while yes, it makes surviving falls easier, no player I've dealt with would (except in joking campaigns) jump off a cliff to save time. HP are valuable, even when you have a lot.

[quinron]

I like this a lot. Not having to juggle unconsciousness for every other fight sub-5th level sounds like my kind of game. PF2e adds an extra 6-10 HP to all 1st-level characters, and I found the one game of it that I ran remained fun for longer stretches of time and was a lot less of a slog than the dozen or so 1st-level 5e games I've run. So as far as I'm concerned, concept tested and proven.

[Breccia]

I don't see any need to apply the same thing to NPCs.

2) The complaint really seems to be "This change makes PCs more durable," which is kinda the point.

As long as you acknowledge that your players are getting the same benefits as everyone else, but at far lower risk, I guess go ahead. It's perfectly possible to have a game where the PCs are, well, just a little bit superhuman, deflecting or tanking attacks even at level one that would maim or kill the average commoner if they landed. If you and your players are up for that level of cinematic flair (or just as good a description, "playing on story mode" because what happens in the adventure is the selling point, not the hack and slash to get there) then yes, this is a perfectly numeric way of making that happen. There are plenty of movies, TV shows, and video games where the main characters take on challenges no real life person would ever survive, and you could say "let's make a game just like that, even at level one". It's not for me, but if it's for you and your players, I would be wrong to stop you, just as I would be wrong to stop a DM who says "I want a natural 20 to instantly kill the target, regardless of hp, and I already asked my players and they're all into it".

I just wouldn't join that game, either. Every player has a maximum level of risk they're willing to accept before the game stops being fun, and every player has a minimum level of risk below which there's no tension. Different players have different opinions on those levels, and that's fine. If I had a choice between two virtual casinos (minigames perhaps) in which one I would lose 95% of the time, and one I would win 95% of the time, I'd probably bail on both pretty quickly. However, if winning 95% of the time isn't a problem because getting the money isn't supposed to be the "real" obstacle -- such as this famous Star Trek episode (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708821/) -- then, yeah, I'd understand playing in that one. Or, if the players are supposed to lose all their money because being broke is a plot point -- and Cowboy Bebop did exactly that (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0618975/) -- then play in that one. Your own need to control the story is always allowed to outweight any random die roll in the game. (This isn't a "railroad plot" discussion, but this would be a branching off point if it was)

Adding your Con score to your max hit points, at first level, will make your characters far more durable -- some might even say overly so. But if that's your goal, then this does do it. You posted the idea here, you saw what a few of us have said on the topic, and you clearly still think it's the right move, so please let us know how it turns out. Hopefully it's fun for you and your players, because it's a game, and that's the point.

...but I do have to address this. Because I don't think it's an effective argument.


1) You can build a level one PC, with the rules as they are now, who can survive a fall from orbit more than a third of the time, using point buy.

You'll notice I'm starting with B. That's not by accident.

B) You seem to be insinuating that falling from orbit still uses the 20d6 damage. Um, no. This is "dagger in the eye" territory where hit points are no longer the issue: you are just dead. You're going a stupid-high speed such as this Guiness World Record holder (https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/hall-of-fame/felix-baumgartner-first-person-to-break-sound-barrier-in-freefall#:~:text=An%20unprecedented%20eight%20mill ion%20people,space%20of%20just%20three%20hours.), so your friends aren't finding anything that looks like a body. And that's ignoring things like staying conscious and breathing during the fall, surviving the change in air pressure that could literally boil your blood, freezing because of the lack of air, the heat from re-entry when there is air again, etc. Remember even in the 20th century, with modern equipment and parachutes, about half the people who tried this effectively died before hitting the ground.

Falling from orbit is incredibly dangerous even if you know what you're doing and properly prepped (https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/10/16/what-were-the-risks-of-felix-baumgartners-jump/?sh=60b1196f5350). A 1st-level D&D character is none of those. They're basically a big block of physics, about to hit the ground (hopefully unconscious by then) at the speed of sound and turn into a Sam Raimi special effect. The end.

But let's pretend it was just 20d6 damage.

C) Since you said "more than one-third" you must be talking about 74 damage on 20d6, which means you're instantly dead if your max hp is 37 or lower. That's...everyone. It is not possible to have 37 hit points by standard 5E rules without outside help.

And even if it was...

D) Then you wouldn't need players to have higher hit points. Someone who wants to not die, will simply make a 37 max hp character at first level.

Now perhaps the next comment is "well I meant you can reduce falling damage by --" and that's where I bring up the important part.

A) Falling damage was an example of a source of damage that couldn't crit. I could have just as easily said "character shoots up with wyvern venom on purpose". Or "character is hit by a bolt of lightning on purpose". Or the classic "rocks fall everyone dies". Yes, you could potentially engineer a character that could survive a very specific hazard. Fire/lightning/poison resist, for example. Maximum hit points covers all of them. The exact nature of the damage wasn't then and isn't now the point, it's the magnitude that raised my concerns.

Saying "I want a campaign where characters are two to three times more durable, and I want it to be simple" is one thing. (Also BenevolentEvil EDIT: that didn't work? had an even simpler solution: stick with the rules, start at level 3, DMs start above level 1 all the time) But "you can make a level 1 character that has a decent chance of surviving a fall from orbit" isn't helping. It's irrelevant, and even if it wasn't it's false, and even if it wasn't it doesn't address your problem, and even if it did you wouldn't need to change the rules in the first place.

[Kane0]

Level one: max class HP + con score
Lev up after that: class HP (roll or average), do not add con bonus

Characters in tier one notably more durable, tier 2 about the same, tier 3 a little less durable and tier 4 notably less durable.

Rolling hit die during rests still adds Con mod to healing.

I’ve been doing this for about... a year now? And it’s been working well.

[Yakk]

Fourth Edition did that. 4th Ed monsters also did it. It's got to be both or neither. A Goblin Warrior was a CR 1 creature with 29 hit points.
No, you just need to rework CR a bit.

So, in my version (where you get a "racial" HD), a level 1 Fighter is a 1 HD human plus 1 level of Fighter. They have 2 HD.

At 14 constitution, they have 19 HP. (This is a bit less than adding full +Con).

I throw in a free feat for the offensive boost (and have rebalanced feats so that PAM is a feat of typical strength), so the PC also has decent offense.

Now, just add 1 to the PC's level for encounter balancing purposes. Instead of the party fighting a CR 1 monster, they might fight a CR 2 or three CR 1/2s.

Goblin Warriors don't need 29 HP. If I want a 29 HP foe, I can use an Ogre.

[jjordan]

All PCs add their Constitution score to their HP.It's a good solution so long as, as others pointed out, you only do it for PCs. Which I'm fine with. PCs are exceptional. I have been giving characters their max HD at level 1 + a single role of their HD. So a character with a d6 for their HD is going to have 6-12 HP from their HD alone (plus any Constitution bonus).

[Martin Greywolf]

My main question is, why? First level characters are meant to be squishy and weak, if you want them stronger... just start at a higher level? You get more durable characters and don't have to rebalance modules.

[quinron]

My main question is, why? First level characters are meant to be squishy and weak, if you want them stronger... just start at a higher level? You get more durable characters and don't have to rebalance modules.

I've run a lot of games for new players - players who don't understand the basics of the game yet, much less their 1st-level class features. They'd be totally lost starting above level 1.

Because 1st-level HP is so low, these groups also tend to spend most of their time juggling unconsciousness and barely scraping by in every single fight. What they learn from that is that you're going to be knocked out at least once every other fight, so after they level up, they end up blowing most of their resources in the first 1-2 fights of the day; then, because they've blown most of their resources, they do get knocked out in the next fight and spend the day juggling unconsciousness.

The idea that you can be knocked out in a single fight regardless of how well you play - a real possibility at 1st-2nd level - teaches aggressive, "best defense is a good offense" play. And while that's fine sometimes, playing that way all the time directly countermands D&D's resource management and gradual attrition philosophy.

Plus, while 1st-level characters are supposed to be squishy, I don't think they're meant to be so squishy relative to ostensibly balanced 1st-level threats. By only level 3, we hit a threat balance that's maintained for the rest of the game. Feels like not having that balance at 1st level is a bug pretending to be a feature.

[olskool]

You can always use the classic AD&D "houserule" on hit points...

Just give EVERYONE a maximum Hit Die for their "level 0 initial training" and then have them roll a Hit Die for Level 1. Under this rule, ALL zero-Level NPCs also got the maximum hit point number for their zero-level Hit Die.

[LibraryOgre]

All PCs add their Constitution score to their HP.

Hackmaster (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/104757/HackMaster-Basic-free?affiliate_id=315505) does this, with a few modifications.

1) You get your whole Constitution to your HP at 1st level. However, you get no per-level increase in HP from Constitution. In 5e terms, your 20 Constitution would get you +20 HP at level 1, but you'd taper off in advantage after level 4... at level 4 in either system, you have +20 HP. At level 5 in the standard, you'd have +25 HP (5*5), but the adjusted character would have only the +20. (Hackmaster also adds an additional modifier of Size... humans, dwarves, grel, and half-orcs get a +10 for being medium, while elves, halflings, gnomes, and gnome titans get a +5 for being small or slight)

2) Hackmaster also doubles most weapon damages, and they're somewhat open-ended. However, this is partially due to armor being damage reduction.

[Aliess]

Have you tried just making monsters do average damage, no criticals and spreading the damage out a bit (I.e. not fighting optimally against new players).
We've that tends to make PCs durable enough, at least for the published adventurers.

[saucerhead]

All PCs add their Constitution score to their HP.

This seems fine to me.

I had the characters start as zero level with 6hp each. Before the dungeon started I had them each pick a class, made them first level and gave them the max hp. At second level and third I gave them the average if they rolled below it.

[MrStabby]

I got most of the way through this thread without realising it was add Con score to HP not Con modifier. Getting that right makes everyones comments make sense.


That said... wow. A big change. I think I probably preferred it when it was Con modifier, for just a little more HP. Frankly I think just a flat +4 HP for everyone at 1st level is enough to keep the sense of risk but just take the edge off the high chance of character mortality. Maybe +4 at 1st level and a top up +2 again at 2nd level.

[LibraryOgre]

Another option I have suggested: Temporary HP.

If you go to sleep at full HP and get a full rest, you get a bonus HD worth of HP (so, 4 for a wizard, 10 for a fighter) as a bonus. These last all day, unless you're injured. It gives a bonus to characters, but one that can be whittled down. It also makes (1e) monsters more valuable for XP, since they have more HP without increasing their HD (which affects Saves and combat and such)

[Man_Over_Game]

You can always use the classic AD&D "houserule" on hit points...

Just give EVERYONE a maximum Hit Die for their "level 0 initial training" and then have them roll a Hit Die for Level 1. Under this rule, ALL zero-Level NPCs also got the maximum hit point number for their zero-level Hit Die.

This sounds good. Level 1 characters start with an average of 11 HP. All they really need is about 15, and an extra "Hit Die" would be exactly enough to hit that bar.