Adjusting Hit Points

[zingbobco000]

I've been tinkering around with a couple of aspects regarding hit points, lethality, and the absence of difference in health amongst classes. I'd love to hear some feedback on it, if that works.

One of the things that I'm pretty sure we can all universally agree on is that at 1st level, lethality is incredibly high, while at a certain level death via massive damage is almost impossible. Therefore, I propose the following changes:

Each character starts with a number of hit points equal to their constitution score + constitution modifer + a flat number depending on thier class (note that though this may be the initial starting value, it is not telling of the conclusive HP).


CON Score + CON Mod + 5: Barbarian, Fighter
CON Score + CON Mod + 4: Paladin, Ranger
CON Score + CON Mod + 3: Artificer, Rogue, Monk
CON Score + CON Mod + 2: Cleric, Druid
CON Score + CON Mod + 1: Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock
CON Score + CON Mod: Wizard


For reference, this means that the average hit points at 1st level (assuming around 12-16 CON) is 19, while the standard rules have an average of around 10. This is a massive increase in survivability, averaging around what is expected for 2nd level characters, and although death does occur at 2nd level, it's significantly less common than death at 1st level.

However, then have the balancing act, the higher-level portion. Now if your aim is purely to make it very similar to the original hit point total by the end of the following should be enough:

1d12 (or 7) + CON mod: Barbarian
1d10 (or 6) + CON mod: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
1d8 (or 5) + CON mod: Druid, Monk
1d6 (or 4) + CON mod: Bard, Cleric, Rogue, Artificer, Warlock
1d4 (or 3) + CON mod: Sorcerer, Wizard


Notably, this means that by 20th level the average hit points (assuming around 14-18 CON) is 168, which is also what the average is based on the standard rules.

This is honestly a great stopping point. We've, to an extent, done it! We've helped alleviate the lethality of low levels and still maintained the correct hit point average across the classes.

However, this brings up an important note. The average is the same by 20th level. How many campaigns actually make it to 20th level? There are certainly several, but generally WotC designs adventures for characters from 1st to 11th, 1st to 15th, or 1st to 13th. Somewhere around mid-tier 3. So then we should also aim for them to actually be equal around level 5-8 that way it fully averages out (higher HP compared to the standard rules before the mid-point, lower HP compared to the standard rules after the mid-point). This also has the benefit of making the "superhuman" values of HP less well... superhuman (although if you want to keep them, just use the above values. Regardless, here are the edited values at each level up:

1d10 (or 6) + CON mod: Barbarian
1d8 (or 5) + CON mod: Fighter, Ranger
1d6 (or 4) + CON mod: Monk, Paladin, Rogue
1d4 (or 3) + CON mod: Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Warlock
1d3 (or 2) + CON mod: Sorcerer, Wizard


Now, before you shout that this HP is miniscule you're... well, you're right. It is significantly smaller than would normally be expected. However, if we compare this method to the standard method we are about the expected HP at around level 6-7, which is exactly what we wanted.

This verion looks very similar to the standard version of the rules, but still achieves the level 6ish midpoint.

HP At 1st Level
CON Score + CON Mod + 8: Barbarian
CON Score + CON Mod + 6: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
CON Score + CON Mod + 4: Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Rogue, Warlock
CON Score + CON Mod + 2: Sorcerer, Wizard

HP At Higher Levels
1d8 (or 5) + CON mod: Barbarian
1d6 (or 4) + CON mod: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
1d4 (or 3) + CON mod: Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Rogue, Warlock
1d3 (or 2) + CON mod: Sorcerer, Wizard

That's not enough options, I hear you screaming, level 10.5 should be the midpoint! Since that's the average between 1 and 20.

Well, you're right, and to capitulate I present yet another option, this one is effectively balanced such that for about half a level 1-20 campaign they will have more HP than the standard rules, and then for the second half they will have less HP than the standard rules:


1d12 (or 7) + CON mod: Barbarian
1d10 (or 6) + CON mod: Fighter, Ranger
1d8 (or 5) + CON mod: Monk, Paladin
1d6 (or 4) + CON mod: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Rogue
1d4 (or 3) + CON mod: Artificer, Warlock
1d3 (or 2) + CON mod: Sorcerer, Wizard


Anyway, that's just on hit points, but I'd love to hear all of your thoughts about this!

For reference, the reason why paladin tends to be lower than fighter is that they have access to a large amount of in-class healing (spell slots + lay on hands), so of the d10 classes, they would probably be the class to focus the least on enduring combat (hit points), instead focusing on healing.

Then the reason for d8 classes, the monk is probably going to be in the frontline, so they should definitely be the highest of the d8's (there's even outcry already that they should be moved to a d10).

As for the rogue, the main reason there is that they're not a primary caster.

Also, the reason why CON mod is included is because that way whenever CON is changed you can easily do some quick maths to adjust your HP: your HP changes by an amount equal to the change + your level * the change in the modifier (e.g. you're level 9 with a Constitution of 14 and it decreases by 1 due to some strange curse, your maximum HP would decrease by 10 [1 + 9 * 1 = 10]).

Now all of this is purely based on how I view the classes and my own experience with 5e, and so feel free to take my opinion and work with a grain of salt, but if you're reading this far... well, thank you! And hey, maybe this will be useful for you!

[Kane0]

Sounda very similar to what I run with

Level 1: Class hit die + Con score
Subsequent levels: Class hit die
Spending hit dice: class die + con mod

A handful more HP in tier 1, about the same in tier 2, a handful less in tier 3 and two handfuls less in tier 4. To counteract that you could add prof bonus to HP at a certain point like level 11 but it hasnt bothered my table yet.

[zingbobco000]

Hmmm... that also seems like it would work, although part of me wonders what your average Constitution scores are throughout the party. Are they lower since it only applies to one instance instead of being more significant (i.e. 12 vs. 14 is 2 hit points instead of 1 hit point per level)?

[Kane0]

Id say 90% are 14 con, with the remainder split evenly between 12 and 16.

[animorte]

First thing I will say: we're not the professionals, but it's fun to talk about the theory and homebrew.

I've always encouraged the point buy system and average health gain per level. It's just a lot more fair for everyone and (even though the health evens out over time) some levels can be exceptionally underwhelming for a caster who rolls minimum health.

I've also always thought that it would be more reasonable if we had 3 HD tiers instead of the current, such as 12/10/8 or 10/8/6 base HD.
- Obvious beefcake tanky front liners top tier, basic melee classes or those with reasonable melee options, then casters essentially and those planning to never get hit. Honestly the middle tier would have a lot more presence, but if you've ever seen a tier list for anything people make, that's an exceptionally good sign of balance.
- This keeps the gap from being so far while still ensuring that the Barbarians will still easily have twice (as opposed to 4x) as much as Wizards, for instance.

This is kind of what I imagine:
Tier one (d10): Barbarian, Fighter
Tier two (d8): Cleric, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue
Tier three (d6): Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard

If you're going to have an added bonus per level on top of the standard HD, that starts to get redundant especially if you just go with the average every level up. Then it would always be the same HD+mod which is just adding a layer of complexity to the current system, while accomplishing exactly the same thing.

If it's just about creating more durability at lower levels, give everyone the same base HD until level 5 (the Con mods will still make a difference). OR just guarantee max health for first 5 levels?

I'll say it again: we're not the professionals, but it's fun to talk about the theory and homebrew.

[Frogreaver]

Seems way to complicated. Wouldn't just granting 10 extra hp at level 1 and reducing hp gain on each level up by 1 have close to the same effect and be much simpler?

[Rad]

Seems way to complicated. Wouldn't just granting 10 extra hp at level 1 and reducing hp gain on each level up by 1 have close to the same effect and be much simpler?

I like this proposal but would go further in simplicity. You can drop the part about subtracting 1HP on subsequent levels because 10HP will just become less and less relevant to justify an extra rule.

A possible refinement that makes room for more HP variance would be to add the CON score instead of the modifier at 1st level, rather than a flat 10HP.

[Tanarii]

Hot points are too high already at first level. Don't raise them more.

[heavyfuel]

CON Score + CON Mod + 5: Barbarian, Fighter
CON Score + CON Mod + 4: Paladin, Ranger
CON Score + CON Mod + 3: Cleric, Druid, Monk
CON Score + CON Mod + 2: Bard, Rogue
CON Score + CON Mod + 1: Artificer, Sorcerer
CON Score + CON Mod: Warlock, Wizard


Sounda very similar to what I run with

Level 1: Class hit die + Con score


Is it correct to assume that character whose Con score go up get the HP bump retroactively?

[Kurt Kurageous]

You could do as you propose, and have players track RAW HP, using the greater number. It would phase out your rule gradually.

I avoid putting PCs in combat until they reach 2nd, making everything based on social/exploration until they get 300XP ea.

[Pildion]

Seems way to complicated. Wouldn't just granting 10 extra hp at level 1 and reducing hp gain on each level up by 1 have close to the same effect and be much simpler?

I do something similar to this, but I only take away 1 HP until level 10, so they end up with the same HP they would have normally, just front loading that extra 10 so casters don't get 1 shot by a firebolt haha.

[zingbobco000]

If you're going to have an added bonus per level on top of the standard HD, that starts to get redundant especially if you just go with the average every level up. Then it would always be the same HD+mod which is just adding a layer of complexity to the current system, while accomplishing exactly the same thing.

If it's just about creating more durability at lower levels, give everyone the same base HD until level 5 (the Con mods will still make a difference). OR just guarantee max health for first 5 levels?

I'll say it again: we're not the professionals, but it's fun to talk about the theory and homebrew.

Totally get that we're not professionals and I completely agree, that's why I wanted to just throw this out here.

The intention behind this was multi-faceted:

Allow for less lethality at levels 1-2
Create more danger at levels 11-20
Form explicit distinctions with regards to each class in terms of hit points (kinda more a sub-goal than anything) and make minor tweaks for certain classes (e.g. paladins and monks) to help balance things.


It's not an added bonus to level on top of the standard HD, it's changing the HD to be something else, effectively. As for the reasoning behind not making the level 5 changes, I feel that keeping the consistency already set up in: here's how you calculate your HP at 1st level and here's how you calculate it every level-up should be maintained.


Seems way too complicated. Wouldn't just granting 10 extra hp at level 1 and reducing hp gain on each level up by 1 have close to the same effect and be much simpler?

It would be definitely be more similar to the rules as now, and does effectively achieve the level 10.5 midpoint (giving 5 extra HP at level 1 and reducing gain on level-up achieves the level 6.5 midpoint while giving 20 achieves the level 20 equivalent). Which... honestly might be a better method. However, this does lose out on the third aspect of adding in class distinction. However... see below.


I like this proposal but would go further in simplicity. You can drop the part about subtracting 1HP on subsequent levels because 10HP will just become less and less relevant to justify an extra rule.

A possible refinement that makes room for more HP variance would be to add the CON score instead of the modifier at 1st level, rather than a flat 10HP.

I'm not as big a fan of just giving the characters more hit points. I mean, at higher levels, even though it doesn't mean too much, that's still 20% (level 7) to 10% more health (level 13), which is not nothing, it's the approximate difference between a CON mod (at least for HP).

My initial thought though was actually that - instead of a modifier, use the base HP but then add the CON score and then reduce the amount gained at each new level by 1. This then ran into an issue where CON changes were a bit weird (change amount equal to change + change amount equal to modifier change * (level - 1)) so then I added the modifier in, but then that had a midpoint of around 15 so I revised the starting values (decreasing them all by 2), but this change really wasn't enough to do too much (midpoint of around 13). I drastically decreased the starting values (decreasing them all by 5), but that only gives a midpoint of 10.5 instead of midpoint of 6.5 I was seeking.

Thus, I felt I must change the HP gained at each new level again, so I decreased it by 2. Now this did work, it had a midpoint of 8. If I tinkered around with the starting values a little bit (decreasing them all by 4) I had achieved the midpoint of ~6.5 (technically six, but I thought: "Fair enough"). Now, to be fair, I could have left it there, and maybe that's a better point so I guess:

HP At 1st Level
CON Score + CON Mod + 8: Barbarian
CON Score + CON Mod + 6: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
CON Score + CON Mod + 4: Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Rogue, Warlock
CON Score + CON Mod + 2: Sorcerer, Wizard

HP At Higher Levels
1d8 (or 5) + CON mod: Barbarian
1d6 (or 4) + CON mod: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
1d4 (or 3) + CON mod: Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Rogue, Warlock
1d3 (or 2) + CON mod: Sorcerer, Wizard

Is this a simpler method that achieves the same thing? Yes. However, I... in my hubris, wanted more, I wanted to create significant hit point distinctions as opposed to basically just... nerfing everyone. Since we had the range of dice (and also because Barbarians like d12's) I figured... why not, let's go, and then formed the... more complex version of this so as to buff monk, ranger, druid, and fighter and nerf paladin as well as achieving the precise 6.5 midpoint that I wanted.


Hot points are too high already at first level. Don't raise them more.

That... I'm not sure if I agree with that. Most of the death in D&D occurs at the first level (which is a bit ironic given that most of the resurrection abilities are at significantly higher levels, which creates a strange paradox where death generally occurs in the spaces when you don't have access to solutions for it, and then when you do have access to the solution it becomes rarer).

[zingbobco000]

Is it correct to assume that character whose Con score go up get the HP bump retroactively?

At least within my method, yes. I cannot speak to Kane's.


You could do as you propose, and have players track RAW HP, using the greater number. It would phase out your rule gradually.

I avoid putting PCs in combat until they reach 2nd, making everything based on social/exploration until they get 300XP ea.

That is fair, it is more tracking though, but I definitely see its merits. I definitely agree with the not putting your PCs in combat until 2nd, but I think that's actually because of their squishiness. Thus, by adjusting their squishiness, I would feel better about putting them in combat.

[Keravath]

The main concern I'd have is the arbitrary ranking of classes with their bonus even if it is only 1 or 2 hit points of difference.

Artificers wear medium armor and are a 1/2 casting combat class. Some archetypes have martial weapons proficiencies. I really don't see how it would be in the same class as a Sorcerer.

Similarly, warlocks wear light armor and bladepact warlocks are more of a melee option than anything else. On top of that hexblade warlocks have medium armor, shields and martial weapon proficiencies. It is clearly a combat class but you rank the hit point bonus with a wizard?

I think that list has either some personal bias or preconceptions in it.

I'd suggest basing bonuses either on hit die size or on weapon and armor proficiencies. Heavy, medium, light, no armor. Martial, simple, and specific weapon proficiencies. Shield proficiency or not. Modify the hit point bonus based on what the character is trained to do - a wizard who somehow acquires the same proficiencies as a fighter would get the same skills based bonus to hit points.

So if the goal is to just increase level 1 hit points you could go with hit die+con mod + skills bonus - which gives the martial classes significantly more hit points to start than casters.

Alternatively CON Score + hit die + skills bonus (including the con mod to start is also an option but essentially double dips the con score)
Then each level after that just gets hit die points

[zingbobco000]

The main concern I'd have is the arbitrary ranking of classes with their bonus even if it is only 1 or 2 hit points of difference.

Artificers wear medium armor and are a 1/2 casting combat class. Some archetypes have martial weapons proficiencies. I really don't see how it would be in the same class as a Sorcerer.

Similarly, warlocks wear light armor and bladepact warlocks are more of a melee option than anything else. On top of that hexblade warlocks have medium armor, shields and martial weapon proficiencies. It is clearly a combat class but you rank the hit point bonus with a wizard?

I think that list has either some personal bias or preconceptions in it.

I'd suggest basing bonuses either on hit die size or on weapon and armor proficiencies. Heavy, medium, light, no armor. Martial, simple, and specific weapon proficiencies. Shield proficiency or not. Modify the hit point bonus based on what the character is trained to do - a wizard who somehow acquires the same proficiencies as a fighter would get the same skills based bonus to hit points.

So if the goal is to just increase level 1 hit points you could go with hit die+con mod + skills bonus - which gives the martial classes significantly more hit points to start than casters.

Alternatively CON Score + hit die + skills bonus (including the con mod to start is also an option but essentially double dips the con score)
Then each level after that just gets hit die points

The actual key is to look at the level-up hit points. If you go just based on the initial 1st-level hit points you emerge with flawed conclusions. To clarify, here is the order of hit point rankings: Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Druid, Cleric, Bard, Rogue, Artificer, Warlock, Sorcerer, Wizard. I understand that Hexblades exist, also that Bladesingers, Valor Bards, War Clerics, etc... I tried to bundle that in the hit points, but perhaps that's not clearly coming across.

Furthermore, just for clarity's sake, this method gives the same HP of Artificers and Hexblades up until around level 5-6 and then, just like all of the classes, there is a drop-off.

Although, now that I think about it, maybe it might not be a bad idea to boost Artificer and Rogue since they're half/non-casters... hmmm. Swapping the order might not be a bad idea.

I have no doubt that the list has personal biases (it's a personal list). As for proficiencies, I think it likely that hit points should probably be separate from proficiencies as the proficiencies are already designed to supplement hit points via boosting AC. The CON double dipping is meant to (sorta) simplify CON changes, although maybe it's too confusing. Cutting it isn't hard at all (just boost all starting values by 2).

[Saelethil]

I’m tempted to go with a middle ground between this and Kane0’s.

Reduce hit die by one size and start level one with max HD + Con. score.

Nice and simple. Starts out a little beefier but levels out relatively early before dipping.
I allow players to reroll 1s when they roll for hit points but I probably wouldn’t allow this with d4 classes.

[zingbobco000]

I’m tempted to go with a middle ground between this and Kane0’s.

Reduce hit die by one size and start level one with max HD + Con. score.

Nice and simple. Starts out a little beefier but levels out relatively early before dipping.
I allow players to reroll 1s when they roll for hit points but I probably wouldn’t allow this with d4 classes.

For reference, this is equal to the standard values at around level 11ish, which definitely works in terms of simplicity (rerolling the 1s boosts it a bit more, but that would also change your standard value results too so they're equivalent)! It's effectively equal to the edited extra option in the original post.

[Kane0]

Is it correct to assume that character whose Con score go up get the HP bump retroactively?

Sorry i missed this, in my case no. I wanted to see nonstandard starting con scores, dont really like retroactive tracking and this also conveniently provides a reason to use my homebrewed tough feat.

[Chronos]

First level is supposed to suck. You should spend all of first level anxiously avoiding combat whenever humanly (or demihumanly) possible, because every combat has a very real chance of killing you. That's also why it takes so little XP to get to second level.

[Kane0]

First level is supposed to suck. You should spend all of first level anxiously avoiding combat whenever humanly (or demihumanly) possible, because every combat has a very real chance of killing you. That's also why it takes so little XP to get to second level.

That perspective is not universal, some people like staying at low levels rather than trying to get them over with as quickly as possible.

[heavyfuel]

Sorry i missed this, in my case no. I wanted to see nonstandard starting con scores, dont really like retroactive tracking

I'm not seeing how this encourages for non-standard Con scores, tbh

Also, I see retroactive tracking as easier rather than harder. It was one of PF1's best changes from 3.5 if you ask me


First level is supposed to suck. You should spend all of first level anxiously avoiding combat whenever humanly (or demihumanly) possible, because every combat has a very real chance of killing you. That's also why it takes so little XP to get to second level.

This is a great philosophy when you have a DM that awards XP when you avoid a combat, but many DMs have the mindset that only finishing quests/reaching a new plot point and killing things gets you XP. You stealth by or talk your way through the bandits to reach your objective? Good. You get the objective XP, but not the bandit-killing XP.

This makes level 1 a tedious long road, especially in 5e where you have almost nothing even remotely cool at level 1.

Plus, a lot of published adventure paths also disagree with you, and they present plenty of combat ecnounters that are nearly unavoidable, if not completely unavoidable.

[zingbobco000]

First level is supposed to suck. You should spend all of first level anxiously avoiding combat whenever humanly (or demihumanly) possible, because every combat has a very real chance of killing you. That's also why it takes so little XP to get to second level.

When I run games as a DM, yeah, I definitely agree. However, there are several perhaps... problematic aspects of this. Firstly, the Starter Set disagrees with you right off of the bat, it doesn't do much before throwing you into an (effectively) unavoidable combat and then expects that you will run off and follow the goblins further. Now, I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing, adventurers running into danger is... kinda why they become adventurers, but that creates an inherently incompatible viewpoint with yours, and honestly just the way that D&D often seems to work in general.

People often play the game so they can build powerful heroes, and while there is certainly an element of growth (level 5 is very different from level 20), I imagine that if a new player entered this game, built a super beefy barbarian who wanted to just charge into the fray and then were told effectively: "Combat will kill you, so just sneak around for the first couple of days of this whole adventuring thing, and then you can charge in" it would feel a bit odd? However, that's what the current setup of hit points effectively generates: extremely deadly combat at levels 1-2 and then minimal danger beyond level 6 or so (due to the way massive damage works + revivify).

Now, there are certainly people who enjoy the danger of level 1 (playing lots of Call of Cthulhu has made me significantly more willing to laugh at an entertaining death), but then you ironically create the opposite issue of insane survivability beyond levels 1-2. Also, keep in mind that as written, the EXP per day of level 1 characters is 300 per character, but that's assuming encounter building rules, which in reality is more like 150 per character (assuming combats with like 2-7 monsters), which means that the characters would have to (on average) endure 2 days of combats to actually level up. Notably, most DMs don't follow this, awarding EXP by milestone and having most level 1 adventures be significantly easier than two days of six medium encounters, but of course the reasoning for this is because of the squishiness of level 1 characters. Increase their durability and you have a system that actually works significantly better with the attrition design of 5E.

Basically, I'm not saying either mode of playing is "wrong" inherently. Instead it just feels like at times the difficulty is super high and then plummets (and yes, I know that stakes exist, difficulty is dependent on the DM, etc... but I don't really think that argument is applicable given that you could explain away almost any problem in an RPG with "the DM/GM could fix it with better story-crafting"), which ironically is exactly the opposite of what you want from a new-player perspective and from the fact that resurrection magic becomes more prolific at higher levels.

[olskool]

I've been tinkering around with a couple of aspects regarding hit points, lethality, and the absence of difference in health amongst classes. I'd love to hear some feedback on it, if that works.

One of the things that I'm pretty sure we can all universally agree on is that at 1st level, lethality is incredibly high, while at a certain level death via massive damage is almost impossible. Therefore, I propose the following changes:

Each character starts with a number of hit points equal to their constitution score + constitution modifer + a flat number depending on thier class (note that though this may be the initial starting value, it is not telling of the conclusive HP).


CON Score + CON Mod + 5: Barbarian, Fighter
CON Score + CON Mod + 4: Paladin, Ranger
CON Score + CON Mod + 3: Artificer, Rogue, Monk
CON Score + CON Mod + 2: Cleric, Druid
CON Score + CON Mod + 1: Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock
CON Score + CON Mod: Wizard


For reference, this means that the average hit points at 1st level (assuming around 12-16 CON) is 19, while the standard rules have an average of around 10. This is a massive increase in survivability, averaging around what is expected for 2nd level characters, and although death does occur at 2nd level, it's significantly less common than death at 1st level.

However, then have the balancing act, the higher-level portion. Now if your aim is purely to make it very similar to the original hit point total by the end of the following should be enough:

1d12 (or 7) + CON mod: Barbarian
1d10 (or 6) + CON mod: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
1d8 (or 5) + CON mod: Druid, Monk
1d6 (or 4) + CON mod: Bard, Cleric, Rogue, Artificer, Warlock
1d4 (or 3) + CON mod: Sorcerer, Wizard


Notably, this means that by 20th level the average hit points (assuming around 14-18 CON) is 168, which is also what the average is based on the standard rules.

This is honestly a great stopping point. We've, to an extent, done it! We've helped alleviate the lethality of low levels and still maintained the correct hit point average across the classes.

However, this brings up an important note. The average is the same by 20th level. How many campaigns actually make it to 20th level? There are certainly several, but generally WotC designs adventures for characters from 1st to 11th, 1st to 15th, or 1st to 13th. Somewhere around mid-tier 3. So then we should also aim for them to actually be equal around level 5-8 that way it fully averages out (higher HP compared to the standard rules before the mid-point, lower HP compared to the standard rules after the mid-point). This also has the benefit of making the "superhuman" values of HP less well... superhuman (although if you want to keep them, just use the above values. Regardless, here are the edited values at each level up:

1d10 (or 6) + CON mod: Barbarian
1d8 (or 5) + CON mod: Fighter, Ranger
1d6 (or 4) + CON mod: Monk, Paladin, Rogue
1d4 (or 3) + CON mod: Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Warlock
1d3 (or 2) + CON mod: Sorcerer, Wizard


Now, before you shout that this HP is miniscule you're... well, you're right. It is significantly smaller than would normally be expected. However, if we compare this method to the standard method we are about the expected HP at around level 6-7, which is exactly what we wanted.

This verion looks very similar to the standard version of the rules, but still achieves the level 6ish midpoint.

HP At 1st Level
CON Score + CON Mod + 8: Barbarian
CON Score + CON Mod + 6: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
CON Score + CON Mod + 4: Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Rogue, Warlock
CON Score + CON Mod + 2: Sorcerer, Wizard

HP At Higher Levels
1d8 (or 5) + CON mod: Barbarian
1d6 (or 4) + CON mod: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
1d4 (or 3) + CON mod: Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Rogue, Warlock
1d3 (or 2) + CON mod: Sorcerer, Wizard

That's not enough options, I hear you screaming, level 10.5 should be the midpoint! Since that's the average between 1 and 20.

Well, you're right, and to capitulate I present yet another option, this one is effectively balanced such that for about half a level 1-20 campaign they will have more HP than the standard rules, and then for the second half they will have less HP than the standard rules:


1d12 (or 7) + CON mod: Barbarian
1d10 (or 6) + CON mod: Fighter, Ranger
1d8 (or 5) + CON mod: Monk, Paladin
1d6 (or 4) + CON mod: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Rogue
1d4 (or 3) + CON mod: Artificer, Warlock
1d3 (or 2) + CON mod: Sorcerer, Wizard


Anyway, that's just on hit points, but I'd love to hear all of your thoughts about this!

For reference, the reason why paladin tends to be lower than fighter is that they have access to a large amount of in-class healing (spell slots + lay on hands), so of the d10 classes, they would probably be the class to focus the least on enduring combat (hit points), instead focusing on healing.

Then the reason for d8 classes, the monk is probably going to be in the frontline, so they should definitely be the highest of the d8's (there's even outcry already that they should be moved to a d10).

As for the rogue, the main reason there is that they're not a primary caster.

Also, the reason why CON mod is included is because that way whenever CON is changed you can easily do some quick maths to adjust your HP: your HP changes by an amount equal to the change + your level * the change in the modifier (e.g. you're level 9 with a Constitution of 14 and it decreases by 1 due to some strange curse, your maximum HP would decrease by 10 [1 + 9 * 1 = 10]).

Now all of this is purely based on how I view the classes and my own experience with 5e, and so feel free to take my opinion and work with a grain of salt, but if you're reading this far... well, thank you! And hey, maybe this will be useful for you!

You can handle low HP at 1st Level and HP "bloat" at higher levels by going "old-school" with Hit Points and a nearly ubiquitous house rule from back in the day.

Option #1: Give the characters their MAXIMUM Hit Die of Hit Points for their 0-Level training, then roll 1st Level HP normally. Thus a fighter would have 10 (for 0 Level) + 1D10 (for 1st Level) + CON bonus. This creates a minimum floor of 7 HP before CON is applied. Thus, a typical fighter would have 11 to 20 + CON bonus HP at first level giving him the ability to survive two or three typical damage strikes.

Option #2: Give the characters their CON SCORE + rolled Hit Die but exclude the CON bonus (which would still be used for CON saves). Under this system, we would often roll TWO Hit Dice at 1st Level and take the higher roll. A typical Hit Point total would then be between 13 and 16 hit points at 1st Level with a max of 32 for a Barbarian with a 20 CON and maxed roll. That's four to six D8 sword thrusts before death.

Going "Gritty:"

IF you want to go old-school hardcore, you can change the size of each class's HIT DIE. The older [AD&D/D&D] standard in 5e would be:

Full Casters (Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Non-combat Clerics) = D4 for hit dice. Only +1HP per Level after 10th.
Partial Casters/Semi Combat (Bards, Druids, Rogues) = D6 for hit dice. Only +2HP per Level after 10th.
Martials (Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, Cavaliers) = D8 for hit dice. Only +3HP per Level after 10th.
PowerHouse Martials (Champion Fighters, Barbarians, Monks) = D10 for hit dice. Only +4HP per Level after 10th.

Depending on how gritty you want to go, you can either add the CON bonus at each new Level or only add it ONCE.

Those are just a couple of ideas for raising Hit Points for the lower Levels without causing even more bloat at higher Levels.