[3.x] capping bonus HP per Hit Die

[tbarta]

Ok, long-time reader here finally signed up for an account so I can start posting. I've spent a lot of time on my own theorizing about 3.x rules, but I'm looking for feedback from the board, as I don't get a lot of play time nowadays.

One oft-cited reason for the decline of pure HP damage and the rise of Save-or-X effects is HP inflation, to the point where for some characters overall HP is decided more by Constitution than by base Hit Die. Well, what if max HP bonuses were capped by the size of the Hit Die to swing this back the other direction? I'm thinking of something like this:

HD | Max CON bonus to HP
d3 | +1
d4 | +2
d6 | +2
d8 | +3
d10 | +4
d12 | +5

YMMV with the exact caps, but here's what happens to some iconic monsters:
Troll: 6d8+36=63 becomes 6d8+18=45.
Gelatinous Cube: 4d10+32=54 becomes 4d10+16=38.
Mature Black Dragon: 22d12+110 is unchanged. In fact, only the oldest dragons lose anything, because of their d12 hit dice.

So, what do you think?

[Temotei]

Honestly, I don't like it. Limiting characters and monsters based on hit dice isn't very nice.

Especially for players who want really high Constitution or for poison-based builds (are there any of those?).

Casters aren't really penalized because they usually won't have Constitution above 14 anyway. Melee characters are penalized somewhat though, since they often do have more than will cover their hit dice. Dwarf fighter who rolled 18 and put it on Constitution? Screwed over.

I suppose it would work in a more gritty setting though.

[Fiery Diamond]

I think that's a bit silly. I find that the super-high fortitude saves from high Con provide much more of a challenge than the high hit points. Besides, for monsters, what HD (d8, d10, d12) they use depends on type, which severely limits things. What if I want to have an aberration that has as much HP as a Dragon? No, all in all I think this is a poor idea. If you're the DM, just arbitrarily lower the hit points of the creatures if you want them to have lower HP.

[Temotei]

By the way, what has d3 hit dice?

[tbarta]

Wow, fast feedback! Thanks for the insight; I suppose this is just an example of where DM Fiat (reduce monster HP when desired) is the best.

[tbarta]

By the way, what has d3 hit dice?

Honestly, nothing comes to the top of my head. I'm just used to extending out any die-listing that far. Maybe some sort of... more wizardly... wizard? Or I suppose if somebody ever bothered modeling a template by augmenting HD sizes, similar to weapon sizes.

[Temotei]

Honestly, nothing comes to the top of my head. I'm just used to extending out any die-listing that far. Maybe some sort of... more wizardly... wizard? Or I suppose if somebody ever bothered modeling a template by augmenting HD sizes, similar to weapon sizes.

There's an EDIT button on the bottom right of your posts. It does help when you get ninja'd (someone posts before you finish your own post).

d3...man...that's sad.

[Draz74]

I like the 4e method for this: use the Constitution score to modify Hit Points, not just the Constitution modifier. But do it only once, at Level 1; not every level.

[DracoDei]

Based on what I am seeing here, the solution might be not to apply it to class levels (or maybe just not to PCs???) and then to have a monsterous feat that uncaps it.

Just brainstorming...

[Zeta Kai]

Based on what I am seeing here, the solution might be not to apply it to class levels (or maybe just not to PCs???) and then to have a monstrous feat that uncaps it.

But then you'll get a scenario where the DM will just make sure that any monster they want will have that feat, whether it's legal or not. DMs aren't bound by the same rules, & fiat = fiat.

No, capping HP is a Bad Idea. This rule would nerf casters, but it would hurt melee users even more. I guess they really can't have nice things.

[Eldan]

Not giving it to PCs would mean that fighters would only have an average of 5.5 HP per HD. Monks would have 4.5. Even barbarians would only have 6.5, and they could never have more, except with feats like (Improved) Toughness. That would severely limit them.

[DracoDei]

Not giving it to PCs would mean that fighters would only have an average of 5.5 HP per HD. Monks would have 4.5. Even barbarians would only have 6.5, and they could never have more, except with feats like (Improved) Toughness. That would severely limit them.

No, that would be if all the caps were zero.

[Zeta Kai]

The real averages (with maximum CON bonuses) are thus:
{table=head]HD|Max CON Bonus|Average HP|Classes
d3|+1|3|Wtf
d4|+2|4.5|Sor/Wiz
d6|+2|5.5|Brd/Rog
d8|+3|7.5|Clr/Drd/Mnk/Rgr
d10|+4|9.5|Ftr/Pal
d12|+5|11.5|Brb[/table]

Overall, this does nothing to improve the game, as far as I can see. It's arbitrary, & adds another layer of complexity to the game without any tangible benefit. I would recommend against using these caps.

[Baron Corm]

I don't think large amounts of HP is a problem for any melee character in an optimized setting. They deal many times more damage than their opponents have health. In a non-optimized setting, the casters won't always choose spells which can end encounters instantly, so it's still not a problem.

[Zexion]

I do not support this idea. I once played a wizard who got 3 18s and put them in Intelligence, Constitution, and Dexterity. This would completely destroy his build, and, with it, most of the creativity in the game.

[Latronis]

Things like ranger and monk get the shaft a little harder than other melee types too