Simple House Rule Evaluation: Con Score to HP - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Xeviat-DM May 16, 2015 22:32:38	Hey everyone! So I'm really loving 5E. It's fun. Reading the books is exciting, and putting together encounters with the new tools are great. My only trouble is that I like playing low levels, especially since we have a new player in our group who has never played pen and paper games (or rpgs in general). After running some games with Basic, I'm concerned about HP at first level. Now, I can solve this by relying upon low CR opponents at first; a CR 1 monster is a "medium" encounter all by itself after all, but I worry that the players won't feel powerful when they're fighting so many things clearly weaker than them (especially coming off of 4E for most of them, where the standard was party of 4 vs. party of 4). After spending some time looking over the CR calculator, I've noticed that monster attack and AC start significantly below player attack and AC; granted, monster hp is often higher and damage can be higher, and those can be tweaked down to raise the others. But, when looking at player damage, which can be things like a greatsword fighter's 11.33 damage (2d6, reroll 1 and 2, +3 for str), a twfing fighter or ranger's 13 (1d6+3 x2), or a Rogue's 10 (1d6+3+1d6), I don't feel like player damage is skimping. My experience has been that low level fights are really swingy, and my group isnt liking it. The challenge of the fights isn't the problem, it's that they're quick and tip one way or the other really quickly. This seems to be because monster attacks tend to be low and their damage tends to be high. This means they won't hit often, but when they do, people go down (the infamous Bugbear being one of the worst offenders; a "medium" encounter with a potential to deal an average hit of 18 damage, dropping any 1st level character and killing anyone with 9 hp or lower (easily a d8 class with a +1 con mod or a d6 with a +2 con mod). So, I wanted to bring over 4E's Con mod to HP. I could just add it and be done with it; the CR calculator has +15 HP as 1 defensive CR, so it won't fundamentally change much for most characters. But I kind of want to be fair about it. So, my thought is to balance the PC defense boost with a monster offense boost. Here's the rule: Con Score to HP Add Con score to HP for PCs at 1st level. To balance this, add +1 attack to all monster attack bonuses and spell attack bonuses (DCs remain the same). I feel like this can even things out. It is potentially a 1 defensive CR boost to the players, and a 1 offensive CR boost to the npcs. NPCs will hit more, but players will be able to survive more hits. Combat might last longer, but one hit kills will be the stuff of rare crits rather than a normal hit from a boss character (that isn't even a "deadly" fight). Thoughts? If you don't see this as a needed rule, rather than shutting it down, maybe discuss why you like the swingy nature of these example fights.
#2 pukunui May 16, 2015 23:58:22	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#3 AaronOfBarbaria May 17, 2015 1:24:55	I have used a different rule for similar reasons, with a slightly different result that is overall the same effect. Rather than alter how many hit points characters have, I use the provided optional rule to have a normal hit deal average damage and a critical hit to add a roll of the dice portion of a damage expression. While yes, that does mean a bugbear hits for 11 damage normally, 2d8+11 on a critical hit, or 18 normally and 2d8+2d6+18 on a critical when it comes to their surprise attack... but that doesn't seem to be an issue since I have bugbears - who the book says are fond of ambush and flee when outmatched - lead their assault by trying to hit the biggest and toughest characters in the party (the ones that are less likely to get hit by the relatively inaccurate bugbear, and also more liley to survive being hit) because that is their best chance at their ambush not leaving them facing only the characters from the party that obviously do outmatch them (basically, they are choosing between "ambush the tanks then overpower the squishies," or "ambush the squishies then run away because the tanks are too hard to fight toe-to-toe") Plus, gameplay rockets past the fragility of 1st level in a session or less even when my group is only able to play for 3 hours in a session. Overall, running the game this way ramps up survivability of characters significantly because of how easy it makes it to predict how much longer a character can stay in the fight - so the players can accurately determine when to flee, when healing powers are most effecient to use, and even when they should try to avoid an encounter with more creatures of a type they have already faced because of the danger it presents.
#4 Xeviat-DM May 17, 2015 13:24:24	Interesting. It does take an element of randomness away.
(Reply to #4) AaronOfBarbaria	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#6 MechaPilot May 17, 2015 14:38:34	As long as you're not adjusting HDs as well as adding Con score to HPs, it shouldn't be a problem because the bonus HPs from Con score will be spread throughout the day (although the first fight of the day will likely be the most survivable). One thing I might suggest is removing the bonus HPs from Con modifier at first level, and here's why: If you have a 14 Con at first level, you are normally getting +2 HPs. If you add your Con score instead of the Con modifier, you're getting +14 HPs. If you add your Con score and your Con modifier, you are double-dipping your Con and getting +16 HPs.
(Reply to #6) Xeviat-DM	MechaPilot wrote:
#8 intently May 18, 2015 13:11:37	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#9 Tempest_Stormwind May 18, 2015 14:10:23	What about a slight compromise: "your normal maximum hit points cannot be lower than your Constitution score." (Effects like Harm can change max HP, but tis refers to normal maximum.) Bigger impact on mages (the squishier characters always feel the swing the most) while still allowing meat shields to have more HP, without seriously shifting the overall curve that much. I heard this idea pitched on the weekend but won't have a chance to evaluate it as thoroughly as you until quite a bit later.
#10 reddaemon May 19, 2015 11:43:52	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
#11 MechaPilot May 21, 2015 12:02:56	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
#12 Tempest_Stormwind May 21, 2015 12:24:20	Re: Your normal maximum HP can't be lower than your Constitution score: reddaemon wrote:
#13 Xeviat-DM May 22, 2015 1:02:49	The monster CR tables are really strange; AC is significantly lower than what the PCs will look like, and HP is way higher than what PCs will look like. Maybe that's a forumula for fun, as players will hit more and be hit less, but I don't like the swingyness of high damage monsters and low hp players.
#14 Noon May 22, 2015 2:52:15	I don't know how someone can say they like playing low level, but then give the players higher level abilities. Apart from 'Level: 1' on their sheets, it's not level 1 play you're enjoying.
(Reply to #14) Macv12	Noon wrote:
#16 Xeviat-DM May 22, 2015 3:57:48	Um, HP isn't really a "higher level ability". Do you "use" your hp? It's just a number. It's not like you have more spell slots, more class abilities, or more objective effect on the world. I like starting at low level, especially with new players, because the characters are starting off small. Save the village from kobolds, hunt a bear, rescue the mayor, not save the world, slay a dragon, or venture to the underworld to bring back someone's soul. What I don't like about current 1st and 2nd level is that players can easily go down in a single hit from something that didn't see like a threat. In the very first post playtest game I ran, the party's cleric dropped in round 1 of combat, before he could even act, because he was hit by two goblin arrows. It wasn't fun for him. It wasn't fun for me. It wasn't fun for the rest of the table. Thus, more hp (and possibly more attack bonus for the monsters to even out the curve). I'm not talking about giving 1st level characters 9th level spells; I'm talking about a dozen or so hp.
#17 Noon May 22, 2015 17:55:01	If you don't use HP, then you don't need to increase it "But they, uh, do use it when they decide to go into battle" So they do use HP. Of course you have more objective effect on the world when you haven't gone unconcious or died as early as you would have with no increase. If you're still swinging your sword and slaying people because you have more HP than you would have, HP let you have more of an objective effect. Otherwise why increase it if it has no objective effect? What I don't like about current 1st and 2nd level is that players can easily go down in a single hit from something that didn't see like a threat. In the very first post playtest game I ran, the party's cleric dropped in round 1 of combat, before he could even act, because he was hit by two goblin arrows. It wasn't fun for him. It wasn't fun for me. It wasn't fun for the rest of the table. Thus, more hp (and possibly more attack bonus for the monsters to even out the curve).
(Reply to #17) Macv12	Noon wrote:
(Reply to #17) Macv12	EDIT: it didn't need to be said twice.
#20 Xeviat-DM May 22, 2015 18:45:43	Noon, I'm not sure if you're being genuine or if you're trying to rile me up, so I'll try to ignore any connotations to your words. Starting HP for a 1st level character falls in the 6 (wizard, 10 con) to 14 window (barbarian, 14 con). Damage per round from a CR 1 creature also falls into a window of 9 to 14. My group dislikes that characters can go down in one normal hit with an average die roll; I'd venture to guess that they'd be fine (if not still disappointed) if they went down in one crit. As it stands now, at first level, with typical damages, a crit can kill a first level character. I understand that this is realistic (as attacking a paralyzed or unconscious opponent is a crit if performed within 5 feet, I'd say such an attack is rather comparable to an executioner's strike, and thus should probably kill), which is why I don't fault the designers for having that be the established baseline. We're looking at adding HP to 1st level specifically because we don't want to play with 3rd level abiltiies right away. Rather than take personal offense and be boarderline insulting with your posts, if you object to the house rule so much then why not show why you think it would be bad for the game? Is it going to make spellcasters weaker than non-casters, as fights will take longer? Is it going to make fights too easy? What about the proposed adding of an attack bonus to the monsters; this way they hit more often, but their hits are a lower percentage of player HP, and combat duration remains the same?
#21 Noon May 24, 2015 2:57:10	Macv12 wrote:
#22 Noon May 24, 2015 2:24:49	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#23 Xeviat-DM May 24, 2015 11:20:29	We seem to disagree on HP being a "high level ability". Fundamental to the discussion, really.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Xeviat-DM

May 16, 2015 22:32:38

Hey everyone!

So I'm really loving 5E. It's fun. Reading the books is exciting, and putting together encounters with the new tools are great. My only trouble is that I like playing low levels, especially since we have a new player in our group who has never played pen and paper games (or rpgs in general). After running some games with Basic, I'm concerned about HP at first level.

Now, I can solve this by relying upon low CR opponents at first; a CR 1 monster is a "medium" encounter all by itself after all, but I worry that the players won't feel powerful when they're fighting so many things clearly weaker than them (especially coming off of 4E for most of them, where the standard was party of 4 vs. party of 4).

After spending some time looking over the CR calculator, I've noticed that monster attack and AC start significantly below player attack and AC; granted, monster hp is often higher and damage can be higher, and those can be tweaked down to raise the others. But, when looking at player damage, which can be things like a greatsword fighter's 11.33 damage (2d6, reroll 1 and 2, +3 for str), a twfing fighter or ranger's 13 (1d6+3 x2), or a Rogue's 10 (1d6+3+1d6), I don't feel like player damage is skimping.

My experience has been that low level fights are really swingy, and my group isnt liking it. The challenge of the fights isn't the problem, it's that they're quick and tip one way or the other really quickly. This seems to be because monster attacks tend to be low and their damage tends to be high. This means they won't hit often, but when they do, people go down (the infamous Bugbear being one of the worst offenders; a "medium" encounter with a potential to deal an average hit of 18 damage, dropping any 1st level character and killing anyone with 9 hp or lower (easily a d8 class with a +1 con mod or a d6 with a +2 con mod).

So, I wanted to bring over 4E's Con mod to HP. I could just add it and be done with it; the CR calculator has +15 HP as 1 defensive CR, so it won't fundamentally change much for most characters. But I kind of want to be fair about it. So, my thought is to balance the PC defense boost with a monster offense boost.

Here's the rule:

Con Score to HP

Add Con score to HP for PCs at 1st level. To balance this, add +1 attack to all monster attack bonuses and spell attack bonuses (DCs remain the same).

I feel like this can even things out. It is potentially a 1 defensive CR boost to the players, and a 1 offensive CR boost to the npcs. NPCs will hit more, but players will be able to survive more hits. Combat might last longer, but one hit kills will be the stuff of rare crits rather than a normal hit from a boss character (that isn't even a "deadly" fight).

Thoughts? If you don't see this as a needed rule, rather than shutting it down, maybe discuss why you like the swingy nature of these example fights.

pukunui

May 16, 2015 23:58:22

Xeviat-DM wrote:

AaronOfBarbaria

May 17, 2015 1:24:55

I have used a different rule for similar reasons, with a slightly different result that is overall the same effect.

Rather than alter how many hit points characters have, I use the provided optional rule to have a normal hit deal average damage and a critical hit to add a roll of the dice portion of a damage expression.

While yes, that does mean a bugbear hits for 11 damage normally, 2d8+11 on a critical hit, or 18 normally and 2d8+2d6+18 on a critical when it comes to their surprise attack... but that doesn't seem to be an issue since I have bugbears - who the book says are fond of ambush and flee when outmatched - lead their assault by trying to hit the biggest and toughest characters in the party (the ones that are less likely to get hit by the relatively inaccurate bugbear, and also more liley to survive being hit) because that is their best chance at their ambush not leaving them facing only the characters from the party that obviously do outmatch them (basically, they are choosing between "ambush the tanks then overpower the squishies," or "ambush the squishies then run away because the tanks are too hard to fight toe-to-toe")

Plus, gameplay rockets past the fragility of 1st level in a session or less even when my group is only able to play for 3 hours in a session.

Overall, running the game this way ramps up survivability of characters significantly because of how easy it makes it to predict how much longer a character can stay in the fight - so the players can accurately determine when to flee, when healing powers are most effecient to use, and even when they should try to avoid an encounter with more creatures of a type they have already faced because of the danger it presents.

Xeviat-DM

May 17, 2015 13:24:24

Interesting. It does take an element of randomness away.

(Reply to #4)

AaronOfBarbaria

Xeviat-DM wrote:

MechaPilot

May 17, 2015 14:38:34

As long as you're not adjusting HDs as well as adding Con score to HPs, it shouldn't be a problem because the bonus HPs from Con score will be spread throughout the day (although the first fight of the day will likely be the most survivable).

One thing I might suggest is removing the bonus HPs from Con modifier at first level, and here's why:

If you have a 14 Con at first level, you are normally getting +2 HPs.

If you add your Con score instead of the Con modifier, you're getting +14 HPs.

If you add your Con score and your Con modifier, you are double-dipping your Con and getting +16 HPs.

(Reply to #6)

Xeviat-DM

MechaPilot wrote:

intently

May 18, 2015 13:11:37

Xeviat-DM wrote:

Tempest_Stormwind

May 18, 2015 14:10:23

What about a slight compromise: "your normal maximum hit points cannot be lower than your Constitution score." (Effects like Harm can change max HP, but tis refers to normal maximum.) Bigger impact on mages (the squishier characters always feel the swing the most) while still allowing meat shields to have more HP, without seriously shifting the overall curve that much. I heard this idea pitched on the weekend but won't have a chance to evaluate it as thoroughly as you until quite a bit later.

#10

reddaemon

May 19, 2015 11:43:52

Tempest_Stormwind wrote:

#11

MechaPilot

May 21, 2015 12:02:56

Tempest_Stormwind wrote:

#12

Tempest_Stormwind

May 21, 2015 12:24:20

Re: Your normal maximum HP can't be lower than your Constitution score:

reddaemon wrote:

#13

Xeviat-DM

May 22, 2015 1:02:49

The monster CR tables are really strange; AC is significantly lower than what the PCs will look like, and HP is way higher than what PCs will look like. Maybe that's a forumula for fun, as players will hit more and be hit less, but I don't like the swingyness of high damage monsters and low hp players.

#14

Noon

May 22, 2015 2:52:15

I don't know how someone can say they like playing low level, but then give the players higher level abilities. Apart from 'Level: 1' on their sheets, it's not level 1 play you're enjoying.

(Reply to #14)

Macv12

Noon wrote:

#16

Xeviat-DM

May 22, 2015 3:57:48

Um, HP isn't really a "higher level ability". Do you "use" your hp? It's just a number. It's not like you have more spell slots, more class abilities, or more objective effect on the world. I like starting at low level, especially with new players, because the characters are starting off small. Save the village from kobolds, hunt a bear, rescue the mayor, not save the world, slay a dragon, or venture to the underworld to bring back someone's soul.

What I don't like about current 1st and 2nd level is that players can easily go down in a single hit from something that didn't see like a threat. In the very first post playtest game I ran, the party's cleric dropped in round 1 of combat, before he could even act, because he was hit by two goblin arrows. It wasn't fun for him. It wasn't fun for me. It wasn't fun for the rest of the table. Thus, more hp (and possibly more attack bonus for the monsters to even out the curve).

I'm not talking about giving 1st level characters 9th level spells; I'm talking about a dozen or so hp.

#17

Noon

May 22, 2015 17:55:01

If you don't use HP, then you don't need to increase it

"But they, uh, do use it when they decide to go into battle"

So they do use HP.

Of course you have more objective effect on the world when you haven't gone unconcious or died as early as you would have with no increase. If you're still swinging your sword and slaying people because you have more HP than you would have, HP let you have more of an objective effect. Otherwise why increase it if it has no objective effect?

What I don't like about current 1st and 2nd level is that players can easily go down in a single hit from something that didn't see like a threat. In the very first post playtest game I ran, the party's cleric dropped in round 1 of combat, before he could even act, because he was hit by two goblin arrows. It wasn't fun for him. It wasn't fun for me. It wasn't fun for the rest of the table. Thus, more hp (and possibly more attack bonus for the monsters to even out the curve).

(Reply to #17)

Macv12

Noon wrote:

(Reply to #17)

Macv12

EDIT: it didn't need to be said twice.

#20

Xeviat-DM

May 22, 2015 18:45:43

Noon, I'm not sure if you're being genuine or if you're trying to rile me up, so I'll try to ignore any connotations to your words.

Starting HP for a 1st level character falls in the 6 (wizard, 10 con) to 14 window (barbarian, 14 con). Damage per round from a CR 1 creature also falls into a window of 9 to 14. My group dislikes that characters can go down in one normal hit with an average die roll; I'd venture to guess that they'd be fine (if not still disappointed) if they went down in one crit. As it stands now, at first level, with typical damages, a crit can kill a first level character. I understand that this is realistic (as attacking a paralyzed or unconscious opponent is a crit if performed within 5 feet, I'd say such an attack is rather comparable to an executioner's strike, and thus should probably kill), which is why I don't fault the designers for having that be the established baseline.

We're looking at adding HP to 1st level specifically because we don't want to play with 3rd level abiltiies right away. Rather than take personal offense and be boarderline insulting with your posts, if you object to the house rule so much then why not show why you think it would be bad for the game? Is it going to make spellcasters weaker than non-casters, as fights will take longer? Is it going to make fights too easy? What about the proposed adding of an attack bonus to the monsters; this way they hit more often, but their hits are a lower percentage of player HP, and combat duration remains the same?

#21

Noon

May 24, 2015 2:57:10

Macv12 wrote:

#22

Noon

May 24, 2015 2:24:49

Xeviat-DM wrote:

#23

Xeviat-DM

May 24, 2015 11:20:29

We seem to disagree on HP being a "high level ability". Fundamental to the discussion, really.