I understand and appreciate 5E's goal of slowly introducing class complexity and character options. It makes sense for new players (and many old ones, too). It also gives low level characters an "old school" feel, which I know many players want. However, for my taste, low level characters are simply too fragile.
For those, like me, who want more robust characters, the advice has been to start characters at 2nd or even 3rd level. That's a perfectly workable suggestion. However, it results in characters that are somewhat more complex than 1st level characters.
I'd like to find a way to keep characters simple for new players, but give characters enough hit points that they can't be dropped in one hit (which can be really discouraging for new players).
My idea is to have backgrounds grant an additional hit die. Probably a d4. This would result in all characters getting 1d4+CON modifier hit points in addition to their class hit points. On a practical basis, I would just grant characters the 4 hp, so most would end up with 4 to 7 additional hp. This is a small bump that would have a negligible impact at higher levels but would make a big difference at 1st and 2nd level. Mechanically, this explicitly reinforces the implicit story idea that backgrounds are essentially a "level 0" and that adventurers are made of sterner stuff than common folk.
Not sure if anyone else has suggested this before. If so, apologies for the duplication. If not...thoughts?
I thought background ought to modify the class hit die.
So a soldier might be a step up for instance.
Or or have the background determine the character's hit die and have the class add to it. Sages get a d4/lvl. Soldiers get a d8/lvl. Wizard class adds +1 hp per level. Fighter adds +3 HP/level.
Etc.
As long as the backgrounds all have essentially the same boost, I'd say go for it. It's basically the same as just +4 HP but that "hook" makes lots of sense to me when described the way you have. An issue might come in when someone asks why a Hermit or Acolyte has the same +4 HP bonus as the Soldier background, but that is very group dependent.
I want to discourage min/maxing in background selection, which is why I stuck to the same HD for all backgrounds. I want background selection to emphasize character concept and roleplaying.
Why not a simple houserule: "Use the hp for the next level up in the book". So a 1st-level fighter, for example, would start with 10+1d10 or 16hp.
bawylie wrote:
Bold Italic, nothing wrong with that approach. Gets us to the same place, basically. But I kind of like the idea of attaching HP to backgrounds, for reasons I can't quite explain.
THEMNGMNT wrote:
THEMNGMNT wrote:
That's another simple solve. Probably the best solve in the long run. But, I dunno, I kind of like squeezing a few HP out of backgrounds for the reasons noted above.
I want a return to something similar I saw in the early playtest...
Class, Background, and Race all combine to give you your starting ability score bumps. I really liked the class stat bump, and a 3rd stat bump from background would be awesome, and make some sense.
(ie: elf is +1 to dex or int or wis, depending on subrace; wizard is +1 int; and a 'scholar' background would be +1 int.)
I'll probably do a 'start with double HP' thing (20+ con mod for fighter instead of 10+con mod), then advance as normal. I don't know yet, though. Still waiting until November, lol. I really don't want to play starter set pregens or DM the starter set adventure. I want to dive right into my campaign world as that's what my group wants, and is used to.
My personal opinion is that starting characters with 2HD is a good idea. It mitigates against level 1 instant death and does not affect high level play. It also plays into the notion that the average adult should havd 2HD, which is reflected in humanoid racial stats now. Adjusting that extra HD based on background is not something I had considered. On the one hand the backgrounds seem reasonably well-balanced and this could introduce imbalance but on the other hand it's just a couple of hp at most so why not?
Default HD for medium humanoids is d8 so start with that as your base with maybe d6 for less physical backgrounds. If you want to make small folk 'racial hit dice' to resemble monsters too then you go with d6 and d4 respectively. 2HD from your class (one maxed and one rolled) works just as well though IMO.
It works sensibly though so human children might start with 1d6-1hp, while a halfling adult would have 2d6, and an elderly human would have 2d8-2. No longer would a PC human wizard sage be as feeble as a child.
Why is character death such a bad things? this almost seems like a "trophy for all participants" sort of thing. I am not endorsing TPKs all day everyday but the occasional unplanned, random, bad luck/rolls character death may actually help the setting and the game. the PCs should be worried about death when they invade the lair of a ogre or what have you.
All of the additional HD/HP are just removing risk from the game or at best reducing risk to near meaningless.
As I said in my original post, it's a matter of personal taste. If hit points in the rules as written are to your satisfaction, then you're all good. 
Me, I want just a little bit more.
Yes our group has different players with different tastes. One player enjoys trying different things - he's a risk taker who just rolls up a new character without shedding a tear. Others are a lot more invested. At least a few more hp gives more flexibility so those invested are not forced to view their characters as disposable. Risk takers can lose an extra HD worth of hp in a blink.
Cennedi wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
I liked the option, from an early playtest, to start at (CON score + HD max) hit points. That would get everyone a bit more HP than adding (d4 + CON mod) would.
I honestly feel that HP at low levels is too low, but it balloons out of control too quickly.
I would like level 1* HP to be Con score + rolled HD (not maxed). Then each additional level you roll your HD and add that to your HP (but you don't add your Con bonus). Make Death saves based on Constitution to give Con another benefit.
*Level 0 HP would be your Con score as all additional HP comes from your class!
THEMNGMNT wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Risking one's life is only one very limited form of risk in the game. Thus, reducing the chances of death doesn't "remove risk from the game." That's ridiculous thinking. Failure can be many things, often worse than death, when you apply a little imagination.
As well, increasing hit points or having the ability to bring characters back from the dead (revivify, raise dead, etc.) is just a solution for iteration time, that is, the amount of time it takes a player to get back into the game after a character dies. Increased hit points is just a proactive way of dealing with it.
Isn't the potential for death possibly higher as you level? What I mean by this is at 1st level you fight low level monsters, encounter low level traps etc. As you progress in level the monsters progress, the trap damages progress...but your HP's may not progress equally. if you choose say for the cleric, not to take the default 5 HP +/- Con and actually roll the D8 and you roll a 1 or 2, you are now worse off than the 1st level character. Yet the adventure that your GM is running scales for a 2nd level group thus your 2nd level 9 HP cleric is at more risk than he was at 1st level with 8 HP. I think all levels are just as dangerous as 1st level if the game is run correctly. (SEE METEOR SWARM)
The OP comment about giving characters enough HP so that they can't be dropped with one hit will be an issue no matter what level they are.
Especially with Crits...
What I do is take a note from 4e.
First level is Hit die + Con score. Quick and simple.
So a fighter with a 16 Con has 26 hp at 1st level. The rest of the levels are as per normal.
Personally, I think modifying hit points at first level is one of the key dials for crafting the style of game you want.
What I would do is pick a static number that all characters get at first level, and then have them roll for the rest of their first level hit points as if they had gained a level.
For example, a fighter might start with 5 + 1d10 + Constitution Modifier.
Then you just adjust the static number to taste.
seti wrote:
EMR wrote:
gaminggirl wrote:
seti wrote:
That's my feelings about backgrounds, too.
AngryMob wrote:
seti wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
seti wrote:
EMR wrote:
seti wrote:
See. I knew other people would be talking about this other than me.
Some of the monsters in the Starter Set do so much damage that they have been 1 shoting characters with full hit points. ..and it is ruining the gaming experience.
Solutions that don't work for some. Start at 3rd level. NO! 3rd level is a more complex character build and play for inexperienced players.
Fudge the rolls. NO! That makes players feel bad because everybody is cheating to try to stay alive though they are playing intelligently.
Play monsters unintelligently. Have 1 monster attack 1 party member. And when the party member is about to die, have the monster attack a stronger party member. NO!
Have monsters do average damage. Yes. In low level Pathfinder games, this has worked well. A monster does not do 1d8+critical. The monster does 5+5 damage. And that will still drop a character with 7 or 8 hit points.
Draw from your 1st edition experiences. This is what we did for 1st edition deadly adventures. Each player roleplays 3 NPCs. 1 player has a Rod of Raise Dead with 10 charges. There are no restrictions on Raise Dead. A character dies, at the end of the encounter, they are raised without any penalties. Adventures are deadly at higher levels. The Raise Dead spell has no penalties. I would add this. Raise Dead is cast and the character goes to 0 hit points and does a round of death saves. If they fail, they will never come back. The player must then roll up a new character. Every character starts an encounter with full hit points. This part of the game is worth fudging.