D&D 2E 2e hit points less is more

[GMforPowergamers]

lets just give everyone avrage hp, but assume that only the fighter has a con bonus (not unreasnoble back int he 80's and 90's)

wizard lv1 2hp lv 3 6hp lv 5 10hp lv9 18hp

theif lv1 3hp lv 3 9hp lv 5 15hp lv9 27hp

fighter lv1 6hp lv 3 18hp lv 5 30hp lv9 54hp


there was a fairly wide spread optional rule in 2e that became int he rivised standard rules (max 1st level hp

wizard lv1 4 hp lv 3 8 hp lv 5 12 hp lv9 2o hp
theif lv1 6 hp lv 3 12 hp lv 5 18 hp lv9 30 hp
fighter lv1 11 hp lv 3 23 hp lv 5 35 hp lv9 59 hp


now remeber after 9hd you got a static +1, +2 or +3 hps no con mod. so expanding to level 20 looks like:

wizard lv9 18hp lv 15 24hp lv 20 29hp
theif lv9 27hp lv 15 39hp lv 20 49hp
fighter lv9 54hp lv 15 72hp lv 20 87 hp


(max 1st level hp)

wizard lv9 2o hp lv 15 26hp lv 20 31hp
theif lv9 30 hp lv 15 42hp lv 20 52hp
fighter lv9 59 hp lv 15 77hp lv 20 92hp

in 4e some pcs start with more hp at 1st level then an average 9th level of there class in 2e had. Now first let me say if I had to choose 1 way to be wrong it would be 4e... 10 out of 10 times... BUT

maybe there is something else here we are missing. a FIghter with a damn good and high con in 2e getting 100 hp was rare. in 3e even a rouge (or other d6 hit die) class could hit 100 in the high teens... heck if you start with a 15 con (+2) and got your hands on a +4 amulate of health and a +2 book, and put a single level up point in your con that would give you a 22 con (+6) so at level 16 you would have 86 hp just from CON...

in 4e
wizards:
Hit Points at 1st Level: 10+ Constitution Score.
Hit Points per Level Gained: 4

fighters:
Hit Points at 1st Level: 15+ Constitution Score.
Hit Points per Level Gained: 6

lets give the fighter a 16 con and the wizard a 10...

wiz lv1 20hp lv 3 28hp lv 5 36hp lv 9 52hp lv 15 77hp lv 20 97hp lv 30 138hp
figh lv1 31hp lv 3 43hp lv 5 55hp lv 9 79hp lv 15 110hp lv 20 140hp lv 30 200hp

even the wizard can top 100 hit points in 4e.

what would you think of front loading (like 4e) but smaller numbers (like 2e)?
Imagin the goal of 20th level PCs having
wizard 60 hp
fighter 90 hp

then work back, 2 hp per level after 1st would be 38hp, 4 hp per level would be 72... so if wizards got 2hp per level and fighters got 4 hp per level then I would want the wizard to start between 18 and 25 hp, and the fighter to star between 18 and 25 hp...

so how would it work well, I would want con rewarded still, so 8+ con and 12+ con sound good to me...


how would this hyperthetical 5e look?
wizards:
Hit Points at 1st Level: 8+ Constitution Score.
Hit Points per Level Gained: 2

fighters:
Hit Points at 1st Level: 12+ Constitution Score.
Hit Points per Level Gained: 4

lets give the fighter a 16 con and the wizard a 10...
wiz lv1 18 hp lv 3 22 hp lv 5 26 hp lv 9 34 hp
figh lv1 28 hp lv 3 36 hp lv 5 42 hp lv 9 58 hp

 

[foolish_mortals]

I might agree with this. 700 HP monsters take to long to whack down. 40-80 ones are doable in a reasonable amount of time.

foolish_mortals

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I might agree with this. 700 HP monsters take to long to whack down. 40-80 ones are doable in a reasonable amount of time.

foolish_mortals

there is a reason why if you go to any 4e board and say combat takes too long one of the suggestions will always be DOuble monster dmaage and half monster hp...

look at some soldiers:

Iron Circle Brigand
Medium natural humanoid, human
Level 1 Soldier
HP 28; Bloodied 14 AC 17, Fortitude 14, Reflex 13, Will 12
Mace (weapon) At-Will
Attack: Melee 1 (one creature); +6 vs. AC Hit: 1d8 + 3 damage.

would become:

Iron Circle Brigand
Medium natural humanoid, human
Level 1 Soldier
HP 14; Bloodied 7 AC 17, Fortitude 14, Reflex 13, Will 12
Mace (weapon) At-Will
Attack: Melee 1 (one creature); +6 vs. AC Hit: 2d8 + 6 damage.

and

Dythan's Legion Vanguard
Medium natural humanoid, dragonborn
Level 11 Soldier HP 111; Bloodied 55 AC 27, Fortitude 25, Reflex 21, Will 23

Longsword (weapon) At-Will Attack: Melee 1 (one creature); +16 vs. AC. The vanguard has a +2 bonus to hit while bloodied.Hit: 2d8 + 10 damage, and the target is marked until the end of the vanguard’s next turn.

would become

Dythan's Legion Vanguard
Medium natural humanoid, dragonborn
Level 11 Soldier HP 55; Bloodied 27 AC 27, Fortitude 25, Reflex 21, Will 23

Longsword (weapon) At-Will Attack: Melee 1 (one creature); +16 vs. AC. The vanguard has a +2 bonus to hit while bloodied.Hit: 4d8 + 20 damage, and the target is marked until the end of the vanguard’s next turn.

 

[Hassassin]

how would this hyperthetical 5e look?
wizards:
Hit Points at 1st Level: 8+ Constitution Score.
Hit Points per Level Gained: 2

fighters:
Hit Points at 1st Level: 12+ Constitution Score.
Hit Points per Level Gained: 4

lets give the fighter a 16 con and the wizard a 10...
wiz lv1 18 hp lv 3 22 hp lv 5 26 hp lv 9 34 hp
figh lv1 28 hp lv 3 36 hp lv 5 42 hp lv 9 58 hp

Looks pretty good. A couple of points:

Assuming you allow multiclassing, you might want to give fighter 10 + Con at 1st, so that Ftr1/Wiz1 = Wiz1/Ftr1.

In 3e and 4e I think both Wizards and Fighters usually put their second highest score in Con, so there won't actually be a difference there. Whether this needs fixing, I don't know.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I might agree with this. 700 HP monsters take to long to whack down. 40-80 ones are doable in a reasonable amount of time.

foolish_mortals

Interesting - Other than inflated 1st level hit points, I think 4E generally did well with hit points. If my level 9 party 4E party of 6 PCs ran up against a solo monster with 700 hit points, I think they'd have no trouble bringing it down in 5-6 rounds. With two strikers and 1.5 defenders (artificer/swordmage hybrid), they deal out huge amounts of damage while also having some resilience. At least with monsters having extra hit points, they can stick around to do more than burn 1 encounter/daily and die.

Back in 3.5E days, I would give a lot of monsters full hit points and up their CON bonus beyond what's in the Monster Manuals and they'd be in trouble in 1-2 rounds most of the time, unless it was the lich with 10 buffing spells on itself to start the combat.

In 2E days, monsters generally had fewer hit points than PCs, excepting wizards. 1st level PCs fought 1/2 hit die kobolds or 1-1 hit die goblins, and sometimes 1 hit die orcs. So, would almost never challenge PCs unless en masse. Most groups I know of in 2E days gave PCs max hit points at first level, though I know that was an optional rule.

And, in 1E, monsters generally had pathetic hit points - the all powerful ancient & huge red dragon had a maximum of 88 hit points, which could have been exceeded by five 1st level rangers in theory (rangers had 2d8 hit points at first level, plus CON bonuses)

 

[GameOgre]

I agree with this hit point tactic with the added idea of keeping monster roles. I want to kick player character roles to the curb because I don't want to tell my players how to play there characters ect...

I don't mind telling monsters how to act. Elites and solo monsters ect.. are a great invention in my book and need to move forward in some manner(experaments with just how tough ect they need to be needs to be done).

To be honest max hit points at first level is standard at every tablle I have ever played at. Also most characters seem to have been extremly lucky when rolling hit points as I have never encountered a fighter with low hit points or anyone else for that matter.

Just going ahead and making it part of the system works very well for me.


OH!- Edited to add that monsters need to have the same thing with the understanding that not every one will have that exact number.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

To be honest max hit points at first level is standard at every tablle I have ever played at. Also most characters seem to have been extremly lucky when rolling hit points as I have never encountered a fighter with low hit points or anyone else for that matter.

You are lucky...I played plenty of 2e games with roll 1st level hp...I even started a 1st level fighter with 1hp once, and way more often then I want to remember saw wizards with 2 hp.

I even played under a sadistic DM who ruled my friends elven wizard was still born becuse he rolled a 1 on his hp and had a -1 con...

 

[GameOgre]

You are lucky...I played plenty of 2e games with roll 1st level hp...I even started a 1st level fighter with 1hp once, and way more often then I want to remember saw wizards with 2 hp.

I even played under a sadistic DM who ruled my friends elven wizard was still born because he rolled a 1 on his hp and had a -1 con...

I think its a sad statement of my own messed up personality that i would love playing with that DM.

I find that playing with people who are extreme in one way or another is a fun experience! Now it might not be the best fit for a long term game but I think I'm emotionaly limber enough to handle that as well.

Stillborn characters,that just make me smile wide!

 

[Dragonblade]

To understand why 4e HPs are higher, you have to understand that the design goal of 4e is that a standard PC can survive at least 5 hits from a standard monster of their level before going down.

This is a design goal I agree with. Also having more HP makes it easier to add damage variability and granularity among weapons, spells, and attacks, instead of everything being the same.

Where 4e made a misstep was giving monsters (but not PCs) a bit too many HP which sometimes, but not always, contributed to grind. The reason that a common 4e house rule is to halve monster HP but double damage is because with half HP a monster who normally lives 6 rounds will now die in 3. So to keep them a viable threat, you double damage so that overall the amount of damage they can deal to the PCs in those 3 rounds is the same as the amount they would have done in 6.

But you can't just cut HPs for PCs too, because now PCs are dying in one or two rounds again or getting one shotted with a crit which is the original problem that 4e solved. If you drop HPs AND damage, you then you lose that granularity. You can't differentiate weapons or let PCs do more damage via some kind of stunt, power, maneuver, feat, or whatever without throwing the game out of whack. And besides, rolling lots of damage is fun.

So you really have to have 4e style HPs to make the game work. Having more HP gives you more room to breathe in the design space regarding damage without breaking the game.

 

[keterys]

The real problem in 4e is that the damage dealt by PCs varies so wildly, so while some groups are having slogs of over 6 rounds, others are wrapping things up in 1 or 2 rounds and thinking monsters need to be tougher. For those groups, the halve hp, double damage thing is actively harmful because it would make initiative king, so they'd focus on init, win init, and team monster would be dead before they could act.

How many hp PCs and monsters have has to be compared to the damage they do, and both really are about how many hits they can take.