How do you feel about gaining HP with level?

[Lalliman]

I'm in the process of making a homebrew system, and I'd like some input on the following: How does everyone feel about the concept of gaining HP as you level up?

This mechanic is ubiquitous in D&D, of course. When you go level up, you gain an amount of HP based on your class and your Con score. This serves as a reliable way to escalate the power level of the characters as they advance. For this purpose, it works admirably.

But the weird thing about it is that it doesn't represent anything tangible. I guess it's implied to represent some sort of general fighting proficiency; the ability to turn hits into glancing blows and to bite through minor injuries without weakening. But that doesn't always add up, because characters gain this level-based HP regardless of whether it makes sense for their class to become more durable / better at fighting as they advance.

Let's look at the wizard. They get little to no improvement to their martial abilities as they level. They never get any new weapon or armour proficiencies beyond the rudimentary ones they start with. The 5e version never gets Extra Attack, or proficiency in any physical saves. The 3.5 version gets some increases to BAB, Fortitude and Reflex, but that increase is far less significant than the HP increases they get. So if it doesn't correlate to any of those things, what is HP?

Some ad hoc explanations can be given, of course. Maybe the wizard is using a subtle and passive form of magic to protect himself. Or maybe HP represents the character's fate, being quite literally plot armour.

But explanations aren't really what I'm after. What I want to know: How do you feel about this mechanic existing, inside or outside D&D? Do you see it as a logical part of becoming more powerful, as a necessary weasel, as a stupid contrivance? I frankly can't make up my mind about it.

[JNAProductions]

Fighting Spirit is my attempt at making HP more sensible.

[Esprit15]

I like 3.5's method of getting a little bit better at everything an adventurer would be doing (fighting, not dying, shrugging off dangerous effect), though in different amounts based on what their role they are working on. A wizard who multiclasses to fighter has forgone his mental training to learn how to handle being in the thick of things and properly wield that sword he found.

That said, that works for high fantasy, where there are very few limits on what people can do if they push themselves. What kind of tone do you want for your system? Do you want combat to be deadly and rare, or common and more drawn out?

[Potatomade]

I like it. It's also necessary, at least in D&D, because without it, at 20th level a wizard going around with 4 HP would kill himself immediately if caught in the blast of his own spells. I do like to think of it as plot armor: if a character lives long enough to level up, he's lived long enough to become more significant to the story, and thus shouldn't be able to die as readily. Not to mention, if you've played with a character for a long time, you should have a buffer to keep you from dying to a normal string of bad luck, and HP suits that purpose pretty well.

I guess if it was supposed to be more realistic, HP increase should be entirely dependent on class. And I'm not talking about "bigger die for martial classes," I mean "only martial classes roll for HP, period." Call it "conditioning improved through experience," or whatever. That would go pretty far toward balancing the martial v. caster disparity, and give sane casters a reason to dip into martial stuff now and again, even if it's just for durability. But that's not really a fix, and strict realism isn't as important as a lot of people think when it comes to tabletop RPGs. Just don't call attention to it, I say.

[Knaight]

It's a design decision that works for certain games and would actively detract from others. In general though I'd argue that actual implementations of this mechanic tend to be sloppy and cause weird inconsistencies at a level much higher than is typical for a wound system, at least in tabletop games (videogames can usually get away with it, although a lot of that is that they're held to much lower standards in terms of world simulation).

I like it. It's also necessary, at least in D&D, because without it, at 20th level a wizard going around with 4 HP would kill himself immediately if caught in the blast of his own spells.

This assumes that the spell scaling would work the same way if the HP scaling didn't, which isn't a safe assumption. On top of that the absence of increasing HP doesn't imply the absence of increasing defenses.

[exelsisxax]

I think that increasing HP and similar statistics fundamental to the game (i.e. BAB, saves, uses/day) are good. You'd fully expect veteran adventurers to have real advantages in those areas through skill and training.

I do NOT think that any of the rates of gain are as they should be. You can't be 20x (before con increases) as resistant to dying from stab wounds or make 5x as many attacks in the same interval at the end of your adventures compared to the start. That's not how real life works, so that's not how games should work.

[Potatomade]

This assumes that the spell scaling would work the same way if the HP scaling didn't, which isn't a safe assumption. On top of that the absence of increasing HP doesn't imply the absence of increasing defenses.

Yeah, but I was referring specifically to D&D. And increasing defenses doesn't really mean much if you're still turned to goo instantly once they're breached, y'know? If the system allowed for crits or other guaranteed hits, I'd be pretty salty if my character were that much of a glass cannon.

If we're talking about some unspecified game system, if you're doing away with hp-by-level, you might as well go ahead and do away with non-skill levels entirely, and make HP an attribute that can be raised in some other manner. Cardio, anyone?

[JeenLeen]

I agree with others that it can work for some systems, but I personally prefer the health levels used in games like World of Darkness, Exalted, etc.

I'm not really a fan of wound penalties, since it's annoying to track and receive, though I admit they make sense. In a nice homebrew system our usual DM made, there are 4 stats (ranked 1-5 for mortals), one of them is Stamina, and you have 3xStamina health levels. I think the wound penalties were -2 when you have 1 health level left, -1 when two left--so a lot less penalty and less likely to happen than the multiple levels in Exalted, for example.

But of course how attacks work and the degree to which (if at all) damage scales should be based on the mechanic. I think new World of Darkness does it well in a mechanically-simple design.

Riddle of Steel has a wound system -- as in, no HP, but you accumulate wounds which give penalties and eventually lead to death. A solid blow can debilitate or kill in one hit. But that's the given for the system. You might enjoy reading it for a different feeling of health, but I don't recommend using something so mechanically clunky. (I like the system, but I'd hate to do the rolling and chart reference during a game. If I ever played it in real life (not play-by-post), I'd write a computer program to do the calculations for me.)

[BWR]

I think that increasing HP and similar statistics fundamental to the game (i.e. BAB, saves, uses/day) are good. You'd fully expect veteran adventurers to have real advantages in those areas through skill and training.

I do NOT think that any of the rates of gain are as they should be. You can't be 20x (before con increases) as resistant to dying from stab wounds or make 5x as many attacks in the same interval at the end of your adventures compared to the start. That's not how real life works, so that's not how games should work.

There are no dragons, superheroes, magic, FTL drives, lightsabers etc. in real life either, so games shouldn't have them.

More seriously, you are grossly missing the point. HP, AC, attacks/ round etc. are an abstraction. In the case of HP, they are not meant to literally mean you can stick a knife in your eye a dozen or so times and be fine until you suddenly fall over. Attacks per round do not mean you are physically incapable of making more than x swings in y seconds (even more fun in pre 3.x editions of D&D where that sort of thinking meant you would make one attack a minute most of your career).

[Tinkerer]

How do I feel about it? I feel conflicted. So there are three basic schools of thought that I'm well acquainted with. Standard HP such as D&D where you get the ability to endure more. Increasing toughness such as WoD where you have a reduced chance of sustaining damage. And creative control which is more like a meta-currency in the game in a number of indie RPGs. And I... don't like any of them. Taking damage is one of the hardest things to accept about RPGs because it generally makes no sense.

For HP I know that wounds are intended to be grazing hits for the most part but you can easily run into situations where you know that the sword went clear through the guys kidneys. I remember recently someone was mentioning that they wanted the king(?) stabbed to death with a dagger at an important ceremony and they were lamenting just how long it takes to kill a non-helpless person with a dagger. Or other times (in some editions) you wind up with fighters swimming in lava. So I don't really like HP and indeed I think it might be the worst of the three, but I do use it from time to time.

For the toughness mechanic it all depends on how well it's executed. You normally want something like exploding dice so that everyone can feel as though they can contribute but that can lead to some weird results as well. Like a 12 year old kid throwing a spoon through a hell hounds head from 20 paces... that was one hell of a roll (a 14 on 1d4-3). The frustrating part is when your attacks do absolutely nothing even when they should be doing something at the very least, like shooting a normal human point blank with the gun literally against their skin and the shot hits but they aren't hurt. So I don't really like toughness mechanics.

With the meta-currency approach the question often comes down to "do you want to do something cool or do you want to live?". Obviously I want to do both! That's really the biggest complaint I have about them, it turns everyone essentially into "Cast from HP" type characters and that's fine but it shouldn't be on everyone's minds all the time. So I don't really like basing health off of meta-currency.

So which is the best? It all depends on the feel that you are going for. When I make some form of home-brew system I often use all 3 with toughness as the primary mechanic with a rarely increasing HP/Wound system (similar to a standard wound system but you will occasionally get another wound box on top which doesn't give penalties). Then I add some form of wound soaking in the meta-currency.

[Aneurin]

Personally, I prefer not gaining HP with level because it feels weird. On the other hand, I haven't played levelled systems in a long time.

But more than preference, how you handle your HP/Wounds/Stress/Whatever in your system is going to vary depending on how your system actually works.


Having low Wounds, at least compared to damage values, works best if very few hits will actually connect. This can due to low hit chances, or active defences such as parrying or dodging (which are probably an extremely good idea to include) or both. It emphasizes tactical play, and staying the hell in cover, as well as stacking the odds in your favour, because with a bit of bad luck the PCs will go down hard. Does not work well with random or 'filler' encounters, since every fight is potentially lethal.

Having high Wounds, at least compared to damage values, works best if you want your fairly heroic the-PCs-succeed-lots set up. It makes the individual hits a lot less significant, but the PCs get to pass lots of rolls and - hopefully - the players will feel awesome. It also abstracts a lot of things, and doesn't really work for gritty games since everyone can take multiple swords to the gut without blinking. Plus it's pretty much impossible to cut a sentry's throat or something going strictly RAW.

You could also go the FATE route with something more narrative, and make it so that while getting hurt is easy, getting killed is hard - and getting hurt offers an advantage to the PCs' opponents, rather than being the end of the world - or really hampering the PC's ability to contribute. The players ultimately have the ability to 'concede' rather than fight to the bitter end, thereby taking fewer consequences.


There are undoubtedly more approaches, mind, but these are the ones I'm most familiar with.

[Lalliman]

Thanks for the responses so far! Every bit of insight helps. I guess I'll give a bit of explanation now.

My system isn't really level-based, it's more of a point-buy system of stats and perks. HP is based on a base number plus a bonus from your Strength score. The power curve is pretty grounded: a high-Strength character will have considerably more HP than a low-Strength one, but you'll never have a ton of HP just for being a high-level character. I like it that way because it feels... verisimilistic.

What I don't like is that I'm left with a system in which, if the rules are applied consistently, all NPCs have HP values equivalent to those of PCs. And PCs are made to be able to take at least one hit even with low Strength. Ergo, even the weak fodder enemies end up taking two hits to kill, in a system with generally only one attack per round. This doesn't feel right in a heroic adventure game. My current fix for this is arbitrarily lowering the base HP of weak enemies, but I'm considering other solutions.

I recently implemented a pseudo-levelling system, which really just serves as an easy way of tiering the power level of characters with various point values. So my thought was that adding some minor HP bonuses based on level might solve my problem, making it so that mid-level characters have a decent amount of durability even with low Strength, while low-level characters (fodder enemies) are more likely to be defeated in one hit.

Fighting Spirit is my attempt at making HP more sensible.

I've seen that one before and it seems great, but it doesn't port well to my system, since either way the numbers aren't as inflated as they are in D&D. You do have me wondering if maybe the simple act of renaming HP to Fighting Spirit will dampen some of my qualms with the scaling HP system. Something to consider.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm in the 'prefers hp not to increase per level', but I also like games that use it not to include 'first aid restores hp'. In my mind you get one or the other.

Or to explain, if hp only increases with Attributes I'll except hp is wounds. If it increases with levels I'll assume it's plot armour.

[JNAProductions]

I've seen that one before and it seems great, but it doesn't port well to my system, since either way the numbers aren't as inflated as they are in D&D. You do have me wondering if maybe the simple act of renaming HP to Fighting Spirit will dampen some of my qualms with the scaling HP system. Something to consider.

Thanks for the compliment! I obviously didn't expect the system to work, lock stock and barrel, in your system, but I figured it might give some useful insights.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm in the process of making a homebrew system, and I'd like some input on the following: How does everyone feel about the concept of gaining HP as you level up?

This mechanic is ubiquitous in D&D, of course. When you go level up, you gain an amount of HP based on your class and your Con score. This serves as a reliable way to escalate the power level of the characters as they advance. For this purpose, it works admirably.

But the weird thing about it is that it doesn't represent anything tangible. I guess it's implied to represent some sort of general fighting proficiency; the ability to turn hits into glancing blows and to bite through minor injuries without weakening. But that doesn't always add up, because characters gain this level-based HP regardless of whether it makes sense for their class to become more durable / better at fighting as they advance.

Let's look at the wizard. They get little to no improvement to their martial abilities as they level. They never get any new weapon or armour proficiencies beyond the rudimentary ones they start with. The 5e version never gets Extra Attack, or proficiency in any physical saves. The 3.5 version gets some increases to BAB, Fortitude and Reflex, but that increase is far less significant than the HP increases they get. So if it doesn't correlate to any of those things, what is HP?

Some ad hoc explanations can be given, of course. Maybe the wizard is using a subtle and passive form of magic to protect himself. Or maybe HP represents the character's fate, being quite literally plot armour.

But explanations aren't really what I'm after. What I want to know: How do you feel about this mechanic existing, inside or outside D&D? Do you see it as a logical part of becoming more powerful, as a necessary weasel, as a stupid contrivance? I frankly can't make up my mind about it.

I don't like levels as a game mechanic in general.

Level-scaling hit points are a terrible mechanic with zero redeeming aspects. They're a kludgey contrivance. As you point out, they conflate multiple aspects of combat, that are usually represented elsewhere in the system at the same time, making for a muddled, opaque mess.

[Frozen_Feet]

Depends on the rest of the system.

If HP increases while damage stays roughly the same, fights at higher levels take longer, or the characters can partake in more fights, or obstacles and failure are less of a trouble.

If HP and damage both increase, you get a weird effect where effectiveness towards equal level opponents does not improve, but lower level obstacles and enemies become less and less of a threat.

If damage increases faster, combat against equal level opponents becomes increasingly fast-paced and offense-orientated, strongly favoring first strikes and being higher level than your opponent.

I personally use mostly OSR rules, where Hit Point gain is quick early on and slows down around 10th level. Weapon damage stays pretty much the same throughout. Spells are iffy, I've mostly avoided using spells in my games which radically outpace weapon damage.

I'm currently devising a system where Hit Points mostly measure exhaustion, and real trouble is wounds/critical hits which get through your active defenses. One planned feature of the system is that armor is very powerful - a fully armored character is more likely to be downed by exhaustion than direct injury.

[Gnoman]

I'm currently devising a system where Hit Points mostly measure exhaustion, and real trouble is wounds/critical hits which get through your active defenses. One planned feature of the system is that armor is very powerful - a fully armored character is more likely to be downed by exhaustion than direct injury.

Isn't that basically just the Vitality/Wound system?

[Frozen_Feet]

Nope.

For one, I don't plan for the wounds/critical hits to be measured by points.

[Morty]

I think it's one of the main contributing factors to D&D's completely unbalanced power curve. Plus all the various problems you brought up. It's impossible to make someone in D&D get better at something without also increasing their passive ability not to die, precisely because of how HP work.

[FreddyNoNose]

Love it. Gain HP is part of dnd. Other games have other systems, but for dnd HP gain is fantastic.

[Slipperychicken]

I prefer the locational wound-box systems characteristic of One Roll Engine games like Wild Talents and Monsters and Other Childish Things. In those games the damage feels more 'real' to me, as if something meaningful happened in the lore instead of some intangible slider being moved up or down. Also, knowing what sort of damage you took, and where and how a character's body took it, is very helpful for a variety of reasons.

[Floopay]

The concept is simple actually.

A low level character gets stabbed in the arm, takes 10 points of damage, and is knocked unconscious and bleeding; because they fall below 0 hit points. A high level character gets stabbed in the arm, takes 10 points of damage, and is still up and functioning.

The mechanics of this can be explained by 1 person having more experience functions while hurt, whereas the other is new to the experience. You start the game off as a nameless henchman in a movie, or comic book. Anyone hits you hard enough in the face, and you get knocked out. As you move on, you start becoming more like Frank Castle. Someone breaks your arm, nose, leg, or whatever; you're still getting hurt, but experience and training has allowed you to take the hit and keep going.

And this isn't exactly untrue in real life. I've seen people faint over a cut finger, and others drive themselves to the hospital after cutting a finger off. So I think the concept of the "Hit point" isn't that you are more immortal, it's just that you can handle more hits, and are far better at mitigating the hit, or just dealing with the damage.

Thanks for reading,
Floopay

[wumpus]

The concept is simple actually.

A low level character gets stabbed in the arm, takes 10 points of damage, and is knocked unconscious and bleeding; because they fall below 0 hit points. A high level character gets stabbed in the arm, takes 10 points of damage, and is still up and functioning.

This is repeated any number of places, and in AD&D 1e (where Gygax justifies it) he claims that all but the last hp for mighty warriors aren't real injuries, just their defenses being slowly worn down.

The biggest issue is falling damage, and anything similar that doesn't care how good you are, it will hurt you mostly equally (Judo skill might help).
The other issue is healing. A 10hp heal spell heals everyone 10hp. Presumably that means 10hp of cut/smashed/burnt flesh.

It is simply required to match the source material. How else could Beowulf manage to slay the dragon (even if he had the diehard feat that let him fight to -30hp or whatever). It should be telling this idea seeps into people's psyche and warps their perception of real life: they claim that a guy with one level of Marine isn't enough to kill a umpty-ump level aristocrat like Kennedy, even with a rifle. No, real people only have 1d4 hit points and even top athletes can't take a rifle bullet to the head.

[Thrudd]

I think it's a tool that works for a certain type of game. I prefer D&D-style HP progression for a D&D style game, and I prefer other things for other kinds of games.

It depends on how you intend the game to work. Becoming increasingly more resilient with something like HP is a feature of a game where you intend for there to be a distinct progression of challenges. Where you intend for players to learn how to play the game at low levels with small numbers and easy mechanics, then build the complexity and difficulty as the players get better at the game (that's what D&D is). It is a popular mechanic because it is so simple and straightforward, very abstract rather than being especially accurate-to-life. It implies a game with distinct jumps in power that brings characters from nobody up to epic hero fairly easily.

Games without HP increases tend to remain at a set power level for a longer time, or at least are designed to do so, unlike D&D. You start as heroes, or as average folk, and though gaining XP may let you increase your abilities over time, usually it is in small increments and you don't see a huge change from beginning to end. These sorts of games also don't usually have levels, but progress piecemeal by spending points on skills and abilities.

One is not better than the other, necessarily. One (D&D) very much emphasizes the "game" of RPG. This is the root of all video game RPGs. Others made an effort to do a better job of verisimilitude for their respective settings and to fit whatever type of narrative it is designed for.

[Nifft]

I like when level gives you an increase, but a smaller increase than what 3.5e / 5e tend to give out.

As a concrete example, I liked what 4e did regarding HP: you start out as a badass at level 1 with 20 to 30 HP or so, and then you advance in small chunks (+2 to +4 or so). You don't multiply your Con bonus by your HD.

It reminded me of 1e after "name level", which was often around level 10, where you are DONE getting HD and you just get a +1 (magic-user) to +4 (barbarian) per additional level.

[FreddyNoNose]

I like when level gives you an increase, but a smaller increase than what 3.5e / 5e tend to give out.

As a concrete example, I liked what 4e did regarding HP: you start out as a badass at level 1 with 20 to 30 HP or so, and then you advance in small chunks (+2 to +4 or so). You don't multiply your Con bonus by your HD.

It reminded me of 1e after "name level", which was often around level 10, where you are DONE getting HD and you just get a +1 (magic-user) to +4 (barbarian) per additional level.

Or you could do like Dave Hargrave did in Arduin Alternative HP system, you start out with HP and gain very slowly.
Fighters/Rogues gain 1 HP per level increase. Cleric/Druids gain 1 HP per 2 levels. Mage types and courtesans gain 1 HP per 3 levels.

Base Racial HP
Human Female: 15
Human Male: 14
Dwarf Female: 18
Dwarf Male: 19
Elf Female: 20
Elf Male: 21

Constitution: 1 HP per point of constitution. For every point of constitution over 12, gain another hp. 12 con = 12 hp, 18 con = 24 HP

Fighter types get +5 bonus to starting hp. Cleric types get + 3. Mage types get 0. Elves and split types get 3.

So a 1st level male dwarf fight with 18 constitution would get:
Dwarf Male 19 HP
Constitution 24 HP
Fighter 5 HP
Total starting HP = 48
Suppose he levels to level 11, his HP would be 58.
At level 21, his HP would be 68.

[Nifft]

Or you could do like Dave Hargrave did in Arduin Alternative HP system, you start out with HP and gain very slowly.
Fighters/Rogues gain 1 HP per level increase. Cleric/Druids gain 1 HP per 2 levels. Mage types and courtesans gain 1 HP per 3 levels.

Base Racial HP
Human Female: 15
Human Male: 14
Dwarf Female: 18
Dwarf Male: 19
Elf Female: 20
Elf Male: 21

Constitution: 1 HP per point of constitution. For every point of constitution over 12, gain another hp. 12 con = 12 hp, 18 con = 24 HP

Fighter types get +5 bonus to starting hp. Cleric types get + 3. Mage types get 0. Elves and split types get 3.

So a 1st level male dwarf fight with 18 constitution would get:
Dwarf Male 19 HP
Constitution 24 HP
Fighter 5 HP
Total starting HP = 48
Suppose he levels to level 11, his HP would be 58.
At level 21, his HP would be 68.

Nice.

I've been a proponent of racial HP since back in 2003: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthr...=1#post1059183

It's great to see someone else using a similar system.


I still like a lot of what 4e did better, though.

For example, Con score to HP. Not modifier, not multiplied, just flat-out Con score. If you have 8 Con, you have 10 fewer HP than a character with 18 Con.

Con modifier is used for HP recovery -- in 5e terms, it would determine how much you heal during a short rest, instead of having HD which you spend.


If I were re-doing my system, which I might do for 5e, it would steal some of those clever parts from 4e.

[FreddyNoNose]

Nice.

I've been a proponent of racial HP since back in 2003: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthr...=1#post1059183

It's great to see someone else using a similar system.


I still like a lot of what 4e did better, though.

For example, Con score to HP. Not modifier, not multiplied, just flat-out Con score. If you have 8 Con, you have 10 fewer HP than a character with 18 Con.

Con modifier is used for HP recovery -- in 5e terms, it would determine how much you heal during a short rest, instead of having HD which you spend.


If I were re-doing my system, which I might do for 5e, it would steal some of those clever parts from 4e.

Great.

Dave Hargrave was ahead of his time. Considering his alternative HP system was from 1978, you can see it. Some other things that were notable. Damage from a fireball, is divided up by the number of mobs in the AOE. So 36 HP fireball hitting 10 orcs, would do 3.6 damage to each before savings throws are considered.

[Nifft]

Great.

Dave Hargrave was ahead of his time. Considering his alternative HP system was from 1978, you can see it. Some other things that were notable. Damage from a fireball, is divided up by the number of mobs in the AOE. So 36 HP fireball hitting 10 orcs, would do 3.6 damage to each before savings throws are considered.

Huh, cool.

Wonder why I've never heard of it before.

Gotta say I don't like that AoE rule on initial reading -- it seems to invert the value of tactical positioning.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, I can understand a correlation between Size and AoE damage (a Small target has less space to roast than a Huge one) but not number of targets.