Mid to late level HP bloat

[Kane0]

Some have expressed the view that after the 'meaty' levels of 5-11 HP progression outpaces damage output, which makes high level play a little too 'soft' than would be preferred. Couple this with being able to shrug off long falls and other environmental hazards and one could make the argument that high level play breaks just a little with the amount of HP on offer.

So for those that consider this a bug rather than a feature, what are some methods that can address this? Preferably within typical 5e design constraints and not in the realm of overhauls.

For my own suggestions, introduce some sort of diminishing returns on HP as you increase in level:
- Hit die size for classes decreases as you go up in tiers. For example, for the first few levels a fighter gets the typical 1d10 + Con HP, but levels 5-10 that goes down to 1d8 + Con, levels 11-16 1d6 + Con and levels 17-20 1d4 + Con.
Notable flaw being potentially too complicated for general 5e design, especially in conjunction with Hit Die used in resting.

- When you level up you take your proficiency bonus away from the HP you would otherwise gain
Notable flaw being potentially punishing at low to mid levels that aren't typically brought up as being a problem

- Give full Con score as bonus HP at level 1 and take away the Con bonus to HP at subsequent levels.
Notable flaw being potentially overtuning the change in HP required, and a distinct drop in value of Con as a stat after level 1
Edit: Running the math, with a Con 14 and average HD rolls you have more HP until level 7 where it evens out, then after that less HP than normal

- As suggested below, no Hit Die from level 11 onwards, only Con bonus
Could impact MCing, trying to get the most out of your Hit Die while you still have them.

[CloakedLight]

Part of me wants to say just scale environmental damage to level (like maybe have it increase per tier by a die or something)
Take say walking into a fire. We will use the cantrip bonfire as a base.
1-4 1d8 fire damage
5-10 2d8 fire damage
11-16 3d8 fire damage
17-20 4d8 fire damage

However another part of me thinks that higher level characters deserve the amount of hp (plot armor) that they get and that it should be worked with, not fixed.

[KOLE]

I would be concerned about dimishing hit die because that would make multiclassing even more rediculously strong and tempting, so have it scale with character level rather than class level.

I personally don’t find this to be an issue- but I don’t DM high tier very often. My solution would be to make encounters more difficult based on CR or just use monsters that pack more of a punch, like giants.

When I have problems with encounters- such as being too easy or too hard- my first option is to tweak monster stats rather than the whole system. If you find this a recurring issue, maybe give your monsters an extra damage die or increase there attack stat. I very frequently add a point or two to AC and add extra hit die to monsters, because my parties tend to tear through encounters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Note that average damage/CR assumes the current level progression. So higher CR creatures would get exponentially more deadly. Dropping CON to HP (the simplest one to calculate) reduces the normal person by 38 HP (assuming a +2 mod that doesn't change) by level 20.

A level 20 wizard (+2 CON) normally has 6 + 4x19 + 40 = 122 (which incidentally is the bottom of the range for an offensive CR 21 creature). With this change, they'd be down effectively 3 levels-worth of health (gaining 4/level instead of 6/level). Thus, against a CR 20 opponent, one good round (max damage breath, etc) would insta-kill them.

Any adjustments to HP would have to be matched by adjustments to monster damage (which is painful) or accept the significant decrease in durability (and thus utility of higher CR creatures).

[Kane0]

Part of me wants to say just scale environmental damage to level (like maybe have it increase per tier by a die or something)
Take say walking into a fire. We will use the cantrip bonfire as a base.
1-4 1d8 fire damage
5-10 2d8 fire damage
11-16 3d8 fire damage
17-20 4d8 fire damage

However another part of me thinks that higher level characters deserve the amount of hp (plot armor) that they get and that it should be worked with, not fixed.

So basically the same premise in the opposite direction, increase all damage to match the higher HP numbers. I prefer lower numbers in general because they're easier to manage, but that's just me.

I would be concerned about dimishing hit die because that would make multiclassing even more rediculously strong and tempting, so have it scale with character level rather than class level.

I personally don’t find this to be an issue- but I don’t DM high tier very often. My solution would be to make encounters more difficult based on CR or just use monsters that pack more of a punch, like giants.

When I have problems with encounters- such as being too easy or too hard- my first option is to tweak monster stats rather than the whole system. If you find this a recurring issue, maybe give your monsters an extra damage die or increase there attack stat. I very frequently add a point or two to AC and add extra hit die to monsters, because my parties tend to tear through encounters.

Oh yeah, lower Hit Die based on character level not class level. Should've said that.

I'd wager most aren't too concerned with the big HP, it's a relative minority. But then again, those that play in high levels are themselves a minority and I'm interested in why that is.

Note that average damage/CR assumes the current level progression. So higher CR creatures would get exponentially more deadly. Dropping CON to HP (the simplest one to calculate) reduces the normal person by 38 HP (assuming a +2 mod that doesn't change) by level 20.

A level 20 wizard (+2 CON) normally has 6 + 4x19 + 40 = 122 (which incidentally is the bottom of the range for an offensive CR 21 creature). With this change, they'd be down effectively 3 levels-worth of health (gaining 4/level instead of 6/level). Thus, against a CR 20 opponent, one good round (max damage breath, etc) would insta-kill them.

Any adjustments to HP would have to be matched by adjustments to monster damage (which is painful) or accept the significant decrease in durability (and thus utility of higher CR creatures).

Yeah, damage of critters would have to be tweaked to avoid insta-gibs, a narrower range of expected damage and HP seems appropriate and easier to manage. Well to me at least, i'm just interested in seeing the discussion.

[Psikerlord]

At 11th and higher add Con bonus only to hp, kinda similar to 2e?

Would that be too little hp. I dont know. I think 5e had tonnes of hp so capping it at 10th might work well for 11+ to actually make the game dangerous.

[ImproperJustice]

Blaster wizards just got a whole lot more dangerous while Martials get nerfed again.....

Are we sure that’s the best route to take?

I mean, if Wizards are wielding cosmic power surely the high end warriors can enjoy charging through burning buildings and Absorbing an epic level of punishment.
They deserve that breather for making it this far.

Just offering a counterpoint to consider. I get the desire to make things keep that dangerous low level edge, but I think many players enjoy the opportunity to make a few deadly mistakes which high level play offers, .....sometimes.

[Jamesps]

Blaster wizards just got a whole lot more dangerous while Martials get nerfed again.....

Are we sure that’s the best route to take?

Blasters would not be benefited by this change as monster hp stays the same... Unless the blasters want to turn on the party. In that case though the martial would be superior as they tend to be able to out single-target damage and would easily dispatch the wizard after the initial volley.

If hp reduction did apply to the monsters then martials would benefit as much as a blaster due to their focus on single-target damage.

[ImproperJustice]

Blasters would not be benefited by this change as monster hp stays the same... Unless the blasters want to turn on the party. In that case though the martial would be superior as they tend to be able to out single-target damage and would easily dispatch the wizard after the initial volley.

If hp reduction did apply to the monsters then martials would benefit as much as a blaster due to their focus on single-target damage.

I may have to agree to disagree there.
I presume that NPC casters exist, and a 20-50% reduction in high level warrior HP, means high end blasting spells are that much more effective for NPC casters and monsters.

I think in practice you may find that same reduction to mage hit points to not be as dramatic as they use a smaller die anyways.

But I get that a similar method was applied before in older editions. But I think they faced the same problem of disparity between martial and mages.

[MaxWilson]

But I get that a similar method was applied before in older editions. But I think they faced the same problem of disparity between martial and mages.

...not exactly in the same way. High-level wizards in old-school D&D were powerful, but rare because wizards often died at low levels and so never got to high levels. (Also, level caps prevented many wizards from ever reaching high levels, especially multiclassed wizards.) And of course they were still extremely fragile even at high level. On average, a 20th level archmage in AD&D would have 35 HP and could easily die in one round, barring spell support.

5E wizards are a lot tougher, in many ways absurdly tough (especially with heavy armor proficiency from multiclassing), and I think that's part of what the OP is trying to fix.

[Atalas]

Properly done monsters can still hurt like hell. My party of level 16 characters got nearly done in by two vampire's and a bunch of mooks. 21 HP max mooks! They were wielding 'advanced weaponry' to boost their damage output, but it was still only comparable to cantrips. Environmental damage, falling and fires, well, that's just not something easly taken care of. But you always gotta remember, hp isn't necessarily 'meat'. Superficial, non-hindering damage can be represented by hp loss, but losing a fourth of one's hp isn't reflected by, say, losing a limb. As someone said, hp is basically plot armor. The deadly stuff doesn't start affecting you until that number hits 0.

[strangebloke]

Just use numbers. High numbers of weaker minions will have higher offensive CRs.

Last game I ran got to level 14. A standard encounter at that level would be six CR 1/2 monsters (I'm partial to thugs) 2-3 'heavies' (flesh golem) and one mid level caster. The heavies would block a choke point, the thugs would rain death, and the caster would either drop aoe or buff the enemy party.

I was killing characters at every level.

[MeeposFire]

...not exactly in the same way. High-level wizards in old-school D&D were powerful, but rare because wizards often died at low levels and so never got to high levels. (Also, level caps prevented many wizards from ever reaching high levels, especially multiclassed wizards.) And of course they were still extremely fragile even at high level. On average, a 20th level archmage in AD&D would have 35 HP and could easily die in one round, barring spell support.

5E wizards are a lot tougher, in many ways absurdly tough (especially with heavy armor proficiency from multiclassing), and I think that's part of what the OP is trying to fix.

There were also other minor things that people tend to forget until you start really thinking about the nitty gritty for instance

Depending on edition a weapon user could move and make all of their melee attacks while mages could not move at all if they wanted to cast at all (this was of course infamously inverted in 3e).

Saving throws do not work the same as you had a static number you had to beat and as you level it becomes easier to pass. A high level fighter with an ok ring of protection may not fail 90%+ of spells cast at him (usually it will be 95% but there are a few ways to get saving throw penalties in the game so I am hedging a bit).

Also pre 3e magic was not as predictable and safe as it is 3e onward. Haste in AD&D had the potential to kill you every time you were affected by it (haste would magically age you and that would necessitate a system shock roll and if you fail you die).

There are other things but I agree with Max in this case casters had a lot of power back then but they had many limitations and the system had many ways that it tweaked the game somewhat back into a weapon user's favor.

[Marcloure]

I like how 4th edition handled hit points per level: full Constitution score plus full die at first level, average die at 2nd and higher levels. A wizard with 14 Con would start with 20 hp, but gain only 4 hp per level.

This reduces mortality at lower levels and increases it at higher levels, but, at the same time, greatly reduces the importance of having a high Constitution score. Which in 4E wasn't a problem, that edition has Endurance (a Con-based skill), and, depending on your build, a character could even increase its damage or other effects having a higher constitution. However, in 5e, Constitution existis to provide hp, saves and concentration, but saves are a not-always and concentration only matters for casters.

So, after all, I don't recommend reducing the impact of the Constitution score on hp, I would otherwise simply increase overall damage from enemies and environment. Healing would still be "weak", but that isn't a problem. No party should be dependent on having a dedicated healer.

[Gastronomie]

If the encounters at high levels are not working properly it's probably because you're taking the DMG EXP calculation table too seriously, not because there is a need to nerf everyone at the table in such an unnecessarily complex fashion which almost no player would probably feel good about.

Just keep on throwing supposedly "well-over-deadly" encounters at the party, they will then finally start feeling like death is an actual thing. And even then they will rarely actually die.

[Kane0]

I’m really warming up to the 4e approach.
Class hit die every level, maxxed at level 1
Con score bonus HP at level 1, nothing after
Con bonus still important for Saves and Hit Die spent during rests
Optionally, reintroduce a con based skill as well.

[SociopathFriend]

I mean- I'm level 11 in our current campaign Out of the Abyss. A demon popped up behind us and hit me three times- I got knocked cleanly down from an effective 118 hit-points (max health/level, 16 con, 9 Pal/2 War + Invocation for temp hp) to about 30. I certainly felt like it was a deadly creature and the encounter had quite the potential to turn deadly when the demon summoned 4 Vrocks to assist it. How would it be deadlier? If in one round the thing took me to single digits or out entirely to start making death saves?

Now granted, the

Spoiler: spoiler

Show

Maze Engine just chucked our whole group back to the start so I have no idea what's going to happen now

game is either going to be really easy or really hard from now onwards but I certainly cannot say I've ever felt safe thinking, "I'm level 11 with a ton of hp, nothing's taking me down" nor did I ever feel like I had a huge chunk of HP to let me easily walk off anything prior either.

There's always a way to take a PC down. If some think otherwise they should ask the DMs to pit stronger opponents against them- it's entirely possible to make a PC worried about death without nerfing their health gain.

[JackPhoenix]

Yeah, damage of critters would have to be tweaked to avoid insta-gibs, a narrower range of expected damage and HP seems appropriate and easier to manage. Well to me at least, i'm just interested in seeing the discussion.

What's the point, then? You complain that HP outpaces damage, but then agree that the damage would need to be lowered together with HP to avoid too much incoming damage? Wouldn't that turn the whole tweak in pointless change for change's sake?

[Jerrykhor]

I'd wager most aren't too concerned with the big HP, it's a relative minority. But then again, those that play in high levels are themselves a minority and I'm interested in why that is.

I think mostly because people aren't interested to start campaigns at Level 10, so they start at lower levels, but most of them got wrecked by IRL commitments, inter-party conflict or scheduling problems. Its not surprising that most campaigns end before they got anywhere at all.

Most DMs also prefer to run lower level content whether its due to the mechanics being easier to handle, or just want to focus on the story and RP.

I think the HP bloat is fine as is, its the higher level class features that need some buffing to discourage multi-classing (I'm looking at you, PHB Ranger). At higher levels, HP damage is not the only thing that the PCs will face. I particularly like monsters abilities like Banshee's wail to instantly drop PCs to 0hp on a failed save. If the fighter has 150hp, the Banshee just did that much damage.

[Grod_The_Giant]

What's the point, then? You complain that HP outpaces damage, but then agree that the damage would need to be lowered together with HP to avoid too much incoming damage? Wouldn't that turn the whole tweak in pointless change for change's sake?

Very much this. Given that damage/hp are the main way hp scale, I'd be concerned about any systematic overhaul.

If environmental damage becoming insignificant bothers, I suggest making it a PERCENTAGE of your health, rather than an absolute value. Nonmagical fire deals 5%/round. Falling damage is 10%/10ft. Etc.. That keeps it consistent feeling across levels, and ties in well with "hp as plot armor."

[Knaight]

If environmental damage becoming insignificant bothers, I suggest making it a PERCENTAGE of your health, rather than an absolute value. Nonmagical fire deals 5%/round. Falling damage is 10%/10ft. Etc.. That keeps it consistent feeling across levels, and ties in well with "hp as plot armor."

This seems needlessly clunky - to the point where just bringing back Con damage would probably be easier.

[Theodoxus]

So basically the same premise in the opposite direction, increase all damage to match the higher HP numbers. I prefer lower numbers in general because they're easier to manage, but that's just me.

Yeah, damage of critters would have to be tweaked to avoid insta-gibs, a narrower range of expected damage and HP seems appropriate and easier to manage. Well to me at least, i'm just interested in seeing the discussion.

Very much this. Given that damage/hp are the main way hp scale, I'd be concerned about any systematic overhaul.

I did this. Con score at 1st level, optional feat to add your class max hit die at 1st level, then only Con mod for every level after that.

I also modified saving throw results to significantly reduce the potential damage from enemy spells. But otherwise didn't change monster damage output. Ogres are scary again. Dragon's actually require skillful planning to take on in the wild, and are nearly impossible in their lair - as they should be (IMNSHO).

Lower numbers are far easier to deal with. Hit Point "squish" makes the game playable.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think that this solution in search of a problem is overlooking the saving throw weakness for most PCs.

proficient in two, maybe 3, saves.
DC's go up as monster CR goes up.
For example, with an 11 wisdom, non save proficient fighter can't save versus Ancient Red Dragon fear at level 20 without a buff or assistance, and then only sometimes. He or she runs off, and does no damage.
Higher CR critters have more magical abilities in play, and more spells, that call for saves.

Second point: run more encounters per adventure day. HP are a resource, just like spell slots.

[Pelle]

This seems needlessly clunky - to the point where just bringing back Con damage would probably be easier.

Scale the damage with character level, should be less clunky. Ex. CLd6 falling damage per 10 ft, etc.

[Theodoxus]

I guess I should just look for another game then. The idea of running 20 mooks and a couple bosses, 6-8 times a day makes my teeth itch.

I love playing a character in an immersive combat - I hate running the things with a passion.

If I can make a small squad of goblins a more challenging combat because my players have 1/5th the hit points of their similarly leveled counterparts? I'm happy.

If I have to try to run 6 encounters to drop the collective hit points of my party from 800 to 150 so they feel "challenged?" No thanks. But that's just me.

I've dealt with this - it's a problem for me, and this is the solution for me. I'm the last to tell anyone you're playing badwrongfun - the question was asked, and this is my answer...

[Knaight]

Scale the damage with character level, should be less clunky. Ex. CLd6 falling damage per 10 ft, etc.

That would also work, though you might need things more like CLd6/10 to make it happen, at which point it starts getting clunky again.

[redwizard007]

I guess I should just look for another game then. The idea of running 20 mooks and a couple bosses, 6-8 times a day makes my teeth itch.

I love playing a character in an immersive combat - I hate running the things with a passion.

If I can make a small squad of goblins a more challenging combat because my players have 1/5th the hit points of their similarly leveled counterparts? I'm happy.

If I have to try to run 6 encounters to drop the collective hit points of my party from 800 to 150 so they feel "challenged?" No thanks. But that's just me.

I've dealt with this - it's a problem for me, and this is the solution for me. I'm the last to tell anyone you're playing badwrongfun - the question was asked, and this is my answer...

I have the opposite problem. I like running epic battles where the PCs have to hack through a sea of mooks to take out a well protected caster or story objective. I enjoy the difficulty of pacing and balancing such an encounter to make it threatening at multiple points and in diverse ways. Having a fairly high number of HP makes that task a bit easier.

Sure the mooks are no big deal, but sprinkle in a couple elite enemies that hit hard but don't stand out and you capture your players attention really quickly. Drop a few save or suck spells and the same thing happens. A deep pool of HP makes those moments tense, but not TPKs.

[Kane0]

What's the point, then? You complain that HP outpaces damage, but then agree that the damage would need to be lowered together with HP to avoid too much incoming damage? Wouldn't that turn the whole tweak in pointless change for change's sake?

Hey man, I never said it was me that took issue with HP nor was I complaining. Also I wasn't implying sweeping changes to reduce damage output across the board, just some things that may end up being overtuned. There are always outliers after all.
And yes, I very much enjoy getting my hands messy with the mechanics of a system.

I think that this solution in search of a problem is overlooking the saving throw weakness for most PCs.

proficient in two, maybe 3, saves.
DC's go up as monster CR goes up.
For example, with an 11 wisdom, non save proficient fighter can't save versus Ancient Red Dragon fear at level 20 without a buff or assistance, and then only sometimes. He or she runs off, and does no damage.
Higher CR critters have more magical abilities in play, and more spells, that call for saves.

Second point: run more encounters per adventure day. HP are a resource, just like spell slots.

Personally I run using Fort/Ref/Will saves (among other changes) and prefer slightly fewer encounters per day than prescribed by the DMG, so my own table already isn't typical by a long shot. A handful more HP up to the mid levels and a handful less after I feel might even out the experience a bit, I reckon it's worth testing if nothing else.

[Eragon123]

In another RPG I play, after level 10, you only get the modifier to health and mana, instead of adding the dice roll.

[Gastronomie]

I guess I should just look for another game then. The idea of running 20 mooks and a couple bosses, 6-8 times a day makes my teeth itch.

I love playing a character in an immersive combat - I hate running the things with a passion.

If I can make a small squad of goblins a more challenging combat because my players have 1/5th the hit points of their similarly leveled counterparts? I'm happy.

If I have to try to run 6 encounters to drop the collective hit points of my party from 800 to 150 so they feel "challenged?" No thanks. But that's just me.

I've dealt with this - it's a problem for me, and this is the solution for me. I'm the last to tell anyone you're playing badwrongfun - the question was asked, and this is my answer...

The reason you're not satisfied is because you're trying to play by the guidelines too much. Which I do not think is a very good idea, because guidelines are not for everyone. I believe the whole point of table-top is that you can screw the guidelines and do as you want.

I buff the damage of all my low-CR minions.

I can't cope with the idea of 6-7 encounters per long rest - it's a hell of a drag - so I throw just 2 or 3 really deadly encounters at my players and call it a day.

And D&D works that way 100% fine.

If you try to be strict with all the various guidelines that the creators present you (most of which I terribly disagree with), I doubt you will ever find a game that you can be completely satisfied with. Better to create your own guidelines.