Con Mod allows Hit Die rerolls when you level

Many people have pointed out (mostly CarlT) that adding your Con Mod to Max HP each time you level creates a very large disparity in HP between party members and can lead to some serious issues.

If we remove this Con Mod bonus to HP each level, we still need a way for Con to contribute to HP as you level. Some have suggested that your Con Mod becomes your minumum roll for your Hit Die, but increase the minimum roll from 1 to 2 doesn't sound very good when you roll a d10 and are expecting an average of 5.5. Also having a Con Mod of 1 is meaningless.

Disclaimer: This can be a module, not trying to force anything on anyone.

My idea is that when you level, you HAVE to roll for HP. And you can reroll the Hit Die a number of times equal to your Con Mod, but you have to use the reroll or reroll again if you can. That way a Con Mod of 1 is still useful since you can reroll your Hit Die if you roll poorly.

So when the Fighter with a +2 Con Mod rolls a 2 for HP he can roll again and when he gets a 5 he can either roll again or keep the 5.

*note* this could also be applied to healing with Hit Die instead of adding Con Mod. 
my sugestion would be the folowing keep the con modifyer on the healing dice.

but i don't like the idea of having to pick the re roll when you roll for hp.
if you want to do somthing like this my sugestion would be the folowing.
 
when you gain a level roll a number of apropriate dice equal to your con modifyer and pick the highest. 
What about the people who don't roll for HP?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
that do add con modifyer but upto the maximum of theit hit dice.
un fortuanatly this makes a con above 12 not very usefull for a mage for example as he could only add 1 point of con modifyer, turning his 3 into 4. 
What about the people who don't roll for HP?



I said that this method would require rolling HP and as such I suggested it as a Module.
my sugestion would be the folowing keep the con modifyer on the healing dice.
 
when you gain a level roll a number of apropriate dice equal to your con modifyer and pick the highest. 

That's really solid.  Both of those are great ideas, although the latter still means that a Con 13 is functionally equivalent to Con 3 for the purposes of HP.

I still like tying Con mod into hit dice for healing, since your hit dice are functionally an additional amount of HP you have per day but which don't interfere with your endurance within a single encounter - you only lose out on benefits/penalties if you have one encounter in a day or otherwise no chance to recover.

The metagame is not the game.

my sugestion would be the folowing keep the con modifyer on the healing dice.

but i don't like the idea of having to pick the re roll when you roll for hp.
if you want to do somthing like this my sugestion would be the folowing.
 
when you gain a level roll a number of apropriate dice equal to your con modifyer and pick the highest. 



You would have to make it 'Roll a number of dice equal to con modifier plus one' otherwise a +1 Con Mod is still worthless. Also make it so the minimum is 1 that way 8 Constituion characters still gain HP.

Even with those fixes I don't like the 'Roll a bunch of die and take the highest' approach. I have done some math and this method is more effective for larger Hit Dice so it basically causes the problem we were trying to prevent. I 14 Con Fighter would get a bigger bonus than 14 Con Wizard. This is still true if the have to take the rerolls, but to a much less extent.

What about the people who don't roll for HP?



I said that this method would require rolling HP and as such I suggested it as a Module.


Sorry, can't be done, not in this case.  Your module directly changes some of the core system math, that is the expected HP that PCs of various classes will have.

The idea behind modules that swap out mechanics like this is that each module is roughly equivalent.  This one can't be, because you're only affecting rolled HP.

Furthermore, it's now much more complicated to describe rolled HP vs fixed HP.  Right now, people can do rolled HP and fixed HP at the same table, and have similar results.  Your way would make that impossible, and that's a negative in this system.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
What about the people who don't roll for HP?



I said that this method would require rolling HP and as such I suggested it as a Module.


Sorry, can't be done, not in this case.  Your module directly changes some of the core system math, that is the expected HP that PCs of various classes will have.

The idea behind modules that swap out mechanics like this is that each module is roughly equivalent.  This one can't be, because you're only affecting rolled HP.

Furthermore, it's now much more complicated to describe rolled HP vs fixed HP.  Right now, people can do rolled HP and fixed HP at the same table, and have similar results.  Your way would make that impossible, and that's a negative in this system.



Understandable, but it is an attempt to fix the problem that adding Con Mod each level creates while still making Con important for HP at every level. I haven't seen any other systems that fix this problem.
What about the people who don't roll for HP?



I said that this method would require rolling HP and as such I suggested it as a Module.


Sorry, can't be done, not in this case.  Your module directly changes some of the core system math, that is the expected HP that PCs of various classes will have.

The idea behind modules that swap out mechanics like this is that each module is roughly equivalent.  This one can't be, because you're only affecting rolled HP.

Furthermore, it's now much more complicated to describe rolled HP vs fixed HP.  Right now, people can do rolled HP and fixed HP at the same table, and have similar results.  Your way would make that impossible, and that's a negative in this system.



what did you think about my sugestions for those that do not roll ?


they do add con modifyer but upto the maximum of theit hit dice.

un fortuanatly this makes a con above 12 not very usefull for a mage for example as he could only add 1 point of con modifyer, turning his 3 into 4.  
The idea behind modules that swap out mechanics like this is that each module is roughly equivalent.  This one can't be, because you're only affecting rolled HP.

I haven't heard anywhere that modules are supposed to be roughly equivalent.  I think a good example, and one relevant here, is the existing modular healing rules - they pretty much only change the amount of healing available, and do so in different ways.

I have yet to see any suggestion that modules will be a player decision rather than a table decision, or that they should necessarily be balanced against each other (although they will certainly need to operate within a similar range, if they are to work well with all of the other possible modules).

The metagame is not the game.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of this but I agree that we need Con to be more than eye candy in the game if it's to be there at all.


The problem with rolling it as many as your mod is it makes any con mod past probably about 3 pretty unexciting. It flattens the curve, to be sure, but the end result will usually be a slightly higher result than if you didn't roll dice for hp in the first place.



The thing I keep listing in my head is what con does besides hp. I know the answer is basically "not a lot" but it's valuable as a save. They have it add to hit dice (recovery dice?) for healing, right? So it helps you recover, and it helps you resist things.


I almost want them to make some classes that use con as a primary stat, or shift the defensive fighting styles to work off con or something. Just give it something to do so we can let go of this hp thing. They did that for Cha in 3e and it worked really well for making Cha something we cared about.



I personally don't really care if con adds to hp rolls. I know it can create an uneven playing field between classes but I actually like that, in a way.


Maybe strengthen Con's connection to recovery and hit dice? That'd make it appealing without making it cause strange problems with the HPs.

Many people have pointed out (mostly CarlT) that adding your Con Mod to Max HP each time you level creates a very large disparity in HP between party members and can lead to some serious issues.

I think if a character invests in a higher than average Constitution, they should be able to reap the benefits of that; being able to apply their CON mod to their max hp per level is a perfect way to do so.

Furthermore, I tend to allow my players to roll for their hit points twice each level, taking the higher result, then applying the character's CON mod. This lowers the chance of getting a crappy return for such hard work — Because seriously, who the f@#! wants to spend so much time leveling a character only to get a roll of 1 for their new hp? That right there is the true cause of hp disparity between other party members.

D&D Next - Basic and Expert Editions

I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.

Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.


Here's a mockup of the Basic Set I created.



(CLICK HERE TO VIEW LARGER IMAGE)
  

Basic Set

This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).

The Basic boxed set contains:

Quick Start Rules
A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms.

Player's Handbook
(Softcover, 125 pages)
Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level.

Dungeon Master's Guide

(Softcover, 125 pages)
Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.

Monster Manual
(Softcover, 100 pages)
Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D. 

Introductory Adventure
(Keep on the Borderlands)
An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.

Also includes: 

Character Sheets
Reference Sheets
Set of Dice


Expert Set

A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:

Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.)
Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.)
Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)


Expansions

These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.) 

Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book)
Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book)
Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book)
The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)





A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage

A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points

In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...

What are hit points?
The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.

So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then?
It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.

But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target?
Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.

Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact?
Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.

If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent?
Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.

Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack?
It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.

What about poison and other types of non-combat damage?
Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.

If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages?
Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.

What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points?
If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.

Why are monsters killed immediately and not players?
Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.

What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage?
If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).

Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded?
See below.
 

Damage and Dying

Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.

  1. Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly. 
  2. Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
  3. If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
  4. Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.

Unharmed: 1 hp or more
Wounded: 0 hp or less
Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level)
Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)

Wounded
When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.

Incapacitated
Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).

If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.

If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.

Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.

Dead
Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.

Many people have pointed out (mostly CarlT) that adding your Con Mod to Max HP each time you level creates a very large disparity in HP between party members and can lead to some serious issues.


I don't really understand this concept. Someone with a higher Constitution should develop a greater ability to withstand adverse effects; that's what constitution is.

When comparing a fighter and a wizard, with identical Constitution scores, the CON MOD is not going to make any difference in the gap of HP totals, ever. Only differing Constitution scores are going to create such a gap in HP totals; that is only logical.

Someone with a poor constitution (or autoimmune problems) is, most likely, going to become worse over time; while someone with a superior constitution will remain strong/healthy even longer than average. Plus, if the someone with a superior constitution trains their body to be even stronger and more durable (such as a fighter would), they will remain strong/healthy even longer than someone with a superior constitution who does not train in such a way. Someone with a poor constitution that trains so will remain strong/healthy longer than someone with a poor constitution that doesn't, but still not as long as someone who doesn't have a poor constitution.
I think they aught to find out what the average number of hits that the bonus to HP due to Con mod , as a function of CON, and formulate some scaling bonus to HP, be it a straight "Add your CON mod to HP every level" or something that they find provides a statistically equivolent bonus. That way it won't be under or over powered, but it should hit the sweet spot for scaling.

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

If for some reason you did want to go with this method, you could handle non-rollers by simply figuring out what the average HP they would get with their rerolls would be and use that, same as we do now with the single roll. It has the disadvantage that a lot of Con values wouldn't affect anything (for example, a wizard with 12 Con would still only get 3 HP, assuming you round 3.12 down. You could round it up, but then wizards with even more Con would get nothing.)

Essentially the effect is a table where your HP gained at level up depends on your base hp roll die size and your constitution, with diminishing returns on large amounts of constitution, and constitution making more of a difference for characters with large hp roll dice, since they have more "steps" to go up.

Assuming that you round to the nearest number (and round .5 up), you get this:

Die Size\NumberRolled          1                2             3            4           5           6    
d4                                          3                3             3            4           4          4
d6                                          4                4             5            5           5          6
d8                                          5                6             6            7           7          7 
d10                                        6                7             8            8           9          9 
d12                                        7                9             9            10         10        11

Always round up, and you get this:

Die Size\NumberRolled          1                2             3            4           5           6    
d4                                         3                 4            4             4           4           4 
d6                                         4                 5            5             6           6           6
d8                                         5                 6            7             7           8           8
d10                                       6                 8            9             9           9          10
d12                                       7                 9            10          11         11         11

Incidentally, if you roll two dice and take the worse, the average values for each of the die sizes (in descending order from d12 to d4) are 5/4/3/3/2 if you round to the nearest number, or 5/4/4/3/2 if you always round up. This is essentially rolling with disadvantage.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
None of these really alter the fundamental maths of the game.  As long as you cap the hit points at the hit die maximum you increase average hit points but  reduce the disparity between highest and lowest con characters, which is far more of a problem at higher levels.  The real problem with the reroll method is probably for those with a low con score.  I think rolling two dice and takling the lowest is a 15% dip rather than a 5% dip for -1.

Personally, adding your con score to your healing hit dice gives a fair amount of benefit and the only thing I thought they got wrong in the first packet was that your minimum roll should be 1 plus your con score so that those with +1 con gain a benefit.  For those who think that the first packet gives too many hit points at 1st level just have a high option that adds your con score to hit points and a low option that adds half your con score.

Many people have pointed out (mostly CarlT) that adding your Con Mod to Max HP each time you level creates a very large disparity in HP between party members and can lead to some serious issues.


I don't really understand this concept. Someone with a higher Constitution should develop a greater ability to withstand adverse effects; that's what constitution is.

When comparing a fighter and a wizard, with identical Constitution scores, the CON MOD is not going to make any difference in the gap of HP totals, ever. Only differing Constitution scores are going to create such a gap in HP totals; that is only logical.

Someone with a poor constitution (or autoimmune problems) is, most likely, going to become worse over time; while someone with a superior constitution will remain strong/healthy even longer than average. Plus, if the someone with a superior constitution trains their body to be even stronger and more durable (such as a fighter would), they will remain strong/healthy even longer than someone with a superior constitution who does not train in such a way. Someone with a poor constitution that trains so will remain strong/healthy longer than someone with a poor constitution that doesn't, but still not as long as someone who doesn't have a poor constitution.



It's a game balance issue.  Someone with 20 con would have disparity of an extra 100 hit points over someone with 10 constitution AND they will heal and extra 5 hit points every time they heal so they can potentially have an extra 200 hit points.  The gap is just too wide.

1e understood this well enough by capping the con bonus at +2 for most classes and capping hit dice at name level.  Check out the discepancies at averag hit points under the old and new systems:

Fighter
Con 10 1e  93
con 10 5e 110
Con 18 1e 129
Con 18 5e 190

Rogue/Thief
Con 10 1e 55
con 10 5e 70
Con 18 1e 75
Con 18 5e 150

You can see the problem - the high con rogue is doubling his hit points in 5e - the gap is just too wide.

I understand why people feel the HPs need to be made more uniform. I disagree, but I do understand.



My issue with all of this is it basically makes Con kinda lame. Every other attribute has the potential to be the character's most important, but Con remains this sort of sideshow to the action. Everybody wants some Con, but nobody wants a whole lot of Con.


For me, the balance in Con mods to HP comes out in the fact that you're usually sacrificing something else important to get it. Players at my table rarely have a Con higher than 14 because they've decided that one of the other attributes offers them more bang for their buck, even if tons o hp is a great thing to have.


Take the HP out of the Con bonus and you're basically relegating Con to a saving throw and (in 5e) a recovery boost. For me, that's not enough to justify a whole attribute.



Are people happy with Con being less important than the other stats? If not, what should we do about it instead of have it figure into hp? If so, why?

It's a game balance issue.  Someone with 20 con would have disparity of an extra 100 hit points over someone with 10 constitution AND they will heal and extra 5 hit points every time they heal so they can potentially have an extra 200 hit points.  The gap is just too wide.

1e understood this well enough by capping the con bonus at +2 for most classes and capping hit dice at name level.  Check out the discepancies at averag hit points under the old and new systems:

Fighter
Con 10 1e  93
con 10 5e 110
Con 18 1e 129
Con 18 5e 190

Rogue/Thief
Con 10 1e 55
con 10 5e 70
Con 18 1e 75
Con 18 5e 150

You can see the problem - the high con rogue is doubling his hit points in 5e - the gap is just too wide.


Your example only indicates that the 5e Fighter & Rogue has less disparity than the 1e Fighter & Rogue:
1e gap of 54 HP (42%)
5e gap of 40 HP (21%)

Let's look at actual pragmatics. In 3.5 and Pathfinder, it's absolutely the case that by putting an 18 in Con instead of a 10, a character can more than double their HP, if they're a small-HD character, and get a dramatic increase even if they're a large-HD character. Yet nobody puts an 18 in Con. Basically ever, and it's not hard to see why; an 18 represents an outrageous expenditure of attribute points, an expenditure so outrageous that despite the extra HP, nobody ever even considers making it. (People do generally try to have at least a decent Con score.) This is a made-up problem, provided that the point buy system is anything in the same time zone as reasonable and that you aren't using an incredibly high-variance rolling system. Adding your Con mod to HP does lead to the potential for there to be a wide gap in character max HP. It does not, however, cause issues, at least historically. (At least, it's not something I've ever heard of as an issue. Maybe someone else has.) What "serious issues" does this actually lead to in non-hypothetical land? The character that invested exhorbitant resources into taking an extra hit or two to die takes an extra hit or two to die? I think we can live with that. I don't think that the suggestion in the OP is a bad one; it's certainly a system that a game system could use and probably be happy with. It's just addressing a problem that I don't know that anyone really has.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I tend to agree, basically for the same reasons stated. A fighter might go for the 18 con but it'll probably come at the cost of a decent strength score, which would gimp the rest of their abilities too hard to justify the investment. You could say the same for everyone else using different attributes as examples.
Your example only indicates that the 5e Fighter & Rogue has less disparity than the 1e Fighter & Rogue:
1e gap of 54 HP (42%)
5e gap of 40 HP (21%)




I don't think that anybody is suggesting that a narrower hp gap between classes is a bad thing now that fighters have class abilities beyond high AC and a sack of hit points because hit point disparity is one of the issues that creates the 5 minute work day.  Narrowing the gap across the board is more sensible.  Con saves are among the most important of the game as they are most often the save or die ones - whatever form this edition's save or die mechanics will take.  If you want to be power gamey about it, dwarves, traditionally the hardiest of the races, have less reason to invest in con than others since they come loaded with poison immunity and boosted AC or hit dice.  That's not how I roll baby.

In the bounded system, I'm in favour of applying half the ability bonuses in certain circumstances and I think this is a good one to pick.  So I think characters should get half their ability bonus on attack rolls and full bonus to damage.  As a compromise, while I prefer the first playest method, I think they could get half their con bonus to their rolls for hit points and their full bonus to healing rolls.  This way most characters will get only +1 hit point per level and those who invest heavily in con will get +2 for a difference of 40 hit points at level 20 plus 100 hit point difference on healing.  It's still pretty big but it looks more manageable to me and you aren't more than doubling wizards' hit points each level.

See I really want your stats to matter, and halving their impact on rolls only makes having attributes in the first place kinda redundant.


If the investment of a high int doesn't produce a totally different character than the investment of a high str then I really don't see the point. Classes can get away with a bounded system because the focus shifts to their actual class abilities. I like that; it makes us define class more clearly.


But attributes are the first thing that we see numberwise and they are the first real choice we've got about how our characters work. If those choices don't turn out to be all that meaningful because the stats are similarly bounded then there's no real choices to make.



Unless attributes were changed so they unlocked certain abilities rather than modify the actual numbers.


See I really want your stats to matter, and halving their impact on rolls only makes having attributes in the first place kinda redundant.


If the investment of a high int doesn't produce a totally different character than the investment of a high str then I really don't see the point. Classes can get away with a bounded system because the focus shifts to their actual class abilities. I like that; it makes us define class more clearly.


But attributes are the first thing that we see numberwise and they are the first real choice we've got about how our characters work. If those choices don't turn out to be all that meaningful because the stats are similarly bounded then there's no real choices to make.


Unless attributes were changed so they unlocked certain abilities rather than modify the actual numbers.




I agree up to a point - in a bounded system high numbers need to award something other than bonuses to dice.  That may have its own balance issues but I'd certainly like to see them try.


See I really want your stats to matter, and halving their impact on rolls only makes having attributes in the first place kinda redundant.


If the investment of a high int doesn't produce a totally different character than the investment of a high str then I really don't see the point. Classes can get away with a bounded system because the focus shifts to their actual class abilities. I like that; it makes us define class more clearly.


But attributes are the first thing that we see numberwise and they are the first real choice we've got about how our characters work. If those choices don't turn out to be all that meaningful because the stats are similarly bounded then there's no real choices to make.


Unless attributes were changed so they unlocked certain abilities rather than modify the actual numbers.




I agree up to a point - in a bounded system high numbers need to award something other than bonuses to dice.  That may have its own balance issues but I'd certainly like to see them try.




I think the trick would be to let the early modifiers be straight up bonuses - say up to +4. Then you could do something like halve the progression (18-21 +4, 22-25 +5, 26-29 +6, etc) and give them some kind of thing they can do with their exceptionally high stat. Maybe once per session they can perform some extraordinary feat of strength for having a 22 str and you get more of them for every four stats past that.


We could make the stats give fewer bonuses for their value but make those bonuses more interesting that way.

I think the trick would be to let the early modifiers be straight up bonuses - say up to +4. Then you could do something like halve the progression (18-21 +4, 22-25 +5, 26-29 +6, etc) and give them some kind of thing they can do with their exceptionally high stat. Maybe once per session they can perform some extraordinary feat of strength for having a 22 str and you get more of them for every four stats past that.

We could make the stats give fewer bonuses for their value but make those bonuses more interesting that way.




You will have to start much lower - PC stats are capped at 20 in Next.  Stats beyond 20 will only affect monsters.  Advantage works out a roughly +3 doesn't it?  So maybe +3 is where they need to draw the line?  If that's the case, you can halve the bonus and round up.

The simplicity of the skill check to perform tasks is nice but I agree that adding bonuses to your roll instead of finding a way to use the whole ability score is a shame as it means you can't get every point of that score to feel meanigful.

ahh I missed that bit. Max is 20? bah. They could go at least for the classic 25.



Well I think funky special abilities is the way to go, to be honest. More difficult to balance but it'd make us feel like we're getting something for having stats.


I dunno, I've said it in several threads but I'm not really sold on this universal bounded accuracy thing. It makes me feel like none of my mechanical choices matter.

'Classic' was originally 18 (or 19 for cerrtain races in AD&D 1e except for Wisdom which was uncapped).  Admittedly, with wishes you could theoretically reach 25 in a stat but realistically this wasn't possible for PCs as it would take 50-70 wishes wishes and magic items to get there.  It was only in 3e that the initial cap went up to 20 so you could boost it up to 25 if you pumped all your points into the same stat and then with items you could exceed 25 anyway.  Personally I can live with it PCs got fewer boosts to stats.  For example, I'm happy if Gauntlets of ogre power only give you a boost to damage, skills, throwing, and lifting.

I would also prefer it if their skill bonus was limited to +5 but with a +1 bonus to all ability checks at level 10 and 20.
Wait, maybe I'm misunderstanding something but I just went back to look and there's nothing to stop the player from putting their level up attributes into a stat that's all ready 20.. how is 20 in any way the max you can get?
It has been stated in the development blogs I think, although not mentioned specifically in the playtest.  They stated max 20 for pcs and max 30 for monsters.  I'm unhappy that halflings can be stronger than ogres as it is so I'm not looking to encourage them to remove those caps.  Basically they need to retain caps to keep attack rolls and AC sufficiently bounded.  They should probably also restrict level 1 PCs to a cap of 18, which might help to reign in rolled stats a bit.  I'd be in favour of level 1 racial caps at 16-18 but I know that's quite contentious.  It also works better with the halved attack roll bonus system.
If we remove this Con Mod bonus to HP each level, we still need a way for Con to contribute to HP as you level.

No, we don't.

If level-one hitpoints are CON score + class die, and each additional level is just class die, the spread between a d10 fighter and a d4 wizard of the sam CON will approach, but never actually reach, a 2:1 ratio by the averages.  2:1 ratio may occur if the d4 rolls abysmally, or if the con scores are way different, but it's not going to be the runaway hp gap we've seen in the other editions.

A level-20 wizard with a 3 Con would have 63 HP, while a level-20 fighter with 18 con would have 138 HP (which is barely more than double the wizard's total).

I'm confused about why people are talking about 2:1 hp ratios like they're some kind of problem instead of... not a problem. A character with a large hp rolling die size and a higher con score might be able to take twice as many hits as a character with a small die and a lower con. That is okay. That is not a problem. It's good to see enthusiasm for actually being careful with math instead of just throwing numbers at the wall, but here it's applied to a non-issue.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I'm confused about why people are talking about 2:1 hp ratios like they're some kind of problem instead of... not a problem.

It's not a problem.
HD size and conmods creating a 5:1 hp ratio is a problem.

A wizard with 8 con averages 1.75 hp/lv.  Meanwhile, a fighter with 18 con averages 9.5 hp/lv.

I'm confused about why people are talking about 2:1 hp ratios like they're some kind of problem instead of... not a problem.

It's not a problem.
HD size and conmods creating a 5:1 hp ratio is a problem.

A wizard with 8 con averages 1.75 hp/lv.  Meanwhile, a fighter with 18 con averages 9.5 hp/lv.


Even if either of those were things people ever did, is that really a problem? I mean, it might be; I have literally never seen a wizard with 8 Con, and even just 10 con drops the ratio down to less than 4:1, and the most extreme characters I've ever seen drops the ratio down to 3.4:1. Yes, a player who creates a character that is as easy as possible to kill is, in fact, creating a character that is relatively easy to kill compared to a character that is created to be as hard as possible to kill. I'm very familiar with the massive, massive balance discrepancies that have existed in various editions of the game. I'm also very aware of what issues are real issues and what issues might look like issues on paper but aren't. Very low level character survivabilty is a real issue - while it's a playstyle that might appeal to some people, it has very real consequences. A character having twice as many (or even three times as many) HP as another is not an issue that has real consequences. There is some HP discrepancy that is eventually problematic, where it's hard to pick values for damage that meaninfully threaten a high HP character but don't one-shot a low-HP character, but I think those discrepancies are higher than the 3.5 rules created. (Although it's hard to judge perfectly, because I have literally never seen anybody play a d4 HD character AND dump constitution, and if people do do that, then in does in fact create characters with extremely low HP totals, which artifically infates the ratio. Heck, a 3.5 Elf who dumps Con ends up with a 6, which as a d4 HD character gives them 1.25 HP/level. Compared to a 20-Con Barbarian, that's over a 9:1 HP ratio! But that doesn't really matter, because those extremes don't really reflect what real characters actual humans are playing actually look like.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.

Most players I've encountered shoot for a 12 or 14 con with the odd guy going all out with a dwarf or something. The dwarf HP monster is rare though.



heh anyone remember the old 2e class generation rules? I remember one of my brothers took that and poured all his points into "as much hp and thaco as possible" with no armour proficiency or non weapon proficiencies.


It was hilarious.

A wizard with an 8 con that makes it through a real 1st level with 3 hit points is a wizard who has earned the right to have 4 hit points. Rinse repeat. It doesn't really make it a valid comparison however.

A wizard with 18 con and a fighter with 18 con only has less than a 2:1 differential. This is a more fair comparison worth talking about. Perhaps 2:1 with the same stats makes sense. That debate is still out for me.

 
Currently running a playtest, weekly, online D&D Next Session using a virtual table system called roll20.

it's easy to cite extremes and say "hey that's broken!" but they rarely actually reflect anything real. Someone who drops their Con to 8 deserves to get one shotted by a stray arrow. They're begging for it.


The guy we should look after is the guy who's made a reasonable to considerable investment in Con and make sure they're getting enough bang for their buck.

What's wrong with a 4:1 HP ratio between fighter and wizard?  Fighters are generally expected to get in the fray and protect the squishies.  Wizards have the cosmos at their fingertips, so hit points should really be one of the least of their worries.  Besides, constitution is pretty much worthless even when giving its bonus to maximum HP.  I'll give up my con modifier to HP if I can get some sizeable amount of magic resistance in its place.
What's wrong with a 4:1 HP ratio between fighter and wizard?  Fighters are generally expected to get in the fray and protect the squishies.  Wizards have the cosmos at their fingertips, so hit points should really be one of the least of their worries.  Besides, constitution is pretty much worthless even when giving its bonus to maximum HP.  I'll give up my con modifier to HP if I can get some sizeable amount of magic resistance in its place.



The problem with HP ratios is that people are looking at them in a vacuum. Sure a Fighter should be able to take 4 times the beating as a Wizard but this isn't the full picture. Combining HP with AC shows a more realistic picture. If a fighter has a 15% to be hit and 4 times the HP of a Wizard that has a 45% chance to be hit then the Fighter can take 12 times the beating the Wizard can. Not the Fighters ability to reduce damage and larger Hit Die heals.

Sure maybe a Fighter should be 5 or 6 times as durable as a wizard, but 15 to 20 times more durable is a bit too much for me. 
The fact that the armour is totally weird in the packet and the wizard's only recourse at lvl 1 is a poxy +2 cover bonus from a spell doesn't help.
The fact that the armour is totally weird in the packet and the wizard's only recourse at lvl 1 is a poxy +2 cover bonus from a spell doesn't help.



Yeh I think the range for player AC is too wide. Right now it would not be uncommon to have a Dwarf with 18 AC and Wizard with 10 AC. With a +1 to hit this is a 20% chance to be hit vs. a 60% chance. This is way to large a gap and doesn't even include the extremes (8 Dex Wizard with 9 AC vs. Dwarf Sorcerer in full armor and Shield Spell with 20 AC).

I think player AC's should be more narrow and have a range of about 4-5.

My fix would be to reduce heavy armor AC by 1 (other than ringmail). And Mountain Dwarves shouldn't get an AC bonus. Give them something else that doesn't mess with accuracy, maybe 1 damage reduction while in heavy armor or something, just not AC.

Dragon Sorcerers should either lose the Shield spell, or only have Medium Armor. Both is too powerful.

Also I would give Wizards some way of increasing AC by a small amount. Perhaps a passive +1 to AC from some magical force they are always emitting. I know some people don't like 'always-on' magic some perhaps some form of spell that doesn't take up too many resources (spell slots, actions etc.).

Like perhaps a Mage Armor spell that gives +1 AC (doesn't stack with armor) for 12-24 hours, and only takes a level 1 slot or maybe it is a cantrip.

*Optional* I would make 18 the maximum for starting abilities, and 20 the maximum after level 1. This makes gaining abiliy scores at higher levels feel more empowering and getting a stat to 20 is a real accomplishment. Also it makes it so the max AC a Dex character can have is the same as a character in heavy armor (15 AC without shield). 

These changes would make standard chracter ACs range from 11-16 which is much better IMO. Now the Wizard only gets hit twice as much as the fighter, and you don't have any invincible dwarf sorcerers running around.

Now if the Fighter has twice as much HP as the Wizard he is only 4 times as durable (ignoring damage reduction and Hit Dice heals), which isn't too bad.