Okay, I'm looking to see if anyone has any opinions about the amount of HP characters get in d20 games. Most seem to agree they have too little for any good fight scenes.

Normal: 1d6, 1d8, 1d10 or 1d12 + Con mod (Con mod varies between -2 and +7 for most characters)

---

Base HP is either high, low, or medium based on the type of class they are.

Class Bonus HP
High: +15 or +30
Medium: +10 or +20
Low: +5 or +10

You start with an amount of HP equal to your Constitution SCORE plus your class bonus.

So, let's say everyone has 10 Con.

Low HP types: 15-20 HP at 1st level
Average: 20-30 HP at 1st level
High: 25-40 HP at 1st level

This gives them enough HP to actually fight and survive a few hits.

Rather than adding HD thereafter, they just gain 10% or 20% HP every level (depending how fast you want it to grow).

It's easy to calculate. The question is, how does this idea FEEL for those of you who play d20 games? Does it work? Is it too much? STILL too little?

Assume monsters and objects would be adjusted accordingly as well.

MULTICLASSING IS NOT AN ISSUE HERE. IGNORE IT.

---

Double the max HD and all creatures start with CON SCORE + DOUBLE MAX HD as base HP.

They gain +20% of their base every time they level up. Increases to their Con score improve this retroactively and may require a bit of recalculation, but it is an easy calculation.

WIZARD: Con score + 12. 8-18 Con that's 20-30 HP.
ROGUE: Con score + 16. 8-18 Con that's 24-34 HP.
FIGHTER: Con score + 20. 8-18 Con that's 28-38 HP.
BARBARIAN: Con score + 24. 8-18 Con that's 32-42 HP.

+20% per level

WIZARD: +4 - +6 per level
ROGUE: +4 - +6 per level
FIGHTER: +5 - +7 per level
BARBARIAN: +6 - +8 per level

These do not include Con increases over levels which could increase the score as high as 10 points (+2 more per level, no biggie).

WIZARD 20th LVL: 90-192 HP (Median = 96 HP)
ROGUE 20th LVL: 115-211 HP  (Median = 134 HP)
FIGHTER 20th LVL: 134-230 HP  (Median = 163 HP)
BARBARIAN 20th LVL: 153-249 HP  (Median = 192 HP)
This message was last edited by the GM at 14:11, Thu 05 Mar 2020.

Your math doesn't seem right ro me. In your example, it looks like you've given your example characters Con Score + 2Xclass bonus.

Otherwise it would be:
Low HP types: 15 HP at 1st level
Average: 20 HP at 1st level
High: 25 HP at 1st level

I've never really felt that the hp was too low for proper fight scenes, except maybe on level 1. But that depends entirely on what kind of fight scenes you consider proper. 1st level characters can't get into large fight scenes, but they are first level characters. They aren't yet up to doing serious fights. But as soon as you get to level 2, the hp doubles, and the fight scenes can get more elaborate. And by level 3 I'm generally comfortable throwing relatively large fights at the characters. (I'm thinking about my current Pathfinder campaign here, it's been some time since I've run a D20 modern game, or other d20 game)

If I wanted larger fights from the start, I think I'd just give them max hp + Con score instead of max hp + Con bonus on the first level, and then otherwise run things as usual.

That would give hitpoints of:
1d6: 16
1d8: 18
1d10: 20
1d12: 22
With a bit more variance, given that I imagine that players that take characters with larger hit dice, would also tend to given higher con scores, than player's with smaller hit dice.

In reply to Rubberduck (msg # 2):

That's because it's 10 OR 20% and it's 5 OR 10.

There's a varying range I meant to put on their but it was typed up in a hurry.

I think going base 5 and using 20% is better but I'm open to suggestions and explanations.

---

"Proper" fight scene can vary from person to person, but the MAJORITY of the HUNDREDS of  players I've interviewed while playing and betatesting d20 games have all agreed that their characters (AND the monsters) have very little hit points and that fights are over very quickly. The only exception to this seems to be among groups of friends who argue over the rules or get side tracked and never actually focus on playing the game during battle (but during testing, groups like that don't appear and aren't primary audiences).

Even at higher levels, most generally feel that fights are over quickly because at higher levels fighters make multiple attacks, rogues get so much sneak attack they can kill in one shot and wizards get such powerful spells, not even they would stand a chance against themselves.

I agree in that I want fight scenes to be long enough to be cinematic in nature. Any battle lasting less than 1 minute (10 rounds) isn't an epic battle but just some random skirmish. And the less turns you get to take, the less you can really attribute to tactics and player contribution and the more you can just rely on overwhelming luck and numbers.

---

I've tried the automax HD and even the Con score at 1st level. Players liked that better (it also applied to monsters) but they found the numbers to be "weird".

Why 6, 8, 10, 12?

Why not 5, 10, 15 or something?

Why isn't there an "average" HP?

Why even have a d12 if d10 is already strong? Why not give that class a special ability that makes them tougher instead of changing how HP works just for one class?

Several players (some experienced, some not) asked questions like these since base 5 or base 10 would clearly be easier and more predictable math. So I got to thinking, are people still using the HD system purely out of tradition and not sensibility? So I'm trying to pull away from "bad habits" in that I don't value the system just for already being there like a lot of old school d20 players do. I'm trying to find something efficient that's also easy to work with and aesthetically appealing.
This message was last edited by the GM at 13:54, Fri 18 Sept 2015.

I don't play many d20 games, but I think I understand the conflict.

You want characters to be tough enough to trade blows at lower levels. At the same time, nobody wants a fight to become tedious. Gamers (especially GMs) want combat to be all about tension, creating the feeling that characters could be killed at any time.

I have not seen it, but I understand that Modern20 does away with hit points all together. Instead, it uses a saving throw versus damage mechanic. That way, heroes can shrug off most hits without being slowed down, yet a weakling with a knife still has a chance of killing anyone.

Another option would be to do what is done in Senzar RPG. Conflicts in that game can be quite deadly despite it being a hit point system. This could be simulated in d20 games by maximizing all damage dice instead of rolling them, or maybe giving the critical hit bonus to any hit with a roll above a natural 15 instead of just a natural 20. The balancing aspect is that each player has a set number of tokens called Fate Points. Among other uses, a Fate Point can be used to minimize a single damage roll or half a damage total (but not both). I have found that Fate Points allow PCs to act more boldly and engage in more action.

Your method of a percentile increase in hit points per level seems pretty good. One issue is that it would do nothing for characters who haven't leveled yet -- if I understand it correctly. A player who rolls a 1 for determining 1st level will still have a character who is screwed. As a character advances to higher levels, something to consider is whether that percentile increase is applied to the base hit points or the next hit points. If applied to the net, then a character will be accruing interest and gather a huge pool of hit points at the upper levels. If you address these two concerns, I would have no issues with your solution.

If it were me, I would take a cue from video games. Instead of decreasing hit points, every first hit in combat would result in a status ailment. A targeted character could be slowed, blinded, enraged, etc. Which status ailment involved would depend on the nature of the attack.

Never heard of Modern20 but it sounds like you're describing Mutants and Masterminds which uses a Toughness vs. Damage saving throw. It's easy to use but very unpopular. The majority of players in the d20 realm are more comfortable with hit points.

---

Senzar sounds like a nitty gritty game and would be completely counter-intuitive to the goal I'm trying to achieve here. The majority of players want battles to be longer and more tactical, not shorter and more luck-of-the-roll-based.

---

You don't roll hit points at 1st level in d20 games, you automax the 1st HD and only roll HP after that point or use the "take average" option. When I GM I just let everyone automax all HD (monsters too). The exercise here is to do something BETTER than that. Not the exact same thing.


And the increase always applies to the BASE. So 20% per level would essentially give you 2x base at 5th level, 3x base at 10th level, 4x base at 15th level and 5x base at 20th level.

So a character with 10 Con and +10 class HP would have a base of 20 hit points. They'd gain 20% more (+4) per level for ~100 HP at 20th level. Since it's always a multiple of the base, recalculating a new Con score or level is relatively easy. Compared to average HD (4.5 on a 1d8 except 8 at 1st) that averages a bit more than the HD's 93.5. Not by much, but it's certainly a LOT easier to calculate. Plus it is LOT more at 1st level (20 vs. 8) allowing 1st levelers to feel more like adventurers and less like water balloons waiting to be popped. I'm not sure how much higher to go though, or if that's good enough.

---

Adding conditions sounds good. I've added conditions to all critical hits thanks to the Critical Hit decks. More cinematic combat with those.
This message was last edited by the GM at 03:23, Thu 24 Sept 2015.

Explained that way, your method looks quite good. Have you had a chance to playtest it?

In reply to chupabob (msg # 6):

Not yet. I was looking for possible suggestions, opinions or previous experiences people have had playing with house rules on HP.

I think this is a good method, but before I bother trying it, I was wondering if my fellow homebrewers might pick up on a possible problem I might face before I start using.

Maybe there's something I'm missing in the math?

I mean, this would apply to monsters too.

d6 -> +5
d8 -> +10
d10 -> +15
d12 -> +20

Anything with less than 1 full HD (anything that's less than CR 1/2) would multiply their base HP by their CR.

So a CR 1/6 rabbit with 10 Con and d8 HD would have:
Base HP: 10 + 10 = 20 / 6 = 3 hit points (normal 3).

A CR 1/4 common kobold with 9 Con and d8 HD would have:
Base HP: 9 + 10 = 19 / 4 = 4 hit points (normal 5).

A CR 1/3 common orc with 12 Con and d10 HD would have:
Base HP: 12 + 15 = 27 / 3 = 9 hit points (normal 11).

A CR 1 orc berserker with 18 Con and 2d12 HD would have:
Base HP: 18 + 20 = 38 * 1.2 = 45 hit points (normal 23).

A CR 14 adult red dragon with 23 Con and 17d12 HD would have:
Base HP: 23 + 20 = 43 * 4.4 = 189 hit points (normal 212).

Four level 1 characters would actually have a bit of a challenge fighting one orc berserker.

But it looks like the HP actually starts to drop at higher levels. Maybe I need to do a higher base or %?
This message was last edited by the GM at 06:47, Fri 25 Sept 2015.

Your system makes HP much more plentiful at first level, and as you put it... it makes their advancing a little slower in many cases.  The fact that it makes them plentiful will make even a HP advancement that is closer to before still 'seem' proportionally less significant.  That might make more of an impact than the actual technical aspect of the change.

Certainly, certain attacks are scaled 1 die per level or two, and so while it might seem like very little to begin with, the advancement as it goes on may actually start feeling more significant.  (that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is worth notice)

Honestly, when I first had read your % advancement, I too had read it % of previous HP which, I thought was not simplifying the math.  With it only being percent of the base, it makes much more sense as a simpler calculation.

I do want to mention that while I'm fine with the multiples of 5 for your bonuses, I have to mention since you are including a person's CON score which need not be an even or round (as in multiple of 5) number, adding multiples of 5 doesn't really seem to simplify things significantly.  With that in mind, if you are starting over with classes etc.  Go ahead and pick what bonuses you want, but my suggestion is that if doing a straight conversion... use the MAX HP as your bonus to your CON base.

So my suggestion, a Fighter with a CON of 15 would have a base of 25(15+10).  While a Barbarian with a CON of 12 would get a base of 24(12+12), and a Wizard with a CON of 8 would have a base of 14(8+6)

Honestly... It brings up the question if it would be simpler to simply swap the +CON Modifier per HD with staring out at first level with your CON in HP and perhaps simply max your HP per Die as you advance.

My biggest gripe with 1st level is how getting to second level you are seemingly twice as tough.  That seems like like a big jump, while latter levels it is less noticeable.  Admittedly, in reality, at first level, since you normally start with max, unless you roll well for your second level, you normally aren't actually twice as tough... but it still gives you that 'feeling'.

Doubling after five levels seems a reasonable advancement, so if you wanted to use 20% it wouldn't seem too much (you might even get away with 25%).

I have to also admit that I have wondered if Size shouldn't play more of a roll in creatures HP more directly.  As an example... why does an ogre have to start out a higher level.  A part of me would suggest have the creatures size potentially adjust their base.  Be it a modifier against the whole base, or as a modifier against the CON, etc.

Tiny = 1/3 Con, instead of CON
Small = 1/2 Con, instead of CON
Large = 2x Con, instead of CON
Huge = 3x Con, instead of CON

[or maybe it would apply against the whole base?  Granted, that would be a significant change, might have to look at how it impacts various creatures as you did before.]

Also, are you considering what the influx of HP will do to your natural healing rates?

If I used the HD itself, that would give even less HP.

I suppose if I used the base HD and increased the % to 50%, that would essentially be very close to the original calculation but with a much higher rate increase. Let's try it out.

d6 -> +6
d8 -> +8
d10 -> +10
d12 -> +12

Anything with less than 1 full HD (anything that's less than CR 1/2) would multiply their base HP by their CR.

So a CR 1/6 rabbit with 10 Con and d8 HD would have:
Base HP: 10 + 8 = 18 / 6 = 3 hit points (normal 3).

A CR 1/4 common kobold with 9 Con and d8 HD would have:
Base HP: 9 + 8 = 17 / 4 = 4 hit points (normal 5).

A CR 1/3 common orc with 12 Con and d10 HD would have:
Base HP: 12 + 10 = 22 / 3 = 7 hit points (normal 11).

A CR 1 orc berserker with 18 Con and 2d12 HD would have:
Base HP: 18 + 12 = 30 * 1.5 = 45 hit points (normal 23).

A CR 14 adult red dragon with 23 Con and 17d12 HD would have:
Base HP: 23 + 12 = 35 * 9.5 = 332 hit points (normal 212).

This certainly increases the hit points a lot more using the 50% instead even though the base is a little smaller by using the HD. I actually like this better.

---

Size: I think the system accounts for HP/Size relation simply by giving larger creatures more levels and smaller creatures less levels. The CR multiplier I added seems to work for the smaller creatures.

---

Healing rates? Well, magical healing would function normally since it still counters damage at the same rate. Natural healing would just stay the same since natural healing is supposed to be too slow to be useful anyway. No need to change it unless I want to change the way healing works for a separate reason.

Which there are probably lots of reasons to do so if you prefer fast pace games. Maybe treat all damage as nonlethal damage and heal it back per hour instead of per sleep cycle?
This message was last edited by the GM at 03:49, Sat 26 Sept 2015.