Level Systems and Escalating Hit Points

I got into this discussion the other day with DarkgarX, so here goes.

He absolutely hates level systems and escalating hit points. He doesn't like these systems because he feels it makes things that should be dangerous, meaningless. Your sense of threat and scale get thrown out the window. Who cares about a gun pointed at your character's head when it only does 1d8 damage to your 60 hit points?

I know, there is the coup de grace (coo-day-grahs) rule, and this should handle it as a GM ruling. But still, he has a point when arrows and bullets are flying, and characters are laughing off damage.

Yes, heroes are supposed to be heroic.

I feel part of this comes from the "max hit points per level" house-rule, and I am cooling towards using that in my future Pathfinder games. I am leaning towards the PFS average HD + CON hit point rule:

HP (1st Level) = Maximum HD roll + Con Modifier

HP (2nd and Higher Levels) = Average HD roll (1/2 rounded up) + CON Modifier

If it is good enough for organized play, it is good enough for me. So a fighter with a +2 CON bonus has the following hit points at the following levels:

1. 10 (max hp for the d10 HD) + 2 = 12
2. 12 + 5.5 (rounded to 6) + 2 = 20
3. 20 + 6 + 2 = 28
4. 28 + 6 + 2 = 36
5. ...and so on, +8 per level, and so on (sans in the optional +1 hp/level favored class bonus)

With maximum HD per level, the level 3 fighter has 36 hit points (and level 4 is 48), so the average hp/level system knocks a level of toughness off low level characters, and by 10th level the difference is 84 hit points to 120 hit points, or about 30% less for a fighter. Is it enough of a difference to matter?

I feel it is. At 84 hit points, taking a d8+2 damage hit is going to matter, because I could lose 8-10% of my hit points in that one strike. Enough of those, and my hero is going down. At 120 hit points, I have about 40 hit points to give, which is on average five or six more d8+2 hits my fighter has to give.

• At average hp/level, it's 12 average d8+2 rolls before my fighter falls at level 10
• At maximum hp/level it's 17 average d8+2 rolls before my fighter falls at level 10

Too many hit points too quickly breaks the game, and the rate they are accumulated feels like the problem here. Do those free five hits for a level 10 fighter break the game? I feel they do. If you figure 10 fights in an adventure, that is 5 x 10 = 50 free d8+2 hits in combat for that fighter for the whole adventure. What was once a balanced game of resource management becomes making sure those free hits get recharged and reset every fight. That is a huge amount of power given away for free because we like a "max hp per level" house-rule.

With less hit points, damage means more. Healers have to pay attention and use healing spells more often to maintain that safety margin - so healers mean more and healing is more powerful. Defenses that could stop attacks mean more. The monsters are more challenging. Fights are closer. The numbers aren't so out-of-control feeling anymore, or not as bad as they used to seem.

As a player, is max hp/level a good thing? Sure! Everybody wants to be invincible, and everyone wants the best character the rules allow. But max hp/level is not right. Statistically, average hp/level is closer to the balance the game designers intended; and all of a sudden, all of the game's math starts to make more sense. The danger returns. The calculations for CR start to work out a little better. Those "free hits" every fight dry up, and your margin of victory becomes tighter.

I would even say for the average monster, the same is true. Keeping the hit points of monsters down speeds up fights. It makes damage mean more. It doesn't turn the game into a DPS race where maximizing is the key to victory just because you want to reduce a massive pile of hit points to zero in the quickest amount of time possible. D&D 4 had this problem for us, where even low level fights were this massive hit point grind where the party sat there trying to finish off goblins with 30 or 40 hit points with special powers. Even D&D 5 feels a bit hit point happy for us, and I like the older, d8 scale, 1 HD orc sort of 4 or 5 hit point rabble monster. To compare:

• Pathfinder Orc = 6 hp, 1 HD
• D&D 4 Orc = 1 hp (minion) or 66 hp (4 HD, Orcs start at level 4 in D&D 4)
• D&D 5 Orc = 15 hp (2-ish HD, but HD are not really used for monsters in D&D 5)

You have to factor in the damage scaling Wizards has put into play in D&D editions above 4 in those numbers, since to differentiate the game from D&D 3.5/Pathfinder, characters do more damage in the new versions of the game. Still, I like the Pathfinder Orc the best, a longbow could take one out with a solid hit, and it's another minion down (without needing the D&D 4 minion rules).

Do I like tougher Orcs? Yes, on general I do, but not to the point where the balance and scaling of the game world feels out of whack and like a video-game. To compare, 6 hp in a d4 hit die and 2 hit point commoner world is a tough foe, and a 36 hp level four fighter is as tough as six of those Orcs, or 18 common men. Those numbers feel right to me, not DarkgarX though as he is still saying it's too many hits. That d8 longsword is a powerful weapon, and still dangerous to when used against that level 4 fighter, and deadly to the 6 hp Orc.

In D&D 5, it's gonna take at least two or three hits to dispatch that Orc. In D&D 4, it's going to take a good majority of the game session. The opposite is also true. In Pathfinder, the Orc is the most deadly wielding a d8 longsword. In D&D 4, he is the weakest comparatively to the damage of that weapon listed in the book.

Scaling matters. Keeping your numbers down matters. Less means more. The original AD&D numbers and old-school ratios are good and what original D&D is based on, and I feel changing the number and damage scale hurts the game. Pathfinder is the closest to this original "keep it down" scale (minus the multi-attacks at later levels), and it keeps that low hit point and hit die feeling of danger intact. It is easy to want to succumb to "more is more" and give everyone free hit points - but I feel it breaks the game. Even the post D&D 4 scaling does the same thing in my feeling.

Less hit points mean more danger, and more danger is more excitement and a good thing.

This Doesn't Feel Like High Fantasy?

I was playing World of Warcraft the other day, and I was struck by one thing - the game's world has a high magic level, with teleporters, moonwells, places of magic (good and bad), levitating buildings, and a ton of other super-magic standards in the world. This is truly a good example of 'high fantasy' and it conveys the uniqueness and magic of the world very well.

Conversely, D&D3 and several of its game worlds are labeled high fantasy, but basically feel more like low fantasy. Note I said D&D3, the rules are forcing you to buy iron rations and 50-foot ropes, and putting most spells on a once/day casting time. The way magic is handled and the focus on survival pushes the world away from the super-fantastic, and gives you the impression of a 'boards and swords' world where magic is rare, magical races hide from humanity, and the world is another copy of Medieval Europe with Elves and Dwarves thrown in.

D&D4 is a little better, with the split worlds and fantastic races playing a larger role in the game world. They slip though, especially with the new Faerun and some of the settings. Even the fantastic world of Eberron with its Noir/Steampunk origins feels like low fantasy outside of a couple key locations. The default 'points of light' setting is a little better, since it leaves the world up to you, and you can add as many fantastical elements as you can imagine. This is a fantastic world, with magical places being written into how the world works, although the races sometimes feel they don't affect the world as much. Since there is no written world, this is expected, but the races and how they built the world is mostly up to the referee. To be fair, some of the later art in Essentials and the Dark Sun 4 setting is presented way more realistic than the books depict, looking more like 'bible art' than 'high fantasy art.'

Pathfinder has a unique split personality, where the rules are more simulationist like D&D3, and the art is way more fantastic and high-fantasy, with art depicting characters hanging in the clutches of Cthulhu-type monsters blasting them with magic spells. The game pushes the fantastic in the art, and then later on the rules catch up with unique classes and magic items. The later expansion books push a unique world a lot better than the basic guides, since the base books have to be compatible with other settings, they have to be more generic and D&D-baseline-centric.

It is a split more like hard sci-fi and science fantasy, and the rules and presentation matter. One example that is interesting is Mongoose Traveller's large book and miniature book. The rules are exactly the same, but the large book has art with a traditional hard sci-fi edge, and the mini rules book has art with sexier science-fantasy style art. Same rules, different presentation. I feel Traveller does hard sci-fi well, but science fantasy not as well as other systems built for pulp two-fisted action.

For fantasy, making sure the world-build matches the rules is critical to making everything seem like a unified creation. Design matters, and art plays a huge role here, because it sets the 'visual tone' for the game, and sets players' expectations for what they will read in the rules.