In OD&D a fighter advanced about 1d6 HP per level +8 by level 10, average 38-46
Magic Users and Clerics averaged 25-29

On AD&D Fighters at level 10 average 48-52
Magic users averaged 20-25
Cleric averages 38-42

Interesting the differences. Clerics got the biggest bump while MU's actually lost HP.

5e oddly enough does not vary too much from A and 2e. Wizards get a bump up from a d4 to a d6. Fighter averages 50-55 + 5-5.5 if allow starter extra HD. I do not and do not know any other DMs that do.
Wizards are 30-35
and Clerics are 40-45

Con bonuses, if any, can really throw all this into a spin. O and A/2 had certain restrictions on what classes could get CON bonuses or how much. 5e has no such restriction.

Also once past 10th level things start to skew a little for AD&D You've usually stopped getting HD and are oft just getting HP. While in 5e you get HD all the way to 20. So a 5e Wizard will average at 20 some 60-70 hp. while the AD&D one would have around 31-36. A 5e Fighter will have 100-105 HP while the AD&D one has at 20 just 78-82 I believe.

So 5e is not too far off from AD&D. They just go at it differently. CON bonus is where the bigger factor is. In AD&D CON does not give bonuses till 15, and caps at +2 for non Fighters. Whereas in 5e CON bonuses start at 12 and go all the way to +5 as stats can go to 20. Though at 18 CON both versions are +4 sooooo it evens out till someone in 5e gets CON to 20. But a 5e Wizard could end up having a fair amount more potential bonus HP from CON.

So overall the bloat is not as much at its basics. But 5e still has the potential to leap ahead depending on what rules are used or not.

In addition to CON bonus, I also neglected the effect of Hit Dice and Second Wind in 5e, as these effectively increase HP by quite a bit -- about 50% for hit dice (since you restore half of them each long rest). Second wind gets less important as you level but at early levels it basically refreshes half the fighter's hit points after every battle.

I should probably have known that writing that post, and then leaving for a work day where I knew I was not going to be able to respond to anything, was a mistake. It's now kind of too late to go back and respond post by post, but let me address a few of the more common rejoinders, and try to refine my point a bit.

-Some people seemed to think I was advocating for either armor soak or active parry rolls. I wasn't. I genuinely think combining getting past an enemy's defenses and penetrating their armor into one roll is quite an elegant design choice.

-A greater number of people countered that hit point bloat was not an issue in older editions of D&D. I'm less than convinced by that, but I can't claim to have extensively played every edition of D&D, so set it aside. I probably shouldn't have used the phrase "bloat" anyway, since that is so thoroughly a matter of preference.

My core point is that as long as you agree with the idea that characters' ability to defend themselves should improve as they level up (which I think most people do), the D&D system only provides two means of doing that: HP and AC. For whatever reason, the vast majority of D&D editions and derived games have chosen to prioritize HP. Whether designers want to tune the players' survivability up or down, they're more likely to change HP than AC. When they do change AC, it seems like its usually just by advising DMs to give out fewer magic items.  As far as I can tell, the way that AC is calculated has barely changed since B/X.

With so many in the OSR world wanting to restrict both HP and magic items, personally I think a re-tuning of the way AC is calculated would be a valuable --if not necessary-- step towards that. It seems like some people agree, too, since there were a few comments of people saying how they'd homebrewed leveled AC into their games. 

Quote from: ForgottenF on August 12, 2022, 07:57:28 PM
My core point is that as long as you agree with the idea that characters' ability to defend themselves should improve as they level up (which I think most people do), the D&D system only provides two means of doing that: HP and AC. For whatever reason, the vast majority of D&D editions and derived games have chosen to prioritize HP. Whether designers want to tune the players' survivability up or down, they're more likely to change HP than AC. When they do change AC, it seems like its usually just by advising DMs to give out fewer magic items.  As far as I can tell, the way that AC is calculated has barely changed since B/X.

I think that's fair. As someone else mentioned, some of the third-party d20 System spinoffs did increase base Defense as you leveled -- I know the Wheel of Time RPG did, and IIRC so did the original A Song of Ice and Fire d20-based system. I never played any of those but it seems like a decent idea.

An easy version that should work easily for most major OSR systems and classic D&D editions would be to improve AC by 1 every 3 levels for fighters, every 4 levels for clerics and thieves, and every 5 levels for magic-users (same as the saving throw advancement rate), maybe up to a maximum improvement of 4. For 5e you could make AC 8 + proficiency bonus + armor, which also caps it at an effective +4 (+6 prof bonus but offset by starting at 8 instead of 10). I feel like that latter is an optional rule either in the core books or an Unearthed Arcana post, but I can't be bothered to look it up.

Quote from: Krugus on August 12, 2022, 11:28:43 AM
The armor system I liked was from Earthdawn (Savage World sort of uses its dice system, complete with exploding dice).  You armor was just Damage Resistance, but the critical hits in that game (extraordinary hit) would defeat your armor...

...So was this something you had in mind?

Quite close. If I was writing a D&D clone for myself, I would probably keep AC as a component of armor, but add in the level-based improvements, and I do like those intervals for them, and then either drop the base AC number to 8 or improve attack bonuses to compensate. My only real issue with the AC system as it is is that equipment is such a major part of it, and skill such a minor one. That's all I think that needs tweaking.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 12, 2022, 01:16:00 PM
Not, not necessarily.

It is theoretically possible to have AC and no HP bloat, as exemplified by chainmail and, say, Kevin Crawford's games.

However, having NO HP bloat requires changing other things about the game. For example, the fact that a goblin can kill you in one round with a critical hit (or remove crits entirely). Also, it might require that you spend rounds and rounds of combat where both sides miss, which can be boring.

There are ways to fix this, however (e.g. escalation die from 13th Age).

So, depends on the system, really.

EDIT: curiously, in 4e IIRC AC would increase with levels, so it's been tried in D&D; it worked reasonably well, but not necessarily the most popular choice.
EDIT: I was reading "For Coin and Blood" 2e another day, it has no HP bloat apparently.

I'm running Dragon Warriors at the moment, which has something close to my optimum system. It has Defense as a statistic which improves at different rates per class, and then modifies the target number for the attack roll, followed by a separate roll to bypass armor (that part being why I don't consider it perfect). That game does kind of have that issue that multiple rounds can go by without a hit (especially in 1-on-1 fights). I do find that is well balanced out by the fact that even a high level fighting class can be knocked out in a handful of melee attacks (a 12th level Barbarian averages about 24 HP in that game, and weapon damage works basically the same as in D&D).

One thing to consider is that in the transition from Chainmail to the alternative combat system, D&D lost its parry rules. In Chainmail Man-to-Man combat you could sacrifice an attack to penalize your opponent's attack roll, albeit at the risk of your weapon breaking. If your weapon was light enough you could even counterattack if the opponent misses, so you didn't lose your attack.

Thinking about it, there really should have been at least a small bump to AC as you leveled up just to replace parrying.

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on August 12, 2022, 09:53:34 PM
One thing to consider is that in the transition from Chainmail to the alternative combat system, D&D lost its parry rules. In Chainmail Man-to-Man combat you could sacrifice an attack to penalize your opponent's attack roll, albeit at the risk of your weapon breaking. If your weapon was light enough you could even counterattack if the opponent misses, so you didn't lose your attack.

Thinking about it, there really should have been at least a small bump to AC as you leveled up just to replace parrying.

Interesting. I did not know about that. A house rule I've been running for a while now is that if you roll a 1 on your attack, instead of a fumble, your enemy gets a free counter-attack against you (with modifiers determined by the individual game system). Cool to find out that Gygax already thought of that.

I have decided that a character of any given level, should on average be able to one shot another character that is half his level.  Average attack damage from a level 6 character, should be able to one shot a 3rd level character, etc.  I don't see that as hit point bloat.

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 12, 2022, 10:49:30 PM
I have decided that a character of any given level, should on average be able to one shot another character that is half his level.  Average attack damage from a level 6 character, should be able to one shot a 3rd level character, etc.  I don't see that as hit point bloat.

This can almost happen in OD&D + Chainmail, but is foiled by the fact that at 3rd level fighting-men count as a Hero -1 and so you're supposed to use the Fantasy Combat Table. But between you and me, the Fantasy Combat Table strikes me as kind of meh. So if we ignore it, then a fighting-man gets a number of attacks per round equal to his level (actually at level 7 it jumps from 6 to 8 ), up to a max of 8. They also have roughly a number of hit dice equal to their level. Since each hit does 1d6 damage and each hit die gives 1d6 hit points, it's not out of the question for a fighting-man to one-shot another fighting-man of half his level, at least until name level.

Something just occurred to me that I never thought of before: at level 3, fighting-men start using the fantasy combat table for most monsters, and that table doesn't take weapons and armor into consideration unless they're magical. So from 3rd level on, it does not matter much of the time what armor, if any, or what weapon the character is using. Only against normal men types does it still matter, and then the multiple attacks the fighting-man gets should generally matter more.

Same consideration for the other classes just at different levels.

So barechested Conan wrestling a giant snake, or bucknaked John Carter fighting the Green Martians' champions, and apparently none the worse for it is totally a thing in OD&D.

Quote from: ForgottenF on August 12, 2022, 10:03:03 PM

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on August 12, 2022, 09:53:34 PM
One thing to consider is that in the transition from Chainmail to the alternative combat system, D&D lost its parry rules. In Chainmail Man-to-Man combat you could sacrifice an attack to penalize your opponent's attack roll, albeit at the risk of your weapon breaking. If your weapon was light enough you could even counterattack if the opponent misses, so you didn't lose your attack.

Thinking about it, there really should have been at least a small bump to AC as you leveled up just to replace parrying.

Interesting. I did not know about that. A house rule I've been running for a while now is that if you roll a 1 on your attack, instead of a fumble, your enemy gets a free counter-attack against you (with modifiers determined by the individual game system). Cool to find out that Gygax already thought of that.

That makes a lot of sense when someone does fumble, why wouldn't the other guy take advantage of your mistakes?  That is quick way of handling things, and it benefits both the npc's and players alike.   I like your house rule  

Quote from: ForgottenF on August 12, 2022, 07:57:28 PMMy core point is that as long as you agree with the idea that characters' ability to defend themselves should improve as they level up (which I think most people do), the D&D system only provides two means of doing that: HP and AC. For whatever reason, the vast majority of D&D editions and derived games have chosen to prioritize HP. Whether designers want to tune the players' survivability up or down, they're more likely to change HP than AC. When they do change AC, it seems like its usually just by advising DMs to give out fewer magic items.  As far as I can tell, the way that AC is calculated has barely changed since B/X.

There is a reason that D&D has never given out bonuses to AC as a character levels up, because it doesn't work. Or more correctly, it works too well. You might think that if a fighter gets a +4 bonus to AC, then that character wouldn't need to wear heavy armor but the exact opposite is true. A bonus to AC is significantly more valuable the better your armor already is. For example, if you are getting hit on a 13 or more, you'll be hit 8 times out of 20 attacks. A +1 to AC drops that to 7 times out of 20. However, if you already have an AC so high you are getting hit on an 18+ then that same +1 bonus will raise it to 19+. So instead of getting hit three times out of 20, you will get hit two times out of 20 which reduces your incoming damage by 33%. This is equivalent to giving that character a 50% bonus to their hit point total. The result is even worse hit point bloat.

Which is why, IMO, if you are going to give characters a bonus to defense as they level up, you HAVE to remove armor from the to-hit process. Personally, I use an all-or-nothing armor save but there are plenty of other methods.

Quote from: estar on August 12, 2022, 02:34:32 PM
My point is that the consequence of D&D 5e having hit point bloat that allows the author to have characters to gain more ways to do damage as they level while keeping the odds of being successful with an attack on a flatter power curve. The part they call bounded accuracy. This means that even when you are 20th level, there is a decent chance (more than 5%) for a goblin to hit you. And a decent chance for you to miss that goblin (more than 5%).

Whether this is "good" or "bad" is a subjective question to answer on the basis of what one likes in terms of complexity and playability.

I agree. This is how 5e does it. I'd still say it is possible to do this in other ways, so not sure how we disagree here.

Quote from: estar on August 12, 2022, 02:34:32 PM
As for the utility of OD&D, I think made my opinion clear when I released the Majestic Fantasy RPG. The short answer it works and it works well. What I added were things that it didn't address like being better at stuff outside of combat and spellcasting. Even there I keep the complexity similar to the existing mechanics.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 12, 2022, 01:16:00 PM
However, having NO HP bloat requires changing other things about the game. For example, the fact that a goblin can kill you in one round with a critical hit (or remove crits entirely). Also, it might require that you spend rounds and rounds of combat where both sides miss, which can be boring.

In GURPS and Runequest among other system hit points mean something very different than D&D. It comparing apples to oranges.

I disagree here. I played plenty of GURPS and D&D to say HP are at least similar in both systems. There are many differences but "apples to oranges" is exagerated.

Quote from: estar on August 12, 2022, 02:34:32 PM
The "whiff" problem is an issue in any system that opt to allow for a defense roll in combat. The designer has to account for that when creating the combat system. My personal recommendation is to look at how melee combat works in life and see what tactics combatants use to deal with that issue.

Yup, agree here too.

Quote from: estar on August 12, 2022, 02:34:32 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 12, 2022, 01:16:00 PM
There are ways to fix this, however (e.g. escalation die from 13th Age).

I sure it works for you and other folk. I dislike mechanics like that because I consider them game gimmicks. Mechanics that are there to make for a better board/war game not because it represent something in the setting or something that character can do within the setting.

Utimately they led to the same issue that hit points and armor class has. People forget why it was added in the first place and then start adding things because it makes sense for a game that uses a hit point and armor mechanic.

The escalation die represents something within the setting - escalation. Fighters trade a few blows, measure each other up, test distances, before they go for the big blows. I'm not a big fan of 13A, this is just one example.

Quote from: estar on August 12, 2022, 02:34:32 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 12, 2022, 01:16:00 PM
EDIT: I was reading "For Coin and Blood" 2e another day, it has no HP bloat apparently.

If you need a copy, PM me for a copy of my Majestic Fantasy RPG. I come up with ways of handling the issues raised in this thread without having to jettison OD&D mechanics.

For example, knocking out a guard. For D&D (classic and new) a lot of folks, including myself, try to come up with some mechanic that allows a massive amount of damage to be done like the backstab ability of the thief. What I do instead is allow characters if they have a surprise, if they are attacking from behind, if the target is human-sized, to make a to-hit roll. If they hit then the target gets a save. If they fail they are knocked out. IF they wearing a helm their save is modified to be easier.

I also have a face shot rule but the attack roll is heavily penalized and is  it all but useless against opponents wearing helmets with facial protection?

It doesn't matter how many hit points the target has or what level they are. If they fail the save they are out cold.

I have a different edition, apparently (Majestic Wilderlands). I really like how you handle skills and weapons. Also, sub-classes and races. A great game overall.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 13, 2022, 11:51:54 AM
There is a reason that D&D has never given out bonuses to AC as a character levels up, because it doesn't work. Or more correctly, it works too well. You might think that if a fighter gets a +4 bonus to AC, then that character wouldn't need to wear heavy armor but the exact opposite is true. A bonus to AC is significantly more valuable the better your armor already is. For example, if you are getting hit on a 13 or more, you'll be hit 8 times out of 20 attacks. A +1 to AC drops that to 7 times out of 20. However, if you already have an AC so high you are getting hit on an 18+ then that same +1 bonus will raise it to 19+. So instead of getting hit three times out of 20, you will get hit two times out of 20 which reduces your incoming damage by 33%. This is equivalent to giving that character a 50% bonus to their hit point total. The result is even worse hit point bloat.

Which is why, IMO, if you are going to give characters a bonus to defense as they level up, you HAVE to remove armor from the to-hit process. Personally, I use an all-or-nothing armor save but there are plenty of other methods.

It's a good point that the higher a roll the opponent needs to hit you, the more difference a single point of AC makes, and worth considering. However, it seems like your math relies on the assumption of low or non-existent attack bonuses. You would need to buff those up to compensate for higher AC numbers, at least in most old school games. 3.x attack bonuses get so high that you might not need to change them at all.

I don't see that it creates hit point bloat, though. 1. As I said, you could modify attack bonuses and wind up in the same place, but with a system that better reflects the growing skill of a higher level character. 2. As chance to hit decreases, you can decrease HP along with it and keep the characters at the same staying power in battle.

You might say that adds up to the same thing, but I would argue there are benefits to reducing HP that are external to combat. Traps, falls, poisons etc. all become more dangerous. It also makes being caught in unawares or in a position where you can't defend yourself more impactful. You no longer get the situation where holding the fighter up at crossbow-point is useless, because he can easily tank the one shot while he draws his weapon.

Armor as a binary save works perfectly well (see my earlier comment about Dragon Warriors), but it adds another roll to every attack, which I would prefer to avoid. I don't think it should be beyond the wit of man to come up with a system where armor is included in a single attack roll, without making skill irrelevant.