Penalties for losing HP

[Maquise]

I was wondering if it would be a good idea to cause penalties for taking HP damage, to make damage less binary. I understand there is something called 'bloodied' in fourth edition, but have no real knowledge of how it works. I would think, though, that if such rules were used, it would probably be a good idea to give melee characters some means of mitigating the effects.

[prufock]

Take a look at Star Wars Saga Edition. Each character has a "damage threshold" which is generally the same as your fortitude defense. If you take damage over this threshold, you move down a step on the condition track, which imposes penalties at -1, -2, -5, -10, incapacitated.

As to whether it's a good idea, well... SWSE has stronger limits on damage. In D&D there are so many ways to pump your damage that exceeding the damage threshold would be child's play, comparatively.

[Winds]

4.0: 'Bloodied' is when a character or monster is reduced to half hit points. It does different things like recharge expended attacks or allow access to different abilities. But I don't recall it coming with any penalties.

[shizukanashi]

There are a few systems that use a similar method. Star Wars D6 uses a very similar system to Saga edition. Shadowrun, even Marvel Super Heros uses a injury state as a die modifier, to both your actions and the actions of oponents targeting you.

Note that being "bloodied" in 4e just means that you are at half your full hit points, and are probably in need of healing. Most of the time it has no other effects, but there are things that benefit or are hindered by a bloody state, like an Orc Beserker that is bloodied deals more damage, and I think there are Demons that deal more damage if thier target is bloodied, ect. These effects are fairly rare though.

[Lapak]

4.0: 'Bloodied' is when a character or monster is reduced to half hit points. It does different things like recharge expended attacks or allow access to different abilities. But I don't recall it coming with any penalties.There are some abilities and attacks that are only really relevant *against* Bloodied enemies, and other than trigger when a foe becomes Bloodied, so while it doesn't carry a penalty as such it can open the door to Bad Things happening to you.

I don't have any specific suggestions, but as general advice, if you're going to add this to any 3.x version of D&D (and the basic system doesn't expect it, so you'll want to keep an eye out for unexpected side effects) you'll want to make sure that it penalizes caster classes at least as much as melee, or you're just making an existing imbalance worse. For example, if you're going to introduce a penalty to AC or attack bonus when someone loses X% of their hit points, that's mostly going to hurt melee classes. If you introduce a movement penalty instead, that's a little more even. If you DO choose to affect people's offense or defense, you'll want to be sure to affect everyone's: a to-hit penalty should trigger at the same time as automatic Concentration checks to perform spellcasting kick in, say.

[Khedrac]

The theory behind D&D's hit points system is that most of the "damage" you take isn't physical damage - it's wearing one down, destroying one's "edge" that allows one to dodge attacks etc. Only the last 10 or so hp (i.e. first level equivalent) is actual physical damage.

I think this was explained in 1st Ed AD&D but it might have been Basic or Expert. It was certainly forgotten when the Wilderness Survival Guide came out with bleeding damage rules (that were lethal at low levels) but I like it as the theory behind hit points.
If you do use this explanation of hit points then progressive penalties as you take damage do not make sense.
Also always remember to apply the same effects to NPCs as players.

[Maquise]

The theory behind D&D's hit points system is that most of the "damage" you take isn't physical damage - it's wearing one down, destroying one's "edge" that allows one to dodge attacks etc. Only the last 10 or so hp (i.e. first level equivalent) is actual physical damage.

I think this was explained in 1st Ed AD&D but it might have been Basic or Expert. It was certainly forgotten when the Wilderness Survival Guide came out with bleeding damage rules (that were lethal at low levels) but I like it as the theory behind hit points.
If you do use this explanation of hit points then progressive penalties as you take damage do not make sense.
Also always remember to apply the same effects to NPCs as players.

If hitpoints do represent that, then penalties could be a way to represent growing tired, losing focus, etc.

[Big Fau]

I honestly wouldn't bother with it. The penalties just make noncasters worse, and casters will hardly ever notice (assuming they are played to their potential). At the mid-levels a noncaster is dealing and being dealt so much damage in a single round that they are unlikely to care about the penalties imposed, or even killed before the penalties take effect.

In my opinion, such a rule is highly unnecessary at best and a major nuisance to the weakest classes at worst.

[GreenETC]

In my opinion, such a rule is highly unnecessary at best and a major nuisance to the weakest classes at worst.

I agree. Usually casters never even take damage, while the melee types are soaking up smacks left and right. It's already bad enough if a player gets crit for half his HP, but if he then gets a -2 to everything simply because his health is now shot, he's never going to be able to last.

[subject42]

In addition to what everyone else has said, most "normal" combats don't really last past ~4 rounds. If you start adding stacking penalties on top of that, it's rapidly going to turn combat into a single D20 roll as D&D becomes the Who-Wins-Initiative-Game.

[navar100]

The concept might work in other game systems but not D&D. By applying penalties you turn a linear line to death into a quadratic because it makes it that much harder to hit your opponent, make saving throws, succeed at skill checks, etc., so you become easier to kill. Warriors get the worse of this since they're the ones who usually take the most damage over the course of a combat as inherent to what they're supposed to be doing. It's why they have the most hit points in the first place. D&D uses shaken, sickened, stunned, etc., conditions to reflect non-hit point means of attacks and apply the penalties you are seeking.

[limejuicepowder]

I total agree with the penalty thing, but I'm intrigued by the bloodied condition. I've read the 4th edition PHB, but it was awhile ago so I don't remember that particular part.

It would take a lot of work, but I think it might be fun to add a "finishing move" of sorts to some classes that can only be used against bloodied opponents. Or some feats become better against bloodied, and alternatively, some feats can't be used if you are bloodied. There could even be "true grit" type of moves/feats that can only be used if you are bloodied - thus you could become potentially more vulnerable but more dangerous at the same time.

I'm fairly confident I would never devote the time to do something like this, but daydreaming about it is nice too.

[ArcturusV]

Bloodied, by itself, doesn't do much in 4th Edition. Though there are a lot of powers that can only target bloodied characters, or have different effects if enemies are bloodied, etc.

A good example of what you might want is actually from Palladium's RPG system, which I know best for Robotech but I think most think of RIFTS. In it as you approached low HP amounts you got increasingly severe conditions happening to you, stacking with all the above conditions.

The problem with this though is that first level just kinda throws this idea out the window. I mean when you only have 4 HP, for example, there's not a lot of wiggle room between "Hampered at low HP" and "Full Health". It's not like the aforementioned Palladium RPG where at first level you'd have effectively anywhere from 50-200 HP to start with.

And it seems weird to get gimped at higher levels because you suddenly have more HP and thus can more accurately use a system like that. Though not exactly unworkable.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Just thinking out loud, why doesn't low HP grant benefits? Like, Paladins gain more Smites, Ranger and Barbarians' damage skyrockets, and Fighters...gain something useful (extra feats? +2 Morale bonus?). If Martial classes benefited from a bloodied condition and casters suffered (<50%? lol no Xth level spells for you!) then it might be a tad balanced.

Other than that, I just use the Wounds/Vitality system. My players like the added realism.

[ericgrau]

I've seen this at work before. It favors backliners who often don't get damaged at all. Occasionally they get hit and are instantly forced to flee because of their low health, meaning the penalties to anything except speed are irrelevant to them. The frontliners OTOH will face meaningful penalties almost every fight. This is a Bad Idea for game balance.

You could try to work around some of that but the part where backliners often don't get hit even once means that it's nigh impossible to do without making the entire system trivial.