5e rules for maiming

[1Forge]

Hey I'm running several dnd campagns and i ruled that on a critical hit you take not only the damage, but negative temp hp (basicly can't heal those hp from total without serious healing) The idea was - temp hp would be if they seriously hurt (crippled, or other permanent injury)

Does this seem legit? I just dont like when characters take a nap and suddenly have all their limbs back with no side effects.

[Easy_Lee]

Personally, I hate these kinds of systems. They punish anyone who doesn't have built-in regeneration.

It helps not to think of damage as being any more than trivial until you get to low HP. You didn't get slashed in the arm, you just got a cut. The mace didn't break a bone, it just bruised or dazed you. The Dragon fire didn't hit you directly, you managed to avoid the worst of it and lost some hairs.

[Jakinbandw]

try the gritty rest rules in the DMG. It will mean that the party will have to wait at least a week of complete bed rest to heal while keeping magic and everything else balanced. Should solve your suspension of disbelief.

[Magic Myrmidon]

It's kind of a shame how HP kind of makes people imagine that heroes get stabbed and cut every time they take damage. So much makes so much more sense if you take HP to represent all sorts of things, like stamina, luck, grit, etc. And then when someone dies or passes out, that's a serious hit. It solves so many problems.

If you take HP to just be an abstraction of various sources, not how many times you can be stabbed, you don't really need any additional rules for "realism".

If you ABSOLUTELY want crippling stuff, I've had DMs who let players be crippled instead of killed when they would normally be killed. I think that's a really good idea, since it preserves the same party (and you don't have to deal with the headaches of introducing new PCs), it adds roleplaying opportunities, and it lets those crippling injuries happen without them being ridiculously frequent.

Edit: Regarding your rules specifically, that's not so bad, but having that trigger off of a crit is gonna be pretty dang frequent. Also, what constitutes "serious" healing? I'd figure magical healing would pretty much take care of anything short of removed limbs. And removed limbs are not represented very well with negative temporary HP. And even then, removed limbs can be restored with restoration and such.

[Ziegander]

Hmm, it's actually an interesting idea. So how do you do it? What does it take to recover those lost hit points? And are these crippling wounds in the full amount of damage dealt by the critical hit or just some of it?

[Envyus]

There is a table in the DMG for crippling wounds. This is more complex then it needs to be so I would just use that table. If you get hit by a crit then you roll on the table and stuff like getting your ribs broken can happen.

[1Forge]

Okay ive read the comments. I would probably make it work like this:

-When you are dropped below 0 hp you are considered "maimed" when maimed you take negative temp hp's equal to the amount of hp you went below 0. This type of wound does not heal without medical care. If you dont get medical care after 3 days roll a constitution save to see if you get sic from it. If you do get medical care (does not have to be magical) the negative hp goes away at the rate of 1d4 per day of non magical healing. Magical healing automatically heals negative hp.

-Alternatively when you are hit by a natural 20 and you are below half your hp you take 1d4 negative hp you are considered maimed and follow the rules above.

these are rules I've been play testing in my home brew setting at school, so far its pretty good and doesn't require a table of set effects.

Also i dont see it as punishing players without natural healing abilities, I think of it as adding a bit of realism. Kind of like carrying capacity, players cant carry everything they find, and fighters cant heal like the wolverine, it's better that way.

[Vogonjeltz]

Okay ive read the comments. I would probably make it work like this:

-When you are dropped below 0 hp you are considered "maimed" when maimed you take negative temp hp's equal to the amount of hp you went below 0. This type of wound does not heal without medical care. If you dont get medical care after 3 days roll a constitution save to see if you get sic from it. If you do get medical care (does not have to be magical) the negative hp goes away at the rate of 1d4 per day of non magical healing. Magical healing automatically heals negative hp.

-Alternatively when you are hit by a natural 20 and you are below half your hp you take 1d4 negative hp you are considered maimed and follow the rules above.

these are rules I've been play testing in my home brew setting at school, so far its pretty good and dosent require a table of set effects.

The DMG already has rules for lingering wounds.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Been playing Pillars of Eternity lately? :p

Really, those rules don't sound too bad. I'd be ok with them. Honestly, they're lenient enough that they might be barely noticed, if they have any healing at all in the party.

[1Forge]

When i purchase the DMG I'll see the rules, but untill then ill just house rule those rules in. I just wanted some sort of consequence for not seeking medical attention, something lenient but still a pain if not taken care of.

BTW how do i change the thread title? I want to change it to rules for maiming.

[SouthpawSoldier]

You could also lift from FATE; similar in tone to the options from the DMG, and FATE Core is a free download, IIRC. Not sure if Complication/Injury Rules are part of the free version.

Do pick up the DMG when you get a chance. The repercussions for lack of treatment (maiming, scarring, etc) would easily add flavor, especially if received by a BBEG or lieutenant.

[Ralanr]

try the gritty rest rules in the DMG. It will mean that the party will have to wait at least a week of complete bed rest to heal while keeping magic and everything else balanced. Should solve your suspension of disbelief.

Hurts barbarians a lot though. A week after rage? I could get behind that making sense with exhaustion, but not rage.

[1Forge]

When i get the DMG ill check the rules and take what i see as fair. Also a week in rp time is very short (but yeah a week after a rage is crazy barbarians are perpetually angry.)

[ChubbyRain]

The table on page 273 (ish) of the DMG is bad for the game when used as the DMG says you can...

But I just worked with a friend to make a monster that uses illusions. Each of those lingering effects have been turned into a concentration type illusion.

Should be a lot of fun.

[Gritmonger]

I was thinking of going with "if a critical hit takes a player to zero" they get an injury from the long-term injury list. So you wouldn't get it from a fireball, or from a dozen small hits it might take to knock you down - you'd get it from a critical hit from the sweeping arm of an Owlbear, for instance. Most of the time it will be temporary and superficial - but a few involve loss of limbs or eyes. For a low-level campaign where this might happen relatively often with encounters with large numbers of enemies, this could provide some incentive not to get in over your head.

[ChubbyRain]

I was thinking of going with "if a critical hit takes a player to zero" they get an injury from the long-term injury list. So you wouldn't get it from a fireball, or from a dozen small hits it might take to knock you down - you'd get it from a critical hit from the sweeping arm of an Owlbear, for instance. Most of the time it will be temporary and superficial - but a few involve loss of limbs or eyes. For a low-level campaign where this might happen relatively often with encounters with large numbers of enemies, this could provide some incentive not to get in over your head.

The biggest issue is that this will punish melee type characters more so than ones that stay at range.

D&D really isn't set up to be specifically gritty, just generally gritty.

[1Forge]

Its not really punishing melee fighters its just part of the job risk. Plus opposing arrows or spells could maim ranged units too. And the reason im not only saying critical hits is because when you are at deaths doorstep you will have side effects period.

[Easy_Lee]

The biggest issue is that this will punish melee type characters more so than ones that stay at range.

D&D really isn't set up to be specifically gritty, just generally gritty.

I agree with this. With the abundance of stealth effects, the ease of picking up expertise in stealth if one wants it (two levels of rogue or bard, the latter being a full caster and the former offering plenty of bonus actions), feats like alert and a wide variety of ranged and movement-based effects, a strike first, kite-based team / character is already a compelling option in 5e. Meanwhile, characters like barbarians, who normally can wade into battle confident that they will survive, now have to worry about critical hits breaking their bones and all of that other mundane trauma. "Realistic" or not, I don't think that this would be good for the game.

[ChubbyRain]

Its not really punishing melee fighters its just part of the job risk. Plus opposing arrows or spells could maim ranged units too. And the reason im not only saying critical hits is because when you are at deaths doorstep you will have side effects period.

D&D is not set up to be a simulation game, it is set up to be an action movie.

In movies the stars will fall down flights of stairs, get hit by cars, and all kind of crazy stuff that should absolutely kill them with no questions asked.

Just think how much those movies would suck if we applied realism to it? John McClain wouldn't have gotten past Die Hard 1 if realism had anything to say about it.

So don't punish players for wanting to be a fantasy character in a fantasy game. Be they casters or martials, the ones going into melee are pretty much the stupidest people within that setting and the rules are being set up to actively punish them 5% of the time.

[Easy_Lee]

In movies the stars will fall down flights of stairs, get hit by cars, and all kind of crazy stuff that should absolutely kill them with no questions asked.

Just think how much those movies would suck if we applied realism to it? John McClain wouldn't have gotten past Die Hard 1 if realism had anything to say about it.

Relevant to you comment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PVZ2ajOnKg

John McClane would be completely dead or in critical condition, and D&D characters regularly go through much worse. Just think of how disfigured someone would be after taking an acid globe to the face, a cantrip, and you have some idea of how hardy these people are. D&D characters are basically lesser versions of Wolverine.

[ChubbyRain]

Relevant to you comment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PVZ2ajOnKg

John McClane would be completely dead or in critical condition, and D&D characters regularly go through much worse. Just think of how disfigured someone would be after taking an acid globe to the face, a cantrip, and you have some idea of how hardy these people are. D&D characters are basically lesser versions of Wolverine.

After I posted I started looking through my YouTube stuff to try and find that. :smallcool:

I always thought of them more like Captain America, still vulnerable and mortal but able to take some damage and can't just forget that they are still human.

[1Forge]

Thats the thing though i don't tend to run campaigns in a Hollywood way, its ridiculous and dumb to get stabbed 20 times shot in the back twice then take a fireball to your face; take a nap then walk out unscathed. I want to encourage the critical thinking in my characters that would be used in real life, each person weighing death in their plans. i don't like it when characters purposefully do stupid things that any person with a brain wouldn't do just because they know its a game and can always make a new character, get resurrected at a later date, or just add II to the end of their name and continue on with no repercussions.
I don't want the heart of a nerd to beat in the chest of a hero, I want the heart of a hero to beat in the chest of a nerd. If only for a few hours on Friday.

[Bigby]

You're thinking of HP as just the body. I saw someone in another thread say that it could be your luck, too. And when you hit that 0, your 'luck' has run out. You may have cheated death on that critical hit, you may have just barely avoided the most of that fireball... but now you're going to die.

I'm glad people are thinking this way, to be honest. I used to think 'just health' but I like the other ideas for HP. It would help explain a lot about adventurers.

Also if your players are purposely killing themselves off, you should talk to them about that. It breaks the spirit of the game imho if they're doing stupid stuff. If you don't feel they're roleplaying their character, call them on it.

[Dontdestroyme]

Just use the DMG rules for massive damage, maiming, and gritty realism.

Massive damage is if you take over half your health, you need to roll a con save. If you fail, you roll on a table, the best option of which is you drop to 0. Massive damage for a level 3 fighter with 14 con is 14 damage. That's like one well placed hit from a hobgoblin.

Level 3 wizard with 14 con is only like 10 damage.

Maiming gives as its suggestions say a critical hit, or when you drop to 0. Best case you get scars. Worst case you could lose an arm or your eyes. Critical hits when you're in a dungeon are bound to happen against you eventually, and massive damage being so easy to drop you to 0 can really mess you up. Might want to give players a save or use inspiration to avoid this because a 1 in 20 chance of being critted against can come around pretty often. Idk if you even want this one. Maybe don't do this one.

And then gritty realism means you need a while to recuperate after that dungeon craw.

The whole things going to make everything deadly and not at all Hollywood.

But HP doesn't really represent your body. It's more like your energy including your body but also your capacity to ward off further attacks. It's the blows you can roll with. Don't think of it as getting stabbed every time you take damage, just think of it as close calls.

Alternatively I read a house rule I liked that was when you take over your con score in damage you roll on an injuries chart. Helps barbarians wade into combat because they have high con and can take half damage. And let inspiration negate needing to roll for wounds. So it's not like every time you took 14 damage you lost an arm. Some were more minor.

also a side affect of this is it might make your PCs NOT try to kill their way out of everything which I know some people are looking for.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Bigby's got it right. HP isn't meant to represent being stabbed and hit in the face with a fireball, it's meant to be the ability to survive those attacks, whether by avoiding them, toughing it out, being lucky, or whatever. As for players doing dumb things, well, players will be players, but it's not really a result of HP or a lack of consequences for being hit, it's just the way those players think and play. Admittedly, some more severe consequences for silly decisions would likely make them think twice, but they may also think twice about playing in your game, if that's not the kind of game they want to be playing.

I admit, that's a bit of an extreme jump, but I'm kinda just going on stream of consciousness.

[1Forge]

I tried calling people out on their lack of role playing but when i did my last group quit and anyone who stayed still did dumb things thinking they were invincible. EX:(our fighter started choking a commander in the middle of a fully armed battalion, and our sorcerer cast fireball at a fully armed party of knights and wizards)

Also i like the hp is also partially luck but when you hit 0 you've been injured so you cant move, i just want something to get my new party cautious with combat.

[rhouck]

Thats the thing though i don't tend to run campaigns in a Hollywood way, its ridiculous and dumb to get stabbed 20 times shot in the back twice then take a fireball to your face; take a nap then walk out unscathed. I want to encourage the critical thinking in my characters that would be used in real life, each person weighing death in their plans. i don't like it when characters purposefully do stupid things that any person with a brain wouldn't do just because they know its a game and can always make a new character, get resurrected at a later date, or just add II to the end of their name and continue on with no repercussions.
I don't want the heart of a nerd to beat in the chest of a hero, I want the heart of a hero to beat in the chest of a nerd. If only for a few hours on Friday.

#1 hit points are an abstraction
#2 as stated above, the DMG offer alternate healing rules

Have you played any older versions of D&D? It sounds like you would prefer 1e/2e-style play. It took forever to level, characters were fragile, healing took forever, dead characters tended to stay dead, dying held real repercussions even if you were able to be resurrected (i.e., permanent Con loss), etc.

Keep in mind that a lot of your complaints fall to roleplaying as well. If your players do stupid things because they are not worried about consequences, then that's a roleplaying failure. But keep in mind that making things grittier won't necessarily make them more heroic... if anything it tends to have the opposite effect. Players will be more likely to run from encounters and unlikely to sacrifice themselves in a heroic last stand trying to save others. If most of us had our characters act how we personally act in "real life", they wouldn't do any adventuring! There is a reason the rules have been eased up to make things more forgiving.

[rhouck]

anyone who stayed still did dumb things thinking they were invincible. EX:(our fighter started choking a commander in the middle of a fully armed battalion, and our sorcerer cast fireball at a fully armed party of knights and wizards)

These are things that would get the character killed. They then reroll at level 1. I'm not sure you need any rule changes to deal with that. If the players are fine with repeating level 1 ad nauseum, then there is not much you can do.

[Mellack]

These are things that would get the character killed. They then reroll at level 1. I'm not sure you need any rule changes to deal with that. If the players are fine with repeating level 1 ad nauseum, then there is not much you can do.
That can also make it very hard for a DM to progress a story line. If all the characters are only ever 1st level you never get to use the tougher, bigger foes.

[ChubbyRain]

That can also make it very hard for a DM to progress a story line. If all the characters are only ever 1st level you never get to use the tougher, bigger foes.

:smallsigh:

I've thrown Lichs, Gargantuan Dragons, and Beholders up against level 1-3 characters. This idea of level = how epic/awesome a story can be, is down right ridiculous.

I see it a lot and it is sad that people are so indoctrinated into this ideology that they let it negatively affect their game.

Now, don't get me wrong, restarting at level 1 is a bit steep of a penalty but that doesn't stop a story.

[rhouck]

That can also make it very hard for a DM to progress a story line. If all the characters are only ever 1st level you never get to use the tougher, bigger foes.

The hope is that not ALL of the PCs will continue to do stupid things leading to their deaths.

For example, party of level 5 characters. One character is an idiot and does one of the previously-listed "sorry, but your character has to die now" things. He restarts at level 1.

Now the rest of the party is still level 5 (6,500xp). They need to get to 6th level (14,000xp). By the time they get that 7,500xp to hit 6th level, their newly-minted level 1 buddy has hit level 5! That's only one level behind and thus has a negligible effect on what encounters they can experience.

It's still a punishment as he (1) has to endure going up through the levels again and (2) will always be behind everyone else, but it's not campaign-breaking.

I will say that 5e has a faster xp track than old editions, where this game of "catch up" stayed about the same regardless of level. So it is a steeper penalty relative to the rest of the party as you go up in levels, but hopefully by then your players are a bit smarter and also have better access to raise dead, etc when things just take an unfortunate turn.

[Knaight]

Thats the thing though i don't tend to run campaigns in a Hollywood way, its ridiculous and dumb to get stabbed 20 times shot in the back twice then take a fireball to your face; take a nap then walk out unscathed. I want to encourage the critical thinking in my characters that would be used in real life, each person weighing death in their plans. i don't like it when characters purposefully do stupid things that any person with a brain wouldn't do just because they know its a game and can always make a new character, get resurrected at a later date, or just add II to the end of their name and continue on with no repercussions.
I don't want the heart of a nerd to beat in the chest of a hero, I want the heart of a hero to beat in the chest of a nerd. If only for a few hours on Friday.

So, why are you using 5e at all? 5e is designed for a specific style of play, and this diverges from it enough that getting it to work properly is probably going to be more effort than learning a whole new system dedicated to it. Absolutely core to D&D is the meteoric rise in power that characters undergo - even in the earliest editions they could get ten times their starting HP, massively improved saves, drastically better hit chances, so on and so forth. That's not coming out of the game without a fight.

[Mellack]

:smallsigh:

I've thrown Lichs, Gargantuan Dragons, and Beholders up against level 1-3 characters. This idea of level = how epic/awesome a story can be, is down right ridiculous.

I see it a lot and it is sad that people are so indoctrinated into this ideology that they let it negatively affect their game.

Now, don't get me wrong, restarting at level 1 is a bit steep of a penalty but that doesn't stop a story.

An ancient red dragon (gargantuan) has a breath weapon that will kill almost any level 3 character even if they make the (DC24) save. And I don't know how the party is going to do over 500 hp damage to it, especially with frightful presence. To be actually threatened by by such low level characters, the monsters have to be so de-powered that I think it loses its awesomeness.

[ChubbyRain]

An ancient red dragon (gargantuan) has a breath weapon that will kill almost any level 3 character even if they make the (DC24) save. And I don't know how the party is going to do over 500 hp damage to it, especially with frightful presence. To be actually threatened by by such low level characters, the monsters have to be so de-powered that I think it loses its awesomeness.

Damage and HP is relative. There was a good article, the 16 hit point dragon I believe, that targeted this very issue from a different perspective.

You aren't depowering anything, the monster can still be a hard challenge to a level 1 or a level 20 character and give you the same feel, story, or whatever else you need.

If you tell the story correctly and it doesn't take away from anything.

Look at all the stories and games whee the character themselves don't really have levels. Kratos took on gargantuan+ creatures and doesn't even have a level. However the story didn't suffer one bit and killing the end boss (and one previous annoying boss) was all too sweet.

Level, HP, and damage... They are all relative terms that so many people let lock them down in their way of thinking that they can't see past it.

[Mellack]

That only really works if the people around you are made out of tissue paper. If your PCs are level 1, they are just out of training. They really are not better than that group of caravan guards. If they can take out the dragon, the captain of the city guards should have been able to do it single-handedly. I find that really sucks out the feeling of accomplishment, and makes the epic monsters seem lessened when something like a good hit from a warhorse could kill that 16 point dragon. If it works for you group, more power to you. I just think I would feel patronized.

[Knaight]

Damage and HP is relative. There was a good article, the 16 hit point dragon I believe, that targeted this very issue from a different perspective.

You aren't depowering anything, the monster can still be a hard challenge to a level 1 or a level 20 character and give you the same feel, story, or whatever else you need.

If you tell the story correctly and it doesn't take away from anything.

Look at all the stories and games whee the character themselves don't really have levels. Kratos took on gargantuan+ creatures and doesn't even have a level. However the story didn't suffer one bit and killing the end boss (and one previous annoying boss) was all too sweet.

No, Kratos doesn't have a level. However, what level fundamentally is is a system of establishing the relative power of setting elements, and maintaining a sensible order there is key to verisimilitude. Kratos taking on a giant dragon isn't a problem because he's established as essentially a minor god and an extraordinary warrior. Kratos having a lot of trouble fighting some random guy with a spear would cause a problem though, because he's established as able to handle giant hordes of them. The general hierarchy of power is still there, even without levels qua levels.

Taking a gargantuan dragon and making it something level 1 characters can reasonably fight in a small group says something about the world. It might just say that it's really high power, if those same level 1 characters can easily handle a few random guys with spears. It might say that the dragon really isn't that impressive, if they can't.

As you said, damage and HP is relative. 100 damage or 500 HP doesn't necessarily mean much in a vacuum. On the other hand, if you establish the typical warrior as having 8-16 HP, that 500 HP is suddenly established as a huge amount befitting something very dangerous (a dragon, perhaps). If the typical warrior is established as having 8,000-16,000 HP, that 500 HP is fairly suitable for a rabbit. Similarly, if you establish that swords deal 1-8 damage, 100 damage is a really hefty hit. If you establish that they deal 100-800 damage, that 100 damage is a graze. The point is, HP and damage have to be relative to things, and while the absolute numbers attached are completely meaningless on their own, the differences in scale between them do mean a fair amount. Throwing titanic monsters at first level characters where said first level characters can win in a straight fight involves drastically reducing their numbers, while leaving other numbers unchanged. The feel is effected. The setting is effected. The implications of the story are effected. That the scales are relative affects nothing there.

Heck, consider the description of that 16 HP dragon. It's substantially smaller than what's being proposed here, around the size of an elephant. The mechanics explicitly tag it as heavily armored, rendering it highly resistant to most attacks. It mechanically does a hefty amount of damage, with tags that let it have major permanent effects. The numbers still matter, they're just mapped to a different scale than D&D and the dragon is leaning more heavily on armor and mobility than sheer HP.

[1Forge]

So, why are you using 5e at all? 5e is designed for a specific style of play, and this diverges from it enough that getting it to work properly is probably going to be more effort than learning a whole new system dedicated to it. Absolutely core to D&D is the meteoric rise in power that characters undergo - even in the earliest editions they could get ten times their starting HP, massively improved saves, drastically better hit chances, so on and so forth. That's not coming out of the game without a fight.

Brcause I like 5e and accidentally gave away my 1E book DX

[1Forge]

The hope is that not ALL of the PCs will continue to do stupid things leading to their deaths.

For example, party of level 5 characters. One character is an idiot and does one of the previously-listed "sorry, but your character has to die now" things. He restarts at level 1.

Now the rest of the party is still level 5 (6,500xp). They need to get to 6th level (14,000xp). By the time they get that 7,500xp to hit 6th level, their newly-minted level 1 buddy has hit level 5! That's only one level behind and thus has a negligible effect on what encounters they can experience.

It's still a punishment as he (1) has to endure going up through the levels again and (2) will always be behind everyone else, but it's not campaign-breaking.

The problem is I'm the only one with a book so every time my party of 9 levels up i have to do ALL of them. (three bards 2&2&1, two fighters 2&3,one barbarian 2,one wizard 2, a moody druid 2, and a sorcerer 1) and they all dont come to level up sessions during the week until its Friday.

[KorvinStarmast]

The problem is I'm the only one with a book so every time my party of 9 levels up i have to do ALL of them. (three bards 2&2&1, two fighters 2&3,one barbarian 2,one wizard 2, a moody druid 2, and a sorcerer 1) and they all dont come to level up sessions during the week until its Friday.
Can you convince one of them to buy a PHB? Seems a bit harsh that you have to bear the entire burden.

IF there are nine of them, they could all chip in a few bucks and have one for the group to share.

[Person_Man]

Does this seem legit? I just dont like when characters take a nap and suddenly have all their limbs back with no side effects.

Making healing more difficult/limited makes players more risk averse, unless one (or more) of the players is willing to dedicate resources to magical healing.

So if no one invests in magical healing, combat becomes much more difficult. This could be quite fun if your players are into roguelike exploration, and was how early level 1E/2E tended to play. But more "modern" gamers tend to hate it, because they enjoy combat.

If someone invests their resources into magical healing "because someone has to" then it becomes a tax on their resources, and the game sucks for that player. This is how mid-high level 1E/2E tended to play, which is why CoDzilla was invented for 3.0, to encourage people to be a healbot without feeling like they otherwise sucked.

If someone invests their character resources into healing because they legitimately wanted to play a healbot in the first place, then your change in the rules has no net effect. Their magical healing cancels out your gritty maiming rules. So you've just made your game more complicated and added more book keeping for no reason, other then to make yourself feel better about the simulationist aspects of the game, which are terrible no matter how you write them. (Unless you want to write a highly detailed medical simulation game, which would probably be quite boring to play). Seriously think about it for a moment. Excluding magic, how does a person become more wound resistant by exploring and talking to people and killing things? They can't. If anything, serious wounds last literally forever (unless magically or technologically healed), and each additional wound makes previous injuries worse. So virtually any game system where you gain hit points with levels is going to be a complete abstractions. Life expectancy in the Middle Ages was around 35, and was lower for soldiers, farmers, or anyone else who did any kind of physical work, because even the simplest of cuts could result in death from infection.

So I would argue that you should not include gritty maiming/rest/etc rules in your game, unless your players want to a gritty experience with limited healing that focuses on exploration and roleplaying.

[1Forge]

Making healing more difficult/limited makes players more risk averse, unless one (or more) of the players is willing to dedicate resources to magical healing.

So if no one invests in magical healing, combat becomes much more difficult. This could be quite fun if your players are into roguelike exploration, and was how early level 1E/2E tended to play. But more "modern" gamers tend to hate it, because they enjoy combat.

If someone invests their resources into magical healing "because someone has to" then it becomes a tax on their resources, and the game sucks for that player. This is how mid-high level 1E/2E tended to play, which is why CoDzilla was invented for 3.0, to encourage people to be a healbot without feeling like they otherwise sucked.

If someone invests their character resources into healing because they legitimately wanted to play a healbot in the first place, then your change in the rules has no net effect. Their magical healing cancels out your gritty maiming rules. So you've just made your game more complicated and added more book keeping for no reason, other then to make yourself feel better about the simulationist aspects of the game, which are terrible no matter how you write them. (Unless you want to write a highly detailed medical simulation game, which would probably be quite boring to play). Seriously think about it for a moment. Excluding magic, how does a person become more wound resistant by exploring and talking to people and killing things? They can't. If anything, serious wounds last literally forever (unless magically or technologically healed), and each additional wound makes previous injuries worse. So virtually any game system where you gain hit points with levels is going to be a complete abstractions. Life expectancy in the Middle Ages was around 35, and was lower for soldiers, farmers, or anyone else who did any kind of physical work, because even the simplest of cuts could result in death from infection.

So I would argue that you should not include gritty maiming/rest/etc rules in your game, unless your players want to a gritty experience with limited healing that focuses on exploration and roleplaying.

First off: Thank you for the logically drawn out point and non-hostile way in which you put your argument.

second: I think of HP not only as phisical health but as skill in avoiding injury, when your HP drops it's either from exhaustion, or injury.

Third we have two bards and a cleric that want to cover healing so it's okay with them.

And finally you are right with your last point. not all groups enjoy this style of play so i use it only sometimes to help immerse players in the game.

[Elbeyon]

Thats the thing though i don't tend to run campaigns in a Hollywood way, its ridiculous and dumb to get stabbed 20 times shot in the back twice then take a fireball to your face; take a nap then walk out unscathed. I want to encourage the critical thinking in my characters that would be used in real life, each person weighing death in their plans. i don't like it when characters purposefully do stupid things that any person with a brain wouldn't do just because they know its a game and can always make a new character, get resurrected at a later date, or just add II to the end of their name and continue on with no repercussions.
I don't want the heart of a nerd to beat in the chest of a hero, I want the heart of a hero to beat in the chest of a nerd. If only for a few hours on Friday.

Characters get their class hit dice rolled + con mod at first level. Their hp never increases after that. That should allow everything you want to kill them to kill them.

[1Forge]

Characters get their class hit dice rolled + con mod at first level. Their hp never increases after that. That should allow everything you want to kill them to kill them.

I dont want to kill them, I want them to think I'm trying to kill them.:smallbiggrin:

[ImSAMazing]

Hey I'm running several dnd campagns and i ruled that on a critical hit you take not only the damage, but negative temp hp (basicly can't heal those hp from total without serious healing) The idea was - temp hp would be if they seriously hurt (crippled, or other permanent injury)

Does this seem legit? I just dont like when characters take a nap and suddenly have all their limbs back with no side effects.

When you hit someone with a crit or a normal attack, you don't cut off someone's limbs. You know that for sure, because there is magic item(which is legendary I believe) that spefically say that you cut someone's head of if you score a critical hit. Else you just don't. Players will really hate this, if you want to stop healing, take that variant resting rule of the DMG, which makes a long rest take a week.

[1Forge]

I know you dont cut off limbs I never said you did. the temp -hp just represents hampering wounds not crippeling.

Also the weapon your thinking of is a vorpal blade (it decapitates your enemy on a crit)

[Mellack]

Keep in mind that the PCs go through a great many fights in their careers, where most enemies only show up once. A crit on a hobgoblin gives a well described massive blow, and the hobgoblin goes away. The PCs will also get hit with criticals occasionally, it is just how dice work. What you want to avoid is the "death spiral" where they get one bad roll on them which weakens them long term so they are more likely to have other bad things happen. I have had characters get hit with three criticals in the same fight. I understand that you are looking for a more gritty game, I just urge caution that a few bad rolls in one fight may unbalance things for the rest of the adventure if you have the wounds linger.

[Malifice]

If you ABSOLUTELY want crippling stuff, I've had DMs who let players be crippled instead of killed when they would normally be killed. I think that's a really good idea, since it preserves the same party (and you don't have to deal with the headaches of introducing new PCs), it adds roleplaying opportunities, and it lets those crippling injuries happen without them being ridiculously frequent.

Yeah, I'm using the following rule:

'When you take damage that reduces you to zero HP and doesn't kill you outright, you can choose to remain on 1 HP and conscious, however you must accept the result of a roll on the lingering injuries chart from the DMG. You can only use this option once per long rest'

Makes 'critical hits' and wounds a player buy in, and doesn't disadvantage the players.