What if we removed hit points and damage all together?

[djreynolds]

Thanks to Strangebloke and Garfunion for the idea.

What if we removed hit points and damage all together?

You still have AC and to hit, and saves and ability modifiers

Just your weapons or spells do a certain thing and you combine this class features

What if,.. say a fighter of a particular level with a particular weapon, with a particular class feature, a special roll could kill someone or injure someone or maim someone?

That’s it, more realistic. A sword thrust to the chest is a kill shot, for most

No more hit points

And things would affect this, such injury, luck, confidence, armor class, weapon type, class features like critical hits or sneak attacks or smiting or spells

Healing wound require a spell that could cure either a deadly, lethal, major, or minor wound

Resting and successful medicine checks could upgrade a person to a certain status well, injured, severe injury, etc. And the opposite for failure could downgrade you

A spell like a fireball could produce a deadly blast for some, perhaps for the high level rogue of a particular heritage.... a mere tan. A save versus this fire ball could turn from deadly to only severe.

Just spit-balling here

So a 3rd level champion fighter with a greatsword rolls a 19 or 20, this could be called a deadly strike for him. It would kill a goblin outright but only cause an ogre a severe injury

No more rolling 1s and 2s, this is what happens if this weapon hits, period.

An instead of hit points we would just have a status like well, injured, maimed, etc. And these in turn would affect our "to hit" and possibly AC or to concentrate on a spell, perhaps even our saves

2 minor injuries might make you injured, a rogue could turn a deadly injury into perhaps a maiming, and a raging barbarian could turn minor injuries to nothing

Now I know we use numbers and hit die and damage to represent this already, but would this simplify the game

[TundraBuccaneer]

Maybe you should look at the ''fate accelerated'' system, its a short version of the fate system. It doesn't have hit points but consequences that you can get. It might help you make this for D&D or this might be a system beter fit for what you want

[Unoriginal]

Thanks to Strangebloke and Garfunion for the idea.

What if we removed hit points and damage all together?

You still have AC and to hit, and saves and ability modifiers

Just your weapons or spells do a certain thing and you combine this class features

What if,.. say a fighter of a particular level with a particular weapon, with a particular class feature, a special roll could kill someone or injure someone or maim someone?

That’s it, more realistic. A sword thrust to the chest is a kill shot, for most

No more hit points


Great. Be ready to change characters several times every session. Because your PCs are going to get hit a lot, and die from it.




And things would affect this, such injury, luck, confidence, armor class, weapon type, class features like critical hits or sneak attacks or smiting or spells

Healing wound require a spell that could cure either a deadly, lethal, major, or minor wound

Resting and successful medicine checks could upgrade a person to a certain status well, injured, severe injury, etc. And the opposite for failure could downgrade you

A spell like a fireball could produce a deadly blast for some, perhaps for the high level rogue of a particular heritage.... a mere tan. A save versus this fire ball could turn from deadly to only severe.

Just spit-balling here

So a 3rd level champion fighter with a greatsword rolls a 19 or 20, this could be called a deadly strike for him. It would kill a goblin outright but only cause an ogre a severe injury

And now you're back at describing Hit Points.



Now I know we use numbers and hit die and damage to represent this already, but would this simplify the game

Nope. What the Hit Points system give is consistency in the rules and ease of use in practice. You don't make things simpler by making them more nebulous.

Especially when you went from "most people die from one sword strike" to "people survive fireballs and maiming".

[Knaight]

There are lots of games that use alternate wound systems - and they tend to look very different. 5e as a system is particularly bad for this, from HP being the primary defensive mechanism that improves, to AC not reflecting skill at all (it's just as easy to hit some chump who barely knows how to use a sword who has a shield and mail as it is a master warrior with a shield and mail), to damage scaling being the primary offensive mechanism that improves (along with number of attacks, which at least works well).

The general system of minor, major, lethal, and deadly wounds works just fine, and has been used all over the place. It just requires so much design overhaul to work with 5e that you're better off either building a new system while stealing 5e concepts or just switching to any of the numerous systems that already do this.

[GloatingSwine]

Great. Be ready to change characters several times every session. Because your PCs are going to get hit a lot, and die from it.


Either that or perpetrate accountancy on a growing list of modifiers your PCs pick up through nonfatal wounds.


Hitpoints are easy for players to intuit how well or badly they are doing and how much they have left in the tank. So if you're going to be doing a fair bit of fighting they're really helpful for players.

[Knaight]

Either that or perpetrate accountancy on a growing list of modifiers your PCs pick up through nonfatal wounds.

Hitpoints are easy for players to intuit how well or badly they are doing and how much they have left in the tank. So if you're going to be doing a fair bit of fighting they're really helpful for players.

They're the simplest system (especially if you keep HP low), but there are wound systems only marginally more complex, particularly given D&D's penchant for having a lot of small fluctuations in a large pool of HP.

[djreynolds]

Right, just spit balling

Maybe a 10th level fighter can take 10 minor injuries in a day, maybe 2 deadly and that could be the ratio that 5 minor injuries is worth one deadly

And each class would have some ratio of the fighters, a barbarian would 6 minor injuries equals one deadly
a wizard 3 minor injuries would equal one deadly

Maybe resting takes one away

They key would be to find a ratio between class, level, and the "distance" between a minor injury and something deadly.

I was just thinking because there are never any one shot/ one kills anymore.

How does an assassin assassinate?

A lot of times as a DM, I just hand wave stuff and say you killed the mayor with one shot. You got to the roof top undetected at the right time and place, your stealth was perfect, no wind or rain.... mayor's dead, go get paid.

But the reality is, for us playing, auto-crit even doesn't auto maximize all damage (which is a house rule I see often)

Obviously that's how luck is played out in DnD... through the dice

I will check out the fate system, I'm sure its similar to what I was thinking of.

[JackPhoenix]

There are lots of games that use alternate wound systems - and they tend to look very different. 5e as a system is particularly bad for this, from HP being the primary defensive mechanism that improves, to AC not reflecting skill at all (it's just as easy to hit some chump who barely knows how to use a sword who has a shield and mail as it is a master warrior with a shield and mail), to damage scaling being the primary offensive mechanism that improves (along with number of attacks, which at least works well).

The general system of minor, major, lethal, and deadly wounds works just fine, and has been used all over the place. It just requires so much design overhaul to work with 5e that you're better off either building a new system while stealing 5e concepts or just switching to any of the numerous systems that already do this.

This is a common mistake. HP and AC can't be separated, they are both part of the abstraction that is D&D combat. While your skill won't give you better AC, it will give you more HP... and narratively, there's little to no difference between the two. However, they give you two layers of defense mechanically, and allows larger granuality in combat results. IC, you may have attack that physically hits you, but doesn't do any damage thanks to your armor (attack roll misses thanks to plate armor), you may have attack that won't physically connect, but still cause damage (attack that would kill the character narratively if it would actually hit, but you have enough HP to survive). Defense (HP and AC combined) may mean different things to different creatures: for a drow assassin, it may be the ability to parry enemy attacks and avoid the fatal blow to stay in the fight, for the tarrasque, there's no real skill, it's just tough enough to take a catapult boulder to the face and keep going. Even if they get the same AC and HP (for some reason), the drow would get killed outright if he took the same boulder to the face, so he instead dodges it, and the tarrasque doesn't care about enemies with pointy stick the drow keeps avoiding, it's just harmless tickling to it.

The skilled opponent *is* harder to hit, because only the last blow that takes his HP to 0 is actual direct hit. Until then, he dodges, parries and otherwise avoids the attacks, while the unskilled chump may get stabbed after the opponent's first strike. Despite having the same AC, it means a lot less for the unskilled warrior with less HP.

[djreynolds]

The skilled opponent *is* harder to hit, because only the last blow that takes his HP to 0 is actual direct hit. Until then, he dodges, parries and otherwise avoids the attacks, while the unskilled chump may get stabbed after the opponent's first strike. Despite having the same AC, it means a lot less for the unskilled warrior with less HP.

This is a an excellent way to see it all. Nice

Like I said I'm just spit balling here, any ideas?

[Logosloki]

If you are leaving in AC, Hit, Save, and Ability (as well as proficiency) then there are several things you can do that I can think of off hand.

You could use a more granular version of HP where each character can take so many hits before they are down. Certain weapons could deal more damage on a hit. Think like the legend of zelda games where you can lose sections of a heart for light attacks to a whole heart for taking a heavy hit.

You could change the value of hit so that there are more misses and AC and other methods of avoiding hits become more valuable. This would require a magic rework so that magic spells have to hit (otherwise players might be complaining about being one hit by spells that have no hit/save). If you do this you could even devalue hit and AC so they use lower numbers. Say d6+prof to hit and Armour starts out at 3+dex with plate at 10+con (numbers are off-hand as well). On a 6 on a d6 you roll another d6 and add that to the hit to see if you break through.

You could just have players make a concentration check when they are hit, if they fail the check then they gain a condition (maybe prone, maybe exhaustion, play around), which makes the next hits easier to land (unconscious) or send you out of the game.

EDIT: another would be that armour has HP, AC, and a Toughness value (Damage resistance or reduction) but players don't. So armour takes hits and is damaged which makes players more vulnerable.

[Tanarii]

, you adopted a lot of strange 'optimal' strategies, like equipping your 5-6 hireling Men At Arms with nets and dozens of flasks of oil.
Still a good strategy. Although then and now, it behooves the DM to keep driving the price of hiring up as the PCs keep having to hire replacements. And then and now, the cost isn't just cash ... it costs XP too.

[Unoriginal]

you adopted a lot of strange 'optimal' strategies, like equipping your 5-6 hireling Men At Arms with nets and dozens of flasks of oil


Still a good strategy. Although then and now, it behooves the DM to keep driving the price of hiring up as the PCs keep having to hire replacements. And then and now, the cost isn't just cash ... it costs XP too.

Life as an adventurer's henchman must be weird.

"Me and my pals are drinking a beer after a day of hard work, bam! One of those adventuring types shows up, dressed all in leather, and offers us a ton of money for carrying restraining devices and a lot of oil..."

[Tanarii]

"Me and my pals are drinking a beer after a day of hard work, bam! One of those adventuring types shows up, dressed all in leather, and offers us a ton of money for carrying restraining devices and a lot of oil..."
"Next thing I know and honest-to-Bane OWLBEAR got Fred and Jim, and the rest of us hightail it out of there! Never did find out what happened to those adventurers. Took the 10 gp they paid up front and got me a new cow, never looked back."

[Grod_The_Giant]

There are lots of games that use alternate wound systems - and they tend to look very different. 5e as a system is particularly bad for this, from HP being the primary defensive mechanism that improves, to AC not reflecting skill at all (it's just as easy to hit some chump who barely knows how to use a sword who has a shield and mail as it is a master warrior with a shield and mail), to damage scaling being the primary offensive mechanism that improves (along with number of attacks, which at least works well).

The general system of minor, major, lethal, and deadly wounds works just fine, and has been used all over the place. It just requires so much design overhaul to work with 5e that you're better off either building a new system while stealing 5e concepts or just switching to any of the numerous systems that already do this.
Very much this. There are a thousand and one ways to model injuries and health that aren't "big pools of hit points," but "big pools of hit points" are so utterly central to 5e D&D as a system that you cannot remove them without rebuilding literally everything else. The best you could do is something like the 3.5 Vitality and Wound Points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm) variant that splits up "plot armor" hit points and "meat" hit points, and allows for specific circumstances to bypass the "plot armor" hit points altogether.

[the secret fire]

This is a common mistake. HP and AC can't be separated, they are both part of the abstraction that is D&D combat. While your skill won't give you better AC, it will give you more HP... and narratively, there's little to no difference between the two...

The skilled opponent *is* harder to hit, because only the last blow that takes his HP to 0 is actual direct hit. Until then, he dodges, parries and otherwise avoids the attacks, while the unskilled chump may get stabbed after the opponent's first strike. Despite having the same AC, it means a lot less for the unskilled warrior with less HP.

I agree with you completely...but I think what you have described is a problem. D&D combat involves such a huge level of abstraction that it becomes difficult to square with anything resembling reality. It can be done, but you have to jump through a lot of cognitive hoops to get there, and it ends up being highly disassociative even in its best form. Losing "abstract" HP pushes a character closer to death, but only the player has a clear reason to know this if HP =/= meat.

It's a problem without easy solutions, but I don't see it as intractable. Certain aspects of the game system (e.g. the class system, Vancian magic, etc.) are pretty much an indivisible part of the D&D brand. I'm not convinced that HP and the combat resolution mechanic have such a hallowed place in the game's ontology, though. The problem is that "better" mechanics tend to add a level of complexity that many players may find off-putting.

The most elegant solution is probably the one pioneered by HERO games, where characters have separate pools of meat and stun HP. Running out of stun causes a KO, but doesn't threaten death. Separated HP mechanics make sense in terms of "character knowledge" (way less disassociative), allow for more verisimilitude, and make it easier for the cinematic "knocked out and captured but not dying" trope, but then you have to get into determining how any given attack effects two separate pools of health, so it's not without its costs.

[the secret fire]

The game now is fundamentally a Hollywood cinematic one. Heroes striving against massive odds with seemingly tireless endurance and amazing luck, until they engage the Big Bad in a cinematic set-piece battle at their wit's end. Insta-kill is for mooks.

Nailed it. 5e's lack of lethality makes it poorly suited for anything but the hollywood ethos at this point. If that's what the consumers want, then I guess they've got it right. I think a big part of the decreasing lethality of D&D over the years has to do with the fact that people get a lot more attached to their characters nowadays. Fantasy ****ing Vietnam is just not as appealing a game model for the masses as it maybe used to be.

[bid]

There are systems with Wounds and Fatigue. For instance, Ars Magica.

You can accumulate as many wounds as you want. Those penalize your offense/defense.
If you don't recover before the next fight, your wounds can worsen and kill you.

5e uses a fixed amount of "positive" hp that have no impact.
AM5 uses unlimited "negative" hp that impose penalties.


As other have said, you can't have Holywood cinematics if your wounds slow you down. 5e would play very differently if you had to keep taking short rest to recover.

[JoeJ]

You might want to check out Mutants & Masterminds to see one way this can be done in a D20 derived system. Basically, the attacker rolls to hit against the defender's Parry (for melee attacks) or Dodge (for ranged attacks) score. If they hit, the defender then has to roll using their Toughness score against the strength of the attack to see whether or not they can just shrug it off. Failing the Toughness check causes a condition to be imposed. Which condition is determined by how badly the roll was failed. Armor in this system adds to Toughness.

[the secret fire]

You might want to check out Mutants & Masterminds to see one way this can be done in a D20 derived system. Basically, the attacker rolls to hit against the defender's Parry (for melee attacks) or Dodge (for ranged attacks) score. If they hit, the defender then has to roll using their Toughness score against the strength of the attack to see whether or not they can just shrug it off. Failing the Toughness check causes a condition to be imposed. Which condition is determined by how badly the roll was failed. Armor in this system adds to Toughness.

Yeah, that's probably the best d20 version of a wounds system out there. Good game, generally, as well.

[Eric Diaz]

There is also SW SAGA which had a good system of wounds for D&D, IIRC.

And the new Dragon Heresy (https://gamingballistic.com/category/rpg-systems/dragon-heresy-gb/) system also does something like that with 5e.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Yeah, that's probably the best d20 version of a wounds system out there. Good game, generally, as well.
M&M is an amazing system, don't get me wrong, but the damage system is pretty much totally incompatible with 5e and its "combat scaling through dpr" design.


There is also SW SAGA which had a good system of wounds for D&D, IIRC.

And the new Dragon Heresy (https://gamingballistic.com/category/rpg-systems/dragon-heresy-gb/) system also does something like that with 5e.
Saga Edition's condition track should be pretty easy to import, though.

[ZorroGames]

Thanks to Strangebloke and Garfunion for the idea.

What if we removed hit points and damage all together?

You still have AC and to hit, and saves and ability modifiers

Just your weapons or spells do a certain thing and you combine this class features

What if,.. say a fighter of a particular level with a particular weapon, with a particular class feature, a special roll could kill someone or injure someone or maim someone?

That’s it, more realistic. A sword thrust to the chest is a kill shot, for most

No more hit points

And things would affect this, such injury, luck, confidence, armor class, weapon type, class features like critical hits or sneak attacks or smiting or spells

Healing wound require a spell that could cure either a deadly, lethal, major, or minor wound

Resting and successful medicine checks could upgrade a person to a certain status well, injured, severe injury, etc. And the opposite for failure could downgrade you

A spell like a fireball could produce a deadly blast for some, perhaps for the high level rogue of a particular heritage.... a mere tan. A save versus this fire ball could turn from deadly to only severe.

Just spit-balling here

So a 3rd level champion fighter with a greatsword rolls a 19 or 20, this could be called a deadly strike for him. It would kill a goblin outright but only cause an ogre a severe injury

No more rolling 1s and 2s, this is what happens if this weapon hits, period.

An instead of hit points we would just have a status like well, injured, maimed, etc. And these in turn would affect our "to hit" and possibly AC or to concentrate on a spell, perhaps even our saves

2 minor injuries might make you injured, a rogue could turn a deadly injury into perhaps a maiming, and a raging barbarian could turn minor injuries to nothing

Now I know we use numbers and hit die and damage to represent this already, but would this simplify the game

Played rules like that - 🤯 The bookkeeping! Especially one gets to more than one or two PCs...

[Beelzebubba]

Still a good strategy. Although then and now, it behooves the DM to keep driving the price of hiring up as the PCs keep having to hire replacements. And then and now, the cost isn't just cash ... it costs XP too.

The idea of player-controlled hirelings, as in 'you move multiple players around', is absolutely mystifying to my current gaming group.

Also, I seem to remember more extensive rules around them in AD&D too...especially with morale. Like high-level strongholds and followers, it just feels like it's been left behind in the current paradigm.

[ZorroGames]

OP, ever play Twilight 2000? You could cycle thru a dozen NATO/Warsaw Pact set of PCs KIA much less the “BBEG’s minions” and get multiple nationalities killed in a single session. The Lethality Index of these kinds of rules are incredibly difficult to balance.

[ZorroGames]

The idea of player-controlled hirelings, as in 'you move multiple players around', is absolutely mystifying to my current gaming group.

Also, I seem to remember more extensive rules around them in AD&D too...especially with morale. Like high-level strongholds and followers, it just feels like it's been left behind in the current paradigm.

Right, you NPC hirelings are/were as reliable as all hired mercenaries. You get them killed recruiting replacements becomes logarithmically more difficult. As it should.

Followers, you shared your XP with them at full cost but IIRC advancement was halved? At again IIRC they could decide to break off and start their own party?

Well, in the first years of my OD&D the norm became you ran a party of 4 to 10 PCs yourself because of unrealistic “reliability.”

My first successful party was three fighters (Elf -class then, Dwarf - again a class then, and human,) two clerics and a Wizard. Never ran Thief or Halfling - again a class - and added Monk when it was available. Seven was about all I wanted to juggle. Best Friend (and a High School senior when we met) ran a party of 10 with ease. Youth...

[ZorroGames]

The idea of player-controlled hirelings, as in 'you move multiple players around', is absolutely mystifying to my current gaming group.

Also, I seem to remember more extensive rules around them in AD&D too...especially with morale. Like high-level strongholds and followers, it just feels like it's been left behind in the current paradigm.

Indeed. I guess that happens to “retired” level 20 characters? 😉

[Unoriginal]

The idea of player-controlled hirelings, as in 'you move multiple players around', is absolutely mystifying to my current gaming group.

I would never do that in a campaign I DM, personally.

One of my players' hireling is a Bullywug. He's been nice with them, even volunteering to work for free, because he really need a huge favor. But they're lucky there has been no situation where he had to choose between saving his skin for sure or taking a risk to save theirs.

[Pex]

Then don't play D&D.

Seriously. If the mechanics of the game bother you so much you feel the need to change the entire system, then the true problem is you really don't want to play the game. That is what it comes down to. House rules are fine. A tweak here, a tweak there. You disagree with a bit of game math so you change something to your liking. That's all good, great, have fun. When you feel the need to rewrite the game, play something else.

Or design your own game system, find people to play it, and maybe publish it for other people to buy to earn some cash.


The idea of player-controlled hirelings, as in 'you move multiple players around', is absolutely mystifying to my current gaming group.

Also, I seem to remember more extensive rules around them in AD&D too...especially with morale. Like high-level strongholds and followers, it just feels like it's been left behind in the current paradigm.


I would never do that in a campaign I DM, personally.

One of my players' hireling is a Bullywug. He's been nice with them, even volunteering to work for free, because he really need a huge favor. But they're lucky there has been no situation where he had to choose between saving his skin for sure or taking a risk to save theirs.

In a previous campaign two goblins of Phandelver joined our party after we got rid of Big Boss. They helped us for the rest of the module, survived the module, and remained with the party. One became a follower, to use a 3E term, of one player permanently as a friendly NPC. The other adventured with the party, gained levels in fighter, and eventually promoted to PC status. In our new campaign he's the Boss of my character, as an off camera NPC. He's a Lord of the Realm and my character is part of his constabulary.

Having a loyal follower a player can control can work if the DM wants it to work. It's not a universal impossibility or bad thing to happen.

[Unoriginal]

I know it's not impossible, it's just not something fitting my tastes.

I'm perfectly fine with loyal hirelings, but having players control regular NPCs who fight alongside them... yeah, not my thing. It's something that happens when there is a special bond, like with a Ranger's Animal Companion, as far as I'm concerned.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I know it's not impossible, it's just not something fitting my tastes.

I'm perfectly fine with loyal hirelings, but having players control regular NPCs who fight alongside them... yeah, not my thing. It's something that happens when there is a special bond, like with a Ranger's Animal Companion, as far as I'm concerned.

I've had this come up in two games recently (both 2 players).

In one, they befriended a giant lizard and became quite attached to it. As a result, I've had it tag along with them as if it were a cohort. It's leveling (sort of--getting extra hit dice and abilities modeled on the barbarian class, but more slowly than the PCs) and they can give it commands. I still control it, but it will obey their direction in general. Fluff-wise, it's a rare beast with a stronger soul than most and it's imprinted itself on the druid.

In the other, they have "hired" allies--two player-classed NPCs to make up for the deficiencies in the party makeup. I bounce back and forth between letting them control them directly and give orders--they prefer to run them. They're not DMPCs; they're level 4 to the PCs level 6 and don't claim any of the rewards, since they're there on orders from their superiors. Other than some red lines (things they won't participate in), they obey orders just fine.

It's worked out well. If the parties were larger, I'd not let this happen, but with two players...

[GreyBlack]

Thanks to Strangebloke and Garfunion for the idea.

What if we removed hit points and damage all together?

You still have AC and to hit, and saves and ability modifiers

Just your weapons or spells do a certain thing and you combine this class features

What if,.. say a fighter of a particular level with a particular weapon, with a particular class feature, a special roll could kill someone or injure someone or maim someone?

That’s it, more realistic. A sword thrust to the chest is a kill shot, for most

No more hit points

And things would affect this, such injury, luck, confidence, armor class, weapon type, class features like critical hits or sneak attacks or smiting or spells

Healing wound require a spell that could cure either a deadly, lethal, major, or minor wound

Resting and successful medicine checks could upgrade a person to a certain status well, injured, severe injury, etc. And the opposite for failure could downgrade you

A spell like a fireball could produce a deadly blast for some, perhaps for the high level rogue of a particular heritage.... a mere tan. A save versus this fire ball could turn from deadly to only severe.

Just spit-balling here

So a 3rd level champion fighter with a greatsword rolls a 19 or 20, this could be called a deadly strike for him. It would kill a goblin outright but only cause an ogre a severe injury

No more rolling 1s and 2s, this is what happens if this weapon hits, period.

An instead of hit points we would just have a status like well, injured, maimed, etc. And these in turn would affect our "to hit" and possibly AC or to concentrate on a spell, perhaps even our saves

2 minor injuries might make you injured, a rogue could turn a deadly injury into perhaps a maiming, and a raging barbarian could turn minor injuries to nothing

Now I know we use numbers and hit die and damage to represent this already, but would this simplify the game

Or: Just make it so no one knows their hit points. Describe minor cuts and such to the players, but the players do not know how many HP they have or their opponents have.

Only thing you change is who knows the information and it makes things TERRIFYING for the players.

[djreynolds]

This is just an idea, something I have been just thinking about

And the reality is it would be as complex as the hit point system we have now and I think it will never happen and I certainly have better things to do.

And I'm not playing squad leader or main battle tank

But new ideas are good, for instance some players like Mr Mearles new initiative system, it is complex but adds a reality to the game

And more reality could be added in, a light weapon is better for initiative and a heavy weapon better for damage, you choose

In 1st edition, weapons had speed I believe, its been a while and we had Thaco in 1st edition and it wasn't bad, it was all you knew

I wouldn't mind some reality in the game..... for instance, a frenzied barbarian takes a level of exhaustion for using a bonus action for 1 minute, basically 10 attacks and he is exhausted for a day.

Another barbarian can get crushed by a rock, have 1HP left and actually perform better than the said barbarian from above.

Even if HP is "more than" meat, losing confidence should do something, having your bell rung because you lost half your health seems reasonable

This is exactly why healing doesn't matter in 5E, because there is no repercussion on immediate skills and abilities for having low HP, a player with 1 HP fights as well, on paper at least, as the same player will full HP. So why bother taking a short rest and regaining hit points

But if we at least incorporated something in the game where being under 50% HP did something negative to you, healing would be important again, resting would be important again.

Perhaps having less HP makes failing a saving throw more likely, in fact if I have 2 hp left the dragon doesn't even have to bother having to scare me... I'm going to run away anyhow.

These are just thoughts, 5E is a great system, but any system can be tweaked, its why they have UA stuff

[Unoriginal]

OP, tweaking is fine, but you should decide what you want first.

You went from "people should die from a single sword strike" to "how about varrying wound levels?" to "there should be a way to one-shot kill" to "healing isn't important in 5e, maybe giving penalties depending on how much HPs you have would make it more important".

I'm not dissing you or anything, but before spitballing a solution, one must define the "problem" as a whole.

[djreynolds]

OP, tweaking is fine, but you should decide what you want first.

You went from "people should die from a single sword strike" to "how about varrying wound levels?" to "there should be a way to one-shot kill" to "healing isn't important in 5e, maybe giving penalties depending on how much HPs you have would make it more important".

I'm not dissing you or anything, but before spitballing a solution, one must define the "problem" as a whole.

I here you. And its great to get good criticism.

The reality is 5E is so good, but something is missing in it, I'm not sure exactly what it is.

But three ideas are tied together if you look at it, one-shot kills, healing, and wounds are not exactly "expressed" or defined. There is poisoned, catastrophic damage, and there are instances of one-shot kills by many a paladin.

The idea of removing damage, is that any hit upon you is causing an injury, except with hit points and damage those numbers can vary in a large way. And that is the "luck" aspect of the dice.

If we said a goblin strike can cause a minor injury with a strike and you at a certain level could only take 3 of those strike before falling over.... 3 goblins would be scary.

But DnD has always been about dice, damage, and hit points.... its just tough to gauge how damaging that last hit was, because with 1HP you are still up at 100% . This makes healing lack "importance".

I think if so much damage did something besides just a number to you, it could improve the game.

If a bite of spider can cause paralysis by poison, getting crushed by a giant's rock and losing 50% of HP should have an additional negative attached to it.

If you are at, for example, say 20% of you max HP, perhaps your have a tougher time concentrating on spells or your sword swings are at disadvantage or foes have advantage to hit you even, perhaps constitution saving throws are more difficult to make.

This could make in-battle healing more important, and short resting more important.

The one-shot skill of an arrow to the eyeball..... that may only happen in the movies

But please feel free to criticize, but feel free to offer some ideas up as well

[Unoriginal]

Well you could just add a rule that says that if it's insta-kill if you lose more than 50% of your current HPs in one hit.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well you could just add a rule that says that if it's insta-kill if you lose more than 50% of your current HPs in one hit.

That makes level one even more insanely fragile.

A wizard with 8 HP (max)? Any reasonable hit is an auto-kill. The barbarian with 15? Two or three good hits, even raging.

Fact is, any kind of death spiral in this edition impinges on too many other things and mostly penalizes the PCs. The basic design is that you're supposed to get hit, at about a constant rate as you level. Since each PC is in a lot more fights than any NPC...

Same with increasing the lethality of any individual hit (reducing hit points, auto-death rules, etc. Not talking about penalties for getting up from 0 HP). It just increases the chance of losing a character to a random event. If you want a meatgrinder where no one expects to keep a character for very long, then fine. Make sure you state that up front. Otherwise, it's a bad idea.

[Unoriginal]

That makes level one even more insanely fragile.

A wizard with 8 HP (max)? Any reasonable hit is an auto-kill. The barbarian with 15? Two or three good hits, even raging.

Fact is, any kind of death spiral in this edition impinges on too many other things and mostly penalizes the PCs. The basic design is that you're supposed to get hit, at about a constant rate as you level. Since each PC is in a lot more fights than any NPC...

Same with increasing the lethality of any individual hit (reducing hit points, auto-death rules, etc. Not talking about penalties for getting up from 0 HP). It just increases the chance of losing a character to a random event. If you want a meatgrinder where no one expects to keep a character for very long, then fine. Make sure you state that up front. Otherwise, it's a bad idea.

Well sure, but I got the impression it was the thing OP wanted.

[MadBear]

This is by no means perfect, but what if you just changed the system a bit:

- Your constitution score represents your "meat" hp's. So at a level 1 a wizard has 8 hp's, and any hit is actually hitting him causing him real damage/pain. At level 2 he rolls a 6 (with the +2 from Con he'd normally now have 16 hps) and he now has 14 "meat" hp's and the 2 leftover are his "luck" hp's the is going to be worn down over the adventuring day. So the first 2 points of damage aren't him actually getting hit, but rather him luckily evading the attack. As characters level, if they don't increase their Con score, their actual vitality doesn't go up, but their luck does. This continues so at level 10 the wizard with 62 hp's instead has 14 "meat" hp's and the rest is his innate luck.

- Critical hits go straight to "meat" hp's. Poisons that require a saving throw, go straight to "meat" hp's.

Now the game is terribly more deadly. Assassins of 3rd level who get to use their assassinate ability will almost always 1-shot the first thing they see. Be ready to have PC's die way more frequently, and be ready to see them utilize poison way more often. Fighters and anyone who can make multiple attacks will greatly benefit since criticals are way more useful. Also, the champion has a new more interesting roll as the crit master. (It also mildy buff's TWF, since more attacks= more chance of possibly 1-shotting a monster).

You asked for ideas, and this would be my working idea. The goal was to not overly modify the system, while trying to get to what you're looking for.

[djreynolds]

That makes level one even more insanely fragile.

A wizard with 8 HP (max)? Any reasonable hit is an auto-kill. The barbarian with 15? Two or three good hits, even raging.

Fact is, any kind of death spiral in this edition impinges on too many other things and mostly penalizes the PCs. The basic design is that you're supposed to get hit, at about a constant rate as you level. Since each PC is in a lot more fights than any NPC...

Same with increasing the lethality of any individual hit (reducing hit points, auto-death rules, etc. Not talking about penalties for getting up from 0 HP). It just increases the chance of losing a character to a random event. If you want a meatgrinder where no one expects to keep a character for very long, then fine. Make sure you state that up front. Otherwise, it's a bad idea.


Well sure, but I got the impression it was the thing OP wanted.


This is by no means perfect, but what if you just changed the system a bit:

- Your constitution score represents your "meat" hp's. So at a level 1 a wizard has 8 hp's, and any hit is actually hitting him causing him real damage/pain. At level 2 he rolls a 6 (with the +2 from Con he'd normally now have 16 hps) and he now has 14 "meat" hp's and the 2 leftover are his "luck" hp's the is going to be worn down over the adventuring day. So the first 2 points of damage aren't him actually getting hit, but rather him luckily evading the attack. As characters level, if they don't increase their Con score, their actual vitality doesn't go up, but their luck does. This continues so at level 10 the wizard with 62 hp's instead has 14 "meat" hp's and the rest is his innate luck.

- Critical hits go straight to "meat" hp's. Poisons that require a saving throw, go straight to "meat" hp's.

Now the game is terribly more deadly. Assassins of 3rd level who get to use their assassinate ability will almost always 1-shot the first thing they see. Be ready to have PC's die way more frequently, and be ready to see them utilize poison way more often. Fighters and anyone who can make multiple attacks will greatly benefit since criticals are way more useful. Also, the champion has a new more interesting roll as the crit master. (It also mildy buff's TWF, since more attacks= more chance of possibly 1-shotting a monster).

You asked for ideas, and this would be my working idea. The goal was to not overly modify the system, while trying to get to what you're looking for.

All of these ideas are spot on.

You could have with critical hits, that the damage sustained cannot be healed until you rest.

I'm just looking for ideas and criticism from seasoned forum members.

I DMd a game the other day, players polymorphed into T-rexs and it was almost too easy for them. They soaked up damage like it was nothing. They had fun, which is the point of the game, but I feel they were not challenged.

Having the danger increased, I feel makes the game better.

And I'm asking, because changes to 5E can be damaging and the game is no longer fun. So I propose ideas, and have you guys and gals weigh them.

[Knaight]

I DMd a game the other day, players polymorphed into T-rexs and it was almost too easy for them. They soaked up damage like it was nothing. They had fun, which is the point of the game, but I feel they were not challenged.

Having the danger increased, I feel makes the game better.
There are a lot of ways to make the game more dangerous (starting with not playing at levels high enough for mass polymorph shenanigans) - straight up removing HP is a terrible way to do it.

[Finieous]

The skilled opponent *is* harder to hit, because only the last blow that takes his HP to 0 is actual direct hit. Until then, he dodges, parries and otherwise avoids the attacks, while the unskilled chump may get stabbed after the opponent's first strike. Despite having the same AC, it means a lot less for the unskilled warrior with less HP.

It's weird that he "dodges, parries, and otherwise avoids the attacks" and still takes an additional 3d6 poison damage from the drow elite warrior.

Given the way they integrate with the various damage and condition mechanics, D&D hit points are an abstract "still kicking" meter. It's probably best not to think too much about it.

[strangebloke]

There are a lot of ways to make the game more dangerous (starting with not playing at levels high enough for mass polymorph shenanigans) - straight up removing HP is a terrible way to do it.

Aye, you're much better off including "Save or Suffer" type effects. You got critted on, make this save or suffer a 10 foot reduction in your movement speed until you undergo a long rest. I have rules for these things, although I haven't had a campaign yet where they'd be appropriate.

Attrition is also a big one. If you throw Level-appropriate encounters at players when they have all their resources, yes, they will destroy them. That's by design.

[War_lord]

My answer to running into game concepts that just wouldn't work in 5e, was to take up Savage Worlds. If D&D doesn't fit what you're trying to do, there are other systems out there. Game design is way more complex then just awkwardly bolting a wounds system onto a game designed for large HP pools.

And you also have to consider that a wounds system will make your game more lethal for both players and NPCs, which in turn is going to make your PCs way more reluctant to get into a fight, or at least a fair fight. Far too many GM's make their game more lethal, and then get frustrated wondering why the party is suddenly dead set against hurling themselves into danger for the sake of the plot.

[Grod_The_Giant]

But three ideas are tied together if you look at it, one-shot kills, healing, and wounds are not exactly "expressed" or defined. There is poisoned, catastrophic damage, and there are instances of one-shot kills by many a paladin.
It sounds to me like you're starting to run into some of the classic conceptual problems with D&D hit points-- that is, the designers can never quite make up their mind whether they represent "luck, fatigue, and plot armor" or "how many arrows to the face can you take before you die?" By this edition, HP seem to be mostly abstract non-damage... except that they can only be replenished by magic, while more mundane "replenish your fighting spirit" effects tend towards temporary hit points, and there are no RAW ways to bypass them in situations where such concepts should apply.

The 3.5 Vitality and Wounds system is a fairly simple way of delineating the two. Tweak it tor 5e and you might get, oh... rules like such:

Hit Points explicitly represent plot armor. They work as normal.
Wound Points are a second pool of hit points, explicitly representing meat. Your Wound Points are equal to your current Constitution score. When you are Incapacitated, attacks bypass your hit points and damage your Wound Points directly. In addition, critical hits and attacks while you are surprised deal one damage to your wound points per damage die, in addition to their normal hit point damage. Healing effects restore 1 wound point per die of hit point healing.
Injuries, Death and Dying: If your Wound Points are at half their normal value or below, you are Injured--you move at half speed and have Disadvantage on all d20 rolls, and opponents have Advantage on all saves against your abilities. When your hit points are at zero, you begin Dying. Each round you must make a Death save; successes work normally, but each failure inflicts 5 damage to your wound points. You die when your wound points hit zero.

That gives you a nice distinction between "plot armor" and "meat" without really making characters weaker, and attaches some logical effects to "actual" injuries.

You could also have a "damage threshold" mechanic-- whenever you take more than 25% your max hit points in a single shot, you must make a Con save (DC 10 or 1/2 damage) or take a level of exhaustion. That's a bit simpler, perhaps, albeit also significantly more lethal, and exhaustion-- with its slow healing-- is a decent mechanism for tracking "real" damage.

[Unoriginal]

All of these ideas are spot on.

You could have with critical hits, that the damage sustained cannot be healed until you rest.

I'm just looking for ideas and criticism from seasoned forum members.

I DMd a game the other day, players polymorphed into T-rexs and it was almost too easy for them. They soaked up damage like it was nothing. They had fun, which is the point of the game, but I feel they were not challenged.

Having the danger increased, I feel makes the game better.

And I'm asking, because changes to 5E can be damaging and the game is no longer fun. So I propose ideas, and have you guys and gals weigh them.

What, the Summon-Pixies-Turn-Into-T. Rexes thing?


That's a powerful thing, but it's only an exploit on paper. It has severe limitations that the DM has to take into account.

[djreynolds]

What, the Summon-Pixies-Turn-Into-T. Rexes thing?


That's a powerful thing, but it's only an exploit on paper. It has severe limitations that the DM has to take into account.

Very true, it seems to be my fault. I'm running Against the Giants and they begin at 11th level. In the chieftains chamber the Giants had no access to rocks, by the book.

The players actually had great team work. But perhaps the blew their slots to soon, as resting will be at a premium.

[War_lord]

I DMd a game the other day, players polymorphed into T-rexs and it was almost too easy for them. They soaked up damage like it was nothing. They had fun, which is the point of the game, but I feel they were not challenged.

Having the danger increased, I feel makes the game better.

But do the players want to be challenged? That's what's important.

[Demonslayer666]

A simple wound system would make D&D better, IMO. But it would also add a level of complexity - something 5th got away from. Maybe adding some specific conditions would suffice to keep it simple enough.

One of my favorite things about Warhammer Fantasy and Rolemaster were the critical hits. D&D is so generic with going unconscious being the only thing that happens to you.

[strangebloke]

A simple wound system would make D&D better, IMO. But it would also add a level of complexity - something 5th got away from. Maybe adding some specific conditions would suffice to keep it simple enough.

One of my favorite things about Warhammer Fantasy and Rolemaster were the critical hits. D&D is so generic with going unconscious being the only thing that happens to you.

My modification of the DMG wounds rules:


Lingering Injuries/Massive Damage/Attrition
-When a character takes damage from a single source equal to or greater than half his his point maximum but does not drop to zero hit points or die immediately, he must make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw. If he fails, he is stunned until the end of his next turn. If he fails by 5 or more, he drops to zero hit points.
-When a character is hit by a critical hit, the DM rolls on the injury table with advantage.
-When a character drops to 0 hit points but isn’t killed outright, the DM rolls on the injury table (if he was reduced to 0 hit points by a blow that took have his maximum hitpoints, roll with disadvantage) and the character gains a level of exhaustion.


Injury Table

d20 || Injury || Effects/Treatment

1 || Irreparable Damage || You lose an eye, hand, or foot. If an eye, you have disadvantage on Wisdom(Perception) checks. If you lose two eyes, you go blind. If a leg or arm, you gain the Broken Arm or Broken Leg condition. Regardless, the condition gained can only be removed by Regeneration, a magical prosthesis, or a similar effect.

2 || Broken Arm || You cannot use one of your hands. Healing magic of 5th level or higher can remove this injury. If you spend a long rest in complete bedrest, someone can make a DC 15 Wisdom(medicine) check to attempt to remove this injury.

3 || Broken Leg || Your base land speed is reduced by 10 feet. If you take this injury twice or you don’t have a crutch or prosthesis, you cannot stand. Healing magic of 5th level or higher can remove this injury. If you spend a long rest in complete bedrest, someone can make a DC 15 Wisdom(medicine) check to attempt to remove this injury.

4 || Internal Injury || Whenever you attempt an action in combat, you must make a DC 10 Constitution Saving Throw. On a failed save you lose your action and can’t use reactions until the start of your next turn. This condition goes away if you spend a long rest in complete bedrest, or if healing magic of greater than 5th level is used on you.

5-7 || Broken Ribs || Same as internal injury, but the DC is 5, and the required healing magic level is 4.

8-10 || Limp || Your movement speed is reduced by 5. If you take the dash action, make a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or fall prone. Magical healing can remove the limp

11-13 || Festering Wound || Your HP maximum is reduced by 1 for each of your maximum hit dice. If you are magically healed, you can forgo some of the healing effect to recover a number of maximum hit points equal to the amount of healing that you gave up. Otherwise, over the course of a short or long rest, a character can make a medicine check with a DC equal to the number of maximum hit points lost + 5 to restore the lost hit points.

14-16 || Horrible Scar || You have disadvantage on Charisma(Persuasion) checks and advantage on Charisma(Intimidation) checks that reference the scar. Magical healing removes this effect.

17-20 || Minor Scar || No adverse effect. Can be removed by magical healing (if desired)


Yes I do repost this every chance I get. I'm interested in feedback. The core 'improvement' over the DMG rules as I see it is that, since rolling higher is better and rolling lower is worse, you can use the advantage/disadvantage mechanic here to illustrate a horrible injury suffered and a normal injury.

A vitality system is probably a bit cleaner, overall.

[Theodoxus]

Honestly, I don't think it needs to be overly complicated. I see the Wounds/Vitality system as a 1/3 move towards simplicity - where there's a defined dichotomy between "meat" and "luck" that I find useful for explaining HP. Spells can become complicated, depending on how you interpret their interaction between luck and meat. Classic spells like Sleep and Color Spray, imo, should only affect meat - which makes them particularly powerful. Though, I suppose that's a decent compromise to how ineffective they typically are, even at 1st level.

A 1/2 move towards simplicity would be something like Savage Worlds, where you have a fairly static "Tough" trait that's small, and the ability to shrug off or restore damage fairly easily. Death is a real worry, but there are plenty of mitigating factors that heroes (Wild Cards) can do to stave it off.

A full move towards simplicity would be combining the two above. Start with a small "Tough" trait, and each level, add a tiny pool of "luck" points to it. [I'm thinking 1 for a d6, 2 for d8, 3 for d10 and 4 for d12 HD.] Monster damage would probably need to be nerfed a bit (especially things like breath weapons and innate spellcasting). The initial work to pare down the damage would be a pain, but I think it would ultimately provide a grittier, more granular game. Instead of needing a horde of goblins to whittle your 200+ HP heroes down, a small band would do. A single dragon poses an actual threat instead of being a tank with a big gun. Increasing the damage output by a single point could easily turn a medium encounter into a hard or even deadly one. And changes the combat dynamic from a lot of "Patchwork" fights where you're standing toe to toe trading blows until one or the others' HP pool is depleted, into options for hit and run guerrilla tactics; ambushes; using AOE to soften hard targets, etc.

[Grod_The_Giant]

A full move towards simplicity would be combining the two above. Start with a small "Tough" trait, and each level, add a tiny pool of "luck" points to it. Monster damage would probably need to be nerfed a bit (especially things like breath weapons and innate spellcasting). The initial work to pare down the damage would be a pain, but I think it would ultimately provide a grittier, more granular game. Instead of needing a horde of goblins to whittle your 200+ HP heroes down, a small band would do. A single dragon poses an actual threat instead of being a tank with a big gun. Increasing the damage output by a single point could easily turn a medium encounter into a hard or even deadly one. And changes the combat dynamic from a lot of "Patchwork" fights where you're standing toe to toe trading blows until one or the others' HP pool is depleted, into options for hit and run guerrilla tactics; ambushes; using AOE to soften hard targets, etc.
You could do that, but-- as Knaight, I, and others have been pointing out-- doing so translates to a near-total rewrite of the entire system. [I]5e's scaling is built around HP/damage; there's no getting around that. And it's a distributed scaling; damage is a property of a thousand individual spells and monsters and class features, and gets applied and modified in a dozen different ways-- it's not like tinkering with a single formula like Proficiency.