houserule on fighting fitness.

[dehro]

This may be an idea that's already used by a lot of people, but I'm not sure how and where to look for it, and I would like to know what your opinion is on my idea..
Spoiler: I haven't fleshed it out completely just yet... but this is the gist of it.

When a character reaches the last 10 % of their hitpoints during a fight, he can keep fighting but with at least a couple of points of exhaustion... I'm thinking 3 (but that's debatable). The idea being that if you've lost most of your hitpoints you're probably seriously wounded and unable to do half the stuff you'd do at peak form.
An idea to avoid this/mitigate it, would be to allow, at the beginning of the round, the player to roll a morale check, on his strongest stat, but at a disadvantage.
If he makes it he grits his teeth, rallies his last energies and can act normally for the rest of the round, if not, he loses the round completely.
It would be the player's choice whether to just take the disadvantages/exhaustion or try for a morale check.

Likewise, intelligent oppontents/enemies/monsters, would get the same treatment, with an option to surrender or flee, especially if they fail morale.

I'd have non intelligent monsters who reach their last 10% of hitpoints automatically fail morale, stop fighting and try to flee to the best of their ability... unless they were cornered, in which case they'd get the same exhaustion treatment.

EDIT FOR COMPLETENESS: the exhaustion would go away at the end of the encounter

opinions? variations? have you tried something similar in games you ran? how'd it go? is this going to screw over the players?

[Kane0]

Question: how does this affect the party members not losing HP a lot of the time compared to those that do? That is to say tanks and flankers vs casters and archers.

[kraitmarais]

Kinda seems like some extra dice rolls just for the sake of extra dice rolls, and would just muddy things up without adding much to the fun. Hit points are already abstract; the first ones you lose just represent fatigue and bumps and bruises, and the hit that knocks you to 0 being the serious injury. The "morale" roll is kinda already built in, with some race and class features allowing an automatic success, like the half-orc "Relentless Endurance."

Also, monsters and NPCs can already flee or surrender at any time, they don't need a hard-coded hit point trigger to do it. The DM shouldn't be running every enemy like it's on a suicide mission against the player characters.

[Naanomi]

Hit points are a pretty abstract thing... you risk conceptualizing them as ‘meat’ this way

Also, there are some strange results at the extreme ends... a low level wizard can fight fine until literally their last hit point, whereas a max level Barbarian may suffer penalties for 40+ HP?

And how does this interact with existing exhaustion rules? Does it make frenzy Barbarians even more prone to dropping over dead? Or make Sickening Radiance notably more fatal?

[dehro]

Also, there are some strange results at the extreme ends... a low level wizard can fight fine until literally their last hit point, whereas a max level Barbarian may suffer penalties for 40+ HP?
I don't see it.. wizards too would suffer penalties under this system.. ?
I can see your point about the max levels.. then maybe a fixed number of HP representative of you being on your last legs? though it strikes me this would be unfair to starting PCs?... I don't know.. anything in that direction?

And how does this interact with existing exhaustion rules? Does it make frenzy Barbarians even more prone to dropping over dead? Or make Sickening Radiance notably more fatal?

I'd forgotten to write this in the OP.. the exhaustion would end at the end of combat.. and no, I have not really thought about barbarians or other outlier situations. Then again, if I were to run a lap at a the tracks and got to the finish line out of breath, being kicked in the legs afterwards would compound my status of "not feeling too good"

Anyhow, I'm spitballing here.. The main idea being that I dislike the videogame approach where you can move and act up to your last hit point as if you were fresh out of the gate and wanted to bring a minor degree of realism to things. I'm absolutely open to alternative suggestions.

[dehro]

Also, monsters and NPCs can already flee or surrender at any time, they don't need a hard-coded hit point trigger to do it. The DM shouldn't be running every enemy like it's on a suicide mission against the player characters.

yes..that would mostly be a guideline so that the players don't feel treaten unfarily

[PhoenixPhyre]

More than one level of exhaustion is the same as saying "you can't play these next few adventuring days." Past the first rank, it's brutal. So one bad roll at low level and you're out for several days. In my mind, as a player, that's worse than a character dying. Because at least that way you can come back in.

[dehro]

More than one level of exhaustion is the same as saying "you can't play these next few adventuring days." Past the first rank, it's brutal. So one bad roll at low level and you're out for several days. In my mind, as a player, that's worse than a character dying. Because at least that way you can come back in.
I shall edit it for completeness.. the exhaustion would go away after the fight (unless otherwise procured).. but if you think 1 level would be enough, that could work too.. I'm trying out the concept here.

[Theodoxus]

I've considered similar - to the point that I reworked exhaustion.

I think, if you were to adopt this, I would suggest keeping the exhaustion levels the same, but rename it. You're looking for the mechanical effect of a Wounds/Vitality system, where you've run out of most of your hit points, and are down to "wounds." Which is fine, but calling the effect exhaustion just leads to confusion, and overexplaining what you mean.

Creating a new name for the temporary effect would alleviate most of the confusion.

I'd suggest something like 'On death's door', or 'Battered'... Could even use the old 'Bloodied' nomenclature for being at or below half hit points to let people know you're getting close.

[dehro]

makes a lot of sense.
Did you give it a try? how did it go?

[Naanomi]

I don't see it.. wizards too would suffer penalties under this system.. ?
A level 1 wizard with 14 CON would have 8 HP... so would never suffer your penalties (bottom 10% would be 0)

A magical ‘rolled perfect HP’ hill Dwarf Barbarian with 30 CON and the tough feat would suffer the penalty for 50 HP

It isn’t a bad thing, per se, but it can be a weird thing

[strangebloke]

Quick rule I've seen used:

dropping to zero hitpoints sets your exhaustion level to 1 (if it isn't already higher)
failing a death save sets your exhaustion level to 2(if it isn't already higher)
failing a second death save sets you exhaustion level to 3(if it isn't already higher)

You clear one level of exhaustion on a short rest.

All levels on a long rest.

Obviously this encourages the otherwise somewhat silly back-to-back short rests. But it's as good as anything I've seen. Your rules don't look horrible either, with the edit you put in there.

[Segev]

Before I criticize or make suggestions, I want to understand: what is the purpose of this rule? What do you want it to accomplish? What does it add to the game, or what problem does it solve that you've been facing?

[strangebloke]

Before I criticize or make suggestions, I want to understand: what is the purpose of this rule? What do you want it to accomplish? What does it add to the game, or what problem does it solve that you've been facing?

Probably the constant yo-yo-ing between 0 and "100% fighting strength" that the game enforces, which is pretty gamist and a little silly.

[Segev]

Probably the constant yo-yo-ing between 0 and "100% fighting strength" that the game enforces, which is pretty gamist and a little silly.

That's one possibility. I asked the OP because my suggestions will vary based on what his purpose is.

My response to your suggested concern:

It's not really silly if you consider hp not to be physical damage and only physical damage, but rather if you consider it to represent your reserves. Ability not to get hit seriously. Sure, it's a scratch, or a knick, or even a worrisome bruised muscle or bone, but as long as you have hp, you aren't taking life-threatening wounds. It might slow you down, but only in a real combat-sense that means you're more and more likely to mess up and fail to dodge and take that final, debilitating blow (the one that brings you to 0 hp).

As long as you're able to rest and recover, a lot of the "hp damage" will go away with a short rest as you just regain your energy. Add in magic, and it gets even less silly.

It's only silly if you consider 0 hp to really not be that much more hurt than 1 hp, and that a level 20 fighter taking 20 points of damage from a sword is surviving the bisection that 20 points of damage would represent on a level 1 wizard. If, instead, you consider the fighter's "20 hp" to be due to his skill and prowess allowing him to take the blow as a glancing scrape across his shoulder, while the inept-at-fighting wizard took it from shoulder to crotch, it makes a lot more sense.

[strangebloke]

That's one possibility. I asked the OP because my suggestions will vary based on what his purpose is.

My response to your suggested concern:

It's not really silly if you consider hp not to be physical damage and only physical damage, but rather if you consider it to represent your reserves. Ability not to get hit seriously. Sure, it's a scratch, or a knick, or even a worrisome bruised muscle or bone, but as long as you have hp, you aren't taking life-threatening wounds. It might slow you down, but only in a real combat-sense that means you're more and more likely to mess up and fail to dodge and take that final, debilitating blow (the one that brings you to 0 hp).

As long as you're able to rest and recover, a lot of the "hp damage" will go away with a short rest as you just regain your energy. Add in magic, and it gets even less silly.

It's only silly if you consider 0 hp to really not be that much more hurt than 1 hp, and that a level 20 fighter taking 20 points of damage from a sword is surviving the bisection that 20 points of damage would represent on a level 1 wizard. If, instead, you consider the fighter's "20 hp" to be due to his skill and prowess allowing him to take the blow as a glancing scrape across his shoulder, while the inept-at-fighting wizard took it from shoulder to crotch, it makes a lot more sense.

Yeah, yeah, I know, the only blow that really hits you solidly is the one that drops you to zero, and of course death saving throws.

What's silly is the 100% fighting capacity or 0%, with no grades of difference. What's silly is 'healing up to 1' naturally and regaining all function instantly. Like if the blow that drops you to zero does hit you hard enough to knock you out, shouldn't that impose some kind of penalty?

[Pex]

It leads to a death spiral. The closer you are to death the worse you become at combat statistics. You can't fight at your capacity, so you take more injury increasing your penalties and then die. To prevent this from happening someone must do nothing but healing. While spellcasters and other range attackers do get damaged, melee focused warriors will disproportionally suffer the consequences because it is their job to take the hits so others don't. That is why they have the highest ACs and hit points. Their reason to exist becomes a fatal flaw.

[dehro]

What's silly is the 100% fighting capacity or 0%, with no grades of difference. What's silly is 'healing up to 1' naturally and regaining all function instantly. Like if the blow that drops you to zero does hit you hard enough to knock you out, shouldn't that impose some kind of penalty?

This


It leads to a death spiral. The closer you are to death the worse you become at combat statistics. You can't fight at your capacity, so you take more injury increasing your penalties and then die. To prevent this from happening someone must do nothing but healing. While spellcasters and other range attackers do get damaged, melee focused warriors will disproportionally suffer the consequences because it is their job to take the hits so others don't. That is why they have the highest ACs and hit points. Their reason to exist becomes a fatal flaw.

isn't that why armies have combat medics? isn't it true that if you've been repeatedly punched in the face you're going to have trouble seeing the next blows coming or being able to not get dazed by a well placed further punch? isn't it true that if you have a serious injury in your foot you can still serve as a shooter from your trench but you can't really go over the breach and charge at the enemy?
Every fight is a death spiral. The better, hardier or luckier fighter survives.
The dynamic of 100% operational capacity Vs sudden total incapacity is what I find a bit counter-intuitive. I don't aim to bring total "realism" into d&d because that would be both silly and impossible to do, but a little bit of a sensible approach to combat doesn't seem unwarranted.
Being basically all but mortally wounded (you have 2 HP left on a 150 max hitpoints, to make an example), you shouldn't be able to run at full speed, do a flip, deliver a whole range of attacks as you would do if you were fresh on the field of battle.

My idea of how to solve it is probably not the best out there (for one, I don't know how to solve the issue of the first level magician).. which is why I bring it here, to see if you've come up with something better, or if we can refine it together.
If you're perfectly happy with leaving things as they are and not use a houserule, more power to you.. I myself am doing exactly the same and squeezing every action I can out of all of my hitpoints.. but it's a concept I'd like to bring to the table with my party if I should decide to DM.. and maybe other people on this forum have the same pet peeve and found a solution to it.

[dehro]

Before I criticize or make suggestions, I want to understand: what is the purpose of this rule? What do you want it to accomplish? What does it add to the game, or what problem does it solve that you've been facing?

I realised I didn't reply to you directly... it's what strangebloke says.. I'm not entirely satisfied by the notion of full operational capability for a character that's been put down or is on his last breath.

On a sidenote, actually having to keep track of their injuries in a more significant way might help "my players" be a bit more descriptive and "roleplaying" in their encounters, rather than becoming dice-rollers who are only challenged to roleplay in the sense that they must make tactical gaming decisions.

[Segev]

I realised I didn't reply to you directly... it's what strangebloke says.. I'm not entirely satisfied by the notion of full operational capability for a character that's been put down or is on his last breath.Then I suggest, actually, having a status condition that kicks in after recovering from 0 hp up to 1, and persists until magical healing or a long rest. Call it "Injured." While Injured, a character is at Disadvantage on Attack Rolls, Strength Checks, and Dexterity Checks, and takes 1 hp of damage every time he makes one.

Tying it to being knocked to 0 hp and then getting back up is better than tying it to 10% hp because it doesn't effectively reduce the fighting endurance of creatures and characters by 10%. It also doesn't provide a second number-threshold to track.


On a sidenote, actually having to keep track of their injuries in a more significant way might help "my players" be a bit more descriptive and "roleplaying" in their encounters, rather than becoming dice-rollers who are only challenged to roleplay in the sense that they must make tactical gaming decisions.Insisting that the only way to "roleplay" an encounter is to pretend to be in agonizing pain and debilitated is rather lame, in my opinion. The death spiral, described above, is real and is not something to encourage in a game about heroic fantasy. It leads to a snowball effect, where small early advantages become insurmountable late leads, and often can lead to unfun experiences where the players are just wondering why the GM hasn't killed them already rather than making them play out the inevitable TPK to the bitter end.

Roleplay is about much more than amateur acting skill. It's about making decisions in character. I do applaud wanting to make the mechanics cooperate with what you feel is appropriate RP. But I challenge you to rethink your expectations of what the mechanics represent before deciding they're too outlandish to permit and houseruling them.

[dehro]

Appreciate your feedback and I like your suggestion.
I am actually considering my first DMing experience, and am fully aware that the experience might not really take the shape I would ideally want it to take, for me or my players (even though I have known most of them for 5+ years now).
I am trying to get into it with the least amount of expectations and with the purpose of having fun with my friends.
My aim is not necessarily to see them get on stage and improv act out injuries or something like that. I'm merely trying to look for options that might lead one or two people to consider "ok.. I've been fighting toe to toe with this guy/creature and it's not working.. soon I'll be out of breath.. is there anything I can do differently other than just trading blows/trying to beat his spell resistance?"
maybe it won't work, maybe it will.. maybe congealing that thought into a "ruled" dynamic is the wrong approach. I don't know yet.


to clarify, the above (a potential and minor shift in game-style) is more a consequence that might (or might not) spring from me tackling my insatisfaction with the 100% VS 0% thing.. not my primary concern.. just something that came up as I was thinking the main thing over.

[Unoriginal]

Even excluding all the other things: with those rules, Petruck the lvl 1 Fighter with 10 CON can keep fighting as if nothing happened until he gets 1 HP. Meanwhile, Gonzagus the lvl 20 Fighter with 20 CON get penalized if he ever get under 23 HPs.

Why would the lvl 1 guy with no CON bonus be able to handle being lower on HPs than the lvl 20 with +5 CON bonus can ?

[Mellack]

While I agree that getting beat up would realistically lower ones combat ability, I generally play for heroic fantasy, not realism. Having played in game systems that lessen abilities as you get hurt I find it to be less enjoyable to play. The reason is it virtually eliminates the possibility of the heroic comeback. That is a common trope in stories. Think of Rocky or Die Hard. If they have multiple penalties because they have taken some blows, it essentially guarantees the outcome. Early advantages in a fight become insurmountable and the dramatic tension goes away.

[Segev]

I am actually considering my first DMing experience, and am fully aware that the experience might not really take the shape I would ideally want it to take, for me or my players (even though I have known most of them for 5+ years now).
I am trying to get into it with the least amount of expectations and with the purpose of having fun with my friends.Then I strongly recommend not house-ruling things where you don't need to. Just run it as-is, and rule where gaps come up. With your first experience DMing, I do not recommend toying with game (re)design.



I'm merely trying to look for options that might lead one or two people to consider "ok.. I've been fighting toe to toe with this guy/creature and it's not working.. soon I'll be out of breath.. is there anything I can do differently other than just trading blows/trying to beat his spell resistance?"
maybe it won't work, maybe it will.. maybe congealing that thought into a "ruled" dynamic is the wrong approach. I don't know yet.


to clarify, the above (a potential and minor shift in game-style) is more a consequence that might (or might not) spring from me tackling my insatisfaction with the 100% VS 0% thing.. not my primary concern.. just something that came up as I was thinking the main thing over.
I think you'll find that this happens as people get low in hp anyway. They know how much damage they're taking per hit, and how many hp they have left, and therefore how many more hits they can take.



Oh, and as a recommendation for RP-encouraging mechanics, take a look at the rules for Inspiration. Players respond a lot better to rules that reward them rather than rules which threaten/punish them.

[dehro]

Even excluding all the other things: with those rules, Petruck the lvl 1 Fighter with 10 CON can keep fighting as if nothing happened until he gets 1 HP. Meanwhile, Gonzagus the lvl 20 Fighter with 20 CON get penalized if he ever get under 23 HPs.

Why would the lvl 1 guy with no CON bonus be able to handle being lower on HPs than the lvl 20 with +5 CON bonus can ?
I don't know..and I don't know how to solve that particular situation. Help to find a way around that one would be appreciated (then again, Segev's alternative solution seems to hold up better than my initial post... so maybe we have solved it?)

While I agree that getting beat up would realistically lower ones combat ability, I generally play for heroic fantasy, not realism. Having played in game systems that lessen abilities as you get hurt I find it to be less enjoyable to play. The reason is it virtually eliminates the possibility of the heroic comeback. That is a common trope in stories. Think of Rocky or Die Hard. If they have multiple penalties because they have taken some blows, it essentially guarantees the outcome. Early advantages in a fight become insurmountable and the dramatic tension goes away.

I defer to your experience.. if you say it's less fun to play I can do nothing but believe you because I don't have any direct experience to the opposite.
I would however point out that the heroic comeback would be possible, according to my OP. It's actually provided by the option of, instead of taking the disadvantage, trying to beat a morale check using one's strongest stat..which makes sense in terms of "extraordinary people getting extraordinary bang for buck out of their extraordinary stats".. if you follow me. Basically, the comeback is brought into reality by the hero focusing on his strongest attributes and rallying his energies around it.. in full keeping with pretty much every depiction of the trope across the board.

[Crusher]

Quick rule I've seen used:

dropping to zero hitpoints sets your exhaustion level to 1 (if it isn't already higher)
failing a death save sets your exhaustion level to 2(if it isn't already higher)
failing a second death save sets you exhaustion level to 3(if it isn't already higher)

You clear one level of exhaustion on a short rest.

All levels on a long rest.

Obviously this encourages the otherwise somewhat silly back-to-back short rests. But it's as good as anything I've seen. Your rules don't look horrible either, with the edit you put in there.

When I DM, the whole whack-a-mole style that can develop late in fights is really annoying ("Down to 0 and dying! Back to 3 hp and fully functional! Hit again, back to 0 hp and dying! Healed back to 7 hp and fully functional!").

Two reasons: One, it makes healing people who are injured, but not down to 0, feel like a waste.

Two: it makes bigger heals less useful. If the fighter is getting beaten on by something that hits hard, but not so hard that it can knock him or her down to -MAX (which very, very few things can do), then there's almost no difference in healing them for 1 hp vs healing them for 25 hp. The Fire Giant or whatever can knock off 25 hp as easily as 1 hp, and if the fighter has 75, there's genuinely no difference between the Fire Giant hitting for 25 (or 1, in the case of 1 hp) vs hitting for 70. Literally, the result is identical.

To resolve it, I impose a stacking penalty of 1 level of exhaustion every time someone is knocked to 0 hp and then healed back up. Nothing additional for failing death checks, I figure having a chance of death is penalty enough.

It encourages the players to prevent people from getting knocked to 0 in the first place. And, yes, I'm totally fine with someone dying after getting knocked to 0 hp and then healed back up for the 6th time in a fight. If it happens to you 6 times, you're doing something really wrong.

But to lessen the blow a bit (and to reduce the penalty on Berserkers), I say that you get back 1 level of Exhaustion per short rest and 2 from a long rest. Seems to work out.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I strongly second waiting until it's an actual problem, not a theoretical one. Feel how it plays with a particular group, then go from there.

In my experience, only jaded people (or AL) actually play like it's no big deal being bounced from 0 to 1 and back a few times. My players (who are all new) start getting wild-eyed and taking precautions at about half health. Because they're actually thinking like their characters are real, not like they're playing pieces that interact only mechanically.

Death spirals are anti-player, because monsters are supposed to die much more frequently than PCs are. So a given monster might last a scene, while a PC is supposed to last a campaign. This means that the probability of an un-fair death caused by a fluke roll is exponentially worse on a PC than on a monster. Monsters might make 1 total roll at low HP. PCs make dozens, spread out over a campaign. Or more.

[dehro]

I strongly second waiting until it's an actual problem, not a theoretical one. Feel how it plays with a particular group, then go from there.

In my experience, only jaded people (or AL) actually play like it's no big deal being bounced from 0 to 1 and back a few times.

I've known my players for a while now; even though we're very new to 5e, I think I have a fairly clear idea of how they treat the subject.. there is a fair amount of whack-a-moleing, more often than not. Now, since it's not something that's in the book and I'm not very good at improvising when it comes to numbers and rules, I'm trying to be prepared, should the circumstance occur.

I'm also thinking ahead, about limiting (by worldbuilding imposed limitations) spells such as teleportation or resurrection.. which are subjects entirely too soon to tackle, because we'd be starting at 1st or 2nd level tops.
In that respect, I feel like introducing the critical role style of ritual aspect to resurrections might be interesting to play.. but, as I said, way too soon to be concerned about that.

[Kane0]

If you want to disincentivize the whack-a-mole effect a common houserule is +1 exhaustion when you hit 0.

If you want an actual Death Spiral a possibility is 1 Exhaustion when you drop to 75% HP, 2 at 50% and 3 at 25%. Just make sure that this doesn't stack with spells and other effects that influence Exhaustion. It's a fair chunk of extra bookwork though, be warned.

Edit: Another possible death spiral is manipulating prof bonus as you lose HP. For example Half Prof after you're down 1/3 your HP, no prof at 25% HP or less.

[PhantomSoul]

If you want to disincentivize the whack-a-mole effect a common houserule is +1 exhaustion when you hit 0.

If you want an actual Death Spiral a possibility is 1 Exhaustion when you drop to 75% HP, 2 at 50% and 3 at 25%. Just make sure that this doesn't stack with spells and other effects that influence Exhaustion. It's a fair chunk of extra bookwork though, be warned.

Edit: Another possible death spiral is manipulating prof bonus as you lose HP. For example Half Prof after you're down 1/3 your HP, no prof at 25% HP or less.

Another option is to add a DC (probably Constitution Saving Throw) to prevent Exhaustion -- adds a little uncertainty, and helps to make it so melee combatants (who tend to have decent Con and/or Con S. T. Proficiency) won't be as crippled. The party will generally also end up with spells to remove levels of Exhaustion, in which case they also have a bonus strategic decision to make (is it worth the spell slot to remove a level?). There's also some flexibility here, since you can choose the DC. Maybe you make it based on the damage taken by the last blow, but 15 seems to be a good start (maybe +5 if the last blow was a Crit and you want that to feel more impressive).

One big advantage of using Exhaustion is that even a single failure isn't likely to be that crippling in battle (barring someone whose sole and entire schtick is grappling or shoving): a single level only affects Ability Checks. A second level could be noticeable depending on the character (Speed reduction), and starting at the third level it tends to get more obvious.

Depending on your desired feel, there's also the advantage that not all levels of Exhaustion are immediately wiped out with a single (Long) Rest. Of course, you may also decide you want more ways to remove or temporarily ignore levels of Exhaustion to compensate, if the Characters still go down a lot.

[Pex]

Healing in combat is not a bad thing. As an on purpose tactic it doesn't work in 5E. It did in previous editions. In 5E in combat healing is only good for stopping someone from dying. Even when it was viable as a tactic not many players wanted to play a healbot. They won't mind the occasional casting a healing spell, but that is not what they want to do. Your idea forces the role.

I don't give a Hoover D&D hit points is not realistic. Realism is irrelevant. If you want realistic injuries play a different game system that has what you want. D&D isn't built for it and never was. To account for it will change how everything works. One enemy Fireball can give the entire party penalties it might as well be an AOE TPK spell. The math of the game does not work for what you want.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Exhaustion rules are among the most poorly-designed in D&D 5E, and any house rule that increases their use in the game is a bad idea.

[Kane0]

Exhaustion rules are among the most poorly-designed in D&D 5E, and any house rule that increases their use in the game is a bad idea.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41UvJFSQxHL.jpg

Let's get cracking then!

[dehro]

I don't give a Hoover D&D hit points is not realistic. Realism is irrelevant.
I appreciate you don't care about the whackamole aspect. I'll thank you for not telling me what should be relevant to me or what I want from the game. I thought I had made it quite clear that I never aspired to absolute realism but that I was thinking of a small way to give it more of a realistic feel according to my perception. If you don't share my notions, perceptions or ideas that's cool but, by all means, feel free to not to pee on my parade.

If you want realistic injuries play a different game system that has what you want. D&D isn't built for it and never was. To account for it will change how everything works. One enemy Fireball can give the entire party penalties it might as well be an AOE TPK spell. The math of the game does not work for what you want.

D&D is explicitly welcoming to houserules and every table has its own. I have zero interest in exploring other gaming systems at the moment and I think that some of the suggestions that have come in this thread do give me enough of what I want without messing up the game math.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to reading posts from people who are actually contributing meaningfully to the thread.

[Pex]

I appreciate you don't care about the whackamole aspect. I'll thank you for not telling me what should be relevant to me or what I want from the game. I thought I had made it quite clear that I never aspired to absolute realism but that I was thinking of a small way to give it more of a realistic feel according to my perception. If you don't share my notions, perceptions or ideas that's cool but, by all means, feel free to not to pee on my parade.


D&D is explicitly welcoming to houserules and every table has its own. I have zero interest in exploring other gaming systems at the moment and I think that some of the suggestions that have come in this thread do give me enough of what I want without messing up the game math.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to reading posts from people who are actually contributing meaningfully to the thread.

You asked for opinions. I gave one even if you don't like the answer. I'm saying the idea itself is not a good one for the reasons I gave - death spiral and the math of the game doesn't work. One Fireball can give the entire party penalties and it goes downhill from there. Because of Bounded Accuracy every +1 or -1, Advantage or Disadvantage, is a big deal. Applying more minuses or disadvantages for the audacity of losing hit points which PCs do all the time than the game already gives makes PC deaths more common and inevitable.

[Kane0]

You asked for opinions. I gave one even if you don't like the answer. I'm saying the idea itself is not a good one for the reasons I gave - death spiral and the math of the game doesn't work. One Fireball can give the entire party penalties and it goes downhill from there. Because of Bounded Accuracy every +1 or -1, Advantage or Disadvantage, is a big deal. Applying more minuses or disadvantages for the audacity of losing hit points which PCs do all the time than the game already gives makes PC deaths more common and inevitable.

DMG Flanking is also an incredibly bad idea, but it's right there in the book.

Sometimes balance can be a curse upon us.

[Trask]

I agree that death spirals are an X factor in D&D combat, and can change the game in unforseen ways. I wouldn't recommend using a houserule with a death spiral component for that reason.

However, I think adding a bit of an inbetween of death and life for realism, making healing matter more, etc is a good idea. I just think you should rethink the approach.

I recommend not making fighting fitness a part of a PC's normal hp, but creating a system where their fighting fitness perhaps replaces death saving throws.

You could have your normal HP, and then an amount of fighting fitness equal to your Constitution score. Or con + prof bonus. Or 10 + prof + con mod. Whatever you want. Instead of going unconscious, when PCs reach their fighting fitness (you could also call it grit, flesh etc) they have disadvantage on attack rolls, saves, reduced movement speed or maybe a combination of these. This essentially acts as negative HP, which they can be healed out of and back into their regular HP which removes these penalties. Naturally if the damage they take would exceed the limits of their fighting fitness, they die.

This is only one way of approaching it and im not claiming its the best for you, but the principle is that this method does not create a death spiral where one would not already exist. Instead of becoming unconscious, the player becomes disadvantaged and nearly overcome by his wounds and his fatigue, which they can also be healed out of. This does boost player action economy quite a bit, but I think its balanced out by the greater risk of being killed by one opponent with a more powerful single attack, which are notoriously weak for their CR in the vanilla game.

[Kane0]

However, I think adding a bit of an inbetween of death and life for realism, making healing matter more, etc is a good idea. I just think you should rethink the approach.


Makes me think of 4e bloodied. Good concept, shame it was dropped.

[Segev]

Exhaustion rules are among the most poorly-designed in D&D 5E.Why? I don't have a strong opinion against this, but I haven't seen this opinion ventured before, and I don't know the reasoning. Please explain why you say this.


DMG Flanking is also an incredibly bad idea.Again: why? It was integral to and worked well in 3e. I can be persuaded it is bad for 5e (different paradigms and all), but I would like to hear/read your reasoning, since I don't see it from the assertion alone.

[Unoriginal]

If you want realistic, then:

-People who get hit by a Hill Giant just die (unless extreme luck circumstances).

-People go get hit by a Dragon just die (unless extreme luck circumstances).

-People who get breathed on by dragons just die (unless extreme luck circumstances).

-Giants just die because the square/cube law doesn't allow humanoid-shaped bodies of that size to work like that.

-Dragons disappear into thin air because D&D dragons can't live in a realistic environment

[dehro]

way to stay true to your nickname right there..

[Trask]

If you want realistic, then:

-People who get hit by a Hill Giant just die (unless extreme luck circumstances).

-People go get hit by a Dragon just die (unless extreme luck circumstances).

-People who get breathed on by dragons just die (unless extreme luck circumstances).

-Giants just die because the square/cube law doesn't allow humanoid-shaped bodies of that size to work like that.

-Dragons disappear into thin air because D&D dragons can't live in a realistic environment

Thats not a good argument. I guarantee that you accept some form of realism in your game that is arbitrary to your taste. Obviously almost everyone who plays D&D accepts some form of realism. Your arbitrary amount that lets you fight monsters, but still limits you to say, gravity, isn't any better than a kind of realism that creates a middle ground between peak form and comatose near death. The actual houserule itself might not be a good fit and that can be criticized, but arguments to the effect that "realism = pointless because magic" is not only lazy but often not accurately representing opposing views.

[Unoriginal]

way to stay true to your nickname right there..

Ah, yes, because calling me unoriginal is so much more original.


Let's be logical, here:

Did the current HPs system cause you any problem? Y/N

Did you find any change that doesn't actually cause problems? Y/N


Thats not a good argument. I guarantee that you accept some form of realism in your game that is arbitrary to your taste. Obviously almost everyone who plays D&D accepts some form of realism. Your arbitrary amount that lets you fight monsters, but still limits you to say, gravity, isn't any better than a kind of realism that creates a middle ground between peak form and comatose near death. The actual houserule itself might not be a good fit and that can be criticized, but arguments to the effect that "realism = pointless because magic" is not only lazy but often not accurately representing opposing views.

You're confusing "realism" with "believability".

D&D worlds aren't realistic. Realistic gravity on Faerun would probably have meant that the whole Underdark couldn't exist, and on Eberron that Sharn would probably have collapsed a long time ago if it could even be built.

What they are is believable, in the sense that we can believe that those things work somehow.

It's not realism to have people stay on the ground or to have sharp swords hurt people, same way that a story about a talking cat who walks like a man in a New York that's otherwise like the real-life one isn't realistic.

What you're trying to do is trying to change the definition of realism to fit your view, which I would call lazier and less accurate than accepting the lack of realism in D&D and its characters.

[Trask]

Theres no functional difference between believeability and realism in this case. Its a semantic difference. By my understanding, you think that reworking HP to better reflect the debilitating effects of wounds is pointless because PCs are superhuman and can survive things that should instantly kill. But by the supposed logic of believeability, is it not believable that even a superhuman would become tired and weakened after a blow that might kill a normal man? If it is, which it is, then the only reason to not implement such a rule is because you dont like it, not because it runs contrary to the fantasy of the game.

[dehro]

Ah, yes, because calling me unoriginal is so much more original.


Let's be logical, here:

Did the current HPs system cause you any problem? Y/N

Did you find any change that doesn't actually cause problems? Y/N


if you'd bothered to read further in the thread you'd know the answers to these questions and you wouldn't have made comments that were..unoriginal because other people already have made contributions in the same vein.

anyway, to reiterate, no, no problems mechanically speaking
the main "issue" however small it may be, is that I'm somewhat irritated by the whole process of istantaneous transition between 100% operational capability and 0%.. and then back up again at the slightest of healings. Is it a problem in the dynamics of the game? no, is it something that annoys me and I would like to find a minor adjustment to ..adjust it? yes.
Is that reason enough to think about a workaround, open a thread about it and discuss it? It is for me..

Did I find a change that doesn't cause a problem?..well.. if I had, would I have opened this thread? I had an idea that could maybe work and, being new to 5e and completely new to homebrewing, put it out there looking for feedback from people who understand why this (minor) thing is annoying to me and are willing to test out my idea or, being more experienced, can point out the flaws and suggest alternatives in a constructive manner.
saying stuff like
"-Dragons disappear into thin air because D&D dragons can't live in a realistic environment"
serves no purpose at all in this thread other than to point out that for you it's not an issue, you think it's stupid and and you're unwilling to spend your intellect to understand where I'm coming from and/or help me figure out a better way than the one I came up with.
That's a fair choice and you're free to make it but.. why bother replying (and with snide comments) at all if you're unwilling to contribute meaningfully?

[Unoriginal]

if you'd bothered to read further in the thread you'd know the answers to these questions and you wouldn't have made comments that were..unoriginal because other people already have made contributions in the same vein.

anyway, to reiterate, no, no problems mechanically speaking
the main "issue" however small it may be, is that I'm somewhat irritated by the whole process of istantaneous transition between 100% operational capability and 0%.. and then back up again at the slightest of healings. Is it a problem in the dynamics of the game? no, is it something that annoys me and I would like to find a minor adjustment to ..adjust it? yes.
Is that reason enough to think about a workaround, open a thread about it and discuss it? It is for me..

Did I find a change that doesn't cause a problem?..well.. if I had, would I have opened this thread? I had an idea that could maybe work and, being new to 5e and completely new to homebrewing, put it out there looking for feedback from people who understand why this (minor) thing is annoying to me and are willing to test out my idea or, being more experienced, can point out the flaws and suggest alternatives in a constructive manner.

I've read the thread, I'm trying to present thing as a logical reflection.

If you have something that is not a problem, but to annoying you, yet all of the changes you or other people in this thread proposed caused problems who are equally annoying, then maybe you need to go back to square one and reconsider everything from scratch.



saying stuff like
"-Dragons disappear into thin air because D&D dragons can't live in a realistic environment"
serves no purpose at all in this thread other than to point out that for you it's not an issue, you think it's stupid and and you're unwilling to spend your intellect to understand where I'm coming from and/or help me figure out a better way than the one I came up with.

The purpose is to reiterate that D&D is a certain way, and that the "appeal to realism" argument doesn't work from a logical standpoint.

I'm not denying your right to find something annoying, I'm just debunking the "it's not realistic" justification, as it has no bearing.

It's not a question of realism, or even of how sound the game mechanics are, it's a question of tastes. And again, it's 100% legitimate to not like something, but we all have to admit when something is just a personal taste about how we want our game to work rather than some other reasons.



That's a fair choice and you're free to make it but.. why bother replying (and with snide comments) at all if you're unwilling to contribute meaningfully?

There is a difference between an unwelcome comment and a non-meaningful one.

Now, here's what I can propose you:

1) Tell your players combat will be more deadly than usual because of an houserule you want to try

2) Try out the method you wanted to.

3) Remember that you are the DM, and that it's you who decides if you should use an houserule or not.

4) Ask the players what they thought about it.

You could also say that characters who have 1 HPs are stunned, and that rather than use Exhaustion you'd use the Poisoned condition to represent someone who is in a bad condition.

[dehro]

1) Tell your players combat will be more deadly than usual because of an houserule you want to try

2) Try out the method you wanted to.

3) Remember that you are the DM, and that it's you who decides if you should use an houserule or not.

4) Ask the players what they thought about it.

You could also say that characters who have 1 HPs are stunned, and that rather than use Exhaustion you'd use the Poisoned condition to represent someone who is in a bad condition.

That's broadly what I have in mind to do.. this thread is step 0, to define the best possible version of this houserule. Keeping into consideration that I'm rather new to DMing and I have a rather high opinion of the average level of competence of members of this forum, so putting this out there is a way to preemptively challenge the houserule and find a better alternative, if it's out there, before I even bring it to the table and get to step 1.
or.. if it really turns out not to be feasible (but a few alternatives suggested in the thread seem workable) get rid of the idea in the first place.

[Segev]

That's broadly what I have in mind to do.. this thread is step 0, to define the best possible version of this houserule. Keeping into consideration that I'm rather new to DMing and I have a rather high opinion of the average level of competence of members of this forum, so putting this out there is a way to preemptively challenge the houserule and find a better alternative, if it's out there, before I even bring it to the table and get to step 1.
or.. if it really turns out not to be feasible (but a few alternatives suggested in the thread seem workable) get rid of the idea in the first place.

I honestly think step 0 should be to run a few sessions and see what, if any, problems really develop, then, armed with real examples of problems, come here and ask for critique of your potential solutions. Starting by assuming there will be a problem can cause bias issues, and while yes, we're (collectively) knowledgeable, and I hope friendly about it, we are very prone to wanting examples of the problems being faced because we tend to default to looking for solutions within the RAW. Often, problems new DMs have have solutions in the RAW, and are a symptom of the DM missing something or not using the game quite the way it's intended, so it's easiest to know what problems he's facing so that the crowdsourced knowledge of years of D&D experience can point out, "Actually, if you just do it this way, you'll probably see the problem solve itself."

[Unoriginal]

That's broadly what I have in mind to do.. this thread is step 0, to define the best possible version of this houserule. Keeping into consideration that I'm rather new to DMing and I have a rather high opinion of the average level of competence of members of this forum, so putting this out there is a way to preemptively challenge the houserule and find a better alternative, if it's out there, before I even bring it to the table and get to step 1.
or.. if it really turns out not to be feasible (but a few alternatives suggested in the thread seem workable) get rid of the idea in the first place.

See, given the "best possible version" is the one you feel is the best, you have to try it out live before anything more can be said.

Anticipating is not a bad thing, but like Segev said you should really start with trying that out so you can get examples on where it worked, where it didn't, and in which way you enjoyed what.

[dehro]

Then I guess I'll do that.. once I've actually started running a campaign, or at least a few sessions.. right now I'm still in prep phase.

the subject is shelved until I have some player feedback then :P

[Doug Lampert]

Why? I don't have a strong opinion against this, but I haven't seen this opinion ventured before, and I don't know the reasoning. Please explain why you say this.
I'm not JakOfAllTirades, but in D&D5 land I can get a wound that renders me unable to function, and can kill me fairly easily if not treated (18 seconds with not excessively bad luck, and 12 seconds wouldn't be all that surprising); receive 6 seconds of non-magical first aid; no magical help at all; and I'll be totally fine the next day if I can just get 8 hours sleep.

OTOH if I work really hard at something I can be under exhaustion penalties for days.

The penalties for days from fatigue is perfectly realistic, and utterly unfit for a system with the first feature, especially given the claim that much of HP is fatigue.

If HP are partly fatigue then: Massive fatigue to the point that I'm unconscious and unresponsive+massive bloodloss+serious trauma that could plausible be fatal within 12 seconds if not treated, and I'm up and about the next day like nothing ever happened. If you use "gritty realism" it takes a full week.

I work really hard twice in one day, and that's far worse?! How?

[Segev]

I'm not JakOfAllTirades, but in D&D5 land I can get a wound that renders me unable to function, and can kill me fairly easily if not treated (18 seconds with not excessively bad luck, and 12 seconds wouldn't be all that surprising); receive 6 seconds of non-magical first aid; no magical help at all; and I'll be totally fine the next day if I can just get 8 hours sleep.

OTOH if I work really hard at something I can be under exhaustion penalties for days.

The penalties for days from fatigue is perfectly realistic, and utterly unfit for a system with the first feature, especially given the claim that much of HP is fatigue.

If HP are partly fatigue then: Massive fatigue to the point that I'm unconscious and unresponsive+massive bloodloss+serious trauma that could plausible be fatal within 12 seconds if not treated, and I'm up and about the next day like nothing ever happened. If you use "gritty realism" it takes a full week.

I work really hard twice in one day, and that's far worse?! How?
Ah, thanks for the explanation. I don't entirely agree, but I do at least see where you're coming from.

...this does make Frenzy a rather bad ability to use. x_x It's clearly meant as a 1/day thing, preferably not until the last encounter of the day!

[Kane0]

Again: why? It was integral to and worked well in 3e. I can be persuaded it is bad for 5e (different paradigms and all), but I would like to hear/read your reasoning, since I don't see it from the assertion alone.

(Dis)Advantage is a fairly-to-pretty big deal in 5e, whereas a +2 to hit wasn't all that much in 3e. Getting access to at-will advantage is no small shift in combat power.
The ease of which it can be acquired messes with a couple of things like Sneak Attack and Pack Tactics but it also swings things very much in favor of whoever has the most flankers. Considering that the average party is 4-6 dudes, up to half of which won't be engaging in melee, the DM will most likely be flanking quite a bit more often than the PCs.
There are also side effects for CR calculations and resource expenditure due to the increased hit rates and damage output.

The game is still playable of course, but also not balanced. Like I said, sometimes the way we chase the concept of perfectly balancing everything is a bit of a curse.

[PhoenixPhyre]

(Dis)Advantage is a fairly-to-pretty big deal in 5e, whereas a +2 to hit wasn't all that much in 3e. Getting access to at-will advantage is no small shift in combat power.
The ease of which it can be acquired messes with a couple of things like Sneak Attack and Pack Tactics but it also swings things very much in favor of whoever has the most flankers. Considering that the average party is 4-6 dudes, up to half of which won't be engaging in melee, the DM will most likely be flanking quite a bit more often than the PCs.

The game is still playable of course, but also not balanced. Like I said, sometimes the way we chase the concept of perfectly balancing everything is a bit of a curse.

And the change to AOs (not provoking for moving around a target, among other things) make it way easier to flank safely in 5e.

[Pex]

When penalties start kicking in at 0 + F(X) hit points where F(X) is a function of percentage of an individual character's hit points, you're practically taking away F(X) hit points from all players because from Max hit points to F(X) + 1 they get to function normally in all things the character can do. If you must have penalties because you don't like characters functioning normally at 0 to F(X) hit points, have the penalties kick in at 0 hit points, the PCs remain conscious, and drop to death's door at 0 - Y hit points. Y can be Constitution score or 2 times level or 1/3(Max hit points) or some number you're comfortable with. At least this way you don't arbitrarily weaken all PCs for want of a house rule.

[Kane0]

I just realized how CaS we are.

Like super CaS.

[dehro]

I just realized how CaS we are.

Like super CaS.

I, on the other hand, am confused.
Like super confused:smallconfused:

[Kane0]

Combat As Sport, as opposed to Combat As War. Feel free to google it but its sort of a scale on how combat is run in terms of ‘fairness’

[dehro]

Combat As Sport, as opposed to Combat As War. Feel free to google it but its sort of a scale on how combat is run in terms of ‘fairness’

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification

[Theodoxus]

I just realized how CaS we are.

Like super CaS.

Given the way 5Es combat is designed, CaW would be a different animal.

Regarding flanking, I changed it from advantage, to an extra d4, and on a hit, the number rolled on the d4 is applied to damage. In one game I play, the DMG flanking rules are in use and rolling 2d20 (as opposed to 1d20x2) seems to massively increase the odds of hitting (and disproportionate crits). Using the d4 instead is basically just heroism/bless. It's good, and has turned a close miss into a hit on a number of occasions, but it doesn't improve crit chance - which I prefer - and the extra damage is a benny the players like.

[dehro]

I like that idea too.. though I don't really have the knowledge and experience to say if it's as big an issue as it seems to be.. should using 5e a lot turn out to reveal that you're right and it skewes combat a lot, I'll keep your alternative into consideration

[Segev]

When designing a game, combat-as-sport makes sense. Combat-as-war is a game paradigm that works best when combat-as-sport has been the focus of the rule design. This is because combat-as-war, in a system where the design has ignored the kind of balance considerations combat-as-sport requires, becomes a narrow list of cheesy tactics that always work best. Combat-as-sport designs the system to have a lot of viable options. You can play combat-as-war in a game designed for combat-as-sport. But I honestly don't even know how you'd design a game "for combat-as-war." It being a game, on some level, makes it "for sport," even if, when playing it, you take it very seriously and fight to win and as if lives really were in danger.

[strangebloke]

When designing a game, combat-as-sport makes sense. Combat-as-war is a game paradigm that works best when combat-as-sport has been the focus of the rule design. This is because combat-as-war, in a system where the design has ignored the kind of balance considerations combat-as-sport requires, becomes a narrow list of cheesy tactics that always work best. Combat-as-sport designs the system to have a lot of viable options. You can play combat-as-war in a game designed for combat-as-sport. But I honestly don't even know how you'd design a game "for combat-as-war." It being a game, on some level, makes it "for sport," even if, when playing it, you take it very seriously and fight to win and as if lives really were in danger.

Restated more simply:

It's easier to make a fair game unfair than vice versa.

[MaxWilson]

It leads to a death spiral. The closer you are to death the worse you become at combat statistics. You can't fight at your capacity, so you take more injury increasing your penalties and then die. To prevent this from happening someone must do nothing but healing. While spellcasters and other range attackers do get damaged, melee focused warriors will disproportionally suffer the consequences because it is their job to take the hits so others don't. That is why they have the highest ACs and hit points. Their reason to exist becomes a fatal flaw.

Another way of looking at it is that it leads to dramatic stakes even if you're not necessarily dying, which in turn means that DMs won't feel like they have to threaten you with death so often in order to have an interesting game.

[Random Sanity]

Another way of looking at it is that it leads to dramatic stakes even if you're not necessarily dying, which in turn means that DMs won't feel like they have to threaten you with death so often in order to have an interesting game.

Speaking from experience, the dramatic stakes were there to begin with. Wound penalties turn winnable fights into one-sided TPKs - period.

If praying for perfect rolls the minute you start taking hits is your idea of an interesting game, I don't ever want to play with you.

[MaxWilson]

Speaking from experience, the dramatic stakes were there to begin with. Wound penalties turn winnable fights into one-sided TPKs - period.

If praying for perfect rolls the minute you start taking hits is your idea of an interesting game, I don't ever want to play with you.

Sounds like a false dichotomy to me.

Critical Existence Failure (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalExistenceFailure) isn't the only way to buffer players against imperfect rolls.


When designing a game, combat-as-sport makes sense. Combat-as-war is a game paradigm that works best when combat-as-sport has been the focus of the rule design. This is because combat-as-war, in a system where the design has ignored the kind of balance considerations combat-as-sport requires, becomes a narrow list of cheesy tactics that always work best. Combat-as-sport designs the system to have a lot of viable options. You can play combat-as-war in a game designed for combat-as-sport. But I honestly don't even know how you'd design a game "for combat-as-war." It being a game, on some level, makes it "for sport," even if, when playing it, you take it very seriously and fight to win and as if lives really were in danger.

A Combat-As-War game will have vast numbers of asymmetrical tactics: Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock-Spaceman-Wookie-Wand-... It is very much not about a "narrow list of cheesy tactics that always work best."

Try reading some strategy guides for Dominions 5 to get the idea. Some people like to drown the world in undead armies and evocations. Other people like to focus on assassinating each other's commanders. Others rely on a supercombatant god to grab early provinces and supercharge economic expansion. Too many approaches to describe, none of them dominant. That's what Combat As War D&D games feel like.

[Pex]

Another way of looking at it is that it leads to dramatic stakes even if you're not necessarily dying, which in turn means that DMs won't feel like they have to threaten you with death so often in order to have an interesting game.

When you're taking penalties every combat you're always threatened with death. In any case, combat is already inherently risking of death.

[Kane0]

A Combat-As-War game will have vast numbers of asymmetrical tactics: Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock-Spaceman-Wookie-Wand-... It is very much not about a "narrow list of cheesy tactics that always work best."

Try reading some strategy guides for Dominions 5 to get the idea. Some people like to drown the world in undead armies and evocations. Other people like to focus on assassinating each other's commanders. Others rely on a supercombatant god to grab early provinces and supercharge economic expansion. Too many approaches to describe, none of them dominant. That's what Combat As War D&D games feel like.

I am all for that as long as no-sells are avoided. Those are just not fun.

[MaxWilson]

I am all for that as long as no-sells are avoided. Those are just not fun.

I'm not entirely sure what that means in this context. Dom 5 has an offensive bias: almost anything can die to anything with some probability. I've seen decked-out supercombatant giants die to a single human slinger (really), and there are tons of high-level spells designed to permanently cripple or kill you, often with no save, and it's impossible to become immune to them all. (E.g. some spells autobanish living creatures, others utterly destroy undead, others inflict massive amounts of damage on unliving constructs, others inflict armor-negating lightning damage on anything not immune to lightning, etc. There is nothing in the game that cannot be killed, even the god-killing Doom Horrors. So being unpredictable to your opponents is a must, or they will counter you.)

It's much harsher than 5E really. Think "Gygax" instead of WotC. Combat As War campaigns should be prepared for potentially high casualty rates and lots of PC turnover, at least when the PCs are pushing their limits. It's about the journey, not the destination.

And if you survive to reach 20th level you have something to be very proud of. :)

[Segev]

Another way of looking at it is that it leads to dramatic stakes even if you're not necessarily dying, which in turn means that DMs won't feel like they have to threaten you with death so often in order to have an interesting game.

The only cure for that isn’t making it so that death spirals increase the semi-artificial tension of “will my character survive?” Rather, it is for the DM to learn and practice the technique of developing his encounters so that the PCs and does have mutually exclusive goals for which one or more sides are willing to resort to violence, but which can be achieved without necessarily killing anybody. Even if none of the involved sides are willing to negotiate.