Trading X hp for X attack or X damage...

[ARTHAN]

I made the following rule for the 4th edition and I slightly modified it in order to be compatible with the 5th edition as well. It's purpose is the better overall balance and the more enjoyable gameplay.

Before each attack, every creature (either PC, NPC or monster) can lose an X amount of its hp and gain an X bonus to its next attack roll or its next damage roll (X can be equal to the creature's level or lower than that but not negative and, in case of monsters, X will be equal or lower than their Challenge, rounded up, and at least 1). It is a simple, quick and dirty way to make creatures lose hp faster, bypass high AC, deal more damage and (mostly for PCs) to use healing more often.

Also, it will make low level creatures to stand a chance against opponents of a much higher level where, right now, they have a hard time to hit (they just have to lose a few hp in order to gain the respective bonus to their attack roll and strike their high AC opponent with their blows).

Also, I think (though I am not sure about it) this rule will buff the mundane classes versus the magic-using classes at late game because they will be able to deal more damage in exchange for their hp (and mundane classes have more hp to trade for that reason).

Thematically, my rule makes sense if you think hp like something more than a video game health bar; hp is your overall ability to withstand punishment and now, with this new rule, it is your ability to deliver punishment as well...

[Adamantrue]

I don't know if I'd make it a 1 to 1 ratio, as the bonuses could slant things too far, and make it too easy a choice.

Putting a cap on it is a nice touch though.

[ARTHAN]

I don't know if I'd make it a 1 to 1 ratio, as the bonuses could slant things too far, and make it too easy a choice.

Putting a cap on it is a nice touch though.

What ratio would you suggest? Imho, I think the 1:1 is the most balanced because there is nothing more balanced than trading exactly X hp for exactly X points of damage. As for the attack bonus, I want a creature to be able to remove the nasty effects of disadvantage with ease by trading its hp for a high attack bonus.

Moreover, the way I have made my rule right now allows either for an attack bonus or a damage bonus but not both, so the character (or the DM) has to choose between extra attack or extra damage.

[clash]

I would suggest reversing the power attack feats and trading hp for attack bonus at a 2:1 ratio. Might not be perfect but should get you pretty close.

[ARTHAN]

I would suggest reversing the power attack feats and trading hp for attack bonus at a 2:1 ratio. Might not be perfect but should get you pretty close.

2:1 ratio is good at higher levels but I want even a simple Goblin to be able to lose just a single hp and gain +1 bonus to its attack roll (and hp is too precious for low hp creatures to make them lose more than that). That way, they can be a little bit more dangerous against heavily armored adventurers, especially those of higher levels, without the need of magic equipment or magical aid.

[clash]

2:1 ratio is good at higher levels but I want even a simple Goblin to be able to lose just a single hp and gain +1 bonus to its attack roll (and hp is too precious for low hp creatures to make them lose more than that). That way, they can be a little bit more dangerous against heavily armored adventurers, especially those of higher levels, without the need of magic equipment or magical aid.

I mean a goblin has 7hp. It is likely to die one hit anyways against most adventurers. Even a shortsword does average of 3.5 + mod of +3-4 which will be 6.5 to 7.5 average damage killing the goblin over half the time if they have sacrificed 1 hp. At that point it's really no extra cost to sacrifice 2 or even 6 hp to get +1-3 to hit which can make a huge difference on the attack.

[ARTHAN]

I mean a goblin has 7hp. It is likely to die one hit anyways against most adventurers. Even a shortsword does average of 3.5 + mod of +3-4 which will be 6.5 to 7.5 average damage killing the goblin over half the time if they have sacrificed 1 hp. At that point it's really no extra cost to sacrifice 2 or even 6 hp to get +1-3 to hit which can make a huge difference on the attack.

Yep, but it will make the difference if you roll, let's say, a 1 to the damage dice. Moreover, if the goblin has 7 hp it can sacrifice 1 hp for attack and withstand 5 points of whatever damage and still stand and fight with 1 hp. Moreover, with a 2:1 ratio, a goblin can do a max of 3 such +1 attacks while with the 1:1 ratio we have the amount doubled.

I think it would be interesting to see goblins attacking from a distance with ranged weaponry on a siege and performing 6 +1 attacks instead of just 3 (as well as a few other situations that there is no need to explain right now) during the course of the siege.

2:1 ratio isn't bad, it is just don't what I want to achieve with my rule. Because of this, I stay with the 1:1 ratio for now. :)

[Composer99]

I made the following rule for the 4th edition and I slightly modified it in order to be compatible with the 5th edition as well. It's purpose is the better overall balance and the more enjoyable gameplay.

Before each attack, every creature (either PC, NPC or monster) can lose an X amount of its hp and gain an X bonus to its next attack roll or its next damage roll (X can be equal to the creature's level or lower than that but not negative and, in case of monsters, X will be equal or lower than their Challenge, rounded up, and at least 1). It is a simple, quick and dirty way to make creatures lose hp faster, bypass high AC, deal more damage and (mostly for PCs) to use healing more often.

Also, it will make low level creatures to stand a chance against opponents of a much higher level where, right now, they have a hard time to hit (they just have to lose a few hp in order to gain the respective bonus to their attack roll and strike their high AC opponent with their blows).

Also, I think (though I am not sure about it) this rule will buff the mundane classes versus the magic-using classes at late game because they will be able to deal more damage in exchange for their hp (and mundane classes have more hp to trade for that reason).

Thematically, my rule makes sense if you think hp like something more than a video game health bar; hp is your overall ability to withstand punishment and now, with this new rule, it is your ability to deliver punishment as well...

I think that rule works quite well for 4e, given how monster AC scaled... pretty quickly (on average 1 point of AC per level, if memory serves), so PCs were on a constant treadmill. Monster damage also scales pretty smoothly in 4e (again, if memory serves), so while you're taking a chance digging into your hp for bonuses to your attacks and damage, it's not a huge risk.

In 5e, monster AC seems to cap out around 25 (the Tarrasque and Tiamat), and while it does scale with CR, it scales much more slowly. Monster ACs in the mid to high teens are still common when PCs are high level and running around with native attack bonuses of +10-+11, bless and Bardic Inspiration thrown around like candy, and the odd magic weapon. PCs also have Extra Attack, spells, feats like GWM/SS, spells hex and hunter's mark, bonus action attacks, and other ways to bump up their damage.

So PCs don't need this as much.

Monsters on the other hand...
- Monster hit points are "cheaper" than PC hit points, so to speak. Unless they're playing the 5-minute adventuring day, the PCs need to shepherd their hit points and recovery resources through multiple encounters. Each monster only needs its hit point pool once (most of the time).
- Monster damage and hit points scale up faster than their attack bonuses and AC (example: orc, CR 1/2, AC 13, 15 hp, +5 to hit and 9 damage with a greataxe, versus orc war chief, CR 4, AC 16, 93 hp, +6 to hit and 30 damage with its greataxe Multiattack).

So low-level monsters benefit because they can still deal decent damage on hits, and higher-CR monsters with their big hp pools and piles of damage can really start cutting into PCs - a pair of orc war chiefs using this ability could down, say, a 15th-level fighter (average 120 hp with a Constitution of 14 and average hp rolls) in a single turn if they hit every single time, which could become pretty likely if they're bumping up their chance to hit.

Now, if you are playing with this rule, or an earlier iteration of it, at your table and your players are having fun with it - great! Carry on.

If not, I guess just test it and see how it goes. Just keep in mind the possible risks.

[ARTHAN]

I think that rule works quite well for 4e, given how monster AC scaled... pretty quickly (on average 1 point of AC per level, if memory serves), so PCs were on a constant treadmill. Monster damage also scales pretty smoothly in 4e (again, if memory serves), so while you're taking a chance digging into your hp for bonuses to your attacks and damage, it's not a huge risk.

In 5e, monster AC seems to cap out around 25 (the Tarrasque and Tiamat), and while it does scale with CR, it scales much more slowly. Monster ACs in the mid to high teens are still common when PCs are high level and running around with native attack bonuses of +10-+11, bless and Bardic Inspiration thrown around like candy, and the odd magic weapon. PCs also have Extra Attack, spells, feats like GWM/SS, spells hex and hunter's mark, bonus action attacks, and other ways to bump up their damage.

So PCs don't need this as much.

Monsters on the other hand...
- Monster hit points are "cheaper" than PC hit points, so to speak. Unless they're playing the 5-minute adventuring day, the PCs need to shepherd their hit points and recovery resources through multiple encounters. Each monster only needs its hit point pool once (most of the time).
- Monster damage and hit points scale up faster than their attack bonuses and AC (example: orc, CR 1/2, AC 13, 15 hp, +5 to hit and 9 damage with a greataxe, versus orc war chief, CR 4, AC 16, 93 hp, +6 to hit and 30 damage with its greataxe Multiattack).

So low-level monsters benefit because they can still deal decent damage on hits, and higher-CR monsters with their big hp pools and piles of damage can really start cutting into PCs - a pair of orc war chiefs using this ability could down, say, a 15th-level fighter (average 120 hp with a Constitution of 14 and average hp rolls) in a single turn if they hit every single time, which could become pretty likely if they're bumping up their chance to hit.

Now, if you are playing with this rule, or an earlier iteration of it, at your table and your players are having fun with it - great! Carry on.

If not, I guess just test it and see how it goes. Just keep in mind the possible risks.

I think those "risks" are exactly the thing I want to add to my game. I want low level creatures to be able to gang up against "careless" higher level creatures and be able to defeat them with ease, even without always using the Advantage rule. At the same time, I want my mundane creatures to be able to deliver more damage if needed, mostly in order to drop spellcasting creatures much faster and make that for their nasty spells and spell-like effects.

I mean, imagine a 20th level fighter with 4 attacks against a 20 level wizard. The fighter is able to lose 20 hp and deliver 20 extra damage per attack. It deals 80 extra damage in a single turn if he/she wishes to do so (by losing 80 hp of course); that may make him/her able to kill the wizard in just a single turn if all attacks hit. I find it a fair trade in comparison with how powerful the higher level spells of wizard are.

[Yakk]

-5/+10 feats are good deals when the enemy has low AC or you have advantage.

In your system, they let you burn 5 hp in exchange for +10 damage even if the enemy has good AC.

[ARTHAN]

-5/+10 feats are good deals when the enemy has low AC or you have advantage.

In your system, they let you burn 5 hp in exchange for +10 damage even if the enemy has good AC.

I do not know the feat you are talking about, but I personally (like many DMs I believe) I do not allow feats in my 5th edition sessions. Because of this, I have no such problems.

[JNAProductions]

I do not know the feat you are talking about, but I personally (like many DMs I believe) I do not allow feats in my 5th edition sessions. Because of this, I have no such problems.

Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Master.

And you're definitely in the minority on the Playground, at least.

[Composer99]

I do not know the feat you are talking about, but I personally (like many DMs I believe) I do not allow feats in my 5th edition sessions. Because of this, I have no such problems.

Yakk's not talking about the feats in the game as such, but mentioning them in context of assessing your proposed mechanic.

[ARTHAN]

Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Master.

And you're definitely in the minority on the Playground, at least.

Why, does it has to do about not allowing feats in the 5th edition? Yeah, maybe I am. I also do not allow multiclassing in 5th for various reasons (actually I allow it in but only in rare cases). :smalltongue:


Yakk's not talking about the feats in the game as such, but mentioning them in context of assessing your proposed mechanic.

So, if I understood correctly, Yakk suggests to trade 1 hp in order to deal 2 damage or something similar, right? But a feat is something you have spent a slot on it while the rule just exists there and waits to be used (or not). Because of this, I think feats should be more powerful than a rule that just can be used by everyone, so trading 1 hp for 1 damage is more fair imho. :smallcool: