D&D General 5e but fewer rules and lower HP totals?

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

I've often thought about the "higher damage, lower HP" possibilities, but in 5e action economy it seems like the monsters might just get killed before they can do much.

That's the point though, imo. The entire reason for higher damage, lower HP is to cut combat encounters short rather than allowing them to turn into a slog. The outcome of the fight is clear and decisive after the first 1-2 rounds, leaving the losing side the choice of risking death, fleeing, or surrendering.

 

[Shardstone]

Without totally redesigning the game it will utterly destroy balance and render several things meaningless.

Hasn't done so in my games! I don't use these mechanics for bosses, but I do for a lot of other smaller encounters or for more cinematic encounters.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Hasn't done so in my games! I don't use these mechanics for bosses, but I do for a lot of other smaller encounters or for more cinematic encounters.

So do I understand it correctly? It doesn't matter if your attack does five or thirty five points of damage?

 

[overgeeked]

Without totally redesigning the game it will utterly destroy balance and render several things meaningless.

Not really, no.

The difference almost never actually matters. For example, towards the end of my time running 5E I stopped using hit points for monsters and used hits. A simple clock mechanic that took a paragraph to detail, but replaced dozens of pages of bespoke rules. For a time I tracked HP also, to see how close my clock system was to the official rules. About 80% of the time my clock system was spot on. Though, on a few occasions there was variance in both directions, about +/-20%, well within the range of rolled HP. So, while clocks did not exactly reproduce the bespoke subsystem, they did replicate it well enough. And it was dramatically easier to use and keep tract of.

This also had the benefit of giving me a system for knowing how difficult the monster would be as a non-combat challenge. It told me how many checks the PCs would need to overcome the monster. I gave the players a peak behind the curtain and they immediately started trying other things than just attacking. Want to bribe the monster to leave, that many checks or the equivalent. Want to persuade the monster to fight beside you, that many checks or the equivalent. Switching to clocks improved my game and opened up all kinds of non-combat possibilities.

I’m a fan of lighter systems and frameworks. So I prefer saving dozens or hundreds of pages on bespoke subsystems when a single generic one will do just as well.

Using clocks, I replaced the damage subsystem, the social subsystem, and added in negotiations, bribes, and anything else that could be covered by clocks. And all in a paragraph or so. I’d say that’s a huge win for clocks.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not really, no.

The difference almost never actually matters. For example, towards the end of my time running 5E I stopped using hit points for monsters and used hits. A simple clock mechanic that took a paragraph to detail, but replaced dozens of pages of bespoke rules. For a time I tracked HP also, to see how close my clock system was to the official rules. About 80% of the time my clock system was spot on. Though, on a few occasions there was variance in both directions, about +/-20%, well within the range of rolled HP. So, while clocks did not exactly reproduce the bespoke subsystem, they did replicate it well enough. And it was dramatically easier to use and keep tract of.

This also had the benefit of giving me a system for knowing how difficult the monster would be as a non-combat challenge. It told me how many checks the PCs would need to overcome the monster. I gave the players a peak behind the curtain and they immediately started trying other things than just attacking. Want to bribe the monster to leave, that many checks or the equivalent. Want to persuade the monster to fight beside you, that many checks or the equivalent. Switching to clocks improved my game and opened up all kinds of non-combat possibilities.

I’m a fan of lighter systems and frameworks. So I prefer saving dozens or hundreds of pages on bespoke subsystems when a single generic one will do just as well.

Using clocks, I replaced the damage subsystem, the social subsystem, and added in negotiations, bribes, and anything else that could be covered by clocks. And all in a paragraph or so. I’d say that’s a huge win for clocks.

It doesn't matter that great weapon is per hit just as effective than dual wielded daggers, but the latter can hit twice? It doesn't matter that sneak attack literally does nothing or that rage doesn't improve barbarian's damage?

It totally changes the game, it renders some build choices meaningless and others become much more powerful.

 

[overgeeked]

It doesn't matter that great weapon is per hit just as effective than dual wielded daggers, but the latter can hit twice? It doesn't matter that sneak attack literally does nothing or that rage doesn't improve barbarian's damage?

Ah. You're assuming that the snippet of text explaining the gist of the house rule was the sum total of all the rules involved. It's not.

It worked at my table with my players and we liked it. That's all that matters.

It totally changes the game, it renders some build choices meaningless and others become much more powerful.

Meh. So does every new player option WotC releases.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ah. You're assuming that the snippet of text explaining the gist of the house rule was the sum total of all the rules involved. It's not.

As that's all I had to go by. But more houserules you add to avoid the problems I mention, the closer to "rewriting the game" I said was needed to make this to work you get.

 

[Shardstone]

It doesn't matter that great weapon is per hit just as effective than dual wielded daggers, but the latter can hit twice? It doesn't matter that sneak attack literally does nothing or that rage doesn't improve barbarian's damage?

It totally changes the game, it renders some build choices meaningless and others become much more powerful.

Fortunately, this doesn't replace ALL combat! This is a special kind of encounter, and its both normal and good for some characters to outshine others depending on the nature of the encounter. I don't limit myself to the antiquated view that everything has to be HP and that all combats have to be the same; the combat rules are, in my view, one of many ways to express conflict mechanically. Thus, I use a diverse array of encounter paradigms that accomplish different "feels" when experienced in context of the fictional world and narrative.

 

[mellored]

If I was going to simplify things, I would remove the to-hit and damage save rolls. Make everything HP.

You take 1d20+weapon+Str damage.
Or 1d20+6d8 fireball damage.
AC is now temporary hit points at the start of each battle (per level).

Still need saves for Charm and such. But that would speed things up.

 

[Shardstone]

If I was going to simplify things, I would remove the to-hit and damage save rolls. Make everything HP.

You take 1d20+weapon+Str damage.
Or 1d20+6d8 fireball damage.
AC is now temporary hit points at the start of each battle (per level).

Still need saves for Charm and such. But that would speed things up.

I would give more temporary hit points but this sounds fun, imma try it, thanks.