Bleeding rules...

[Arravis]

My players are interested in me implementing some sort of "bleeding" over time damage, but I'm not sure how to handle it. Their complaint is that the way wounds are handled in D&D is too abstract.

The example that keeps being brought is of someone being stabbed with a dagger and that, in real life, you'd be bleeding quite a bit from that wound unless you have done something to stop it. I explained that there actually is a feat for doing just that in Song & Silence, but it seemed ridiculous to them that such a thing would require a feat. People bleed from wounds, regardless of the skill it was made with. Anyway, I see their point but I'm not sure what kind of rules, if any, we need to implement for it.

My instinct is that perhaps on a critical hit, instead of doing critical damage you can do a "bleeding" wound. I think they want that any crit, not only do you do critical damage, but you also "bleed" (I have some balance issues with that, but I'm not going to get into that just yet). Anyway... just wondering what you guys think of doing some sort of damage over time with criticals and if there are any "bleeding" rules already out there.

 

[Darklone]

It's a pain to count. Arterial Strike was a nice feat, wounding blades were fun... but it's not good to be used with a hitpoint system.

 

[Doc Ezra]

Your players are asking for a death sentence. Even if it's only on criticals, the party will suffer from this rule many many times more than it will ever effect their foes, who are for the most part going to end up dead in a matter of rounds anyway. Of course the combat and damage is abstract...it's supposed to be.

If you want gritty, realistic combat in medieval terms, D&D's not really set up that way. Bleeding, tissue damage, etc. all gets lumped together into the elegant simplicity of the Hit Point, and mucking about with that just gives you a bunch of complication for negligible return value, and it will hurt the players more than it hurts their enemies.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

In my mind the concept of the -10 hp level of death is the way of dealing with bleeding. Only when you hit -1 hp are you to the point of your wounds being so severe that you continue to take damage without assistance.

I'm not aware of any other existing rules for bleeding, but it seems like there would not be a lot of point to it, unless they really want to put themselves at a disadvantage. Bleeding out, while rapid in terms of the real world, takes a couple of minutes from the most serious of wounds. In game terms, this means that a person with a major artery cut will still last 10-20 rounds (In most of my groups fights, they don't last all that long with a wounded foe, they usually finish them off). What this means is that a bleeding wound will really only impact their own characters once the combat has ended.

If they want some other rules for bleeding during combat, beware. It will not impact them much in terms of keeping it straight, but it could impact you as the DM a lot. Suddenly you have to keep track of each foe's hp, whether they have a critical bleeding wound and be sure you mark off any damage the wound causes each round. In a fight with a number of foes, that could become more confusing and slow gameplay. It's not worth it in my opinion.

 

[Li Shenron]

In my mind the concept of the -10 hp level of death is the way of dealing with bleeding. Only when you hit -1 hp are you to the point of your wounds being so severe that you continue to take damage without assistance.

I was about to say the same. Maybe a variant which lets you remain conscious (perhaps if you succeed a check?) below 0hp could make it a little more like the way Arravis wants...

 

[0-hr]

Whatever you do, don't have bleeding be tracked every round - that will quickly turn into a nightmare for the DM.

If they insist on bleeding, how about rolling a "stabilization" check every minute after taking a critical hit or lose d6 hp.

That should keep it clear of most combats. Better yet, just do a check for everyone who's bleeding every 10 rounds (regardless of when the crit was taken) so that you don't have to track the time since each crit. Sure it's not quite fair for someone who get's hit the round before the check is due, but the savings in red tape will be worth it.

Anyway, them's house rules. I'm not aware of any rules for bleeding in d20 products.

 

[Rube]

No, we should not have this rule

Well, I'm a member of Arravis's party (and his fiancee), and also part-time DM, and I think that a "bleeding" rule is a bad idea.

Firstly, it would be pure hell trying to keep track of which monster has been bleeding for how long. I am not a mathematician or an accountant and I don't pretend to be, and I know that when I DM I'm more concerned with spinning a good story for all to enjoy than counting beans.

Secondly, implementing such a thing would open a pandora's box of other headaches because now you'd have to burden yourself with hit locations and "how much damage causes how much bleeding" arguments. This leads us right into point number 3.

Thirdly, we have too many bleedin' (pardon the pun) rules lawyers in this group for that to work. Already, it seems that every other action that a player makes in the game is answered by at least 2 other players hunting down some rule. That takes a lot of time. Considering that we can meet only once a week, we already waste far too much good game time arguing over rules and minutia (did I spell that right?).

No. Trust me, it might sound like a good idea at first, but the idea has nothing to offer our gaming group but more arguments, more headaches, and more boredom for the few of us who just want a fun experience.

Thumbs Down on that one, guys.