Herremann the Wise
First Post
Certainly. I think this worth exploring further to see what we can make of it.
The switch I was talking about was quite similar to the 4e system; I'll expand on it slightly here.
The 4e Incapacitated Switch and Dial
The aim is to reproduce the excitement of the 4e system but ground it in a full spectrum of possible injury results. So, when a character becomes incapacitated, they are effectively out of the action. Think of it as exactly the same as 4e except the space between zero and negative half hit points is reduced to the space between a character's incapacitated and dying limits. A character makes saving throws that can either be botched, ineffective, or effective/"saved". On a third botching or fail, the character is dying. Now the trick that I would add to this is how this save mechanic is calculated:
A d20 is rolled with any bonuses or penalties added to it. Most importantly, the size of the incapacitating wound in wound points acts as a penalty to the roll. So if Sir Arryn took a 3 wp wound that had just incapacitated him, he gets a -3 penalty on the roll. If he took a massive 16 wp wound, then he is getting a -16 penalty on that d20 roll. The typical ternary result set of DCs are:
DC 10: The character saves and while incapacitated, no longer needs to keep making Death Saves.
DC 0: The character does not save and thus they must keep making death saves, but in effect their condition is unchanged.
Below DC 0: Counts as a fail and the character is one step closer to death, even if there wound point total has not yet reached their death limit (an incapacitating wound can be deadly). On the third fail, the character dies.
As you can see, this means that some incapacitating wounds cannot be saved against, and thus will need help from outside sources such as ongoing first aid care (only needs to makes saves once per minute, once per "turn", once per hour depending) or divine assistance or other forms of magic that provide a bonus to the saving throw. The overall effect is that a light wound is easily saved against with the characters condition stabilized, while a moderate, serious or critical wound (note the correlation with the cure x wound “***rituals”) become increasingly difficult to save against without outside assistance.
[*** I would prefer curing spells be turned into rituals that take time and resources. These rituals should be special and carefully used rather than spammed and poorly regarded.]
I think this restores some of that plot suspense and I’m sure this could be tweaked or altered further to emphasize it.
I think the above 4e switch incorporates this too. Again it comes down to working out what a wound is. I have a few interesting ideas but they need more thought. I'm sure at some stage, I'm going to put all this stuff together in a document and post it here on ENWorld. Anyway a wound that incapacitates might be best left uncertain, where as a wound that leaves the character in an active state (wp total below their incapacitated threshold) is quickly dealt with. The incapacitating wound is left unresolved to allow player input before its resolving. An optional tweak I suppose.
Mathematically, I think it important that wounds are pretty rare. You don't want players having to perform accounting exercises to track them. At the same time, you want them as informative as possible so you have that flavoursome hook available to roleplay when appropriate and tactically acount for when in combat.
Typically yes, although the above 4e incapacitated switch seems to bring that ambiguity back somewhat. I have not detailed how you determine what effect/penalty a wound actually has. This could be worked out when the wp size of the wound is known (direct information to DM/Player) or it could be worked out only when the character has finally saved (more plot suspense). By allowing the number of death saves to influence the severity of the wound, I think you could provide a good feeling of drama when a character becomes incapacitated.
The character could be badly injured but does not have to be (particularly with the above 4e switch) and I’m sure you can tweak damage dials to trend more towards probable light wounds and improbable critical wounds.
However, I think in this sense, psychic damage and concussion damage have something in common. I could imagine such wounds in the short term being worth 2x or even 3x wps and thus quite capable of causing incapacitation. However, after a short rest or perhaps even with a will save or fortitude save during combat, the injured character could shrug off such psychic/concussive wounds downgrading them to their normal x and thus moving from the incapacitated state to the operational state mid-combat. I think this provides a more rationalized way of knocking out a guard or “minion” without making it too powerful when such shenanigans are used against the PCs.
As for fatigue and exhaustion, I think this is best handled by a hit point cap (half for fatigue and quarter for exhaustion). So a fatigued character with a maximum of 36 hit points has their hit points capped at 18 hit points until they are no longer fatigued. I could imagine one step further than exhaustion (debilitation?) where a character can no longer restore hit points until they are no longer debilitated while also suffering the exhaustion cap.
There’s a couple of interesting points here. One thing I have never liked is the automatic assumption of unconsciousness when a character hits negatives in 3.x/4e and occasionally earlier. This seems to take away a stack of possible options. By decreasing the prevalence of unconsciousness when incapacitated, you allow the warlord more opportunity for their inspiring options.
From one of our group’s campaigns, the “memory/dream” thing was novel the first time my warlord used it but quickly became trite and was quickly removed with agreement from player and DM. Smelling salts or a more typical method to gain consciousness was required in that campaign for warlord healing to work in such situations. Now this is not to say that such things are wrong but that they simply did not suit our group’s preferences. I would prefer that a warlord that has a divine or possibly even arcane connection to garner the capacity to infiltrate a character’s consciousness; in such cases I would be cool with such ideas.
One idea that I have always had is that certain actions above the normal working capacity of a PC should have a cost associated with them. [I detail some ideas in tomBitonti’s thread here.] One is the use of minor or swift reactions to boost defenses or allow a special save. The other is actually the spending of hit points to represent the spending of effort to do something special (think encounter powers I suppose). A player would need to be cautious using such tactics in terms of managing their character’s effort and hit points during combat. So yes, active defense options would be part of the whole.
I have given deep thought to this as there is a seeming confusion in design direction here. There are several reasons of varying magnitude:
• Firstly, I think I would like to design an advanced rules module for 5e if they leave third party publishing options open. Alternatively I suppose I could just design my own game but heh. As such, the aim is to tie in with what is there as best as possible. Changes to accomplish that module should run deep rather than being superficial; and thus why I’m looking to nab the issues I see at the root.
• Secondly, I have always had issues with hit points in every edition I have played {Basic, AD&D, 2e, 3e, 4e, and not D&DNext}. There are things involving hit points that I’ve never been able to make sense of such as:
o Musson’s chained fighter, puny wizard and dragon breathing scenario; the same could be said with a 10th level fighter and 1st level fighter falling off a carpet of flying. The experienced one lives while the other dies yet the injury is theoretically the same
o A cure light wounds spell doesn’t actually cure light wounds. It is impacted too greatly by the experience and skill of the target when no such correlation would reasonably seem to exist.
o The rate of restoration of hit points in 3e and particularly 4e and now 5e, does not map well with a spectrum of serious injuries that would be expected when the opponents are deadly. While there needs to be a mechanical concession to make the game fluent and playable, it should not be as obvious as healing back to full capacity within 24 hours.
o A critical hit in 3.x does not feel very critical unless it drops the target or does 50hp or more forcing a save.
o A 3.x six second heal check accomplishes WAY too much to the point of it being completely farcical.
o A 3.x hale low level barbarian and a very high level but sickly wizard are both taken to negatives but survive. The sickly wizard however is back to fullest health within a day or two while the hale and fit barbarian has a week of recuperation ahead. This does not make sense.
o Sometimes characters in 4e are like pogo sticks when it comes to their health. They’re up and then their down… and then back up and down again and then back up. This is even within the same combat sometimes. This is particularly marked when the character is unconscious when they’re down rather than just momentarily stunned or incapacitated.
o You can never have a character’s last words on their death bed or as they look across at the monster they have defeated and the revenge they have exacted. If you’re dead, you’re dead. If you’re dying, a cleric or potion (or even a 6 second heal check ?!?) can halt those last important words making them irrelevant.
o The Monty Python Black Knight and the over-enthusiastic DM’s description. There is a disconnect between describing horrendous injuries and the mechanical effect of losing hit points. Now while this is the DM’s fault, the real problem here is the vagueness of what hit points represent and that the system provides no clarity or situation for the DM to actually say a character is seriously wounded. This is complicated by the DM being able to get away with such horrendous Black Knight wounding (particularly in 3e and earlier) by the prevalence of healing magic. You can describe the most horrific things safe in the knowledge that next turn, the character will have been magically spam-healed or they would more than likely be dead. Now 5e has done a pretty good job detailing what hit points at particular tiers mean. However, I would appreciate greater clarity and information for the DM and players across the full spectrum of possible injuries from the lightest wounding to the most horrific of mortal wounding.
o By forcing the physical wounding part of hit points in with all the other things hit points try to represent, you are always going to have anomalies when it comes to reconciling equal restoration of this two disparate entities.
o A cure light wounds spell doesn’t actually cure light wounds. It is impacted too greatly by the experience and skill of the target when no such correlation would reasonably seem to exist.
o The rate of restoration of hit points in 3e and particularly 4e and now 5e, does not map well with a spectrum of serious injuries that would be expected when the opponents are deadly. While there needs to be a mechanical concession to make the game fluent and playable, it should not be as obvious as healing back to full capacity within 24 hours.
o A critical hit in 3.x does not feel very critical unless it drops the target or does 50hp or more forcing a save.
o A 3.x six second heal check accomplishes WAY too much to the point of it being completely farcical.
o A 3.x hale low level barbarian and a very high level but sickly wizard are both taken to negatives but survive. The sickly wizard however is back to fullest health within a day or two while the hale and fit barbarian has a week of recuperation ahead. This does not make sense.
o Sometimes characters in 4e are like pogo sticks when it comes to their health. They’re up and then their down… and then back up and down again and then back up. This is even within the same combat sometimes. This is particularly marked when the character is unconscious when they’re down rather than just momentarily stunned or incapacitated.
o You can never have a character’s last words on their death bed or as they look across at the monster they have defeated and the revenge they have exacted. If you’re dead, you’re dead. If you’re dying, a cleric or potion (or even a 6 second heal check ?!?) can halt those last important words making them irrelevant.
o The Monty Python Black Knight and the over-enthusiastic DM’s description. There is a disconnect between describing horrendous injuries and the mechanical effect of losing hit points. Now while this is the DM’s fault, the real problem here is the vagueness of what hit points represent and that the system provides no clarity or situation for the DM to actually say a character is seriously wounded. This is complicated by the DM being able to get away with such horrendous Black Knight wounding (particularly in 3e and earlier) by the prevalence of healing magic. You can describe the most horrific things safe in the knowledge that next turn, the character will have been magically spam-healed or they would more than likely be dead. Now 5e has done a pretty good job detailing what hit points at particular tiers mean. However, I would appreciate greater clarity and information for the DM and players across the full spectrum of possible injuries from the lightest wounding to the most horrific of mortal wounding.
o By forcing the physical wounding part of hit points in with all the other things hit points try to represent, you are always going to have anomalies when it comes to reconciling equal restoration of this two disparate entities.
• And thus, part of the deal here is that I want a hit point system that solves these issues; even if it is just from an academic perspective of providing a solution to a problem. I believe the split system I've detailed fixes all of the above issues.
• Thirdly in terms of design, representing wounds provides good tactical complexity and a more engaging experience if done in a certain way. Imagine I ask you to create a campaign world and say no more. There are no bounds on what you can do, but as well there is little inspiration. Now imagine that I ask you to create a campaign world but where I place restrictions: metal is rare and highly prized, the world is ending in fifty years (according to learned scholars), magic is rare but increasing in availability and power, a particular race has the majority of wealth and power, etc. etc.). By placing light restrictions, I focus your creativity while engaging you in the world/situation you create. Likewise, to make combat more meaningful and engaging you can make the monsters different and bigger and badder OR, as well as this you can force players to think how they are going to win an encounter but with certain restrictions on how they can do it. In the right spirit, this provides the opportunity for clever and engaging play rather than simply reducing options.
• Fourthly, in regards to dials and so on. If I plant the system in the middle where it uses some simulationist techniques on one side as well as non-simulationist techniques on the other, you’re giving the playing group the option to dial it closer to their preference (one hp system to rule them all
). I’m not too sure I’ve found the middle (which is certainly a reason why I’m paying very careful attention to your comments and knowledge – in the pursuit of finding that middle). Now while this has the potential to lack focus, I believe there are too many positives not to try and do it.• Fifthly in terms of hit points as a non-simulationist mechanic. It is like the oil that lubricates an engine, or the cement that neatly glues jagged bricks together. It provides forgiveness in a system and a way how to explain things that would otherwise be quite difficult. While I like my simulation, I also appreciate appropriate abstraction: either to make the game feasibly playable or so as to not distract from what is important in the game (albeit from my own perspective).
I really had to give this question some deep thought.
Again, going to a condition/disease style track is certainly an option (a switch you could use when a character becomes incapacitated). I like things a little more granular and typically try to find a more complex solution before streamlining it. Kind of like Sir Thomas More on writing I think. He apologised for the length of a particular letter, claiming he did not have time to write a shorter one (a favourite idea of mine when it comes to writing).
However, for me I like the idea of connecting the more concrete idea (wounding) with the more abstract one (hit points) through the use of the “wound point” or “hit point” as an identical unit, one that physically manifests while the other is that manifestation denied. That 7hp sword swing deals 7 wps or it costs you 7 hps to avoid. There is something about that I find informative and neat. In addition, by keeping the size of damage done absolute rather than relative, the number becomes more informative. When a DM announces a 24 hp crushing dragon claw, that number becomes very meaningful to all at the table (probable death unless you can spend the hit points to avoid it). A light 2 hp knife slash is the superficial wound it mathematically sounds like. The number becomes an important partner of the description rather than a dominating focus. The relatively increasing hp damage they are flagging in D&DNext is less informative in my opinion because that 18 hp sword thrust means different things to different characters. The issue is that the mechanically important amount of hit points in damage becomes an uninformative distraction when focused upon as typically happens in a game.
If I do this right (even if I can do this right), wouldn’t it be good if the one game and one hit point mechanic could cater to both ends of the spectrum rather than requiring two admittedly excellent but different games to do it? This is why I think it would be valid as a core option (once it gets a little streamlining).
Let’s try a scenario here. The rogue in the party tells my Dwarven Fighter to hop on his flying carpet as combat looms. Now if I think about the advantage of being able to fly in this combat, a wealth of hit points that my character has, and a few tactically useful attacks/exploits I have available, then without much more thought, I probably move my mini onto the flying carpet next to the rogue. Now for some players, there’s nothing wrong going on here. For others though, they would most likely think I’m not interacting very well at all with the scenario and roleplaying my dwarven character.
Imagine the roleplay-lawyer sitting across from me:
• You know your dwarf is wearing full plate right?
• Have you got a ring or featherfall handy? [snigger snigger]
• I’ve heard Dwarves have great skill in flying, living most of their damned lives underground!!!
• And so on.
Now while I’ve framed this from an obnoxious player’s perspective, I think they have a point. Too often mechanical considerations inform our decisions more than the ones inherent in the scenario we are roleplaying. Would my Dwarf really want to put himself in a position where he could plummet to his death? Kind of like when a capable fighter looks at the ten crossbows pointed at him but decides to charge one of the crossbowmen anyway “knowing” his hp buffer is too high. Such “heroics” don’t really feel that heroic when the mechanics have no teeth to actually make the choice heroic. Now if the mechanics are going to inform our choices, why not give them teeth to support the scenario more than the metagame-thinking-inspired, “I have 120 hit points so as long our altitude stays below 200ft. we’re cool Mr Rogue” (as if the rogue has an altimeter on board that thing).
This is why I posit the privilege of hit points approach. It makes me think twice before doing something because meta-knowledge distorts my view and tells me I can. The invasion of this meta-knowledge and the “false” tactical options it adds takes me away from roleplaying my character believably. So while I contend that deliberately jumping off a flying carpet in this context is a bug, I think I’ve given an interesting avenue where the mechanics encourage the player to interact and engage with the scenario more fully. To earn the privilege of hit points, the character is going to want to try and land on a rooftop or possibly even a flying creature if you’re being fancy and heroic, or in a deep rushing river or something. It is not disallowing the process by mechanically forcing certain death, it is saying that you better give me something here and think about this otherwise doom awaits. I think it a feature when the mechanics inform and guide the player into their character’s mindset, and in essence that is what I think this split system does (or at least tries to do).
Again, thank you so much for the discussion and interesting points and questions; it is helping me root the thing more in the middle.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
