D&D 5E D&D Next Blog - A Close Call with Negative Hit Points

[Sunseeker]

I wonder if one could tweak the con loss suggestions above as follows:

Your Con score is the number of rounds that you can survive at 0 HP. When you get to zero, you start tracking the number of rounds. When you get healed, you keep note of that number. Perhaps, one could have a modifier as to the number of rounds one can spend at HP before starting to track rounds coming from the main stat for the character (not class).

That track gets reset every time you go up a level, or reach a major milestone in a campaign. In addition, you can go back one slot on the track by spending a day without any significant physical exertion, or by having a healing spell directed towards that, as opposed to your HP.

That would be a reasonable approach, reminds me of healing surges(though longer to regen). I would probably tack on heal checks in-combat "stabalizing" you so you no longer lose "con rounds" while at 0, but you're not up and in the action either.

 

[mudbunny]

That would be a reasonable approach, reminds me of healing surges(though longer to regen). I would probably tack on heal checks in-combat "stabalizing" you so you no longer lose "con rounds" while at 0, but you're not up and in the action either.

That would work. Important to note that for my suggestion, you aren't losing con or anything like that. Could also throw in a mechanic where one could burn a step or two along a track to do something awesome, like wrestle a dragon to the ground or overcharge a spell to do more damage, be more focused or something.

Edit to add (note that this edit was being written at the same time as shidaku's post, below) - I am not sure if an additional mechanic would be needed for wizards/priests who may have lower con, or if it would be too uneven if only Con was used. Might be a way to provide more balance at higher levels. Fighters could do more awesome feats without burning as much of their con track.

 

[Sunseeker]

That would work. Important to note that for my suggestion, you aren't losing con or anything like that. Could also throw in a mechanic where one could burn a step or two along a track to do something awesome, like wrestle a dragon to the ground or overcharge a spell to do more damage, be more focused or something.

Seems like it's almost a fatigue system, which is fine all around IMO.

 

[Hassassin]

In defense of negative hit points, the current system is very simple when looked at as a health bar:
[...]
One thing we can do is simply give negative hit points the THAC0 treatment. Make them positive. Call them wound points. When you run out of hit points, you start taking wound points at the same rate. When you run out of wound points, you're dead. It's functionally identical, and more clearly represents something.

Since the health bar already has three sections in 4e: unbloodied, bloodied and dying, they could just move the zero:

    v 5e zero?
dead|  dying |bloodied|unbloodied
    |00000000|00000000|00000000
             ^ 4e zero

 

[fuindordm]

I wrote the following as a comment there, but I'll repeat it here:
This means two things. First, that dropping to zero hit points means that a strike got through your defenses and caused a serious wound. Second, that most magical healing isn't really healing wounds (at least not major ones), but is instead refreshing the character's stamina and battle awareness.

So, when you drop to zero hit points, you're wounded, staggered, and bleeding out. You should also have to make a save to stay conscious.

Magical healing should stabilize you, and give you back hit points, but not remove your wounds.

Totally agree, and one of my DMs has been doing this ever since 2e. His rule: if you go negative, you take "shock damage" equal to the negative total. The damage is applied to Str, Dex, Con in that order. So for example,
if you go down to -2 and then are healed up, you can still fight but you lost one point of Str and one point of Con.

It could easily be replaced with a system of specific wounds, damage saves, or whatever you like.

 

[thedungeondelver]

AD&D had, optionally a system by which "-10" did not necessarily equal dead. It could, per the DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE mean that the character was maimed or disfigured (loss to CON or CHA, as appropriate) or suffered some other permanent disability after being revived.

Also, just as a refresher (and just to throw yet more variables in here), an AD&D DM has the option of:

0 hits = dead
or
Reduced to 0 hits = unconscious, "bleeding out". Unless aid is applied (stabilization, bandaging, a healing spell, etc.) death occurs at -10 hit points.
Reduced to -3 hits or more in a single blow = instantly killed.
Reduced to -4 hits or more in a single blow = instantly killed.

But even outside of that, yeah, the DM in AD&D has the option of 0 (or -3, -4 or -10) not equaling death. Grist for the mill.

 

[Mattachine]

Also, back then, Charisma was as much your character's appearance as his personality.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

You know, I think the Vitality and Wound system's biggest problem was that it dropped the term Hit Points, and so immediately felt wrong. But I bet that a little terminology change could give us the same flexibility and fix the negative hit point problem.

I propose the terms Hit Points and Vital Hit Points. Run out of the first, lose the second. Run out of the second and you're dead.

This way it's all just hit points, it caries a little clearer meaning, and it sends a signal to those that like Wounds and Vitality. Then variant rules can be applied to what happens when you take Vital Hit Point damage.

 

[JohnSnow]

There was also that it bypassed vitality on a critical hit. That was a bit too swingy.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You know, I think the Vitality and Wound system's biggest problem was that it dropped the term Hit Points, and so immediately felt wrong. But I bet that a little terminology change could give us the same flexibility and fix the negative hit point problem.

I propose the terms Hit Points and Vital Hit Points. Run out of the first, lose the second. Run out of the second and you're dead.

This way it's all just hit points, it caries a little clearer meaning, and it sends a signal to those that like Wounds and Vitality. Then variant rules can be applied to what happens when you take Vital Hit Point damage.

That's part of it, but a bigger problem is that as soon as you have the second type of thing as some kind of "points", you've already thrown away half of its resonance.

Think about it this way. Traditional hit points are a counter to determine how close you are to being in bad trouble. But until you run out, you keep fighting as well as you ever did. This is deliberate, and thus hit points are as much a pacing mechanism as a way of measuring health. (The "hit points should be actual damage" crowd like to ignore this point--and I mean ignore, as in, "won't address it" because they find it irrelevant.)

So part of the resistance to alternatives like, "damage saves" or soaking options is not only do they change how damage is taken and/or introduce wounds/death spirals, but they provide a whole lot of uncertainity in the pacing part.

However, if you are going to add a separate track to handling serious wounds and death in a mechanical fashion, suddenly uncertainity is a lot more acceptable! After all, the people that don't want it can normalize it away, and hit point pacing still works like it always did. The people who do want it, want something that is different in kind.

Postulate: A highly useful secondary mechanic for more handling more lethal results should not be any form of "points".

Edit: Completely agree with John Snow's point above. Another reason to make them different is to reinforce that any wound system can only touch pacing so much.