Something that has to be modeled in this game and currently is not

[Tony Vargas]

So, we want to model disabilities that we expect won't really be an issue, because the heroes overcome them anyway?

"..just long enough to do something heroic at the critical moment," is how I described the genre convention. Yes.

Perhaps, to use 4e as a starting point, you could have serious wounds, energy drains, and the other things the OP is fretting about tracked on something that works like the Disease mechanic: a track that gives penalties or conditions that advance or get better daily based on some sort of check. But, at critical moments - when spending an action point or using a daily, perhaps - the character can temporarily ignore those penalties.

Not sure what that would translate to in 5e. Maybe some sort of 'drama point' or 'plot coupon' in a storytelling-oriented module?

There's a desire to put in modifiers, sure. But, if, when all is said and done, we expect (and thus design the system so that) the hero *will* overcome those modifiers, why are we putting them in at all?

I do often wonder that about a lot of these 'controversial' issues. Characters in heroic fantasy do all kinds of crazy things, and get favored by 'chance' (plot) to a highly improbable degree, yet mechanics that try to capture that catch a lot of flack. :shrug:

 

[Sadrik]

For me personally, it wouldn't be of much use. I just don't care about such things. I don't feel it brings much into the game except something else to track.

so what do you do if a character falls from a ledge? Or begins to suffocate?

Does the buy in for being high level mean it is ok to jump from a higher ledge? Or being higher level mean you can resist being in the arctic without proper attire for longer? One of the beauties of flat math is that you can have poison that is dangerous. It is dangerous not because it is level appropriate but because it is simply dangerous. This is a really good concept. I'd like to see this applied to things like thirst, hunger, falling, and other types of catastrophic damage.

For a rule like this to be successful it would have to be simple and easy to adjudicate. In my opinion using a boatload of conditions and different separate rules for each type of catastrophic damage do not accomplish this. I think a unified rule on the stuff would actually make the game much simpler. If hit points represent skill something else should be put into place to represent when skill cannot be used (falling suffocation etc.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

If hit points represent skill something else should be put into place to represent when skill cannot be used (falling suffocation etc.)

I don't know about the etc, but a skilled/experienced/lucky character might catch that outcropping or branch, breaking or slowing his fall, or calmly slow his breathing instead of panicking, and survive both hazards where lesser mortals would not.

 

[slobo777]

I don't know about the etc, but a skilled/experienced/lucky character might catch that outcropping or branch, breaking or slowing his fall, or calmly slow his breathing instead of panicking, and survive both hazards where lesser mortals would not.

Yes.

The problem with having multiple angles on damage types and recovery of them, is you need multiple types of resource and healing to counter them. Especially at high level play where the kind of threats that deal them become more common.

Rolemaster is a case in point. Via the criticals system, you can suffer muscle damage, nerve damage and bone damage. Then there are spells for healing muscle damage, nerve damage, bone damage, arranged by level. Ultimately its just more stuff to look up on how to heal - it adds a little* flavour for the cost of a lot* more detailed book-keeping.

* The subjective measures of "a little" and "a lot" here may vary

 

[Sadrik]

From the playtest v2. Perhaps a bit complex…

Holding Your Breath and Drowning

If a character is swimming underwater intentionally (not as a result of a failed check), the character can hold his or her breath for a number of minutes equal to his or her Constitution modifier (minimum 30 seconds). A character who runs out of breath while underwater (usually as a hazard of a failed check) is drowning. While drowning, the character is restrained. As an action, a drowning character can make a Strength check to stop drowning. The DC to do so is at least 13, possibly higher if the water conditions warrant a more difficult check. The drowning character must breathe before a number of rounds pass equal to his or her Constitution modifier (minimum 1) or fall unconscious. Once unconscious, the drowning character loses all his or her remaining hit points. The character is dying and cannot be stabilized or recover hit points until he or she can breathe (either by being brought to the surface or by gaining the magical ability to breathe underwater). Once the character can breathe, normal means of restoring lost hit points can revive the character.

So to break it down:

1. Can hold breath for CON mod in minutes
2. Then, drowning if they fail a CON check or run out of breath (no CON check is required though)
3. While drowning they gain the restrained condition.
4. As an action, make a DC 13 STR check to stop drowning.
5. Drowning they have CON mod rounds to stop or gain the unconscious condition.
6. Unconscious and drowning lose all HP and gain dying condition but cannot stabilize or recover HP until breathing again.

Could this be adapted to all the other special cases? Yes... However should we have an entry for each of these cases? I think a unified system could really clear up many of these situations. This looks like a serious book look up in game play.

Also, if HP are the preferred method of handling falling and all the other catastrophic damage things. If level 1 poison is the equivalent to a strong drink at 10th level. If starvation is something that only 1st level characters really have to deal with, and extreme pressure or vacuum is fine for a while if you are high enough level, I am not sure the game is going to be right.

If HP loss is the right method it could look something like this:

1. Falling: 1d6/10’
2. Starvation: 1d6/day
3. Suffocation: 1d6/min up to con modifier and then per round
4. Thirst: after a day 1d6/hour
5. Toxins: 1d6 for contact, ingestion, or injection
6. Diseases: 1d6/month
7. Radiation: 1d6/min
8. Pressure: 1d6/round
9. Vacuum: 1d6/ round
10. Attack Unaware: Sneak attack: bonus damage, or Coup de grace: automatic 0 hp then death on second attack
11. Energy Drain: 1d6/attack

 

[Magil]

Does the buy in for being high level mean it is ok to jump from a higher ledge? Or being higher level mean you can resist being in the arctic without proper attire for longer? One of the beauties of flat math is that you can have poison that is dangerous. It is dangerous not because it is level appropriate but because it is simply dangerous. This is a really good concept. I'd like to see this applied to things like thirst, hunger, falling, and other types of catastrophic damage.

The problem with that is that things like hit points and levels are abstraction. For that matter, why is getting stabbed with a sword suddenly less dangerous at 3rd level than it was at 1st level? The same argument works for just about everything else HP models. I mean, combat with goblins is often just as dangerous as leaping off a high place, but it gets potentially easier as you level up.

I believe the best way to model what you want would be to simply scale up the damage dealt by things like falling/drowning to be appropriate to the character's level, but that's complicated and one of the reasons many people dislike DnD 4th edition (though it was actually not used that often for damage in 4th, just attacks and checks). But it'd still be simpler and, in my opinion, better than making a whole new system for dealing with certain kinds of dangerous activity.

 

[cmbarona]

What about modeling some types of damage in hit dice instead of standard HP? In 4e I would propose base surge value (without modifiers), basically .25x HP. Or increments of 0.5x HP (again, 4e, bloodied value). At this stage of danger, you risk losing half your max HP. At this stage, you risk losing 1x max HP and maybe suffering from some sort of wound. At this stage, you risk taking 1.5x max HP (instant death). That would be simple enough to model immediate consequences, except the possible wound. Supposedly, if you die and have the potential for resurrection, your body would be restored in that process anyway. Skill checks or saving throws could step the damage down or somehow otherwise mitigate it. Some abilities like spells could let you just barely survive.

The problem with that is that things like hit points and levels are abstraction. For that matter, why is getting stabbed with a sword suddenly less dangerous at 3rd level than it was at 1st level? The same argument works for just about everything else HP models. I mean, combat with goblins is often just as dangerous as leaping off a high place, but it gets potentially easier as you level up.

This is a little tricky, but again I refer you to the concept that you don't actually get stabbed until you get to 0 HP. Supposedly, sword stabs aren't less deadly as you level up, you're just better at avoiding them. The difference here is that we're looking at cases where getting hurt is not a disputed part of the narrative, like it is in the case of non-0-HP damage in combat. If you know you have fallen and hit the ground, the argument put forth here is that some cases should be as deadly as knowing a goblin got landed a fatal blow.

Another idea that just popped into my head, if a wound module is to be attached, is that wounds can be simplified by making them specific to damage type. Falling yields bludgeoning damage, for example, and bludgeoning wounds (which maybe occur when you drop to 0 or fewer HP by a bludgeoning source) yield a different effect than slashing, piercing, or fire/necrotic/radiant/poison/curry wounds.

 

[Magil]

This is a little tricky, but again I refer you to the concept that you don't actually get stabbed until you get to 0 HP. Supposedly, sword stabs aren't less deadly as you level up, you're just better at avoiding them. The difference here is that we're looking at cases where getting hurt is not a disputed part of the narrative, like it is in the case of non-0-HP damage in combat. If you know you have fallen and hit the ground, the argument put forth here is that some cases should be as deadly as knowing a goblin got landed a fatal blow.

Traditionally, I would think that the Attack vs. Defense concept is determining whether or not the sword hits you. If the attack roll beats your Defense, you are hit with the sword, and HP represents how many hits you can take before you fall down. I have yet to encounter a DM that didn't describe it this way in game as well.

My argument would be that there's no need for a separate system when HP is already an abstraction, and if you must keep a fall just as deadly at level 10 as it is at level 1, simply scale up the damage.

 

[cmbarona]

I guess that's your narrative choice, but not all blows have to be narrated as fatal ones that are somehow not fatal. I don't particularly feel like repeating myself, so I'll just say that I stand by my reasoning earlier in this thread.

 

[Magil]

I guess that's your narrative choice, but not all blows have to be narrated as fatal ones that are somehow not fatal. I don't particularly feel like repeating myself, so I'll just say that I stand by my reasoning earlier in this thread.

What I describe is what the system models. It's called a "hit" in the rules when attack exceed defense. If that is a narrative choice, it's not mine, it's the system's.

I don't think the game system particularly needs a subsystem that would contradict the very model it's based off of for these "alternative wounds." It would be contradictory and complex for the sake of being complex. Instead, one should look for ways to model this kind of occurrence within the system itself.

Of course, I speak for the system as it is written and presented, and not at what may be present at each DM's table (which often varies widely).