D&D General 4e Healing was the best D&D healing

[Fanaelialae]

Exactly.

To make it make logical sense, the problem that needs solving is that they can function as well at 1 of 100 as they can at 100 of 100. (or for better comparison among characters with different h.p. totals, 1% of full vs 100% of full) This is what I was trying to get at with the idea of conditions (usually negative) kicking in at 50%, 25%, 10% and 1.

It's more case by case for me. A hit from a Giant is going to be described differently than a hit from a Dragon's claw - the Giant hit might send you flying across the room while the Dragon's claw might leave a nasty scratch on your armour - and you.

To me all hit points are at least a tiny bit meat (if nothing else this makes damage-based effects e.g. poison and level drain easier to grok), with the meat ratio increasing greatly as you get close to 0.

I think that's 1e, using the death at -3 (or -10) option.

I'd rather find a way of solving the logic problem you point out in the first bit quoted, above. The idea of having 1 hit point mean different things in the fiction if you reach that number from above or below doesn't work well for me.

The ridiculous extreme, of course, is 5e's Whack-A-Mole idiocy, where a character can be at 0 h.p. and down one round, fully functional at 1 h.p. the next round, back down to 0 the round after, repeat until you run out of either ranged-cures or opponents.

The other option, of course, is to go to a wound-vitality or body-fatigue point system. We did this ages ago and it solves a ton of problems at cost of a bit of extra complication which very soon becomes second nature.

Sure. I don't see it as a problem, but if you do then it can be solved at the cost of additional complexity.

In fairness, while the 5e rules do exacerbate the issue, the existence of magic healing made whack-a-mole an issue in every edition. Or at least, that was my experience in the editions I've played. Just because you had to heal from negatives didn't prevent whack-a-mole, it just meant you sometimes needed a bigger heal to do so reliably. I saw it happen in both 2e and 3e though, where a character would go up and down multiple times in the same encounter. Negatives make it less frequent, but they don't eliminate it entirely.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure. I don't see it as a problem, but if you do then it can be solved at the cost of additional complexity.

In fairness, while the 5e rules do exacerbate the issue, the existence of magic healing made whack-a-mole an issue in every edition. Or at least, that was my experience in the editions I've played. Just because you had to heal from negatives didn't prevent whack-a-mole, it just meant you sometimes needed a bigger heal to do so reliably. I saw it happen in both 2e and 3e though, where a character would go up and down multiple times in the same encounter. Negatives make it less frequent, but they don't eliminate it entirely.

Agreed, and it's always bugged me to some extent.

With our body-fatigue system we have it that if you go below 0 you can't be cured beyond full body points for a length of time set by a few factors, which sorta-kinda works for simulating longer-lasting injuries. Further, we have rules for reduced functionality if you're at or below 0 but still conscious. But we've never developed a system for reduced functionality while still in positive hit points. Maybe that'll be my project for the week...or, more likely, the rest of the year...

 

[Fanaelialae]

Agreed, and it's always bugged me to some extent.

With our body-fatigue system we have it that if you go below 0 you can't be cured beyond full body points for a length of time set by a few factors, which sorta-kinda works for simulating longer-lasting injuries. Further, we have rules for reduced functionality if you're at or below 0 but still conscious. But we've never developed a system for reduced functionality while still in positive hit points. Maybe that'll be my project for the week...or, more likely, the rest of the year...

I'm a bit leery of death spiral mechanics, personally. They're the kind of realism that can easily result in less fun. (Or in the case of Tenra Bansho Zero's reverse death spiral mechanic, less realistic but very cool.)

An idea I toyed with a while back, for combating whack-a-mole, was to prevent characters at zero from getting up immediately. I mean, who's to say that just because you're not longer gushing blood that you automatically wake up? Maybe it takes a little time, which makes preemptive healing very desirable (since PCs going unconscious hurts your action economy).

However, sitting out combat isn't much fun (IMO) so, to minimize that I'd need to buff healing to make preemptive healing worthwhile. Too much healing though, and combats become too easy, so you'd need to find the sweet spot. Ultimately, I decided it was more trouble than it was worth, since it's not all that frequent at my table. Couple times a campaign at most. Just sharing on the chance that you might find it a worthy avenue of exploring for your own implementation.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm a bit leery of death spiral mechanics, personally. They're the kind of realism that can easily result in less fun. (Or in the case of Tenra Bansho Zero's reverse death spiral mechanic, less realistic but very cool.)

Death spiral mechanics only result in less fun until the players realize two things: healing someone when they're still at 75% is more advantageous than when they're at 10%; and that combat might not be the best answer every time.

An idea I toyed with a while back, for combating whack-a-mole, was to prevent characters at zero from getting up immediately. I mean, who's to say that just because you're not longer gushing blood that you automatically wake up? Maybe it takes a little time, which makes preemptive healing very desirable (since PCs going unconscious hurts your action economy).

I like this.

However, sitting out combat isn't much fun (IMO)

My game has lots of save-or-be-hosed elements anyway, so sitting out most of a combat now and then is an accepted fact of life, so no big deal there.

We have an unconsciousness rule. Death is at -10. If you go to or below 0 but stay above -10, or if conscious do anything strenuous (or attempt a spell) while between 0 and -9 inclusive, you need to roll equal or under [Con + current h.p.] on a d20 to remain conscious. So, someone with Con 14 who goes to -5 needs to roll 9 or less to stay conscious. A concsious character in negatives has penalties all over the place with severity increasing as the negative number gets higher: to-hit, move speed, some saves, perception, and dexterity all take hits.

A conscious character bleeds out more slowly than an unconscious character, as if conscious one can stem the bleeding etc. Simple first-aid will stabilize someone below 0 for a few hours, and give another con check if unconscious and negative.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

However, interpreting them in a minimally injurious way (prior to 0) largely avoids any dissonance between described results and logical outcomes. In other words, if you describe the arrow impaling my character's leg, I expect him to move more slowly, and if he doesn't then there's a serious disconnect. Similarly, if you describe my high level rogue as getting a superficial scratch every time he's hit with a greataxe, it gets a bit silly since that's not how greataxes work (they're not exactly subtle weapons). Hence, my advice would be to not describe it that way.

There's nothing remotely ridiculous about someone dying from a fall, when acting recklessly, after they've been beaten nearly to death. What's ridiculous is claiming that someone who has 1hp remaining is perfectly healthy. Perfectly healthy people don't die from the sorts of things that deal 1 damage.

People near death can’t fight effectively.