Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8052126" data-attributes="member: 29398">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.</blockquote>

Verification