A Hit Point Proposal

[El Mahdi]

What extra tracking do you refer to? I don't think there is any in the proposal.

Checking if my hit points went under my constitution score is no different from checking if they went below zero.

But you do need to list and remain aware of that threshold. Either by having it marked somehow in the Hit Point area of your character sheet, listed seperately, or just remember it in the main hard drive (one's brain).

Zero is Zero. It's the same for every character and therefore something quite instinctive. Using Constitution/Fortitude however means the number is different for each character. May not seem to be a problem to you, I also don't view it as a problem.

I'll admit it's a very small thing to keep track of, and I would have absolutely not problem with it. But others find anything extra they need to keep track of, even as minor as this, as one thing too many to track. May not seem to be a problem to you, I also don't view it as a problem...but trust me, there are a significant amount of people who won't like it simply for this aspect.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'd go a little similar, but simpler:

You have HP, of whatever amount. This is your ability to avoid long-term injury.

Once you're out of HP, additional damage is critical damage. Also, you're disabled. Barely conscious, able to see what's going on, but unable to take any actions.

If your critical damage ever equals your Constitution score, you make a save each round or die (however saving throws work).

Of all the variations suggested thus far, I prefer this one the most. However, for more compllcation, I want interesting choices. So I'd do the above without the "unable to take actions," as when your HP hit zero, you should (if you had any sense) be out of the fight. Of course, when the dire sabre-tooth tiger is planning on eating you, "sense" goes out the window.

Thus, once you are out of HP, additional damage is critical damage. You are disabled, taking a -2 to all actions. Every time you take an action, you must make a saving throw or gain a point of critical damage. If you take no actions, but lie there and play dead, no Dex mod to AC or other active defenses, you only need to make the save every minute or when you get hit again. (Getting hit also does whatever damage it does, of course, most likely making the save moot.)

Make the critical damage hard to heal, definitely require inefficient magic and/or lots of time. So when a fight hangs in the balance, and you aren't sure whether your friends can win, or what your enemies intentions are -- you've got a nasty little decision to make every time your turn comes around.

 

[Hassassin]

But you do need to list and remain aware of that threshold. Either by having it marked somehow in the Hit Point area of your character sheet, listed seperately, or just remember it in the main hard drive (one's brain).

But even if zero is easier to remember there's still negative ten or negative Con or negative bloodied to track.

 

[El Mahdi]

But even if zero is easier to remember there's still negative ten or negative Con or negative bloodied to track.

Oh believe me, I understand completely. But whether very rational or not, there will be people who won't like it for that reason. I've bumped into the same problem when introducing similar things in my house rules. Irrational? Maybe...but Human (Gamer) Nature nonetheless.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Personally I'd rather have starting HP based on a maximum score for a Hit die type (adjusted by a Con bonus). Starting a 1st level character on Con score based HP is too high for my tastes.

Just a clarification. It's not actually more hit points. Negative hit points have been moved to the other side of the zero. Instead of a first level fighter having 10 hit points and negative hit points equal to their con (as per Pathfinder), they simply combine both and have the death and dying effects occur when they drop below their Con.

 

[Nebulous]

Who likes the idea of a default system in the core PHB, and then 2 optional methods in the DMG that can make the game considerably more complex and lethal? DMs and players pick the one they want and roll with it.

 

[Kynn]

I'd hardly call -2 to attacks a "death spiral", but then again, that's a derogatory term for something that's actually a good thing (and, interestingly enough, that 4e has through the bloodied condition moreso than the core rules of earlier editions).

It's not a "derogatory term," it's a value-neutral statement of a mechanic.

(And "bloodied" in 4e is explicitly NOT a death spiral. In fact, in many conditions, characters become MORE powerful when bloodied, not less.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

It's not a "derogatory term," it's a value-neutral statement of a mechanic.

While it is a statement of a mechanic, the term has a strongly negative connotation, and is pretty clearly being used by various upthread posters to indicate that the idea that you become weaker after being hit is bad (implicitly because the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, making it prohibitively difficult to fight after being injured).

I am thus disagreeing on two points. The first being that a -2 penalty to some rolls equates with the word "death", and the second being that injury mechanics are not necessarily a bad thing.

(And "bloodied" in 4e is explicitly NOT a death spiral. In fact, in many conditions, characters become MORE powerful when bloodied, not less.)

If there's no penalty to it, I don't get the point, but it's true that I'm only guessing at how this mechanic is written.

 

[Kynn]

If there's no penalty to [bloodied], I don't get the point, but it's true that I'm only guessing at how this mechanic is written.

Maybe you need to read up on the 4e rules before making statements about them, then?

It's really hard when literally we are not on the same page in discussions because some of us don't know what "bloodied" means.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Maybe you need to read up on the 4e rules before making statements about them, then?

It's really hard when literally we are not on the same page in discussions because some of us don't know what "bloodied" means.

If it were available online for free, I would reference it. As it is, I make educated guesses based on what I read online and what I recall from perusing the books. I don't feel particularly bad about doing that, though I would prefer not to have to.

In any case, if the rule is (as you say) not what I was thinking it was, it doesn't really change any point that I was trying to make about the original hit point system proposal's positives or the broader issues of health vs injury, it merely suggests that the proposal would be just as big an improvement over 4e (in my paradigm) as over other editions' takes on the topic.