A Hit Point Proposal

[Ahnehnois]

Never recommend an alternative hit point system before trying it in play.

One of the things you learn when you try to houserule more "realistic" systems onto D&D is exactly how awesome the default hit point system IS.

Well, we are about to enter the playtest phase on 5e, aren't we? Good time to try things in play.

That aside, the reason I push vp/wp (for example) is because I've used it for years and I know how well it works.

 

[Sunseeker]

You're not really getting rid of negative hit points, you're just adding them to the total and making 0 have more finality to it. Beyond that, this punishes high-con characters significantly more than it should.

High-con characters are the brutes, the tanks, the defenders, the soakers, whatever you call them who are supposed to take all that punishment in place of others, or at least be able to take the up-front punishment that other classes avoid(such as damaging aura effects, localized AOE, ect...)

EX: Joe is a fighter with 30 con. He gets 40HP at level 1.

This means that Joe can only take 11 points of damage before he's "dying", a statein which he hits worse, defends worse, and generally: dies faster.

Fran the mage only has a 14 con, she gets 14HP+4 @ first level. It takes Fran 9 points of damage to enter the "dying" state. The difference between Fran and Joe? 2 points. That's only a 20% difference in damage, while Joe and Fran have a 45% difference in total HP. Joe has almost DOUBLE Fran's HP and yet he can only take 2 more damage before dying.

Not to mention, at first level, a single hit is highly likely to deal 5-10 damage. More on a crit. Especially if you're encountering some bandits who all have longswords for 1d8+2 damage.

If you want a "gritty" system, by all means run one, but I get enough "gritty" in my comics these days and I'd prefer 5e to not be "gritty" by default.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

You're not really getting rid of negative hit points, you're just adding them to the total and making 0 have more finality to it. Beyond that, this punishes high-con characters significantly more than it should.

[...]

EX: Joe is a fighter with 30 con. He gets 40HP at level 1.

This means that Joe can only take 11 points of damage before he's "dying", a statein which he hits worse, defends worse, and generally: dies faster.

Fran the mage only has a 14 con, she gets 14HP+4 @ first level. It takes Fran 9 points of damage to enter the "dying" state. The difference between Fran and Joe? 2 points. That's only a 20% difference in damage, while Joe and Fran have a 45% difference in total HP. Joe has almost DOUBLE Fran's HP and yet he can only take 2 more damage before dying.

By your own admission, this is no change. It moves the negative hit points to the other side of the zero, but moves the death and dying point by an equal amount. The high constitution character get the benefit of lasting longer when he's dropped.

The other change is that, instead of automatically falling unconscious as you do in previous editions, you roll a save and there's a chance that you'll remain conscious but wounded. So, in effect, the high constitution character is even tougher than before, because that con means he's more likely to stay conscious and able to act when he would otherwise have been on the ground with the mage.

Don't get hung up on the additional hit points you get at first level. As I mentioned in my initial post, that's beyond the scope of the proposal, which involves how death and dying should work. Presumably your constitution modifier would be added to hit points at each level, including first.

 

[Sadras]

I've got no interest in core rules that make combat even more complicated, which a wound system does.

Give me hit points.

See I have a problem with this statement...Why do you assume it will be more complicated, or at a level where complication is just untolerable.
When it comes to character creation even at core, the players push hard for customization, complexities, millions of rediculous feats/skills that eventually break the game and make it time consuming for DMs to create NPCs - but add a wound system and everyone throws their hands up... thats when they claim the are too stoopid (the players) and too complex (the wound rules).
Bleh.

I have actually seen some pretty good home-brew systems here on en world, which are neither complex or time-consuming.
There's one for 4E which you keep records of wounds/injuries which diminish your healing surge recovery , there is another for all editions which treats hp as vitality points - and con as actual hp..and both systems are super simple which would not slow down combat.

Look at the evolution of D&D - ppl have been able to deal with the introduction of additional systems within the core. Are they all complexities?

 

[Hassassin]

I'm not limiting it. I'm merely saying what the term has historically meant.

It should be noted that D&D has always had a bit of a "party death spiral" effect, even when it did not have the classic death spiral for a given character. That is, each party member that is taken out reduces the ability of the rest of the party to respond to the threat, increasing the chance that they will also be taken out.

I've always though of it from the POV of the party, which explains our disagreement. The proposal in the OP essentially makes the party death spiral start slower, which I think is a good idea as it gives the party a clearer opportunity to retreat before it's too late.

 

[Mattachine]

See I have a problem with this statement...Why do you assume it will be more complicated, or at a level where complication is just untolerable.
When it comes to character creation even at core, the players push hard for customization, complexities, millions of rediculous feats/skills that eventually break the game and make it time consuming for DMs to create NPCs - but add a wound system and everyone throws their hands up... thats when they claim the are too stoopid (the players) and too complex (the wound rules).
Bleh.

I have actually seen some pretty good home-brew systems here on en world, which are neither complex or time-consuming.
There's one for 4E which you keep records of wounds/injuries which diminish your healing surge recovery , there is another for all editions which treats hp as vitality points - and con as actual hp..and both systems are super simple which would not slow down combat.

Look at the evolution of D&D - ppl have been able to deal with the introduction of additional systems within the core. Are they all complexities?

I can deal with complexity, especially when it is due to a monster, a particular class, or a subsystem/optional rule.

Hit points are a core rule that is used in every fight. They are simple and fast, which are the strengths of the hit point system. They help combat go more smoothly, quickly. Third and fourth edition D&D both increased combat length due to complexity, not excitement. I would like to see combat return to something more like 1e or 2e.

I understand the desire for alternate systems: the 3e Unearthed Arcana had a few, and they were nice, with design notes. Still, they weren't for me or my players.

Like strong archetype classes, hit points are just D&D for me.

 

[Nebulous]

Never recommend an alternative hit point system before trying it in play.

One of the things you learn when you try to houserule more "realistic" systems onto D&D is exactly how awesome the default hit point system IS.

Exactly. The core, default hit point system has to be simple. The DMG should add on more complex options. I'm not saying the core rules has to be 100% like it was in 1e-3e, but it needs to simple. And easily modded to incorporate the more complex models.

 

[3catcircus]

That's why my proposal has a nod to realism with the wounded condition, but relegates it to the area previously limited to being unconscious and dying. It says, "you're perfectly able, until your not. Then you might be dead, dying, unconscious, or wounded, and probably more than one."

So why even bother if "...you're perfectly able, until your [sic] not" is going to be no different than the standard hp system with the threshold offset to your CON score rather than zero? It looks like you are, by having "bad things" happen after you are taken out of the fight, just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

If I'm going to go to the trouble of having a system try to simulate things less abstractly then hit points, I'd prefer it to simulate a progressive degradation in effectiveness until such time as you hit the cliff and the avalanche into death/dying occurs.

Also - it seems that your proposal relegates the really bad things to occur when it doesn't matter (i.e. outside of combat) due to the hourly rolls for dying. If someone is bleeding out, it take minutes rather than hours for death to occur.

Finally, why would magical healing not work effectively against "wounds?"

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I like the OP's system, but would prefer a larger penalty. I happen to really hate hit points, but hp are too large a part of D&D's identity to even consider taking out. The system does a decent job of keeping hp while introducing some of the mechanics I'd prefer in the system.

And it's definitely not a "death spiral." Death spiral implies a feed back relationship: damage -> lower ability -> more damage -> even lower ability -> even more damage etc etc. A "spiral" that stops spiraling after a first step isn't a spiral.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

So why even bother if "...you're perfectly able, until your [sic] not" is going to be no different than the standard hp system with the threshold offset to your CON score rather than zero? It looks like you are, by having "bad things" happen after you are taken out of the fight, just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

If I'm going to go to the trouble of having a system try to simulate things less abstractly then hit points, I'd prefer it to simulate a progressive degradation in effectiveness until such time as you hit the cliff and the avalanche into death/dying occurs.

Also - it seems that your proposal relegates the really bad things to occur when it doesn't matter (i.e. outside of combat) due to the hourly rolls for dying. If someone is bleeding out, it take minutes rather than hours for death to occur.

Finally, why would magical healing not work effectively against "wounds?"

Because going any further than this means a dramatic change to the health system that many players will be unhappy with. Believe me, I like more realistic systems, but I know it'll never fly, so this interjects a little of what I want without really changing the Hit Point system.

As I mentioned in a post above, I'm floating the hourly dying concept to see its reception. It replaces the idea of bleeding out on the battlefield with needing urgent medial care at the hands of a trained surgeon while hoping the patient stabilizes. The current system pretty much says, If you're seriously wounded, you will be dead in less than a minute, but someone can walk by and stop the bleeding in six seconds. My thought was, "saving someone's life takes time. Let's experiment with that."