D&D 5E A New Way to HP

[Ashkelon]

I feel like this would make weak enemies much more powerful than they would otherwise be. If a goblin hits for 1d4, then it's not generally worth spending a Hit Die to block that, where you might be more willing to spend a d10 to block an orc or ogre. Personally, if I was playing this game, I would use the rule for average values - nothing worse than spending a d10 to stop 5 damage and only getting a 1, except possibly spending a d10 to stop 5 damage and rolling a 10. Massive inefficiency ensues.

The inefficiency issues are part of what makes it interesting. Yes sometimes you will will not roll enough and other times you will roll too well. But combat is random. Sometimes your parry attemptes aren't as good as you thought they were and other times you spend a lot of effort dodging an attack that wasn't much of a threat to begin with. Of course, I created the optional modules for those who want to lower the randomness to either use static HD or static damage rolls.

Why not just roll your Hit Dice together after each short rest, and make them act like temporary Hit Points? If you're level 8, then you might have 20 Hit Points and 8d10 Hit Dice, so just say that you have 20 Hit Points and 44 temporary Hit Points?

That is my suggestion for "stamina". If you don't want to roll HP for each attack, you roll it once and it lasts until you take another short rest.

Also, you probably don't want to increase Hit Points by (1 + Con modifier) at each level. Aside from killing some people outright when they reach level 6, it places way too much dependence on the Con score.

I am honestly fine if 6 Con people are unable to be adventurers. 5e is already so harsh on anyone who has a Con score of 10 or less anyway that I really don't see this as an issue. Most PCs will have a 12-16 Con anyway, as point buy (and die roll) easily allows for a tertiary Con score of at least 13. So I have no problem that those who are sickly and frail (Con 8 or less) are never adventurers.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I am honestly fine if 6 Con people are unable to be adventurers. 5e is already so harsh on anyone who has a Con score of 10 or less anyway that I really don't see this as an issue. Most PCs will have a 12-16 Con anyway, as point buy (and die roll) easily allows for a tertiary Con score of at least 13. So I have no problem that those who are sickly and frail (Con 8 or less) are never adventurers.

And, in addressing the HP issue that would make Con so vital for everyone, you would choose to exacerbate that problem rather than fix it?

In using Con score for your base hit points, you've already included the equivalent of twice your Con modifier, so you can get away with not adding the modifier at each level. That goes a long way toward making someone with less than maximized Con viable at least. And, although it would be less useful than in the base game, Con saves are still quite plentiful, and some class-specific features still reference it, so it would still be more useful than Charisma (to most people).

Con 8 is not now, nor has it ever been, "sickly and frail"; it's -1 to Con checks, which is imperceptibly below average, to the extent that it would only make a difference one time in twenty. Besides, required minimum ability scores went out of style with AD&D.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I quite like this approach for reasons having nothing to do with the meaning of hit points.

I would tweak it for very slow hit point recovery. Natural recovery is 1 hp per night but the PC must make a con check, with a penalty equal to the number of hit points he's down at the moment. Heal spells recover a number of hit dice equal to the level of the spell or allow an immediate check to recover 1 hp with a mod equal to the level of the spell.

This maintains the feel of D&D combat - PCs are either full power or down, and the health resource - hit die in this case - can bounce up and down quite a lot during a combat. (I don't like the feel in general, but if I'm playing D&D I want a D&D feel) It also enables "RPGs as war" play. As hit points dwindle over the course of an adventure, each combat has a smaller margin for error and greater risk. Current levels of hit points becomes an important factor in players' decisions about how to handle each encounter. Frex, the party can stomp a group of orcs when their hit points are high or low, but at low hit points a bit of bad luck can result in losing a PC while at high hit points the chance of this is negligible. Thus at high hit points they might fight, while at low hit points they might sneak or parlay.

 

[Raduin711]

It's an interesting idea, that I might steal and apply to this other idea I have been batting around in my head...

 

[Sadras]

This is what we have gone for:

ENDURANCE/PROVIDENCE
Hit Points to reflect Endurance and Providence solely (remove morale or meat).
Hit Dice type to reflect the endurance level of the class - imagined from the physical training one would have received.
Hit Dice should be capped - dependent on size only.
Benefits from Constitution (Fitness levels) should not be limitless (therefore capped)
Last HP reflects Meat only.
The Feat Toughness is reworked.

Surges (HD) have more uses. Treated as Endurance Reserves and Willpower.

MEAT
Introduce Wound system (for meat) - same categories as Fatigue (same effects)
Wounds are gained in a specific way, dependent on how gritty you want your campaign to be.
Wounds are healed in a specific way, dependent on how gritty you want your campaign to be.
Rework the Cure Wounds/Lay on Hands spell/ability.

MORALE
Use Fate's Compel challenges for Morale/Virtues (VtM) challenges - they are tied into the 5e Ideals, Bonds and Flaws system.

Of course the above applies to Monsters/NPCs too.

 

[Dausuul]

This seems like vitality points/wound points with some flourishes around the use of VPs. It's not a bad system, but it doesn't strike me as having a whole lot to recommend it over straight VP/WP. You get more tactical decision-making (do I spend hit dice to reduce this damage? how many?) at the cost of slowing down combat substantially (an extra die roll for each attack that hits, and an extra step in the math of applying the result). The slowdown could become really painful when applying the system to NPCs.

 

[BryonD]

Naw in D&D it's left vague and is meat + non-meat in unknown percentages.

Exactly. HP have worked great for me for decades without issue. Sure, it can be interesting to set up paradox situations to debate. I clearly recall these HP debates when I was in high school in the 80s. Nothing new there. And yet it NEVER caused any issues at the table.

You start saying HP = Meat or HP = Abstract then the system becomes vastly less satisfactory.

But keep it vague and apply it on the fly case by case and it works great. (for classic D&D tropes at least)

 

[GMMichael]

This is better known as a form of neo-heroism.

" I'm heroic so I shouldn't have to think" is the source of all the hit point woes of D&D.

+1. This phenomenon might well have coincided with the growth of video games. Anyone remember the early video games?

When Pitfall Harry gets bit by a scorpion, he dies.

When Pacman gets possessed by a ghost, he dies.

Now, your characters regenerate, get health packs, and have health-gradients.

@OP: thoughtful system, but I don't agree with introducing a new rule to solve the problem, and then immediately offering five house-rules as modifications.

Modos RPG uses a pretty simple system that solves the problem: players dictate their damage. Want meat damage? Say you took a grievous neck-wound. Want stamina damage? Say you're bending over to catch your breath every chance you get. Want no damage? The giant's club completely missed you. You are, however, still 12 points of damage closer to Mostly Dead...

 

[Dausuul]

+1. This phenomenon might well have coincided with the growth of video games.

Yeah, all those video games in 1974 with health packs and health-gradients, they totally ruined white box D&D! Come on, this is beyond absurd. D&D has had hit points since the very beginning of the game. Video games got hit points from Dungeons and Dragons, not the other way around.

 

[GMMichael]

Yeah, all those video games in 1974 with health packs and health-gradients, they totally ruined white box D&D! Come on, this is beyond absurd. D&D has had hit points since the very beginning of the game. Video games got hit points from Dungeons and Dragons, not the other way around.

...was referring to today's players not having to think, Dausuul. Not so much the growth of hit points. I'll give you a moment to re-read.