D&D 5E Bloodied and Reduced Defenses

[Imaculata]

Bloodied: When a creature is at or below half their max HP, they are bloodied. While bloodied, targets take a -2 penalty on saving throws and AC.

I think such a status effect would deserve a fortitude save to negate. Thus healthier characters are less likely to enter this death spiral. Also, the AC penalty is a bit harsh.

 

[dave2008]

I think such a status effect would deserve a fortitude save to negate. Thus healthier characters are less likely to enter this death spiral. Also, the AC penalty is a bit harsh.

That would likely be a CON save in 5e (which is the subject of this thread)

 

[Imaculata]

That would likely be a CON save in 5e (which is the subject of this thread)

You are correct.

 

[Oofta]

Not a big fan of death spirals or extra tracking overhead.

I get what the OP is trying to do but I think it would encourage a nova mentality, more ranged attacks combined with a very cautious style of play which personally I don't enjoy. I wouldn't want to ever to be a front line tank.

It might be more "realistic" but I'm not sure it would be any more fun.

 

[Umbran]

The intent of the rule is to encourage players to hold back their big abilities for later in an encounter, when targets become more vulnerable.

But, there's the competing desire to quickly get the opponents bloodied, so that they will be more vulnerable.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Like a lot of others, assuming this applied to PCs as well, my main changes in behaviour would be:

1) Casting a lot more healing spells in combat to try and bump people back up from Bloodied, because that makes you really vulnerable, and being much more aggressive about ensuring everyone was on max HP before going into a combat.

2) Trying to burst creatures down to half HP as soon as possible, rather than waiting for half HP to bring out the big guns, because all abilities will be drastically more effective once they are at half HP. I believe this is directly the opposite of what you intend? CC spells I would hold back, but damage? Absolutely anything you could do to smash "big nasty" down to 50% HP as quickly as possible would be smart. THEN you roll out the CC spells to lock that guy down and chop him up.

But, there's the competing desire to quickly get the opponents bloodied, so that they will be more vulnerable.

Exactly, if anything this makes you want to burn auto-hit or likely-to-hit high-damage abilities right at the start. You only want to hold back stuff with a save, really, because -2 to a save is likely to have a bigger impact than -2 AC (given how you can often get Advantage on attack rolls, particularly, but it's extremely hard to inflict Disadvantage on saves).

 

[DEFCON 1]

Speaking personally... based on the decades of playing D&D I think what would really change my behavior would not be a "bloodied" condition at half hit points... but cut max HP in half, use 0 as the break-point, and then going to Negative Max HP for falling unconscious/dying.

Numbers-wise everything is exactly the same... the only difference is that hit 0 HP is where the "bloodied" condition would come about. Because I know that I (and probably all of my players) have a much more visceral reaction to hitting 0 HP than just losing regular hit points. So even with a Negative Max HP buffer... the fact that I was now below zero and counting negatives would impact me more and change my attitude and behavior just because of the years of having it implanted in me that getting to 0 HP means you are almost dead.

Having 30 HP to start and then dropping -2 AC and saves at 15 would be painful but acceptable. Having 15 HP and then dropping -2 AC and saves at 0 would freak me out (even if death didn't come until -15 HP).

 

[Erechel]

My penalty for Bloodied condition is a little harsher and easier to track: a DC 15 Con saving throw, or an Exhaustion level. I usually allow to use a Hit Dice/Second Wind to bump a Constitution save.

Keep in mind that recovering from an Exhaustion level needs a long rest with enough food and water. And they are also cumulative, so everytime you fall, you reroll. If you fall to 0 HP in any game of mine, you automatically gain an Exhaustion level. Orcs, of course, have the bonus of not falling to 0 hp the first time, and fall to 1 instead.

5e has a very low impact on wounds. Exhaustion is a great mechanic,a hard "wound" that penalize you. Better still, only when you have 3 exhaustion levels all your combat is severely hampered. It has a very "old school" feeling.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My penalty for Bloodied condition is a little harsher and easier to track: a DC 15 Con saving throw, or an Exhaustion level. I usually allow to use a Hit Dice/Second Wind to bump a Constitution save.

This isn't "a little harsher" dude, this massively harsher.

On the other hand, for a semi-gritty game, the system you propose is quite attractive, albeit deeply asymmetrical to the point where you'd need to re-balance encounters (steeply downward, I should think - probably do less encounters/day).

Re: spending HD, do you allow them to only spend one, or as many as it takes? I actually kind of like the latter idea, because that means HD actually get used up, and having PCs with exhaustion is a lot less interesting than having PCs potentially having exhaustion if they don't do something to prevent it. I do agree with the exhaustion on 0 HP - that's a good way to prevent the Yoyo effect. Right now in the groups I play in, there's little or no point casting a heal until someone is on the floor, in combat. Which is rather different dynamic to any previous edition and I don't feel works ideally.

Your greatest enemy is probably Goodberry, so I'm guessing you've houserule'd that or your players haven't found out about its terrifying power yet (basically banking spell slots into tons of HP for the next day, and always ensuring the PCs are well-fed/watered).

I think I'd probably use this system if I started an entirely new campaign.

 

[Erechel]

This isn't "a little harsher" dude, this massively harsher.

On the other hand, for a semi-gritty game, the system you propose is quite attractive, albeit deeply asymmetrical to the point where you'd need to re-balance encounters (steeply downward, I should think - probably do less encounters/day).

Exactly. The point is to avoid combat whenever possible, even in Dungeons, or find creative solutions to them. It bothers me a little that the only tactic is "ATTACK". Creative tactics include such basic things as using Dodge and Disarm, recon terrain, or trying to intimidate. Keep in mind that, if the monsters are alive and intelligent, I usually check morale for them (a simple Wisdom save) when they get bloodied.

Re: spending HD, do you allow them to only spend one, or as many as it takes? I actually kind of like the latter idea, because that means HD actually get used up, and having PCs with exhaustion is a lot less interesting than having PCs potentially having exhaustion if they don't do something to prevent it. I do agree with the exhaustion on 0 HP - that's a good way to prevent the Yoyo effect. Right now in the groups I play in, there's little or no point casting a heal until someone is on the floor, in combat. Which is rather different dynamic to any previous edition and I don't feel works ideally.

About the HD use, I do not allow more than one... per save. But I use a lot of Con saves. Diseases, poison, and difficult, exhausting tasks. The fighter bonus is their Second Wind, that actually escalates quite a lot, and has very good saves (Strength and Con is awesome).

Your greatest enemy is probably Goodberry, so I'm guessing you've houserule'd that or your players haven't found out about its terrifying power yet (basically banking spell slots into tons of HP for the next day, and always ensuring the PCs are well-fed/watered).

I think I'd probably use this system if I started an entirely new campaign.

You got it right. Goodberry in my games actually expends the material component. Yes, I track material components. I'm a very AD&D master. Even in 5th E