D&D 5E Bloodied Condition in 5e:

[MarkB]

That is basically how the conditioned is designed in the Kickstarter I linked too. I was interested in the opposite application. Clearly most here don't like things to get more dangerous

My version is exactly the same as yours, except that you can negate it by having someone tend your wounds while you're resting. The downside is that whoever is tending your wounds doesn't get to rest themselves.

 

[NotAYakk]

I don't like the "bloodied makes you suck".

How about:
Bloodied
You are considered bloodied when your HP are at or below half your maximum HP. Being bloodied is usually obvious to friends and foes who can perceive you; typically, if you hit a creature and bloody it, you'll know, even if you cannot see it.

Bloodied creature are both desperate and vulnerable. Attacks by creatures who are bloodied, or attacks on creatures who are bloodied, are critical hits if the attack roll is a natural 1.

Design note: This stacks with other crit-fishes. It makes critial hits with disadvantage or advantage more likely (on advantage you can choose the 1, on disadvantage you pick the lowest -- I get that this means disadvantage might improve your damage output, and am ok with that; the Paladin could say "I dive to the ground and try to stab the dragon in the belly", and roll with disadvantage for two chances to land a critical smite). It makes it a "death spiral" in that combat becomes deadlier for you, and from you; it should result in more "oh crap" moments as well as more "hail mary" moments.

It gives a reason to say "the creature is bloodied", and "you are bloodied" and for players (and DMs) to care when it happens. It raises the stakes on both sides of the fight.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I use bloodied as an indicator-to-players myself.

I do think that the concept works well in 5e if they wanted to, though. I remember some stuff the Angry GM said that suggest to me that having the nature of the combat change halfway through the battle is good at making more interesting combats.

 

[dave2008]

I don't like the "bloodied makes you suck".

I don't think it makes you suck, but a lot of people are not liking my version. I guess we just play rougher games at my table

How about:
Bloodied
You are considered bloodied when your HP are at or below half your maximum HP. Being bloodied is usually obvious to friends and foes who can perceive you; typically, if you hit a creature and bloody it, you'll know, even if you cannot see it.

Bloodied creature are both desperate and vulnerable. Attacks by creatures who are bloodied, or attacks on creatures who are bloodied, are critical hits if the attack roll is a natural 1.

Design note: This stacks with other crit-fishes. It makes critial hits with disadvantage or advantage more likely (on advantage you can choose the 1, on disadvantage you pick the lowest -- I get that this means disadvantage might improve your damage output, and am ok with that; the Paladin could say "I dive to the ground and try to stab the dragon in the belly", and roll with disadvantage for two chances to land a critical smite). It makes it a "death spiral" in that combat becomes deadlier for you, and from you; it should result in more "oh crap" moments as well as more "hail mary" moments.

It gives a reason to say "the creature is bloodied", and "you are bloodied" and for players (and DMs) to care when it happens. It raises the stakes on both sides of the fight.

I like the idea, but not the on a natural 1. That to me is outside the 5e norm. I would think a similar effect could be achieved differently. Perhaps your are vulnerable to critical hits? Doesn't make crits more likely, but makes them more deadly.

 

[Nebulous]

I use bloodied as an indicator-to-players myself.

I do think that the concept works well in 5e if they wanted to, though. I remember some stuff the Angry GM said that suggest to me that having the nature of the combat change halfway through the battle is good at making more interesting combats.

I absolutely agree, having combat change halfway through - especially if a monster gets noticeably more aggressive or desperate - is a great way to spice up combat.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I like the idea, but not the on a natural 1. That to me is outside the 5e norm. I would think a similar effect could be achieved differently.

Agreed, anything that worked as a combat-accelerator rather than a death spiral might be good. Rather than a natural 1, just expanding 'crit range' by one could work, for instance.

Or, this could be weird: crits override disadvantage - that is, when rolling with disadvantage, if either die crits, even if the lower die would miss, it's a crit. More likely to crit with disadvantage (desperation!) and advantage, both.

But, whatever, as long as it applies to both the bloodied creature, and those it attacks.

 

[Garthanos]

Agreed, anything that worked as a combat-accelerator rather than a death spiral might be good. Rather than a natural 1, just expanding 'crit range' by one could work, for instance.

Or, this could be weird: crits override disadvantage - that is, when rolling with disadvantage, if either die crits, even if the lower die would miss, it's a crit. More likely to crit with disadvantage (desperation!) and advantage, both.

But, whatever, as long as it applies to both the bloodied creature, and those it attacks.

For me the highly rich variations in response to bloodied were part of what made it interesting that said having something that applied to any creature who didnt have some well defined desperation response when bloodied also sounds like a good thing.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Your Welcome!

No it did not.
It is the idea once your bloodied your actually taking real damage and simple resting for an hour or overnight will not help. It would be a "grittier" approach to D&D

Unless you are adding in additional stipulations or houserules, this does not fit your intentions.

The benefit is a delineation of meat points (bloodied). This method would require acknowledge that you can't just sleep off a sword to the chest.

This method, as you have stated, it does not prevent this.

 

[dave2008]

Unless you are adding in additional stipulations or houserules, this does not fit your intentions.

This is not a rule we are using; however, it is actually a less intrusive version of a set of houserules that we do use. It was our existing houserules that made me thinking of inverting the kickstarter bloodied condition. However, pretty much everyone agrees that as a stand alone condition for the typical group, the KS version is better than my suggestion. Though I still much prefer the houserules we use.

This method, as you have stated, it does not prevent this.

I didn't say it would prevent it.

 

[Stalker0]

I use the term "bloodied" in my games, but it has no mechanics attached to it, other than "half" HP or lower.

Yep same for me. For example, I never say how damaged my monsters are. They are either bloodied or not.