D&D 5E Capping Hit Points

[Lanefan]

It seems to me like you're pushing hard for realism here, and that... isn't going to work with hit points.

Depends.

If the hit point numbers are kept vaguely rational and either a) all hit points are viewed as at least part 'meat' or b) some sort of wound-vitality or body-fatigue system is introduced, it can end up being realistic enough for rock and roll; though of course far from perfect.

Where realism flies completely out the window IMO, at least in 4e-5e, is the ridiculously fast recovery times. So, for added realism (and to make magical healing relevant again) you'd slow down recovery gained via simple rest and introduce some sort of long-term injury system.

None of this, however, solves the most difficult problem: the near-binary difference between fully-functional at 1 h.p. and down-and-out at 0 h.p. This one takes more work, including some sort of potential death spiral when close to 0 but still above along with putting death at -10 (or some other negative number) and having a series of less-functional conditions applied at stages between 0 and -9.

But in this case, it really does seem like you're looking for a kind of game that D&D is not equipped to deliver. With enough work, you might be able to force it, but the system will fight you tooth and nail.

Modern D&D might not be equipped to deliver such a game (though I think it can if enough massaging gets done) but the pre-3e versions to a much greater extent are; in any case the pre-3e systems don't put up nearly as much resistance to making the necessary modifications.

 

[Scott Christian]

Again: punching with a referee. Does not compare to the effects of steel or gunfire.

Blood loss is the #1 killer on the battlefield (through the effects of shock), and how well you handle pain has zero impact on that.

While I appreciate the gritty realism, I have to disagree.

We all have known someone that becomes incapacitated with pain. And we all have known other people that break bones, need stitches, etc. and they barely notice. So just because it is knives versus fists or maces versus kicks doesn't negate the pain tolerance advantage. A shin to the leg can be just as brutal as a club to the leg. And not everything is a plunge into internal organs., Sometimes a rapier blade slices across a thigh or worse yet - higher! The person with high pain tolerance does impact on how long a person can do things before becoming incapacitated.

Take Lynn Cox. She swam a mile in the arctic waters. Every other swimmer, including Phelps or 99.9% of the world would have succumbed to cold. Basically going into shock. She did not. Why? Pain tolerance, stubbornness, and an alien immunity to cold.

 

[Jd Smith1]

While I appreciate the gritty realism, I have to disagree.

We all have known someone that becomes incapacitated with pain. And we all have known other people that break bones, need stitches, etc. and they barely notice. So just because it is knives versus fists or maces versus kicks doesn't negate the pain tolerance advantage. A shin to the leg can be just as brutal as a club to the leg. And not everything is a plunge into internal organs., Sometimes a rapier blade slices across a thigh or worse yet - higher! The person with high pain tolerance does impact on how long a person can do things before becoming incapacitated.

Take Lynn Cox. She swam a mile in the arctic waters. Every other swimmer, including Phelps or 99.9% of the world would have succumbed to cold. Basically going into shock. She did not. Why? Pain tolerance, stubbornness, and an alien immunity to cold.

You are right, tolerances differ. In my thirty plus years as a police officer I've seen people shrug off OC pepper, TASERs, CS gas, and other techniques. And that's before you factor in drugs and extreme emotional disorders.

But those are all less-than-lethal approaches.

Pain isn't the danger in lethal encounters, shock is, and that cannot be fought through. Drugs will help with it, but that's about it.

In fact, some studies suggest that athletes may be more susceptible to the effects of lethal force shock due to their optimized cardio system.

If I ever sat down to develop the perfect combat system, it would be based upon blood loss and structural damage only.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I always use a die roll rather than averaged damage for NPCs.

An Orcish falchion, back when I was running a fantasy campaign, had a base 2d8 damage, with strength and doctrine bonuses would, depending upon tribe, add +6 to +9 damage. Now that we're in a post-apoc campaign with firearms, a full-auto burst from a MP-5 clone can deliver eight hits, each d10 if FMJ, up to 4d10 each if very expensive and specialized ammunition is used. Of course, you seldom hit with every round in a burst, but that's how it goes.

Crits are much expanded and deadly.

I'm not as interested in quick and easy as I am in logical and grounded in realism.

From what you have written about your game in this thread....I think the confusion everyone is having interfacing with your proposed rule change is that you aren't playing 5e anymore. You are playing a seriously houseruled system that once was 5e and is no longer bears much resemblance. Because of this it changes discussing just one rulechange for 5e into two different discussions...how it affects your houseruled post apocalyptic realism game versus baseline 5e heroic fantasy. I think everyone here is discussing how your rule chance would affect baseline 5e because we have no idea what kind of game you are playing.

 

[Jd Smith1]

From what you have written about your game in this thread....I think the confusion everyone is having interfacing with your proposed rule change is that you aren't playing 5e anymore. You are playing a seriously houseruled system that once was 5e and is no longer bears much resemblance. Because of this it changes discussing just one rulechange for 5e into two different discussions...how it affects your houseruled post apocalyptic realism game versus baseline 5e heroic fantasy. I think everyone here is discussing how your rule chance would affect baseline 5e because we have no idea what kind of game you are playing.

Other than the combat system I use the 5e system largely intact.

The game identifies as 5e, so therefore your allegation is immoral and unwoken. And probably racist.

 

[practicalm]

You say your goal is to reduce HP bloat but you do so in an unfair and uneven way.
You claim you want realism but decide to play one of the most unrealistic combat systems for an RPG
I personally don't care what you do to damage your game but the concept of HP bloat is D&D and there are so many other better ways to fix it.

 

[Umbran]

The game identifies as 5e, so therefore your allegation is immoral and unwoken. And probably racist.

Mod Note:

Did you figure that because you started the thread, you'd not get booted from it for inappropriate commentary? Think again. No more of that, please and thank you.

 

[Blue]

Alternative thought. Every time your proficiency goes up, you drop a die size rolled for HPs. Lower than d4 is d1 (but it still adds CON), and then d0 (no CON).

Keeps the high HP classes more relevant, handles multiclassing as well.

 

[Jd Smith1]

You say your goal is to reduce HP bloat but you do so in an unfair and uneven way.
You claim you want realism but decide to play one of the most unrealistic combat systems for an RPG
I personally don't care what you do to damage your game but the concept of HP bloat is D&D and there are so many other better ways to fix it.

I don't see it as unfair. It affects everyone equally and evenly.

As to realism, 5e only needs a bit of adjustment. Its core concepts of abstracting the parries, fients, footwork, and so on into the probability that only one or two blows may connect in a period of six seconds is plausible. Limiting the number of hit points and increasing the damage done by weapons does bring the mortality of the game into a reasonable balance while keeping playing speed high. Toss in A&8s ranged attack system (which is d20 based), a better critical system, rules on bleeding, suppression, armor soak, and toss out ranged and AoE healing, and you've got a system that isn't half bad.

At this point I'm just looking at the nap=healing rule, which my player seldom use anyway, and a couple smaller tweaks.

I'm not saying I wouldn't drop 5e like a bad habit should a better system pop up, but it'll do for now. And even if I find a better system, I'll house-rule it, too.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Alternative thought. Every time your proficiency goes up, you drop a die size rolled for HPs. Lower than d4 is d1 (but it still adds CON), and then d0 (no CON).

Keeps the high HP classes more relevant, handles multiclassing as well.

Not bad at all. But I don't allow multi-classing, and hits points are fixed, not rolled for (at my table).

The key point is that I don't perceive any class as 'high HP'. Currently PCs get between 8-12 hps plus CON bonus per level, and feats.

The key to survival is not getting hit. And armor that soaks damage.