D&D 5E D&D Next Blog - A Close Call with Negative Hit Points

[Sunseeker]

But 4E had one for going under 50% HP that was massively underused.

Bloodied was awesome. I hope they bring that death spiral back.

Because it wasn't always a punishment. It also gave some bonuses.

But a death spiral in which you lose health, then lose con, so you have less health to lose in the future, and then lose more con more easily is a bad death spiral.

I liked the idea of treating serious injuries like a cornered animal, you become more dangerous but at a cost.

 

[JonWake]

So, I've been running a PF game with Wounds/Vitality for the past four months, and I'm actually going to revert to a straight HP system. Why? Well, it actually increases grind to a fairly significant degree, makes book keeping just slightly more unwieldy, and borks magic healing. The intention was to make combat more dangerous, with the threat of death omnipresent for even high level characters. In practice, it increases the layers of abstraction for the players, making it harder for them to conceptually grasp their robustness or fragility.

Put it this way: they have an easier time understanding a finite number of HPs that, if gone, spell doom than a finite number of HPs that, if gone, roll over into a finite number of HPs.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I've got nothing against death spirals if they are consciously chosen and work as intended. Anyone going to that trouble to put in the death spiral will probably also put in enough design information or transparent mechanics that I can tweak it or even get rid of it, easily.

Death spirals that result from a designer using stuff that sounds like it will simulate some version of their preferred reality, without any serious thought dedicated to how it plays, no.

 

[Meophist]

I don't like some of the death spiral rules you guys are proposing. I think there are good reasons to avoid layering on penalties to characters who have been knocked down once or twice (or even more).

It can cause an overall loss of enjoyment to know that not only have you had the crap beat out of you, but also now you're going to be ineffective for the rest of the game, making it easier for the crap to get beat out of you, and so on, spiral spiral spiral.

I think it's a good idea to have some lasting penalties for taking damage in battle, although there's little reason they have to be permanent(unless you're going for a super-gritty style of play, which shouldn't be default). As long as they can be recovered from, even if it takes time, it's not a death spiral. There should be some incentive to not playing completely stupidly.

There are good reasons that no version of D&D has ever slapped big penalties on characters for dropping below zero hp.

Character death is somewhat of a big penalty. If you don't have a healer or potions, losing even a bit of hit points can mean spending a lot of time healing up.

 

[Hassassin]

I think it's a good idea to have some lasting penalties for taking damage in battle, [snip]

How about losing hit points? That makes it likelier you to die from the next hit.

 

[Meophist]

How about losing hit points? That makes it likelier you to die from the next hit.

Yes it does. The entire situation is complicated, but one "goal" to keep in mind is to have healing classes useful without making it too difficult to go without. Additionally, having both short-term tension within each battle while having long-term attrition in mind. Having a two-step "hit point" model is the easiest way of achieving these goals. If you don't, sacrifices need to be made somewhere.

 

[mudbunny]

I wonder if one could tweak the con loss suggestions above as follows:

Your Con score is the number of rounds that you can survive at 0 HP. When you get to zero, you start tracking the number of rounds. When you get healed, you keep note of that number. Perhaps, one could have a modifier as to the number of rounds one can spend at HP before starting to track rounds coming from the main stat for the character (not class).

That track gets reset every time you go up a level, or reach a major milestone in a campaign. In addition, you can go back one slot on the track by spending a day without any significant physical exertion, or by having a healing spell directed towards that, as opposed to your HP.

 

[Rechan]

There are good reasons that no version of D&D has ever slapped big penalties on characters for dropping below zero hp.

In some editions you died at 0 HP. I'd say that's a big penalty.

 

[Rechan]

Call me lazy, but I don't want to track con damage. I don't like having more descending pools of HP.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

So far the two winning options are essentially the same. Either healing always starts from zero or hit points never go below zero (therefore healing always starts at zero).

Is this a commentary on mathematics? Negative numbers are annoying?

Negative hit points are kind of like THAC0. They work mathematically, and can be visualized effectively on a number line, but require two levels of abstraction.

The first level is that negative numbers are, in fact, an abstraction. We can visualize positive numbers as physical objects. They can be counted. But negative numbers only exists in comparisons and rate of change. They never represent static objects, so our visualizations of them require false abstractions.

The second level is to then apply negative numbers to represent how close you are to being dead. So, as you take further damage, you're mathematically counting down, but mentally counting up.

All these mental gymnastics are uncomfortable, even if they aren't that difficult.

In defense of negative hit points, the current system is very simple when looked at as a health bar:

HP: ooooo ooooo | ooooo ooooo ooooo oo (17)

Start at the right. That's full health. When you reach the line, you're disabled. When you reach the end, you're dead. It's only when expressed in words that the concept becomes annoying.

One thing we can do is simply give negative hit points the THAC0 treatment. Make them positive. Call them wound points. When you run out of hit points, you start taking wound points at the same rate. When you run out of wound points, you're dead. It's functionally identical, and more clearly represents something.

At the same time, it seems like a separate mechanic. A complication. Especially in a world filled with games where running out of hit points means you die. But it's clear that most people want something between fully able and dead. That requires some level of complication.

 

[Sunseeker]

I wonder if one could tweak the con loss suggestions above as follows:

Your Con score is the number of rounds that you can survive at 0 HP. When you get to zero, you start tracking the number of rounds. When you get healed, you keep note of that number. Perhaps, one could have a modifier as to the number of rounds one can spend at HP before starting to track rounds coming from the main stat for the character (not class).

That track gets reset every time you go up a level, or reach a major milestone in a campaign. In addition, you can go back one slot on the track by spending a day without any significant physical exertion, or by having a healing spell directed towards that, as opposed to your HP.

That would be a reasonable approach, reminds me of healing surges(though longer to regen). I would probably tack on heal checks in-combat "stabalizing" you so you no longer lose "con rounds" while at 0, but you're not up and in the action either.

 

[mudbunny]

That would be a reasonable approach, reminds me of healing surges(though longer to regen). I would probably tack on heal checks in-combat "stabalizing" you so you no longer lose "con rounds" while at 0, but you're not up and in the action either.

That would work. Important to note that for my suggestion, you aren't losing con or anything like that. Could also throw in a mechanic where one could burn a step or two along a track to do something awesome, like wrestle a dragon to the ground or overcharge a spell to do more damage, be more focused or something.

Edit to add (note that this edit was being written at the same time as shidaku's post, below) - I am not sure if an additional mechanic would be needed for wizards/priests who may have lower con, or if it would be too uneven if only Con was used. Might be a way to provide more balance at higher levels. Fighters could do more awesome feats without burning as much of their con track.

 

[Sunseeker]

That would work. Important to note that for my suggestion, you aren't losing con or anything like that. Could also throw in a mechanic where one could burn a step or two along a track to do something awesome, like wrestle a dragon to the ground or overcharge a spell to do more damage, be more focused or something.

Seems like it's almost a fatigue system, which is fine all around IMO.

 

[Hassassin]

In defense of negative hit points, the current system is very simple when looked at as a health bar:
[...]
One thing we can do is simply give negative hit points the THAC0 treatment. Make them positive. Call them wound points. When you run out of hit points, you start taking wound points at the same rate. When you run out of wound points, you're dead. It's functionally identical, and more clearly represents something.

Since the health bar already has three sections in 4e: unbloodied, bloodied and dying, they could just move the zero:

    v 5e zero?
dead|  dying |bloodied|unbloodied
    |00000000|00000000|00000000
             ^ 4e zero

 

[fuindordm]

I wrote the following as a comment there, but I'll repeat it here:
This means two things. First, that dropping to zero hit points means that a strike got through your defenses and caused a serious wound. Second, that most magical healing isn't really healing wounds (at least not major ones), but is instead refreshing the character's stamina and battle awareness.

So, when you drop to zero hit points, you're wounded, staggered, and bleeding out. You should also have to make a save to stay conscious.

Magical healing should stabilize you, and give you back hit points, but not remove your wounds.

Totally agree, and one of my DMs has been doing this ever since 2e. His rule: if you go negative, you take "shock damage" equal to the negative total. The damage is applied to Str, Dex, Con in that order. So for example,
if you go down to -2 and then are healed up, you can still fight but you lost one point of Str and one point of Con.

It could easily be replaced with a system of specific wounds, damage saves, or whatever you like.

 

[thedungeondelver]

AD&D had, optionally a system by which "-10" did not necessarily equal dead. It could, per the DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE mean that the character was maimed or disfigured (loss to CON or CHA, as appropriate) or suffered some other permanent disability after being revived.

Also, just as a refresher (and just to throw yet more variables in here), an AD&D DM has the option of:

0 hits = dead
or
Reduced to 0 hits = unconscious, "bleeding out". Unless aid is applied (stabilization, bandaging, a healing spell, etc.) death occurs at -10 hit points.
Reduced to -3 hits or more in a single blow = instantly killed.
Reduced to -4 hits or more in a single blow = instantly killed.

But even outside of that, yeah, the DM in AD&D has the option of 0 (or -3, -4 or -10) not equaling death. Grist for the mill.

 

[Mattachine]

Also, back then, Charisma was as much your character's appearance as his personality.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

You know, I think the Vitality and Wound system's biggest problem was that it dropped the term Hit Points, and so immediately felt wrong. But I bet that a little terminology change could give us the same flexibility and fix the negative hit point problem.

I propose the terms Hit Points and Vital Hit Points. Run out of the first, lose the second. Run out of the second and you're dead.

This way it's all just hit points, it caries a little clearer meaning, and it sends a signal to those that like Wounds and Vitality. Then variant rules can be applied to what happens when you take Vital Hit Point damage.

 

[JohnSnow]

There was also that it bypassed vitality on a critical hit. That was a bit too swingy.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You know, I think the Vitality and Wound system's biggest problem was that it dropped the term Hit Points, and so immediately felt wrong. But I bet that a little terminology change could give us the same flexibility and fix the negative hit point problem.

I propose the terms Hit Points and Vital Hit Points. Run out of the first, lose the second. Run out of the second and you're dead.

This way it's all just hit points, it caries a little clearer meaning, and it sends a signal to those that like Wounds and Vitality. Then variant rules can be applied to what happens when you take Vital Hit Point damage.

That's part of it, but a bigger problem is that as soon as you have the second type of thing as some kind of "points", you've already thrown away half of its resonance.

Think about it this way. Traditional hit points are a counter to determine how close you are to being in bad trouble. But until you run out, you keep fighting as well as you ever did. This is deliberate, and thus hit points are as much a pacing mechanism as a way of measuring health. (The "hit points should be actual damage" crowd like to ignore this point--and I mean ignore, as in, "won't address it" because they find it irrelevant.)

So part of the resistance to alternatives like, "damage saves" or soaking options is not only do they change how damage is taken and/or introduce wounds/death spirals, but they provide a whole lot of uncertainity in the pacing part.

However, if you are going to add a separate track to handling serious wounds and death in a mechanical fashion, suddenly uncertainity is a lot more acceptable! After all, the people that don't want it can normalize it away, and hit point pacing still works like it always did. The people who do want it, want something that is different in kind.

Postulate: A highly useful secondary mechanic for more handling more lethal results should not be any form of "points".

Edit: Completely agree with John Snow's point above. Another reason to make them different is to reinforce that any wound system can only touch pacing so much.