D&D 5E Embracing Hit Points as Fatigue

[Ratskinner]

I don't want to respond at length to the transcendent comments that amount to "why start this thread?" except to say that I prefer hit points as fatigue primarily for fluff/fiction reasons. In the version of heroic fantasy in my head the average character in a group of 4-6 does not get stabbed once per fight, much less 2-3 times per fight. Usually there are 1 or 2 notable wounds in a big fight and lots of little scrapes and bruises. That corresponds more closely to the frequency of crits or dropping below zero.

Very much this.

Which has the added bonus of possibly letting HP recover quickly, yet still making magical healing important for those moments when somebody is "really hurt". Thus removing the necessity of having a healer always around.

 

[DonAdam]

Without having read most of the replies, I'll comment on the original post: If I'm reading this right, one proposal is that, somehow, an attack becomes easier to dodge if it has poison on it?

That is, incurring a penalty to hit because you have to aim for the soft spots means that, somehow, the defender has to expend less energy (read "fatigue") dodging the blow.

That, on the surface, just seems wrong. It presumes, in fact, that the target always knows if a weapon or monster is poisonous.

Not easier to dodge (in terms of hp damage), harder to aim for, hence the penalty to hit. And that's only if you're bypassing the usual requirement of getting a crit in order to deliver the poison.

It presumes no knowledge on the part of the dodger. It's a choice made by the attacker. Think of it his way: if I aim at your torso, you have to move more to get out of the way. And if my aim is off, it's probably going to hit one of your extremities rather than miss entirely. Whereas if I aim specifically at your head, it's more likely I miss entirely. Just like the aiming system in Aces and Eights, really.

The monkey wrench in the mix comes when you consider targets that have a lot of hit points not because they're nimble or experience at dodging, but just because they're big and tough. Things where, in 3.5 terms, their Flat Footed AC is the same as their full AC. Their HP aren't the result of being experienced fighters or knowing how to minimize the blow, and the poisoned blade strikes deep every time. They may or may not have a good Fortitude/Poison save, regardless of their hit points.

Because their Hit Point/Level/AC/Save structure isn't the same as for a PC race, the rationale for how poison does or doesn't affect them gets harder to justify.

So "Hit points as Fatigue" is a great concept, for PC types who acquire "unnatural" levels of hit points through level advancement, but demands a heavy dose of "suspension of disbelief" when applied to creatures that have a lot of hit points because they're naturally big and tough.

Which brings us back to your "Wand of ignoring inconsistencies".

The sad fact is that HP, as they've always been played, by any rationale, pretty much requires that aforementioned magic item.

With big monsters, except in the case of vulnerabilities, I don't think this is an issue. Yes, there is a fiction exception that the arrows pepper the giant. But precisely in the situations where hit points are meat (rather than fatigue) it means there's lots of meat. So it should take a bigger dose or hitting a major vein to poison them. So the (assumed) standard solution of needing a crit still has a lot of verisimilitude.

 

[DonAdam]

I had a thought. What if additional effects had a minimum damage threshold to take effect equal t the target's level?

Thus, an 8th level character has to receive 8 points of damage for poison to take effect. Anything less isn't meat.

This is promisingly simple as well. I like it. You could level or even double level as the threshold probably.

My only concern is that it gives you something to check rather than something sticks out already (like a crit). But it has the advantage of being less swingy and allowing the special attacks to happen a bit more frequently.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Perhaps HP damage in such a system isn't the best way to model such a condition? Tasha's sounds more like AC, Attack, and Dex-check penalties to me.

Although in this case, I would argue that you could sustain a heart-attack, stroke, head injury, or seizure. I mean, it is magical laughter, innit?

Nonetheless, strictly non-damaging conditions can be handled in multiple ways in a hp=fatigue system including more traditional modifiers to movement, etc. and supplanting the standard wound conditions when 0hp kicks in. The only conditions that really matter in such a system are the SoD conditions. So for example, Hold Person might deal <X> damage and impose a movement penalty. If you are reduced to 0hp while still held, you freeze in place (or whatever) instead of rolling on the wound table. In the harder direction, being reduced to 0hp while engaging a Medusa means you've looked at her and are turned to stone. Whether that means she has some additional damage/round effect to represent the difficulty of fighting without looking is optional.

Just because 0 HP would represent any condition that takes you out of the fight doesn't mean that all conditions have to be represented that way.

I think it's fine that some attacks that reduce a character to zero hp aren't fatal. The "damage" can be remedied by a number of means. If you are petrified you need a flesh to stone spell, if you are laughing uncontrollably you need a short rest, if you sustain a slashing attack you need a band-aid and time to heal. Sometimes the remedy is suggested by itself but this can be catalogued too.

I'm no fan of conditions that alter a character's stats because it slows down the game and is sometimes conveniently forgotten about anyway. I'd rather see fewer hit points across the board. As I see it you either have hp or you suffer the attack.

The medusa is an interesting example. I agree it petrifies a character at zero hp. Avoiding the medusas gaze is no different than avoiding a marauder's axe. It should be part of the medusa's stats to begin with. I mean this game of ours features anything from rotgrub to dragons, it is a tall order to make simulationist rules for all of them.

Consider this: You are down to single digit hit points. I attack you with a disarm attack that sends you down to zero hp; your sword flies away. Now you have zero hp and no sword. Why won't you simply give up or runaway? By now I know I can do anything to you. I can chop off your head - or belt making you drop your pants. Maybe non-combatants have zero hp all the time?

Just think of the RP opportunities. Different classes would have access to different damage tags. Wizards would have sleep and fire attacks, rogues would have knock outs and non-lethal tags, fighters would have slashing, piercing, bludgeoning, disarming and pinning attacks.

Here is another example for you (thanks for reading): A dire wolf attacks a ranger carrying an axe and an empty hand. The ranger can make attacks that does 1d8 slashing or 1d3 grappling. If the ranger does grappling attacks the wolf is considered free from lock or hold until it drops below zero hp. The tactic for the ranger might be to wear the wolf out with the axe first and then grapple the animal to the ground as the wolf grows weaker.

Why bother having rules for grappling when we've managed to live without rules for clinch for forty years?

 

[Frostmarrow]

In fact we could have cure light wounds be the remedy for wounds caused slashing, bludgeoning, and piercing. Also if anyone recovers 1 hp per hour the same spell can also provide 1d8 hours worth of recovery. This takes care of the disconnect caused by high hp characters taking longer to fully heal than low hp characters - since it's not actually 'healing' anyway. Cure moderate and Cure critical would just remedy a wider range of wounds, perhaps caused by monsters such as being mauled, rended, or bitten (whatever).