OneDnD Gain 1 exhaustion when dropping to 0hp?

Gain 1 exhaustion when dropping to 0hp?

  • Yes, make 0hp scary again.

    Votes: 49 72.1%
  • No, one more annoying thing to keep track of.

    Votes: 10 14.7%
  • Something else

    Votes: 9 13.2%

mellored

Adventurer
The players would then know because they (or an ally) were hit one or more times & can make some estimations based on that along with how the GM describes the attack.
That requires experience for the players and GM. Which is not really a newbie friendly approach to learn by killing characters.
Nor really a good role playing either to use players knowledge.
Squishy characters like a wizard were by extension squishy
I was a rogue. Still wouldn't want to be one-shot as a wizard either.

Again. I am aiming for losing the mission, not the character.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
That requires experience for the players and GM. Which is not really a newbie friendly approach to learn by killing characters.
Nor really a good role playing either to use players knowledge.
You do know that people play games other than one off one shots right? For example, my current campaign has been going over a year & that's pretty average for me.
I was a rogue. Still wouldn't want to be one-shot as a wizard either.
The gameplay benefit is not in getting one shot, the gameplay benefit lies in players being proactive to avoid risks when they know they are squishy due to low HP or character build choices that make them squishier than others.
Again. I am aiming for losing the mission, not the character.
So no options should be discussed or exist for anyone to use in their game if those options do not meet the desires of @mellored specifically? Does this extend beyond games you play in to cover games that anyone else might run even when those games do not include you?
 

mellored

Adventurer
You do know that people play games other than one off one shots right?
Of course.
but you do know that eveyone start as a new player right?
The gameplay benefit is not in getting one shot, the gameplay benefit lies in players being proactive to avoid risks when they know they are squishy due to low HP or character build choices that make them squishier than others.
-10 does both. Makes low HP scary, and can have characters die in one shot.

Current 5e doesn't care about low HP, but can't be one shoted.

Exhaustion cares about low HP, but can't be one shot.
So no options should be discussed or exist for anyone to use in their game if those options do not meet the desires of @mellored specifically?
We have been discussing it. Am I not allowed to tell you the goals behind my suggestion, or point out issues I have with previous versions?

If you have a better way to make 0HP scary, but not risk one shot, then please go ahead and post it.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
The effects of exhaustion need better − more versatile − effects. But yeah. Zero hit points incurs an Exhaustion level.
 

aco175

Legend
I like the idea in certain campaigns. The published books run at a speed that a PC cannot take a few days off to recover each week without the BBEG finishing his plan over the world. Unless the game only runs at the speed of plot. I can see it in more gritty games or episodic games where you have a new mission each game and could rest days before that mission started. Of course, that may take some of the fear out of it.

Would this punish fighter-types more? I can see people arguing that fighters now suck and need a boost. It takes away from the hero PC and makes them more mortal- like a farmhand I was before I became 1st level.
 

mellored

Adventurer
Would this punish fighter-types more?
I could certainly see some classes getting a bonus vs exhaustion.

I.e. proficiency times per long rest, when you use second wind, you remove a level of exhaustion.
Or Berserkers might ignore the exhaustion penalty to attack rolls.
The test ranges get to remove 1 exhaustion per short rest
The published books run at a speed that a PC cannot take a few days off to recover each week
Best avoid falling to 0 repeatedly then.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Combined with the recover 1 per long rest and we're back to the 'wonderful' days of wasting for-freaking-ever convalescing to avoid the unnecessary death spiral.
 

payn

Legend
So, basically the PF2 system. It's a fine option with the exception that it doesn't make death saves more difficult.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I picked Other.

It's No, but it's not "No, one more annoying thing to keep track of". It's "No, because it's a bad idea".

D&D is a team game. A character going down is rarely their sole fault, it's a team failure. A tank that was too good at their job of blocking all the foes and took too many hits so they go down. Or a tank that wasn't as good and let a foe get to a low AC & HP member of the party. A cleric that prioritized healing one party member over another and it was the wrong choice. Or just bad luck on getting critted or some failed saves. Having some sort of detriment to whack-a-mole healing (which is intentional in 5e) I can see. But having it last all day (or multiple days) affecting one player when they may not have had a lot to do with them going down is punitive.

But more importantly, front line is a valid and needed niche. Being willing to get hit and be in the fray, even if it's a heavily armored cleric who isn't using melee, is a definite thing in D&D. But, as the ones getting attacked the most they are the ones most likely go down to when luck runs poorly. You most often are punishing a player for making a choice to play a character that protects others. The melee battlemaster and the archer battlemaster are just as resilient, but one will be targeted a heck of a lot more. So you are handing out a penalty that discourages selfless play - that's the exact opposite of what I want to encourage at my table.

TL;DR: this is a bad rule that can target the wrong person, lasts punitively long, and works to make the table act less like I want it to. It's not just a "No, it's annoying to track", it's a "Heck No, it's a Red Flag about the DM".
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
The effects of exhaustion need better − more versatile − effects. But yeah. Zero hit points incurs an Exhaustion level.
I realize the new rules for Exhaustion in the 1dd Expert playtest solves the problem.

The "Exhausted condition" simply impairs all d20 tests and spell DCs.

It makes narrative sense for a character that is recovering from reaching zero hit points thus incurring a lifethreatening injury, to incur the Exhausted condition.
 

Clint_L

Hero
In my home campaigns, if a character drops to 0 HP but survives, they have to roll on a critical injury chart afterwards. Most of the injuries are not permanent (broken bones, concussions, etc.), but one just lost a hand. So they really try to avoid going to 0 HP. It raises the stakes.
 

Olrox17

Hero
I like the idea, but I think there's more to consider.
In 5e right now, a character could feasibly go from level 1 to 20 without ever meeting exhaustion once, and the game reflects that: there are extremely few player mechanics mentioning exhaustion.
Exhaustion being applied on 0 hp would make it an extremely commonplace game mechanic, and there would need to be far more ways to deal with it, besides being a ranger or having greater restoration prepared.

Also, exhaustion would probably need to be fully removed on long rests, to avoid the old annoying "we have to rest one week at the inn" trope.
 


CubicsRube

Hero
Supporter
I like the idea, but I think there's more to consider.
In 5e right now, a character could feasibly go from level 1 to 20 without ever meeting exhaustion once, and the game reflects that: there are extremely few player mechanics mentioning exhaustion.
Exhaustion being applied on 0 hp would make it an extremely commonplace game mechanic, and there would need to be far more ways to deal with it, besides being a ranger or having greater restoration prepared.

Also, exhaustion would probably need to be fully removed on long rests, to avoid the old annoying "we have to rest one week at the inn" trope.
My preference with the new rules would be to regain all exhaustion, but only half hp on a long rest.

Then liberally sprinkle exhaustion all over the place!
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
I like the idea, but I think there's more to consider.
In 5e right now, a character could feasibly go from level 1 to 20 without ever meeting exhaustion once, and the game reflects that: there are extremely few layer mechanics mentioning exhaustion.
Exhaustion being applied on 0 hp would make it an extremely commonplace game mechanic, and there would need to be far more ways to deal with it, besides being a ranger or having restoration prepared.

Also, exhaustion would probably need to be fully removed on long rests, to avoid the old annoying "we have to rest one week at the inn" trope.
Why would players "need" the ability to trivially neutralize a new mechanic that scales back an excess bordering on creating a moral hazzard in pc risk management?

I think that your post kind of highlights the impossible position that 5e corners GMs in by turning so many dials to such an extreme player insulating excess then claiming that the gm is made free to make changes & houserule stuff as a result of those dials . Without room for any sort of broad level give & take in changes & houserules or wotc backed options any effort to do so is quickly met with a an entitled demandike "well if your dialing back on x dial you need to give me something that keeps x at the same setting" leading to "why are we changing this for the gm when we just undo the impact of their pointless change immediately?"

So why is it needed for players to have more ways of removing exhaustion? Why are potions & scrolls not enough to supplement existing spells for it? Why must the players not be at risk of needing multiple days rest?
 
Last edited:

TL;DR: this is a bad rule that can target the wrong person, lasts punitively long, and works to make the table act less like I want it to. It's not just a "No, it's annoying to track", it's a "Heck No, it's a Red Flag about the DM".
Our table's frontline PCs use the dodge tactic to keep enemies at bay and occupied while conserving health while the softer targets disable and hurt the enemy. And next round they switch tactics if they see the enemy is trying to rush past them to hurt the softer targets. The wrong person is seldom victimised in my experience.

Punitively long depends on how one has shaped their rest and recovery system. There are those that like the increased length of time added to the storyline as it better allows for time to be an issue rather than rush through the module in a week because of the x encounters/day. I can though see that someone who follows the x encounters/day may not like such a system.

Annoying to track? More so than hit points? I do find it hard to believe that a 6-bar track is harder than HD and hit points.
As it is the Exhaustion track sees very limited use in the std game which is a shame I feel.
 
Last edited:

Olrox17

Hero
Why would players "need" the ability to trivially neutralize a new mechanic that scales back an excess bordering on creating a moral hazzard in pc risk management?

I think that your post kind of highlights the impossible position that 5e corners GMs in by turning so many dials to such an extreme player insulating excess then claiming that the gm is made free to make changes & houserule stuff as a result of those dials . Without room for any sort of broad level give & take in changes & houserules or wotc backed options any effort to do so is quickly met with a an entitled demandike "well if your dialing back on x dial you need to give me something that keeps x at the same setting" leading to "why are we changing this for the gm when we just undo the impact of their pointless change immediately?"

So why is it needed for players to have more ways of removing exhaustion? Why are potions & scrolls not enough to supplement existing spells for it? Why must the players not be at risk of needing multiple days rest?
It’s all a matter of what we want to accomplish, really.

If the idea is to “punish”, so to speak, constantly going to 0 hp and back, the exhaustion rule works even if we then give more ways to get rid of it, through the expenditure of limited resources like spell slots (lesser restoration is currently very weak and could use a boost) and hit dice, or specialized class features (like the ranger one).

However, if the idea is to make to game more challenging than it currently is, and/or more simulationist, more “gritty” and “realistic”…then I believe such rule wouldn’t be appropriate for your average high-magic high-heroism d&d campaign. In this case, I would oppose making such a rule standard, and I’d rather see it be presented as a variant, or an optional module.
 

However, if the idea is to make to game more challenging than it currently is, and/or more simulationist, more “gritty” and “realistic”…then I believe such rule wouldn’t be appropriate for your average high-magic high-heroism d&d campaign. In this case, I would oppose making such a rule standard, and I’d rather see it be presented as a variant, or an optional module.
Agreed. Our experience has shown this rule is only effective with a combination of other changes that would need to be made. First off would be IMO a slower recovery rate. This will also play a role on how time will affect the stories you will to tell/create.
 

rules.mechanic

Craft homebrewer
Agreed. Our experience has shown this rule is only effective with a combination of other changes that would need to be made. First off would be IMO a slower recovery rate. This will also play a role on how time will affect the stories you will to tell/create.
strongly agree. With the current 5e design philosophy I think multiple ways to recover exhaustion might well need to be the default option in the same way as hp and HD. Those of us who like a bit of continuity from one session to the next and the ability for players to make meaningful decisions in life-risking situations, may need to thumb to the DMG for more immersive recovery options.
 

Andvari

Adventurer
Death at negative10 was also an optional rule in one of the 2e books & maybe earlier, it was not just a 3.x thing.
Yes, it was in AD&D 1E. In regular D&D and AD&D 2E I believe you died immediately at 0 HP, though as you mention, the -10 buffer from 1E remained as an optional rule in 2E.

There weren't critical hits in 1E, so it was unlikely you'd take enough damage at low levels to outright die in one hit, even if you were low on HP when you got hit. On the other hand, in 3E you started with max HP while in AD&D you might start at 1 HP. Still, in 3E a lucky hit from an orc could 1-shot kill you. (Greataxe for 3 x d12 damage).
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top