D&D (2024) Gain 1 exhaustion when dropping to 0hp?

[Clint_L]

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]

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.

 

[Olrox17]

double post

 

[CubicsRube]

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]

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?

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

 

[Olrox17]

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.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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]

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]

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).