D&D 5E Hit points explained

[The Crimson Binome]

By spell? Not that I ever saw... (though I'm talking pretty much original 3e, no splats and no 3.5, as that's what I played)

The beginning of the end was the Close Wounds spell from the Miniatures Handbook, released on the cusp between editions. It was a 2d4 ranged heal that could be cast as an immediate action, in response to someone taking damage, and could reverse death if the healing brought someone above -10.

Prior to that, you needed inefficient metamagic feats.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Like me, you mean?

Exactly.

You mean, if someone's at <20 h.p. effect x works but they need to be at <10 h.p. for effect y to work, is that it?

If the threshold were current hps, yes. Rather like 5e Sleep, but I'd think there'd be some design space for variation...

By spell?

Mass Cure Wounds, for instance. Or by metamagic.

Less healing overall, maybe, but more in-combat healing and a much greater range of classes able to heal.

Not really, 5e in-combat healing is below 4e baseline (relatively speaking - 5e hp/damage scales more rapidly), and 3e potential (if you wanted it, but with the tendency to rocket tag, you probably didnt).

Classes that healed were pretty similar - Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin, & Ranger a bit, in both 3e & 5e. (4e omit Druid & Ranger, add Warlord & Shaman & Ardent &c - and anyone could Second Wind... though, you couldn't blow all your surges in one encounter...).

 

[Ratskinner]

Me, I look at it from an old-school almost Rogue-like approach where death and other extreme risks (level loss being one) are relatively frequent occurrences. Flip side: I don't mind there being means within the game to revive the dead, particularly at higher levels, and with some sort of hard outer limit (for example the 1e rule where the hard limit to the number of times you can be revived is your starting Con score).

I'm actually fairly flexible when it comes to game-styles, but I do like them to be somewhat internally consistent, or coherent with respect to playstyle. So, for example, if I'm playing a high-mortality high player-challenge game, I would want character replacement/generation procedures to be correspondingly quick/easy. I'm cheerful playing such a game as almost a board game, like "pick a guy". Conversely, if character creation is complicated or tedious, I want to know its worth something, and that all that detail will be relevant to the story/game. I see the system I suggested as serving that sort of narrative-central playstyle more directly than the old-school fantasy vietnam stuff.

 

[Harzel]

Yeah, I've thought about this a bit, for just this reason.

Currently, my (completely un-playtested) best take is to give each character "saves", which are lists of expendable "ways of not getting killed". (I feel justified in doing so, since I would wrap in both saving throws and HP into the same system.) Saves could come in a variety of flavors and degrees of specificity, although I'm not sure that its worth the effort to have a broad "Combat Reflexes" save as well as more specific "Parry" and "Dodge" saves. They could be sourced or modified by class, race, equipment etc. Thus, a wizard does not have so many "Combat Reflexes" saves for the swordfight, but he might have plenty of "Strength of Will" saves for resisting the siren (or what have you). Similarly, the rogue will have more "leap out of the way" saves than the typical fighter, who will have more "parry the blow" saves. Carrying a shield might give you a few "Take it on my shield" saves.

So long as a character has an unmarked "Save" which makes sense to use, they may mark that to avoid being killed by the incoming attack. The "final" saves would be the ones that have narrative "kick" as consequences for the character. So, maybe a shield has 4,
"take it on my shield" saves, but it also has a "Splintered my Shield!" save that stops the attack but destroys the shield. The "final" saves for characters would represent actual wounds and injury.

Benefits:
a) You actually know what happened when you didn't get killed or suffer the consequences.
b) Room for much specialization of equipment, race, class, etc.
c) You actually know when you are wounded, rather than "low on luck right now".
d) Could give narrative weight to downtime as a method to restore saves to equipment.

Drawbacks and questions:
a) Adds a decision point to the round...possibly many. -could slow combat
b) Tracking might be tedious. (dunno)
c) Not sure how the DM's side works, especially for mobs. Do the whole mass of goblin goobers get a mass of them to use? I don't think I want to 6 saves in 4 categories for all 16.
d) Inverse relationship between flavor specificity and utility. "I'm not dead, yet" is the ultimate save...and its like the current HP system

But that's just an idea I had kicking around.

Just to note - I think this is interesting; the questions below are not intended to be hostile even though some might sound 'pointed'.

Questions: (acknowledging that this is just a sketch, so not everything may have answers)

1. I think you answered this, but just to confirm - are there still attack rolls and only hits require the expenditure of saves to avoid consequences?
2. It sounds like not all saves would be applicable to all attacks, e.g., you can't parry a fireball. But what does the applicability mapping look like? I mean its general properties, not complete details. In particular, are there a set of attack types that each have a set of saves that apply only to that attack type, or are there some saves that apply to multiple attack types? (The latter could lead to player decisions that are either 'interesting' or frustrating depending on tastes.)
3. You mention the possibility of a 'take it on my shield' save. If you had that, would shields then provide only that benefit (essentially DR), or would they still contribute to lessening the possibility of getting hit (AC)? Similarly would armor still be AC, or function as DR, or both?
4. Among the benefits you list 'You actually know when you are wounded, rather than "low on luck right now".' Are you pointing here only to the specificity of having different types of saves, or do you mean in addition that you see as a benefit excluding 'things like luck'? If the latter, then what is the criterion for including/excluding the various 'traditional' interpretations of hit points - that they have a very specific narrative associated with them?
5. With respect to "You actually know what happened when you didn't get killed or suffer the consequences." - it seems like it is a little more than this, since even with HP, the DM's narrative can tell you what happened. It seems like it is more that a) the player decides instead of the DM, b) there is now a fixed set of things that can happen, c) each thing can happen a fixed number of times, d) there is a tracking mechanism for what has happened. Which of those do you see as actual benefits vs. just accidents of how you happened to express the idea?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

After reading D&D 5e damage rules I concluded thus far:
Hitpoints 50% to 100%

• Describe fatigue from blocking and dodging attacks, you have not been really hit yet.

Hitpoints 0% to 50%

• Describe bruises you have gotten, next day you have a lot of bruises in your body.

Hitpoints 0

• Someone knocked you out, this is the first point where you have gotten some real damage.

All damage, slashing, bruising and piercing is actually bruising damage, same for magic. D6D is a PG-13 reality, nobody gets serious damage, or bleeds.
Death= serious coma, you seem dead, but are not.

Bleeding -> doesn't exist.

Even "reality rules" that slow down healing in DMG make healing pretty fast considering it's only bruising.

To me it's always been that the hit points you get at 1st level are your actual health. Everything else is mostly skill (whether it be more stamina, being able to avoid or lessen blows, etc.) and luck. The reason being, is that all of your additional hit points are based on level, which would imply skill.

0 hit points is dying. You are on death's door. If you don't recover a hit point you are dead.

It's also important to note that while somewhat realistic, since the dying rules applies only to PCs (and occasionally an important NPC), it's there as a safety valve, to reduce the number of times the PCs are actually killed, since the dice and circumstances can be unpredictable.

The fact that they also allow non-lethal damage to bring you to 0 hp to knock somebody unconscious is poor design in my opinion.

I've also never liked that (for the most part) there have never been consequences for taking actual damage, which is why I have always introduced some sort of injury/wound system in addition to the hit point system in my campaigns.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The thing that bugs me is why do I have to reduce a target to zero hit points to knock them out? If HP is measuring your ability to take blows (by actively dodging, deflecting etc) then knocking someone out should be much easier (if the circumstances are right of course).

Which is why I've home-ruled that it's a STR vs CON opposed check. Disadvantage if the target is larger and advantage if the target is smaller.

So if someone wants to sneak up and knock a guard out that's all they have to do. Of course if they fail then combat will most likely break out but at least they have a decent chance of succeeding without requiring an extended combat.

That's pretty similar to mine. Except it's either a Dexterity or Constitution saving throw, the DC is 8 + your attack modifier. They have advantage on the save if they are wearing a helm.

Once you are unconscious, I use the death save mechanic to regain consciousness. 3 successes you're conscious. 3 failures and you have to wait 1d20 minutes before your next save attempt.

 

[Lanefan]

Once you are unconscious, I use the death save mechanic to regain consciousness. 3 successes you're conscious. 3 failures and you have to wait 1d20 minutes before your next save attempt.

Brilliant!

I think I can adopt this into my current system without much work at all. Thanks!

 

[robus]

To me it's always been that the hit points you get at 1st level are your actual health. Everything else is mostly skill (whether it be more stamina, being able to avoid or lessen blows, etc.) and luck. The reason being, is that all of your additional hit points are based on level, which would imply skill.

0 hit points is dying. You are on death's door. If you don't recover a hit point you are dead.

It's also important to note that while somewhat realistic, since the dying rules applies only to PCs (and occasionally an important NPC), it's there as a safety valve, to reduce the number of times the PCs are actually killed, since the dice and circumstances can be unpredictable.

The fact that they also allow non-lethal damage to bring you to 0 hp to knock somebody unconscious is poor design in my opinion.

I've also never liked that (for the most part) there have never been consequences for taking actual damage, which is why I have always introduced some sort of injury/wound system in addition to the hit point system in my campaigns.

I like the idea that it's tracking increasing skill but I still think a hit "hits". So your skill turns a lethal blow into some much more minor: a scratch instead of losing an arm, a bruise instead of caved in ribs etc.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I like the idea that it's tracking increasing skill but I still think a hit "hits". So your skill turns a lethal blow into some much more minor: a scratch instead of losing an arm, a bruise instead of caved in ribs etc.

Overall I agree. A glancing blow, etc. But it's also a factor of wearing you down, so I'm OK with occasional blows being described as a hit that you turned to a near miss. In all honesty, we don't typically describe every swing or attack anyway. It's fun and interesting enough initially, but after 30 years it gets a little old and repetitive.

--

I just thought of a variation on use of hp today, and haven't really finalized how it might work in my campaign.

First, it's important to know that at the end of a long rest in my campaign (whether you regain all hp or not), instead of gaining 1/2 of your HD, you roll them, add your Constitution modifier, and that becomes your hit point pool for the day.

When you take a short rest, you automatically heal from this pool, although things like magical healing, bardic inspiration, etc. happen first if appropriate, so you're not draining your pool. In addition, in my campaign, if you are at 50% of your hit points or less, you have to make a Constitution saving throw each round to avoid becoming overexerted, which is the equivalent of 1 level of exhaustion, although you recover it with about 10 minutes of rest.

So, here's the new thought, based on the hp pool mechanic:

When you spend a round in combat dodging and don't take any damage, you regain 1d6 hp from your hit point pool.

The thought is to encourage people to take a break from active combat to recover and regroup (which is something real people do). A big part of this is that I'm trying to encourage players to use more real-world type tactics, and reward the use of those tactics. Catching your breath and looking for a better opening is a big one that's hard to encourage.

As I said, I haven't worked out the details just yet, but that's the concept.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Brilliant!

I think I can adopt this into my current system without much work at all. Thanks!

As I've said before, the exhaustion track and the death saving throw mechanics are two of the most useful mechanics in 5e. I use them for many, many things. For example:

Ability Damage - 3 failures and you regain one point, 3 failures and the point is permanently lost. One save per day, so it's a long term effect in any event.

Wounded (aka bleeding): Uses the exhaustion track, 3 saves and you improve 1 step, 3 fails and you lose one step. One save at the start of each of your turns.

Injured: Same as wounded, but one check daily, so they can last a long time.

Diseased: Same as injured, just a different condition and you suffer whatever impact the disease has in addition to the level of exhaustion.

To combat the "popping up after 0 hp" you suffer 1 level of injury, plus 1 level for each failed death save when you are reduced to 0 hp. Severe, although not as severe as the AD&D requiring a full week of rest, even if you received magical healing (of less than a Heal spell).

I like there to be consequences, but the game must continue as well.