Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 5814107" data-attributes="member: 59506">And that's true, but only for a low hit point character.  Also, what makes mere unconsciousness so much more desirable.  Typically it results in either captivity or a coup de grace (which in the end likely means you're dead anyways). Of course though, while this is happening to the low hit point character, the high hit point/high con tank is in a race to see which runs out first (hit points or wound points), which is almost as it's always been.  But the high hit point/low con warrior is almost certainly dying rather than becoming unconscious, and dying faster than if only hit points were used.  This might even be more complicated in 5E if they go with a system that doesn't only use Con as a bonus to hit points (such as using Dex for an agile warrior, Strength for a brute warrior, Intelligence for a smart warrior, etc. - there are systems that do something similar, I also use this as a houserule in my own house system, and just to emphasize again, it may end up being a part of 5E). So it's a mechanic that benefits low hit point characters only.  Maintains the status quo for high hit point/hich con characters.  And penalizes high hit point but low con characters.  It solves a percieved problem, but only for a percentage of characters, and creates even more problems for another percentage of characters. That's called disparity and inequity, and usually causes no end of griping and complaints about a system.  I can understand those that disliked the concept of balance that was incorporated into 4E.  Personally I like the concept of balance and equality between classes, but didn't like the way it was executed in 4E.  Other people liked 4E specifically for that sense of balance.  But whether one likes balance or not, I doubt you'll find too many takers for a mechanic that actually goes out of it's way to create imbalance.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /> The only way I see to fix this is to use a percentage of hit points to determine each characters individual "wound threshold", and if abilities other than Con end up being used in the system, then those abilities would need to be used to determine wound points also. And all of that adds up for me to an overly complicated addition to fix what most people don't see as a problem in the first place (especially as that seems to be the case from looking at the results of the poll, which seems to be showing the majority overwhelmingly against this mechanic as is - as of this time 37% completely against, 36% who might like it with changes, and only 24% unequivocally in favor of it). I understand the idea behind this mechanic, and I understand the motivation.  I've wrestled with this very same conflict myself.  But I think it needs a lot of work before being an usable mechanic.  It needs to address the disparity it generates, and yet still needs to be as simple as is presented in the OP (or even more so).  Right now, it's not there.  Personally, I really don't see how it's possible for this mechanic to accomplish both of those goals.  But I'd definitely be interested in a mechanic that did.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification