D&D 5E The "everyone at full fighting ability at 1 hp" conundrum

[Lanefan]

Based on feedback to various threads, I think house rules are fairly minimal. Certainly less than what we did with the older editions.

At least that's been my (limited) experience.

The only place I've noticed much ongoing call for 5e house rules, at least in here, is rest and recovery rates. There's been occasional discussion about initiative, but that's the same issue 3e and 4e had, and the fixes are the same now as they were then.

That said, I've no real handle on how easy/hard 5e is to kitbash in practice. In theory, and going by what was promised during playtest, it's supposed to be easy...but is it, really? Have any of you tried any serious revisions of 5e's rules, and how did it go?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Based on feedback to various threads, I think house rules are fairly minimal. Certainly less than what we did with the older editions.

That'd be tragic, after all the compromise, effort & sacrifices for DM Empowerment, if few DMs were actually taking full advantage.

That said, I've no real handle on how easy/hard 5e is to kitbash in practice. In theory, and going by what was promised during playtest, it's supposed to be easy...but is it, really?

It is, yes. But I suppose you don't really need to do it formally - the game leaves you so much latitude to call things on the fly.

 

[3catcircus]

That's one unlucky MU.

With those stats I'd have gone with MU (remember in 1e it goes S-I-W-D-Co-Ch) if I had to leave them in order; Int 16 gives a perfectly playable MU, Wis 6 makes it fun as hell, low Con doesn't matter so much for a MU and Str 17 meant it'd have some possible melee use at very low levels as well.

This is certainly a factor, yes.

Yep. Amazing what happens when the DM reads the monster manual and it says that it is possible to have a vampiric thief, cleric, etc. So he decided the background for his BBEG was a vampiric magic-user. Energy drain, able to cast feeblemind, and equipped with a necklace of missiles.

Good times...

As to the idea of the glass-jawed fighter, I seem to recall he was played as a bit of a nebbish due to the high intelligence and low(er) Charisma.

 

[Oofta]

The only place I've noticed much ongoing call for 5e house rules, at least in here, is rest and recovery rates. There's been occasional discussion about initiative, but that's the same issue 3e and 4e had, and the fixes are the same now as they were then.

That said, I've no real handle on how easy/hard 5e is to kitbash in practice. In theory, and going by what was promised during playtest, it's supposed to be easy...but is it, really? Have any of you tried any serious revisions of 5e's rules, and how did it go?

I would agree with the resting/healing as one of the biggest adjustments people make. But even that is pretty cosmetic.

But real modifications? We've never seen much progress here. People throw out ideas but nothing seems to stick.

 

[Lanefan]

It is, yes. But I suppose you don't really need to do it formally - the game leaves you so much latitude to call things on the fly.

Some things are bigger than one can just "call on the fly", though. A few quick examples:

Adding a new class or redesigning an existing one from scratch (looking at you, Ranger)
Putting some 1e mechanics back in e.g. level drain, clerics-v-undead, saving throws based on source, etc.
Adopting a body-fatigue hit point system and-or negative hit points
Putting some 4e forced-movement mechanics back into combat

Is any of this doable without having to chase down and fix knock-on effects until the cows come home?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Adding a new class or redesigning an existing one from scratch (looking at you, Ranger)

Prettymuch adding up hp/damage equivalencies by spell level. Weave seen MM in the process, it's not that involved... doesn't exactly inspire confidence, but not that involved. Still, more work than seems worthwhile in most cases, compared to maybe working up a sub-class - which, MM also illustrates by, well, not giving us new classes for 5 years. ;P

Putting some 1e mechanics back in e.g. level drain, clerics-v-undead, saving throws based on source, etc.
Adopting a body-fatigue hit point system and-or negative hit points

Clerics do still turn undead. Saving throws are based on source, I think you mean fixed save DCs, so saves only get better - just apply proficiency to all saves. Elaborate hp alternatives, as hard as ever, I'd say - but negative hps? No problem, just drop 'em in in place of death saves and heal-from-0 - sound like an improvement, honestly.

Putting some 4e forced-movement mechanics back into combat

They're already there - Thundewave, for the big instance, because, if anyone's going to get something cool that's been largely cut from the prior ed, it's /gonna be the wizard/ - there's just on convenient shorthand, jargon, or general rules. If you go to the trouble of writing it out in that same paradigm, it'd be tedious, tho.

Is any of this doable without having to chase down and fix knock-on effects until the cows come home?

Yep, because you can prettymuch hand-wave such issues as they come up.
DM Empowerment FTW.

 

[Lanefan]

Prettymuch adding up hp/damage equivalencies by spell level. Weave seen MM in the process, it's not that involved... doesn't exactly inspire confidence, but not that involved. Still, more work than seems worthwhile in most cases, compared to maybe working up a sub-class - which, MM also illustrates by, well, not giving us new classes for 5 years. ;P

Sorry, something's not parsing here - "MM"?

Magic Missile?
Monster Manual?
Mike Mearls?
Mini Me?

Clerics do still turn undead.

Yes, but not using the very elegant matrix that I've always seen as one of 1e's best mechanics.

Saving throws are based on source, I think you mean fixed save DCs, so saves only get better - just apply proficiency to all saves.

As in, saves v spell being different than saves v breath weapon being different than saves v poison/death, etc.?

 

[Garthanos]

an prettymuch hand-wave such issues as they come up.
DM Empowerment FTW.

You got me mostly agreeing with Lanefan on this one.. a ton of the things are loads of work and pretending the DM declaring arbitrarily is anything giving tactical choices due to the variety of induced movement is just faking it.

Not that @Lanefan and I always completely disagree but.

 

[3catcircus]

I would agree with the resting/healing as one of the biggest adjustments people make. But even that is pretty cosmetic.

But real modifications? We've never seen much progress here. People throw out ideas but nothing seems to stick.

Given that Gygax himself indicated that hit points mostly represent luck/hero factor/whatever, and all of the character classes stopped increasing HD around 9th level in prior editions, only adding a small fixed number of hit points plus CON bonus after that and given that going below 0 hit points was an optional rule in earlier editions, one could consider a trip point that says "this many hit points represents meat, the rest is luck."

The issue I have with 5e isn't just that you are 100% until you hit 0 hp, its that you can't be killed until your damage goes to negative your max hit points. You've effectively doubled the scale for hit points and you've made it so that the need for magical healing or a believable period of rest is almost non-existent.

So - a PC that goes into the negative hp region from damage, but not enough to exceed their hp maximum remains at 0 hp and the rest of that damage just vanishes into the ether. Additional attacks have to do at least that PCs maximum hit points in damage to cause death; otherwise it just results in a failed death save - so you'd need at least three attacks to kill an unconscious PC, which seems ridiculous. If that PC takes no more attacks and then stabilizes, and no other healing occurs, they regain 1 hp in 1d4 hours. So they can go from unconscious and on death's door to 1 hp and full capability in as little as 1 hour, even though we know some of those hp represent meat per Gygax. They can choose to "power up" by taking a short rest, for just one hour more and potentially regain all lost hit points (for argument's sake, I'll assume they burn all HD and recover half of their total hp). They could then take a long rest for only six hours, restore all hit dice spent during their one hour short rest and all lost hit points. So - from one foot in the grave to not a scratch on 'em in 8 hours?

In my mind, if you don't want to inflict injuries that impact your combat effectiveness as you lose hit points, given the extremely lax healing rules in 5e, why even bother to keep track of hit points to begin with?

You want to keep the healing rules as-is, there needs to be some type of consequences for taking damage in combat for the encounter to have any impact whatsoever. In 1e or BECMI, everything was at stake at all times. As the game has progressed through the various editions to become "more tactical," players can be less tactical because the consequences of tactical failure have become less and less.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The issue I have with 5e isn't just that you are 100% until you hit 0 hp, its that you can't be killed until your damage goes to negative your max hit points.

Oh, you absolutely can be. You don't track negative hps and accumulate down to your negative max. It's just, low-level critters can be instantly killed if you hit them for that much all at once. Once you're down, additional hits inflict automatic death save failures. Y'only get 3 of those.

You want to keep the healing rules as-is, there needs to be some type of consequences for taking damage in combat for the encounter to have any impact whatsoever.

They consume healing resources - HD, and, more importantly spell slots.