D&D 5E Wounds - when would you give them?

[Laurefindel]

Assuming that the group really wants it: What triggers would you use to decide to give a player or enemy a wound, such as a break, sprain, etc...? Failed death saves? Critical Hits (maybe after a saving throw)? Taking damage that brings them below a certain threshold?

We don't use wounds, but I though of incorporating some sort of lasting injuries for a more Lord of the Ring-esque game that never happened.

I felt that suffering a critical hit happened too frequently, and that it shouldn't be systematic on going down to 0 hp so I had decided to trigger lasting injuries on failed death saves only (regardless of margin). Some failed saving throw/ability check could trigger one too, such as failing an Strength (Athletics) check after falling and at least one d6 produced a result of 6. Basically, there were triggers and then some sort of confirmation roll by player (death save, athletics check, Con saving throw, etc). I'd have to dig that document up.

I had also considered a system allowing players to willingly choose one lasting injury in exchange of remaining at 1 hp after taking damage or going back to 1hp when dying. It had the advantage of including more abstract injuries such as "smashed shield" or "killed mount". Each injury could only be taken once in a character's career. Death was even a possible choice allowing for the "it is too late for me my son, tell your sister you were right about me" trope when a player got through all possible outcomes, I guess? That system never passed the first draft stage.

I also heard of homebrew that triggered a lasting injury upon failing three death saves, whereas death was only one of the possible outcomes.

 

[5ekyu]

As a broad rule, statement of principle, I do not inflict as a matter of vourse persistent effects by dint of die rolls alone. There has to be an in- play acceptance or elevation of the risk by the characters.

So, there might be persistent penalties due to continued exposure to an exceptional hazard without protection. Perhaps it would be seen thst a given legendary foe has a notable risk that if not protected against can inflict these - not at all unlike some creatures can inflict reductions in max hp, sever limbs, swallow whole etc but along different lines.

As a rule these are exceptional, tend to be unique and often have references to counters.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Low level characters rarely take 20 damage from a hit (at level 1, this would be instant death for many characters). On the other hand, at higher levels it isn't unusual for many attacks to deal that kind of damage. If the wet-behind-the-ears squire never breaks his arm, while the legendary Herakles is perpetually walking around with both arms in slings, the system is producing weird and likely undesirable results.

I'm okay with the idea that any random chump is so incredibly weak that they would die outright from lesser impacts than would be required to break a bone. They would also die outright from any impact that is strong enough to break a bone.

I'm also okay with the idea that the legendary Herakles can survive incredible wounds, even if they are sufficient to break his bones. That's just a side-effect of enduring blows so powerful that they would outright kill a lesser person.

Based on the PHB description of injuries, there should barely be a scratch on him.

The PHB description of HP damage is that different DMs like to describe it differently, so it's going to vary from table to table. They give one example of a method that a DM could use, which is no less problematic than any other method.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm okay with the idea that any random chump is so incredibly weak that they would die outright from lesser impacts than would be required to break a bone. They would also die outright from any impact that is strong enough to break a bone.

I'm also okay with the idea that the legendary Herakles can survive incredible wounds, even if they are sufficient to break his bones. That's just a side-effect of enduring blows so powerful that they would outright kill a lesser person.

The problem isn't that Herakles can survive incredible blows that would kill a lesser man, but only injure him. It's that routine threats he will face are likely to injure him, unlike the case for a newbie adventurer.

Put it another way. A goblin with a club should arguably have a chance to break a wimpy level 1 wizard's arm, but can't (because even on a crit it can't deal 20 damage).

OTOH, if Herakles and his three best legendary buds decide to slum a bit and deal with some giants that are way below their CR, they will be taking injuries left and right (because those giants can regularly dish out 20 damage).

Sure, giants hit way harder than goblins. But if your system makes it massively more likely for the giants to break a legendary character's arm than a goblin is with some no-name wimp, it doesn't pass the smell test IMO.

Characters shouldn't grow weaker (compared to appropriate threats for their level) as they gain experience.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The problem isn't that Herakles can survive incredible blows that would kill a lesser man, but only injure him. It's that routine threats he will face are likely to injure him, unlike the case for a newbie adventurer.
[...]
Characters shouldn't grow weaker (compared to appropriate threats for their level) as they gain experience.

You seem to be assuming a lot of meta-game contrivance, to ensure that high-level characters only face high-level threats. If that's the case, then a flat damage threshold may not work for you.

Personally, I'm more concerned with how the world works in an objective sense, rather than a relative one. The giant will only break Herakles's arm, and has very little chance of killing him; where it would kill the chump outright. Herakles can also go stomp over an army of goblins with impunity, where the chump can't. This is consistent and believable, from a world-building standpoint.

So high-level enemies can reliably inflict the wounded condition. That's not inherently a bad thing. High-level enemies can inflict many conditions that low-level enemies cannot. Maybe the threshold should be 30 instead of 20, whatever.

High-level characters also have much more reliable access to high-level healing magic. If Herakles gets a broken bone, he can probably get it fixed without much hassle. Contrast to other methods of distributing wounds, such as percentage-based or critical hits: if a low-level chump suffers a wound whenever he takes six damage, or gets crit, then the player may well wish that he'd died, because he's going to have to live with that for a looong time.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You seem to be assuming a lot of meta-game contrivance, to ensure that high-level characters only face high-level threats. If that's the case, then a flat damage threshold may not work for you.

Personally, I'm more concerned with how the world works in an objective sense, rather than a relative one. The giant will only break Herakles's arm, and has very little chance of killing him; where it would kill the chump outright. Herakles can also go stomp over an army of goblins with impunity, where the chump can't. This is consistent and believable, from a world-building standpoint.

So high-level enemies can reliably inflict the wounded condition. That's not inherently a bad thing. High-level enemies can inflict many conditions that low-level enemies cannot. Maybe the threshold should be 30 instead of 20, whatever.

High-level characters also have much more reliable access to high-level healing magic. If Herakles gets a broken bone, he can probably get it fixed without much hassle. Contrast to other methods of distributing wounds, such as percentage-based or critical hits: if a low-level chump suffers a wound whenever he takes six damage, or gets crit, then the player may well wish that he'd died, because he's going to have to live with that for a looong time.

It's consistent if a goblin (or human thug) can't break your arm with a club whether you're level 1 or 20. IMO, it's not at all believable.

For me, it is important that an RPG work as a game, and not just as some internally consistent abstract. Consistency and believability certainly have merit, but only within the context of a functional game.

I believe that RPGs are meant to be played. That means that if the gameplay doesn't encourage the themes it is meant to, it is not a good RPG (irrespective of whether it is internally consistent and believable).

D&D is a heroic fantasy game. That means it should play like a heroic fantasy game. While it is certainly possible for a heroic fantasy hero to be injured, sometimes even severely, it's far from commonplace. If it happens at all, it'll probably be once in an entire novel. If your heroes have to make saves against every attack at high levels, then it's going to happen much more often than that.

Raising the threshold doesn't fix the issue. It just means that low level characters don't encounter the issue for that much longer, but that it still gradually increases to near constant at high levels. It doesn't make sense for Tim the Squire to never suffer a serious injury, while Herakles suffers them constantly. The player will feel like Herakles is the wuss while Tim is a hero. I rather think, if anything, it ought to be the opposite!

Additionally, Herakles is inventivized to fight armies of goblins (who have no chance of wounding him) but to avoid anything bigger like the plague (because such things are likely to wound him). That goes doubly so if the cleric can't make it this session. Is that really a desirable outcome?

If you're going to use a threshold, then IMO it needs to scale.

 

[Lanefan]

It's consistent if a goblin (or human thug) can't break your arm with a club whether you're level 1 or 20. IMO, it's not at all believable.

Consistency is what makes a setting believable. Without it, you're lost.

For me, it is important that an RPG work as a game, and not just as some internally consistent abstract. Consistency and believability certainly have merit, but only within the context of a functional game.

I believe that RPGs are meant to be played. That means that if the gameplay doesn't encourage the themes it is meant to, it is not a good RPG (irrespective of whether it is internally consistent and believable).

Where to me consistency and believability go a long way toward making the game functional and playable at all.

D&D is a heroic fantasy game.

For you, perhaps. Not for everyone, regardless of what the marketing blurbs might say; and one of the true beauties of the D&D system is that it can and does handle lots of other styles quite well.

That means it should play like a heroic fantasy game. While it is certainly possible for a heroic fantasy hero to be injured, sometimes even severely, it's far from commonplace. If it happens at all, it'll probably be once in an entire novel. If your heroes have to make saves against every attack at high levels, then it's going to happen much more often than that.

Raising the threshold doesn't fix the issue. It just means that low level characters don't encounter the issue for that much longer, but that it still gradually increases to near constant at high levels. It doesn't make sense for Tim the Squire to never suffer a serious injury, while Herakles suffers them constantly. The player will feel like Herakles is the wuss while Tim is a hero. I rather think, if anything, it ought to be the opposite!

Additionally, Herakles is inventivized to fight armies of goblins (who have no chance of wounding him) but to avoid anything bigger like the plague (because such things are likely to wound him). That goes doubly so if the cleric can't make it this session. Is that really a desirable outcome?

If you're going to use a threshold, then IMO it needs to scale.

Here I somewhat agree. The threshold shouldn't be how much actual damage you take but how that amount relates to your total at full.

So, if you rule that a wound is threatened if you take more than 50% of your total from a single source in a single attack (or spell) then it scales directly. Thus, if a 40 h.p. character takes 21 or more points of damage from any source at one go a wound is threatened.

However, what I'd do here is put a hard minimum on the amount required to threaten a wound (say, 10 points) so the very low-level wizard types don't have kittens breaking their arms, and a hard maximum on it (probably 40 points) beyond which a wound is threatened no matter what.

I'd stick with my earlier idea also: if damage takes you to or below a certain threshold below 0 h.p. you're getting a wound no matter what. What this might mean - and I'd be fine with this - is that if the auto-wound threshold was set at -10 and a 40-h.p. character with 6 h.p. left took 21 damage it could pick up two sets of wounds at once: one for sure, for going below -10, and another if the wound threatened by taking more than half total hit points is confirmed.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Consistency is what makes a setting believable. Without it, you're lost.

That's what the hobgoblin keeps telling me.

Assuming that the group really wants it: What triggers would you use to decide to give a PC or enemy a wound, such as a break, sprain, etc...? Failed death saves? Critical Hits (maybe after a saving throw)? Taking damage that brings them below a certain threshold?

Failed Death Saves.
In the case of the automatic failed death save for being hit while down, attacker's choice what kind of wound he gives you.
So if your thief is reduced to 0 hp, the outraged merchant can cut off his hand, for instance. Or if the brigands who capture your wizard for ransom don't want him casting any spells, they can remove his tongue and break all his fingers.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

For me, it is important that an RPG work as a game, and not just as some internally consistent abstract. Consistency and believability certainly have merit, but only within the context of a functional game.

I agree, and it doesn't make for a functional game if every level 1 character sustains a crippling injury from every attack. Scaling thresholds don't work, because low-level characters have too few HP compared to the damage of low-level enemies. If you set the threshold at half of maximum, then low-level characters may suffer multiple lasting injuries per day, while high-level characters never have to worry about it. There is no fraction which is reasonable for both groups.

D&D is a heroic fantasy game. That means it should play like a heroic fantasy game. While it is certainly possible for a heroic fantasy hero to be injured, sometimes even severely, it's far from commonplace. If it happens at all, it'll probably be once in an entire novel. If your heroes have to make saves against every attack at high levels, then it's going to happen much more often than that.

Slightly aside, but D&D isn't heroic fantasy. D&D is dungeon fantasy. Similar tropes still apply.

Keeping to genre, characters shouldn't be breaking an arm in every fight. That is something that only happens rarely. When it does, though, it's only late into the book. Nobody breaks their arm on the first day of the job, and then goes on to have their entire first adventure with a broken arm. You don't need a drama-preserving handicap when the character is already limited by being low level.

 

[Lanefan]

I agree, and it doesn't make for a functional game if every level 1 character sustains a crippling injury from every attack. Scaling thresholds don't work, because low-level characters have too few HP compared to the damage of low-level enemies. If you set the threshold at half of maximum, then low-level characters may suffer multiple lasting injuries per day, while high-level characters never have to worry about it. There is no fraction which is reasonable for both groups.

So use the fraction but put a hard minimum on it.

Nobody breaks their arm on the first day of the job, and then goes on to have their entire first adventure with a broken arm. You don't need a drama-preserving handicap when the character is already limited by being low level.

Heh.

Character - mine, of course - gets wounded (by the party!) to point of incurability before ever meeting the party. Meets party, runs with them for an adventure, keeps getting hurt again (and patched up, to barely above zero as that's all she can take) but never quite killed, finishes adventure, and party splits up. For the entire time she was with them she was never curable above about 3 h.p. even though her total was in theory somewhat higher.

Character is still going today, living proof that yeah, this in fact does happen sometimes.