Lets pretend that 5.5E sales is a dumpster fire and that WotC is treating this as 4E, meaning they'll start planning the next edition today realizing 5.5E had a band launch and isn't going to be where they want it and will launch a new version in 5 years so most likely 2029. This is the premise for this post. Not going under any other premise, just want to discuss stat damage for 6E. If you hate this premise, create a separate thread please. I just want to talk about stat damage for a future 6E.
One feature that could help a new version of D&D would be to implement stat damage. Traveller has a very fast and brutal combat system. First you lose endurance, then it goes to Dexterity and Strength damage and when they hit zero, you die. How could D&D implement a system using hit points that as you take damage your physical stats degrade as does your combat proficiency and be easy to implement?
Would there be stat damage at 25% damage in or 33% damage in? For example, at 66% health of your hitpoints you take STR/DEX damage or maybe its just your Primary Stat, lowering your ability to do damage. then at 33% health it gets stronger.
Or would it make sense to have a greatly reduced hit point system for the players and get combat done faster like how 1E worked. So when your hitpoints are gone, damage goes to your Constitution and when Con is gone, damage goes to STR and DEX Or to your Primary stat and when you hit zero you are dead. Maybe Mages get 2hp per level, Rogues 4hp, fighters 6hp per level as an example. So a 10 level fighter has 60 hps, not 120 hp. We could greatly cut down on the Hit Point bloat and cut combat down to 3-4 turns for a Deadly encounter.
In the purely fictional world you create, I think this would not be a particularly good idea. 5e’s greatest strength is its ease of access - it does away with the mathematical complexity of earlier iterations of the game, as well as retreats from the ability complexity of 4e, focusing on a straightforward set of defined rules. This ensures the game is easy to get into for new or casual players, while providing more hardcore gamers a number of other options to explore options. This low barrier to entry is a large part of why 5e has been an incredible success, both in terms of explosive player growth and monetary value.
Wizards understands and recognizes that - so I doubt there is any reason they would move away from a simple hitpoint date system. “0 life = Dead” is about as intuitive as it can get, and expanding beyond that creates more problems in terms of unnecessary complexity (which, in turn, gatekeeps players from the system) than it solves.
The other downside to “realistic” damage is that it creates significantly narrower margins of error in encounter balancing- once one side gains the momentum, it can be very hard for the other to recapture it since they’re going to start hitting less and being hit more, which will then further reduce their ability to avoid damage or inflict it back on the enemy. Thus it’s far easier for challenging encounters to turn into routs or TPKs if the RNG spikes the wrong way while “balanced” encounters will likely run long or be one-sided in the party’s favor.
To some extent "stat" damage hasn't gone away in 5e, the two examples I could think of at present are the Intellect Devourer which can drop someone to zero intelligence and the Feeblemind spells drops a targets intelligence, wisdom and charisma. But if you wanted a system of creatures, spells and abilities that could damage stats you'd likely end up overhauling the 3e system which had a variety of things that could drain stats.
EDIT: I forgot the 5e version of Shadow also damages a targets strength as well.
As Ace said above, a system that makes you fight worse when you are damaged creates a death spiral effect.
If you lose initiative and the dragon breathes on the party in round 1, you've pretty much lost the fight right there. Or vice versa if the party gets the jump on the enemy. Either way in most fights the outcome would be based largely on luck and battles would have less tension because many of them will be decided in the first 1-2 rounds.
You could make this work, but you'd need to adjust a lot more than hit points. There would probably be a lot of surrendering going on.
I don't see stat damage being more common but remain rare side effect, for simple reason that the game now tend to avoid tracking temporary effects on stat as they impact several other character abilities.
More chance for Disadvantage to D20 Test for example.
I have had enough of level drains, stat damage, and permanent debilitation from older editions, so imma pass on that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
One feature that could help a new version of D&D would be to implement stat damage. Traveller has a very fast and brutal combat system. First you lose endurance, then it goes to Dexterity and Strength damage and when they hit zero, you die. How could D&D implement a system using hit points that as you take damage your physical stats degrade as does your combat proficiency and be easy to implement?
Ability damage is bad design for a number of reasons, and your suggestion of tying it to regular combat wear and tear (i.e. standard HP damage) rather than to more specialized monster abilities compounds these problems and make them even worse. To elaborate:
It's a "death spiral" mechanic - whereby players who are either unlucky, or just inexperienced and make tactical errors early in a fight, and take a bunch of ability damage as a result are now not just in more danger of dying like they would with HP damage, but they're also offensively weaker, giving them less and less ability to recover and get back in the fight. What you're suggesting would be like if Mario Kart gave the worst items (coins, banana peels, single green shells) to the cars in last place, while the winning cars got the star, golden mushroom, blue shell etc.
It creates extra unnecessary calculations. When someone loses strength, now you need to figure out whether it's still plausible for them to be running around in full plate still, or dragging their ally to safety, or grappling that guy over there. A video game can do those kinds of calculations in real time, but in a TTRPG you're reliant on error-prone humans keeping track of all the knock-on-effects that come with the stats on their character sheet constantly going up and down during a fight.
Both #1 and #2 are at odds with Heroic Fantasy, which is a genre (fantasy superheroes) where even very down and almost out characters can draw on luck or sheer determination and still win. Imagine Captain America's "I can do this all day" if getting hurt made him physically weaker for instance. Worse, both of these make the game as a whole less accessible, because #1 punishes mistakes rather harshly while #2 turns the game into Mathfinder on steroids.
Unless you also eliminate HP damage, it becomes one more "damage track" for players and DMs to keep tabs on when they already have enough going on as it is. I'm putting this one last though because your vision in that regard wasn't clear, and of course removing HP has ludonarrative problems of its own.
There are other issues with this idea (e.g. how do you decide which ability scores get damaged by what attacks? What therefore does that choice do to monster difficulty?) but the first two alone are enough to disqualify it.
Same thing happens to the monsters, it's not just the players.
Seems like then the most important thing is going first. Then you get first chance to impose that damage on the bad guys, and start that spiral everyone is talking about.
And, there already is a mechanic that’s kind of like ability damage in ‘24, exhaustion. Those -2’s add up pretty quickly. Probably that’s why creatures that impose exhaustion levels are very rare.
Same thing happens to the monsters, it's not just the players.
While a death spiral on the monster side is less impactful (most monsters are intended to lose/die after all) it can still be a big negative. Your boss getting unlucky early in a fight and becoming a cakewalk is likely to be highly anticlimactic.
The math burden applies even moreso to the DM though. Needing to recalculate save bonuses, ability checks etc every time their monsters take damage is additional bookkeeping they don't need.
And the main thing your opening post hasn't done is explain why ability damage being a regular part of the combat framework is supposed to be a good thing. What problem are you trying to solve for, and why is this the best solution for that problem?
I think you'd have to redesign the system with a different ethos where going after the stats will be a key part of the dynamic. It could work...but that's going to result in quite a few follow on changes as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Lets pretend that 5.5E sales is a dumpster fire and that WotC is treating this as 4E, meaning they'll start planning the next edition today realizing 5.5E had a band launch and isn't going to be where they want it and will launch a new version in 5 years so most likely 2029. This is the premise for this post. Not going under any other premise, just want to discuss stat damage for 6E. If you hate this premise, create a separate thread please. I just want to talk about stat damage for a future 6E.
One feature that could help a new version of D&D would be to implement stat damage. Traveller has a very fast and brutal combat system. First you lose endurance, then it goes to Dexterity and Strength damage and when they hit zero, you die. How could D&D implement a system using hit points that as you take damage your physical stats degrade as does your combat proficiency and be easy to implement?
Would there be stat damage at 25% damage in or 33% damage in? For example, at 66% health of your hitpoints you take STR/DEX damage or maybe its just your Primary Stat, lowering your ability to do damage. then at 33% health it gets stronger.
Or would it make sense to have a greatly reduced hit point system for the players and get combat done faster like how 1E worked. So when your hitpoints are gone, damage goes to your Constitution and when Con is gone, damage goes to STR and DEX Or to your Primary stat and when you hit zero you are dead. Maybe Mages get 2hp per level, Rogues 4hp, fighters 6hp per level as an example. So a 10 level fighter has 60 hps, not 120 hp. We could greatly cut down on the Hit Point bloat and cut combat down to 3-4 turns for a Deadly encounter.
Not to split hairs, but in Travellers the damage taken against the attributes you mentioned, are decided randomly. There is no order. Of course that's from the first edition, maybe it changed later. Actually Basic D&D had such a similar system in the Immortals set. Rather than attack hit appoints, you could target the opponents attributes. In general some monsters had special abilities that could also affect certain attributes or even your level.
I don't know if there is a market for an attribute vs hit point game.
I think you'd have to redesign the system with a different ethos where going after the stats will be a key part of the dynamic. It could work...but that's going to result in quite a few follow on changes as well.
Compare 4E to 5E completely redesigned game. Looking at 5E flaws, its hit point bloat and drawn out combat. Go with lesser amount of hit points and more brutal combat, makes for a more strategic game.
I think you'd have to redesign the system with a different ethos where going after the stats will be a key part of the dynamic. It could work...but that's going to result in quite a few follow on changes as well.
Compare 4E to 5E completely redesigned game. Looking at 5E flaws, its hit point bloat and drawn out combat. Go with lesser amount of hit points and more brutal combat, makes for a more strategic game.
You seem to be operating at cross purposes- a game that's more fast-paced is going to offer less opportunity for feeling strategic by definition. As noted, the kind of combat you're proposing largely boils down to "whoever hits hardest earliest wins", and attempting to provide means to mitigate the early damage lead would only draw out the combat you're saying needs to go faster.
Also, the alleged "hit point bloat" of 5e is still typically resolved in 3 rounds of combat unless the DM very actively tries to scale up the fight.
You seem to be operating at cross purposes- a game that's more fast-paced is going to offer less opportunity for feeling strategic by definition.
No, it's not part of the definition at all. Often there is a correlation, sure, but introducing strategy options can also make things move faster. It's all in the setup. Usually, strategy itself decreases how long time takes. That's generally the point of it - you're trying to get them down faster. The problem is generally the counter - usually, it undoes the strategy and returns things back to a pre-strategy point, wasting the time and effort put into the strategy, as well as the resources (that could have been used in a more direct manner) and then there's the time and resources put into the counter.
Death spirals are good for speeding things up. As much as people here complain about them, they're very useful for breaking the stalemates (or near stalemates) and help things resolve much faster. The concern I have with the proposal is the opposite. By targeting attacks, you potentially reduce damage and if both sides have their damage reduced by 50%... you're now resolving things 50% slower. Had that lesson playing Pokémon many Moons ago - my Pokémon had low damage and the enemy was Kakuna or something that had Harden and only Harden. It got to the point I was only chipping 1HP per attack. A fight that usually took a minute or so took much, much longer.
Also, the alleged "hit point bloat" of 5e is still typically resolved in 3 rounds of combat unless the DM very actively tries to scale up the fight.
In the golden zone of D&D, it takes three Rounds. In the early levels, I find it takes maybe two. As you pass out if the golden zone and into higher levels, I find that the number of Rounds increase. There are multiple causes for that (abilities that prevent Turns being taken or mitigate their effects become more common, for example), but partly it is the ability to just tank hits via increases in HP. Part of that problem is the inability to bypass HP grinds - most things basically resolve down to taking out the HP of the enemy. Even the things that do something different generally resolve down to helping others grind down the HP faster (or worse, to stop or undo said HP grinding).
There's a reason why D&D is the slowest out of the games I play to resolve combat...and it's in part because there's little you can do to bypass HP, slowing things down considerably in comparison. I don't know how to fix that though. Most of the time, it's the sacred cows of D&D that cause the bloat. Any attempt to do something about it results in a lot of instinctive complaints because it allegedly detracts from what's they find fun about the game. Whether that's really the case or if it's really just good old conservatism resisting change for the sake of resisting it, and whether it's actually healthy for the game, I don't know.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Setting aside the issue of how you mitigate death spirals accelerating PC death and cutting into their ability to respond if the RNG goes the wrong way, I don't think adding additional calculations and adjustments you need to stop and apply mid-battle is going to speed up combat relative to 5e's current pace.
I mean, if you don't see how accelerating deaths, which mostly applies to monsters anyway, would speed up combat, I'm not sure there's a lot to discuss.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I mean, if you don't see how accelerating deaths, which mostly applies to monsters anyway, would speed up combat, I'm not sure there's a lot to discuss.
I think The_Ace_of_Rogue’s point is that much of the acceleration on paper is lost in actual play. This is a completely fair point, and one that should not be so curtly dismissed.
Under the current model, you only really have to track hit points - on most fights, the primary representation of a monster’s life is a single number that you add and subtract from. Under this proposed system, you now have to track multiple numbers. But that is not the hard part - each of those numbers has a specific mechanical meaning cascading across other effects. To hit bonuses. Saving throws. AC. Skills. Damage now adjusts each and every one of those, turning what presently is a simple substitution game into a rework of the entire monster/player every time a stat takes damage.
Those adjustments all take time - and, worse, they take time that is not even really combat, I think Ace is probably correct in assuming the additional complexity and math required would take longer than anything under the current system, ultimately resulting in slower combat when you actually play the game. And, even at tables where the DM is quick with their calculations and there is a net improvement in speed… combat will still feel longer, as there would be more “twiddling your thumbs while someone does math” moments.
Which, also brings us to another fairly obvious issue - the kind of DM that can quickly do this is likely already an experienced DM who knows a bunch about how monster stats and mechanics work… which means they are the kind of DM more likely to be able to balance an encounter to last how long it needs to.
That is another big problem with adding complexity - adding complexity helps those who already can help themselves, while making things slower for people who need more assistance. Systems like this are regressive, punishing new and casual players in ways experienced players often overlook (or, in too many cases, though I do not think yours, simply do not care about—gatekeeping is an unfortunately pervasive part of this hobby).
Adding realistic damage seems to pop up every generation, not every version, but every player generation.
To make it practical you need a computer. While back in 1e the home computer was used and people wrote up a program using 5.25" floppy disks; the computer still slowed the game down. Now you have phones that have more computing power then those 1st home computers, but realistic damage has always slowed the game down as inputting the actual damage is a slow spot.
Combat become bogged down, then people start to forget their next action/ and it snowballs to a fight is a long drawn out boring crawl. Historically, the speed is fine when you begin the start and test it simply. But then it is no different then current damage. Once you add enough for realistic somehow, once it is all set up, what makes it realistic, just slows the process.
As I said, it is not the calculations/output. but the input is always the magic bottleneck.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
DISCLAIMER:
Lets pretend that 5.5E sales is a dumpster fire and that WotC is treating this as 4E, meaning they'll start planning the next edition today realizing 5.5E had a band launch and isn't going to be where they want it and will launch a new version in 5 years so most likely 2029. This is the premise for this post. Not going under any other premise, just want to discuss stat damage for 6E. If you hate this premise, create a separate thread please. I just want to talk about stat damage for a future 6E.
One feature that could help a new version of D&D would be to implement stat damage. Traveller has a very fast and brutal combat system. First you lose endurance, then it goes to Dexterity and Strength damage and when they hit zero, you die. How could D&D implement a system using hit points that as you take damage your physical stats degrade as does your combat proficiency and be easy to implement?
Would there be stat damage at 25% damage in or 33% damage in? For example, at 66% health of your hitpoints you take STR/DEX damage or maybe its just your Primary Stat, lowering your ability to do damage. then at 33% health it gets stronger.
Or would it make sense to have a greatly reduced hit point system for the players and get combat done faster like how 1E worked. So when your hitpoints are gone, damage goes to your Constitution and when Con is gone, damage goes to STR and DEX Or to your Primary stat and when you hit zero you are dead. Maybe Mages get 2hp per level, Rogues 4hp, fighters 6hp per level as an example. So a 10 level fighter has 60 hps, not 120 hp. We could greatly cut down on the Hit Point bloat and cut combat down to 3-4 turns for a Deadly encounter.
In the purely fictional world you create, I think this would not be a particularly good idea. 5e’s greatest strength is its ease of access - it does away with the mathematical complexity of earlier iterations of the game, as well as retreats from the ability complexity of 4e, focusing on a straightforward set of defined rules. This ensures the game is easy to get into for new or casual players, while providing more hardcore gamers a number of other options to explore options. This low barrier to entry is a large part of why 5e has been an incredible success, both in terms of explosive player growth and monetary value.
Wizards understands and recognizes that - so I doubt there is any reason they would move away from a simple hitpoint date system. “0 life = Dead” is about as intuitive as it can get, and expanding beyond that creates more problems in terms of unnecessary complexity (which, in turn, gatekeeps players from the system) than it solves.
The other downside to “realistic” damage is that it creates significantly narrower margins of error in encounter balancing- once one side gains the momentum, it can be very hard for the other to recapture it since they’re going to start hitting less and being hit more, which will then further reduce their ability to avoid damage or inflict it back on the enemy. Thus it’s far easier for challenging encounters to turn into routs or TPKs if the RNG spikes the wrong way while “balanced” encounters will likely run long or be one-sided in the party’s favor.
To some extent "stat" damage hasn't gone away in 5e, the two examples I could think of at present are the Intellect Devourer which can drop someone to zero intelligence and the Feeblemind spells drops a targets intelligence, wisdom and charisma. But if you wanted a system of creatures, spells and abilities that could damage stats you'd likely end up overhauling the 3e system which had a variety of things that could drain stats.
EDIT: I forgot the 5e version of Shadow also damages a targets strength as well.
As Ace said above, a system that makes you fight worse when you are damaged creates a death spiral effect.
If you lose initiative and the dragon breathes on the party in round 1, you've pretty much lost the fight right there. Or vice versa if the party gets the jump on the enemy. Either way in most fights the outcome would be based largely on luck and battles would have less tension because many of them will be decided in the first 1-2 rounds.
You could make this work, but you'd need to adjust a lot more than hit points. There would probably be a lot of surrendering going on.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I don't see stat damage being more common but remain rare side effect, for simple reason that the game now tend to avoid tracking temporary effects on stat as they impact several other character abilities.
More chance for Disadvantage to D20 Test for example.
I have had enough of level drains, stat damage, and permanent debilitation from older editions, so imma pass on that.
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
I mean, nothing about this particular topic needs to be predicated on 5.24's imagined failure at all, but putting that aside:
Ability damage is bad design for a number of reasons, and your suggestion of tying it to regular combat wear and tear (i.e. standard HP damage) rather than to more specialized monster abilities compounds these problems and make them even worse. To elaborate:
There are other issues with this idea (e.g. how do you decide which ability scores get damaged by what attacks? What therefore does that choice do to monster difficulty?) but the first two alone are enough to disqualify it.
Same thing happens to the monsters, it's not just the players.
Seems like then the most important thing is going first. Then you get first chance to impose that damage on the bad guys, and start that spiral everyone is talking about.
And, there already is a mechanic that’s kind of like ability damage in ‘24, exhaustion. Those -2’s add up pretty quickly. Probably that’s why creatures that impose exhaustion levels are very rare.
While a death spiral on the monster side is less impactful (most monsters are intended to lose/die after all) it can still be a big negative. Your boss getting unlucky early in a fight and becoming a cakewalk is likely to be highly anticlimactic.
The math burden applies even moreso to the DM though. Needing to recalculate save bonuses, ability checks etc every time their monsters take damage is additional bookkeeping they don't need.
And the main thing your opening post hasn't done is explain why ability damage being a regular part of the combat framework is supposed to be a good thing. What problem are you trying to solve for, and why is this the best solution for that problem?
I think you'd have to redesign the system with a different ethos where going after the stats will be a key part of the dynamic. It could work...but that's going to result in quite a few follow on changes as well.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Not to split hairs, but in Travellers the damage taken against the attributes you mentioned, are decided randomly. There is no order. Of course that's from the first edition, maybe it changed later. Actually Basic D&D had such a similar system in the Immortals set. Rather than attack hit appoints, you could target the opponents attributes. In general some monsters had special abilities that could also affect certain attributes or even your level.
I don't know if there is a market for an attribute vs hit point game.
Compare 4E to 5E completely redesigned game. Looking at 5E flaws, its hit point bloat and drawn out combat. Go with lesser amount of hit points and more brutal combat, makes for a more strategic game.
You seem to be operating at cross purposes- a game that's more fast-paced is going to offer less opportunity for feeling strategic by definition. As noted, the kind of combat you're proposing largely boils down to "whoever hits hardest earliest wins", and attempting to provide means to mitigate the early damage lead would only draw out the combat you're saying needs to go faster.
Also, the alleged "hit point bloat" of 5e is still typically resolved in 3 rounds of combat unless the DM very actively tries to scale up the fight.
No, it's not part of the definition at all. Often there is a correlation, sure, but introducing strategy options can also make things move faster. It's all in the setup. Usually, strategy itself decreases how long time takes. That's generally the point of it - you're trying to get them down faster. The problem is generally the counter - usually, it undoes the strategy and returns things back to a pre-strategy point, wasting the time and effort put into the strategy, as well as the resources (that could have been used in a more direct manner) and then there's the time and resources put into the counter.
Death spirals are good for speeding things up. As much as people here complain about them, they're very useful for breaking the stalemates (or near stalemates) and help things resolve much faster. The concern I have with the proposal is the opposite. By targeting attacks, you potentially reduce damage and if both sides have their damage reduced by 50%... you're now resolving things 50% slower. Had that lesson playing Pokémon many Moons ago - my Pokémon had low damage and the enemy was Kakuna or something that had Harden and only Harden. It got to the point I was only chipping 1HP per attack. A fight that usually took a minute or so took much, much longer.
In the golden zone of D&D, it takes three Rounds. In the early levels, I find it takes maybe two. As you pass out if the golden zone and into higher levels, I find that the number of Rounds increase. There are multiple causes for that (abilities that prevent Turns being taken or mitigate their effects become more common, for example), but partly it is the ability to just tank hits via increases in HP. Part of that problem is the inability to bypass HP grinds - most things basically resolve down to taking out the HP of the enemy. Even the things that do something different generally resolve down to helping others grind down the HP faster (or worse, to stop or undo said HP grinding).
There's a reason why D&D is the slowest out of the games I play to resolve combat...and it's in part because there's little you can do to bypass HP, slowing things down considerably in comparison. I don't know how to fix that though. Most of the time, it's the sacred cows of D&D that cause the bloat. Any attempt to do something about it results in a lot of instinctive complaints because it allegedly detracts from what's they find fun about the game. Whether that's really the case or if it's really just good old conservatism resisting change for the sake of resisting it, and whether it's actually healthy for the game, I don't know.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Setting aside the issue of how you mitigate death spirals accelerating PC death and cutting into their ability to respond if the RNG goes the wrong way, I don't think adding additional calculations and adjustments you need to stop and apply mid-battle is going to speed up combat relative to 5e's current pace.
I mean, if you don't see how accelerating deaths, which mostly applies to monsters anyway, would speed up combat, I'm not sure there's a lot to discuss.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I think The_Ace_of_Rogue’s point is that much of the acceleration on paper is lost in actual play. This is a completely fair point, and one that should not be so curtly dismissed.
Under the current model, you only really have to track hit points - on most fights, the primary representation of a monster’s life is a single number that you add and subtract from. Under this proposed system, you now have to track multiple numbers. But that is not the hard part - each of those numbers has a specific mechanical meaning cascading across other effects. To hit bonuses. Saving throws. AC. Skills. Damage now adjusts each and every one of those, turning what presently is a simple substitution game into a rework of the entire monster/player every time a stat takes damage.
Those adjustments all take time - and, worse, they take time that is not even really combat, I think Ace is probably correct in assuming the additional complexity and math required would take longer than anything under the current system, ultimately resulting in slower combat when you actually play the game. And, even at tables where the DM is quick with their calculations and there is a net improvement in speed… combat will still feel longer, as there would be more “twiddling your thumbs while someone does math” moments.
Which, also brings us to another fairly obvious issue - the kind of DM that can quickly do this is likely already an experienced DM who knows a bunch about how monster stats and mechanics work… which means they are the kind of DM more likely to be able to balance an encounter to last how long it needs to.
That is another big problem with adding complexity - adding complexity helps those who already can help themselves, while making things slower for people who need more assistance. Systems like this are regressive, punishing new and casual players in ways experienced players often overlook (or, in too many cases, though I do not think yours, simply do not care about—gatekeeping is an unfortunately pervasive part of this hobby).
Adding realistic damage seems to pop up every generation, not every version, but every player generation.
To make it practical you need a computer. While back in 1e the home computer was used and people wrote up a program using 5.25" floppy disks; the computer still slowed the game down. Now you have phones that have more computing power then those 1st home computers, but realistic damage has always slowed the game down as inputting the actual damage is a slow spot.
Combat become bogged down, then people start to forget their next action/ and it snowballs to a fight is a long drawn out boring crawl. Historically, the speed is fine when you begin the start and test it simply. But then it is no different then current damage. Once you add enough for realistic somehow, once it is all set up, what makes it realistic, just slows the process.
As I said, it is not the calculations/output. but the input is always the magic bottleneck.