According to new rules now we have Bloodied property for creature which have less than 1/2 HP. But this word is literally bounded to blood, however many creatures don't have a blood. It seems strange when I say "this golem is bloodied" or something like that. Doesn't it?

Or a skeleton :D

I imagine it's because it includes most creatures. Or maybe we should read it figuratively.

It's a quick and dirty term for "having accumulated a notable amount of damage", and constructs, elementals, oozes, and plants are all fairly niche monster types. Monstrosities alone come to about 80% as many entries as those four put together.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

It's a quick and dirty term for "having accumulated a notable amount of damage", and constructs, elementals, oozes, and plants are all fairly niche monster types. Monstrosities alone come to about 80% as many entries as those four put together.

 
I also guess that it means that this is the point where they were actually physically harmed.

As the old saying goes "Hitpoints aren't meat points", they also express your endurance, will to live, and luck. Maybe you could see the first 50% of hitpoint loss as barely dodging or otherwise avoiding injury, and once you hit 50% hitpoints you think of them as starting to actually accumulate injuries.

In other words, the first 50% of damage is to tire them put and break their defense, and the hit that brings them below 50% is the first hit that actually physically damages them, at which point they are "bloodied" (or whatever the equivalent for that creature type is).

The first 50% of damage against the golem saw the golem absorbing every blow, not taking any visible damage. Once you go below 50% the first cracks appear in the golem's body...

I agree it's not always an appropriate term even though i never stop using it after 4E. Who knows WoTC may end up changing the name to Halved or Moiety to account for that eventually. 

The 2014 PHB already had this concept, they just gave it a name so it's easier to write mechanics that work with it.

Bloodied was a term in the Dungeon Master Guide 2014 that could be used to describe a monster which taken to half its hit points;

Tracking Monster Hit Points: Players often ask how hurt a monster looks. Don’t ever feel as though you need to reveal exact hit points, but if a monster is below half its hit point maximum, it’s fair to say that it has visible wounds and appears beaten down. You can describe a monster taken to half its hit points as bloodied, giving the players a sense of progress in a fight against a tough opponent, and helping them judge when to use their most powerful spells and abilities.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

It's a quick and dirty term for "having accumulated a notable amount of damage", and constructs, elementals, oozes, and plants are all fairly niche monster types. Monstrosities alone come to about 80% as many entries as those four put together.

 Yeah, very dirt. There is no way to pronounce this term without ruining pace of the game and its atmosphere.  I can just picture the player immediately butting in with the question: "Master, why these skeletons have blood? Are these unusual skeletons? Are they illusions? Are they actually living people, charmed and forced to fight covered by skeletons illusion? Are we killing innocent civilians?!!"

Before PHB 2024 I always used term (non-english) means "badly injured" which seems more appropriate in many cases than "bloodied".

Quote from SkiF >>

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

It's a quick and dirty term for "having accumulated a notable amount of damage", and constructs, elementals, oozes, and plants are all fairly niche monster types. Monstrosities alone come to about 80% as many entries as those four put together.

 Yeah, very dirt. There is no way to pronounce this term without ruining pace of the game and its atmosphere.  I can just picture the player immediately butting in with the question: "Master, why these skeletons have blood? Are these unusual skeletons? Are they illusions? Are they actually living people, charmed and forced to fight covered by skeletons illusion? Are we killing innocent civilians?!!"

Before PHB 2024 I always used term (non-english) means "badly injured" which seems more appropriate in many cases than "bloodied".

 
So just keep using the term at your table if you’ve already got a lexicon in place. I’m almost certain the D&D police won’t bust down your door and arrest you for it.

I think Ragged would be a good substitute for Bloodied for monsters who have no blood.

Ragged

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

Bloodied was a term in the Dungeon Master Guide 2014 that could be used to describe a monster which taken to half its hit points;

Tracking Monster Hit Points: Players often ask how hurt a monster looks. Don’t ever feel as though you need to reveal exact hit points, but if a monster is below half its hit point maximum, it’s fair to say that it has visible wounds and appears beaten down. You can describe a monster taken to half its hit points as bloodied, giving the players a sense of progress in a fight against a tough opponent, and helping them judge when to use their most powerful spells and abilities.

 I follow that advice :)

A few weeks back, we started "The Wild Beyond the Witchlight" adventure, and it was a nice surprise to find some tips for DMs in the first pages, like this one:

Hit Points. It's better not to tell players how many hit points a creature has. However, you can give the players a sense of how well they're doing against the creature by describing, in narrative terms, how hurt the creature is. For example, if the creature has fewer than half its hit points remaining, you can describe it as being badly wounded or on the ropes. Such information gives the players a sense of accomplishment and might spur them to press the attack. On the other hand, if the characters aren't putting much of a dent in the creature's hit points, either because it has a lot of them or it has a trait such as Regeneration, it's a good idea to let the players know that the creature looks like it can take a lot more punishment. That information alone might encourage the players to consider a change of plan, such as a tactical retreat.

In my experience players are much more wondering about most damaged monsters than any monster's actual hit point ratio.

Personally, i like to communicate this sort of things, i don't hesitate to tell when monsters are bloodied, or for construct when showing signs of heavy deterioration for example, but also when an attack leave a monster barely standing to indicate it's almost out of hit points. I also generally reveal them when an attack didn't appear to deal as much damage in presence of resistance/immunity with lesser reactions if any at all,  or that an attack appeared particularly painful in case of vulnerability.

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

In my experience players are much more wondering about most damaged monsters than any monster's actual hit point ratio.

Personally, i like to communicate this sort of things, i don't hesitate to tell when monsters are bloodied, or for construct when showing signs of heavy deterioration for example, but also when an attack leave a monster barely standing to indicate it's almost out of hit points. I also generally reveal them when an attack didn't appear to deal as much damage in presence of resistance/immunity with lesser reactions if any at all,  or that an attack appeared particularly painful in case of vulnerability.

 That's pretty good!

In the adventure I mentioned before, there are also other tips. One of them is indeed related to your comment, but it’s a bit long, and I'm not sure if it’s allowed to put it here :(

Basically, it's about telling the player about the creature's strengths, weaknesses, and abilities. It shares your point of view.

I think that WotC should make some sort of scale based off of hitpoints remaining, something like this:

That's way more crunch than they want for 5e, plus they'd probably need to tweak the combat balance around it a bit.

Yeah, I think that WotC probably just wants us to do our own thing because obviously, my table doesn't apply for say, oozes.