Damaged Characters, A Question

This blog is counter intuitive to an old school train of thought, but I've been thinking about damaged characters and how it would affect them. How would a fighter with half his hit points still be able to function as if he were at full hit points? I'm not a fan of making things complicated, but I do like simple rules that reflect some realism. A damaged character is not reflected in any of the Old School various system rules. At least I couldn't find much.

The only rules I've found on the matter are characters that are at 0 hit points or below and varying levels of death; the almost dead, mostly dead and the dead, dead categories. Rufus the fighter is second level and has ten hit points get hit by an orc spear for 5 points of damage. Rufus's hit points are halved. Does he suffer no effects from the strike? Should he have a temporary penalty or one that lasts until he is healed?

I pose this is a question because I am interested in knowing if DMs would use this rule and if players would want it included. I am thinking of a simple version where a character suffers some sort of penalty at half hit points and then a second level of penalties if reduced below a quarter of their hit points. I have nothing developed just throwing it out there to see what sticks or to see if it gets thrown back at me.

How Real Do You Like Your Damage?

I'll break this blog into three categories of playing out wounds for characters.

#1: There are no hit locations. Characters have a lump sum of hit points and damage is subtracted from that pool. When healed it is added to the whole. It's the easiest system. This version allows your players to last longer in a fight and go deeper into dungeons.

#2: The attacker targets a specific hit location. Each location has different crippling effects. Damage to the leg can either reduce the move of a character or cause a fall. But when it comes to healing, it's a general effect. Potions and spells of healing raise the total of the entire health, not just a specified area. Some GMs will house rule that a healing must be done for each area damaged.

#3: The attack hits a specific location and does damage to that location. Healing must be done not only the location, but a specific wound. If a character suffers two wounds to the chest, two separate healings must be done.

Depending on your style of play and system you use will determine the level of realism you want to create. I like #2 because it's a good balance of strategic hit locations and the simplified healings. In my campaign a potion or spell of healing is developed to find the damaged areas. After one area is healed the remaining healing will go to the next wound. The exception is if a limb was crippled during the fight. The wound can be healed to full health, but until the leg is restored, he'll have a bum leg.

Version #1 is the D&D way and there is something great in its simplicity. It keeps the game moving along without having to consult a table for hit locations, what the penalties are or how much damage each appendage can tolerate before becoming crippled. Just roll to hit and roll your damage. But there is no strategy involved. In video game terms, it's a button masher.

Version #3 is too much work for me. I don't like balancing my checkbook let alone calculating and keeping track of each scratch I've suffered. It takes the heroic aspect out of the game. Dungeon delving is nearly impossible. Each wound accumulates until your character is useless. Having to journey through twenty levels of critters is not gonna happen my friend.

All the versions have advantages that make a game more interesting. As a GM you have to decide which version fits your style and what your players will enjoy. And if all else fails throw a big-ass fireball and let the gods sort'em out.