| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hit Points tend to be one of those "love 'em or hate 'em" rules. I personally accept them as a nice simple abstract means of tracking the threat of character death, but I find them to be lacking in some key areas.
So recently, I set about dreaming up a solution — one that addressed my core concerns while leaving as little footprint as possible on the rules. I think I've arrived at something pretty good. So I figured I would turn it loose on the forums and let you smart guys poke a bajillion holes in it.
First, I'd like to clarify what problems I hope to address. I am not too bothered by how "unrealistic" the mechanic is; I find realism in a game about superhumans to be overrated. I am a little bothered by how undramatic and static the rule is.
If you take damage as literal (and you shouldn't, but I'll get to that in a minute) then we're looking at PCs who by mid level are sustaining preposterous levels of physical punishment. You know, two or three whacks with a greataxe. "But wait, Evil Lincoln," you are no doubt thinking, "everyone knows hit points are abstract!" Yes, they are. Definitely. But I also find their abstraction to be unhelpful as a GM describing the damage.
You see, I am 100% okay with the notion that HP loss represents a kind of finite personal stamina. You're not getting sliced open by that great axe, you're rolling out of the way, or it is getting absorbed by your armor, or you are expertly parrying with your own weapon, and all of this taxes your reserves of strength represented by HP. Fine. Awesome, in fact — it really is a rule well-suited to the kind of superhero teams that grace the pages of Pathfinder RPG by default.
So why is HP so damn hard to heal? Even if some portion of the damage is meant to be "abstract stamina loss", throughout the system HP are always treated like wounds. In fact, they're treated like serious physical wounds. It is hard to heal an appreciable amount of HP with the Heal skill, and the entire game presumes that you rely on direct magical healing. Even then, the lost HP are regarded as "deadly wounds" in the system's terminology.
The situation worsens when you consider the role of magical healing in the game. Have we really gotten to the point where adventure design requires players to keep around a wand of cure? The post-combat charge-counting ritual is very tiresome to me, and I would like to see it go.
I really admire the Vitality Point approach, which seems to redress many of my grievances by simply sorting out what is "abstract/action/vitality/stamina" damage and what is real physical harm. It's a good rule. It is also too invasive. I would like a house rule that left less of a footprint on the rules — something that can live on top of the existing HP system and enhance it in the same way as Vitality Points would, but without changing the way combat works.
TLDR Version
I want something like the Vitality Points variant, where real wounds are mechanically separate from abstract wound prevention. Unlike Vitality Points, I don't want it to fundamentally change the way combat works.
Stamina
Deadly Wounds
So, what do you think? Will this help with my grievances? Can you extrapolate the consequences of such a house rule?
Is this a good way to handle "Vitality Points Lite"?
In addition, for those of you who like the idea of damage penalties, consider the following:
Damage Penalty
I am less committed to damage penalties, though, because they really do change the way combat works. So, please consider the two changes separately, but also how they might influence each other.
What do you think?
I like where you're going, but I would like a little clarification on some points.
You mention non-critical and critical damage. Does this refer to critical and non-critical hits?
It sounds that way. Therefore, it seems your HP are the same, but you must keep track of two different kinds of damage (not unlike lethal and non-lethal).
- Can stamina damage be healed by magic, like wounds?
- You mention wounds cannot be healed by rest - is this only the rest mentioned under stamina, or also overnight rest which heals wounds?
- Can non-critical damage healing rate be increased with heal or magic?
- Where does non-lethal damage fit in this system, if at all?
For the Damage Penalties, I would rather a straight penalty based on damage - a negative penalty on all rolls at a certain percent of damage, for example. Such as...
- 100-75% = No modifiers
- 75-50% = -1 penalty
- 50-25% = -2 penalty
- 25%-0% = -4 penalty.
This is easier to keep track of, is intuitive, but is less damaging to certain classes (namely casters).
As for how they would work with each other, I would rather wait for more clarification before talking about it.
Yes, I apologize for the lack of clarity, the whole post was a product of a very large cup of coffee.
You have it right, there is no change to how Hit Point damage is dealt or received. The word stamina is really just a descriptor, not a new damage category. Critical damage and non-critical damage refer to critical hits.
Damage from critical hits doesn't recover automatically, it must be treated. This makes it basically normal damage from the rules as written.
Stamina damage does recover automatically, so I guess it is a little like non-lethal damage.
Both damage types subtract from the same Hit Point total. The order doesn't matter, but I suppose for simplicity magical/skill healing should remove "deadly" damage first.
In all other regards, Stamina damage reacts the same to cure spells and channeling as Hit Points. If you have no deadly wounds, a cure light wounds spell will give you back 1d8+x hit points, which is great if you can't spare the time for a 20 minute break.
Point by point:
Yes, they are still just hit points. The most concise way to phrase this house rule would be: "Non-critical-hit damage heals much faster, because it doesn't represent physical harm."
I would just leave the normal HP recovery rules for overnight rest, but I have already house-rules those in my own game. I actually don't consider this a related issue — a GM is either cool with the idea of people sleeping off sword wounds or they are not.
I suppose it could, especially if there were a spell or the like that made sense. However, the fact is, 20% HP for 20 minutes rest is extremely generous when compared to healing in the RAW. I am fine with stamina damage being "damage you can sleep off" and only resorting to wands, potions, and surgery for the "real" stuff.
Non-lethal damage is an abstract that represents restraining people or intent-to-capture. It almost never comes up in my game. I don't really see any reason to change how it works — I would probably make it so that it heals at the same rate as Stamina damage, and just say that non-lethal crits deal lots of stamina damage. I'd like to change as little as possible while still meeting my goals, so there's not much reason to mess with it.
Thanks very much for your input, RedArmy! I hope that clarifies things.
OK, I have a good grasp on it now.
I think, as a player, I would rather keep track of each type of damage individually, and use the total as my total "damage". Then I know if I need to burn a potion/charge/spell on healing myself, or if I can just "wait it out" (like if the party is not under any kind of time limit).
This does increase bookkeeping, which may be troublesome. Ultimately, you should do what you and the players are most comfortable with.
I would actually also rather if "stamina" damage got healed double by magic, just like nonlethal damage. It might help what you're seeking - less time healing and more time kicking butt. Just my two cents.
I might go along with a chart for damage penalties if you can balance it between classes and keep it in a way to prevent more of what you're trying to avoid - excessive healing after fights.
Otherwise, it all looks good, pending player approval. I like it, and may consider such a thing for my own group once we get a bit more settled with pathfinder.
You wish to take it even one step further - after every fight, the entire party auto-heals. Healing abilities would even show use during combat, or in situations where you wouldn't allow such a system. HP represent much like what they do in this new idea, and "dying" is simply unconsciousness.
I don't particularly like that idea, but it's a thought you can play around with.
I think I am going to test it incrementally. I won't include damage penalties at first (and possibly never) — although if I do introduce it later, it will be "voluntary". PCs who opt-in will be able to give enemies damage penalties. If people just want to play it RAW, that's cool too, but enemies will roll without penalty against them.
It is a little more book-keeping, it's true. I hope that just keeping a second tally of crit damage isn't the kiss of death for the whole thing. The players benefit immensely from the healing, so I can imagine they won't mind tracking the majority of damage that will auto-heal.
We'll see soon enough!
Dotted for reference purposes.
Here is a new formulation of the rule I will be testing:
.
.
.
.
---
Still a work in progress.
Something that needs to be accounted for: energy damage. Should it inflict stamina or deadly damage? My gut says stamina, just to keep things balanced as they were before. (although part of me surely thinks evokers deserve the boost!)
This is an interesting idea...
I do think that Criticals Only is a bit much... that Troll rending (or a giant clubbing) you doesn't really scratch you unless it crits or knocks you below 0?
Other than that, the system looks like it would work.
I would also point you at , from Unearthed Arcana as a simpler and perhaps easier solution.
Looks good, Lincoln! Now let's work on that feat for proclaiming emancipation and the such. :-)
Energy damage is a thought I hadn't considered.
Besides that, what about spells like Disintegrate and Finger of Death? Stamina seems to make those types less useful against foes that may retreat away.
You may considering failed saves against spells as "Deadly" and successful saves as "Stamina".
Hmm. Yes.
Can you see how heartbroken I am? I thought I could keep it simple enough. :(
Okay, energy damage, troll rending... is this deadly damage in your minds? What other scenarios can I expect to have to rule on in testing?
Also, thanks, you guys are awesome. It is really great to have a think-tank at the ready for this kind of thing!
You may considering failed saves against spells as "Deadly" and successful saves as "Stamina".
Terrific suggestion! I will consider that.
The strange thing there is that when you take more damage, you take deadlier damage too.
At the end of the day, the whole rule is less lethal than the old way of doing things, so I guess it's not so bad if large amounts of energy damage stick around. It's certainly no worse than the RAW from the player perspective.
Rending...been a while since I ran a monster with that. That's where if you hit with 2 claws or some such, you get free damage, yes?
Make rending deadly. If the player doesn't want to take deadly damage, don't get hit twice. I dunno. It's really up to you on that. And I gave my opinion on energy damage - at least an idea. I don't really have an opinion, because I haven't studied it enough to really make a good call.
I can't think of anything else to watch for in particular.
I think a good yardstick is to imagine the attack in detail - what does a rending look like? A successfully dodged fireball? A failed one? What about a finger of death that is resisted? One that isn't?
It's kinda a judgment call on everything. I don't envy your issue with making calls on the fly.
I think a good yardstick is to imagine the attack in detail -
As long as this is the case, I think the spirit of the house-rule is served.
That really describes the problem that inspired the rule. I don't mind having to polish the wording, so long as it gets the "feel" right.
Judging by the response so far, I am not the only one who has been feeling this particular lack.
As long as this is the case, I think the spirit of the house-rule is served.
Ah...good point.
That really describes the problem that inspired the rule. I don't mind having to polish the wording, so long as it gets the "feel" right.
Judging by the response so far, I am not the only one who has been feeling this particular lack.
I admit, when I have to describe hits, they always deal "damage". Generally cuts on the arm, arrows to the leg, or some other such hurting but not crippling injury. When my players take damage, it's never "He swings his axe at you with fury, and you arm stings from the punishing blow to your shield. You take 15 damage." If they take damage, they actually got hit. So I get where you're coming from.
I admit, when I have to describe hits, they always deal "damage". Generally cuts on the arm, arrows to the leg, or some other such hurting but not crippling injury. When my players take damage, it's never "He swings his axe at you with fury, and you arm stings from the punishing blow to your shield. You take 15 damage." If they take damage, they actually got hit. So I get where you're coming from.
Me too!
But shouldn't there be more parrying? Especially with shields... the whole thing has always seemed off to me... just a little less dramatic than it could be.
Hopefully we're on to something here, and we can add the drama back in without too much additional paperwork.
I would also point you at , from Unearthed Arcana as a simpler and perhaps easier solution.
Excellent reference, thank you Majuba. I actually think Stamina v. Deadly is simpler, though. Both rules require tracking two totals, but mine has an easier-to-remember recovery rate.
after all, a lot of articles seem to say everything after 5th level is the province of Marvel or DC, not Tolkien or Martin.
I preach that gospel too. You learn to love it, or you seek out another game; and there is nothing wrong with that! My proof: look at your Core Rulebook and tell me it is anything less than a catalog of super-powers!
Okay, energy damage, troll rending... is this deadly damage in your minds? What other scenarios can I expect to have to rule on in testing?
Bleed damage, specificly from something like a rogue's sneak attack if they have the bleed talent. Is all of it deadly damage? Or is just the bleed damage deadly damage?
Anyways I like the overall idea you've put forth and hope you'll post results should you get to playtesting it.
Torger
To be clear, you still have only one HP pool, correct?
Yes. I envision the player tracking HP exactly as they do ordinarily (with Stamina and Deadly together), but keeping a side tally of how much of that damage is deadly. That way they know that they will only recover to that point.
For example, if I've taken 3 hits (12, 16, and 25), and the last one is a crit, I would still tally my HP as -53. No difference there. But next to that I would write "deadly 25" and know that when I rest afterward, I will still have 25 damage.
So you don't actually have to separate out Stamina damage, I don't think. You just track the total, and note how much of that total is deadly.
Instead of the 2 types of damage that add to determine if you are still standing (lethal and non-lethal) you add a third "stamina."
This new damage has a different healing rate than the other 2. (20% of total HP per 20 min.)
Non-lethal damage is a kind of lame rule that I rarely use. I'm not too worried about preserving its sanctity. If it came up in a game and I was presently using this Stamina/Deadly houserule, I would probably just rule that non-lethal attacks deal stamina damage; including the attack that puts them below 0 HP.
I picked the number to be memorable, and to work across a range of levels. I figure that the practical possible PC hit points at first level would be a Wizard with a poor con (8 maybe?) resulting in 5 HP. That character gets 1 HP per 20 minutes back.
20% is also a number I can quickly calculate, because that's what I tip when I eat at restaurants. Using a percentage makes it scale with characters of all HD and Con scores (something the existing HP recovery rules don't do whatsoever).
Wouldn't it just be simpler to take a portion of damage and make it non-lethal, which heals at a rate of level/hour and heals 1 for 1 with healing spells?
I don't think that would be simpler at all. Just at face value, it seems more complicated to me.
@Your houserule: it seems like an interesting take. I think it addresses different goals than my version, though. I'm really just looking for a simple mechanical distinction between "real" wounds and "abstract" wounds.
EDIT: Actually... I'm not just looking to make a mechanical distinction between "real" and "abstract" damage; That is the real issue for me. It took me this many posts to finally articulate it!
Damage from non-critical hits is "stamina" damage. Stamina damage represents taxing dodges, parries or blows absorbed by shield or armor.
Stamina damage recovers with rest at a rate of 20% of total HP per 20 minutes of non-strenuous activity.
I'd make it easy on you:
rest 10 minutes = 1 stamina point per level (2/lvl with successful heal check as extention of long term care).
rest 8 hours = heal all stamina points (4 hours with successful heal check)
10 min rests are not cumulative but may be performed after each encounter.
Something that needs to be accounted for: energy damage. Should it inflict stamina or deadly damage?
Perhaps energy deals 50% stamina, 50% health. Successful saves for half negate health damage only.
Another question. Would cure spells heal stamina as well?
'findel
Damage from non-critical hits is "stamina" damage. Stamina damage represents taxing dodges, parries or blows absorbed by shield or armor.
In that optic, shields and parry options could provide DR instead of (or in addition to) Armour Class?
@Bleed Damage (thanks for bringing it up Torger): For now, I am ruling that bleed damage is Stamina. The wound itself requires treatment, but after the wound is closed, you're just anemic. Please recall that realism is a tertiary goal to say the least.
@Energy damage: Definitely Deadly on a failed save, Stamina on a passed save. I've run some test cases and I really like how they have turned out.
Cure spells heal stamina as well.
In all cases, what heals damage in the RAW heals both Stamina and Deadly wounds. The one exception is rest, which only affects Stamina (i.e. you may not sleep off burns and sucking chest wounds.)
That's the key — it works just like HP in combat. Exactly like HP. The difference is how it is healed.
In that optic, shields and parry options could provide DR instead of (or in addition to) Armour Class?
It could, but I won't be doing that myself.
My goal is to separate out abstract from real damage while leaving as many mechanics untouched as possible.
At present, the rule is exactly like the RAW, except some damage types heal faster than others. That's all we need to do here, I think.
Now, do I think shield/armor/parry options make sense? Yeah they're cool. But it seems like a whole nuther can of worms.
@Energy damage: Definitely Deadly on a failed save, Stamina on a passed save. I've run some test cases and I really like how they have turned out.
Simple enough. Spell with no save deal deadly wounds?
Now, do I think shield/armor/parry options make sense? Yeah they're cool. But it seems like a whole nuther can of worms.
Well in this regard, increase in AC results in a statistical decrease in (stamina) damage, which makes sense in an abstracted kind of way.
Simple enough. Spell with no save deal deadly wounds?
The best answer is going to be: "depends on the spell." For a very long time.
My litmus test is going to be: "Is it possible for a tough person to walk/sleep off x*?" where x is the attack description. If the resulting question is silly, the damage is probably deadly. Examples: Can you walk off a fall from a 15 foot ledge? Yeah OK, Stamina. Can you walk off a direct hit with a scorching ray? Nope. Probably deadly.
Well in this regard, increase in AC means a statistical decrease in (stamina) damage, which makes sense in an abstracted kind of way.
Yeah, Stamina is still abstract. Like all HP are in the RAW... So a lot of the cases made for HP abstraction apply there.
Yeah, Stamina is still abstract. Like all HP are in the RAW... So a lot of the cases made for HP abstraction apply there.
** spoiler omitted **
I laughed. But this does seem to push that movie/comic book feel a bit more: a critical hit can really set someone back but John Wayne and John McClane both really shrug off other gunshots and the like with a quick rest.
@Freesword: Actually, all of your posted material is constructive, and I enjoyed reading about your HP rule, too! I'm sorry if I've come off as defensive.
As for "why not just call it non-lethal" — I suppose I could. I don't much care for the healing rate of non-lethal damage, and that's about the only difference at this point. I actually think "Stamina damage" rolls off the tongue a bit easier too. But yes, for all intents, Stamina damage is very like non-lethal damage.
That's a very helpful point, especially when explaining the rule. I may re-word things to that end.
That said, recovering just your level in HP is one of the first rules I've ever changed. It's silly. Low-con wizards recover from their wounds the fastest of all characters in the party? Ridiculous.
I had already switched to a percentage-based healing rate long before this Stamina/Deadly rule, and I'm never going back. :)
Yep. Ridiculous. Glad that's working out for you. I admit I am warming to the percentage idea. The benefit may well be worth the math.
My house rule until this point for standard healing from rest was actually 20% per standard night of rest. I literally swapped in 20% for "regain level in HP".
The best part about it was that (assuming no magic at all) a totally jacked-up party would recover all its damage at the same time. The high-HP barbarian was no longer a drain on magical resources because he didn't take ages to heal naturally. ( That. Is. Silly.)
But it's still not enough, for me. RAW Hit Points recover too fast for realism and too slow for good gameplay.
Cure wands have come to play a role in the game where damage doesn't stick around between encounters — it just gets converted to GP and extra effort for one unlucky and altruistic player.
It isn't the cure wand's fault... the poor guy is just providing a valuable service! Rather, it is the mechanics that say "HP are abstract until you try to heal them when they become as difficult as wounds."
I recently asked my player if he thought tracking crit damage on the sideline was too much work. His exact response was: "I'm tracking a million things. Tracking how many hit points I get BACK is fine."
This bodes well for the playtest.
I recently asked my player if he thought tracking crit damage on the sideline was too much work. His exact response was: "I'm tracking a million things. Tracking how many hit points I get BACK is fine."
I laughed. That's exactly right, and I imagine my response would have been similar. A+ to your player - that's from TheRedArmy! Accept the compliment graciously! :-)
I disagree about Rouge sneak attacks - I think the sneak attack damage itself (including damage from the weapon) and bleed damage that may occur (be it from Rouge ability, weapon ability, or anything else) should be lethal. Non-sneak attack should be stamina, as normal, but I think it nerfs rouges too much to make all their awesome abilities stamina. If they manage to get in position for it - give them the rewards.
As always, the final judgment lies with you.
Your idea for resting is boss. I am going to use that when I run games from now on. No question. Thanks for the wonderful House rule!
As for HP, I'm eager to provide more help if you need it - please post your current issues, worries, and rule set, if you please.
I disagree about Rouge sneak attacks - I think the sneak attack damage itself (including damage from the weapon) and bleed damage that may occur (be it from Rouge ability, weapon ability, or anything else) should be lethal. Non-sneak attack should be stamina, as normal, but I think it nerfs rouges too much to make all their awesome abilities stamina. If they manage to get in position for it - give them the rewards.
The attack that creates bleed should be deadly. The bleeding damage istelf... that's sort of nasty and "unrealistic". I put "unrealistic" in quotes because blood loss is crazy deadly in real life — but if the cause is treated, you do recover relatively quickly (compared to a third degree burn, for example). Can you rest off a bleeding wound? no. Can you rest off a loss of blood when the wound is treated? I'm thinking yes, but I am open to argument.
Sneak attacks, theRedArmy? Did we discuss sneak attacks? ... Damn. Now we need to discuss sneak attacks. Good catch.
What do people think — sneak attacks deadly? What are the implications?
As always, the final judgment lies with you.
For my campaign, yes. But I take a lot of pride in working on rules that other people want to use (and can easily drop in their games). That's why I love getting feedback from these forums, and I always try to incorporate it — especially the critical feedback!
Here's my most recent writeup. Freesword was right, expressing it as non-lethal vs. lethal makes it a lot easier to grasp on the first read, even if it is less pretty to a word-nerd like myself.
Lethal vs. Non-lethal damage
Normal hits (non-critical) deal non-lethal damage, which represents taxing dodges, parries or blows absorbed by shield or armor.Critical hits deal lethal damage, which represents solid hits that burn, cut skin, bruise flesh and break bones.
If any attack brings a creature to zero hit points or lower, the attacker may choose to have that attack deal deadly damage. If the attacker chooses to deal non-lethal damage instead, the creature is at 0 HP and unconscious.
Energy damage from spells deals lethal damage if the target fails a saving throw. Otherwise, the damage is non-lethal.
Attacks that deal bleed always treat the initial damage as lethal. Subsequent damage from bleed is non-lethal.
Healing
Non-lethal and lethal damage are both affected normally as Hit Points by effects (other than rest) that replenish HP damage.Healing effects restore deadly damage before restoring non-lethal damage.
Recovery Rates (optional)
Non-lethal damage recovers with rest at a rate of 20% of total HP per 20 minutes of non-strenuous activity.Lethal damage recovers naturally at a rate of 10% per week of non-strenuous activity, but requires some kind of treatment to heal at all.
Notice that I put recovery rates as optional. This is because I realize that the rate of recovery isn't actually central to the abstract/literal wound split. Now, of course I like my recovery rates better, but I imagine the rule would work pretty well if somebody kept the RAW rates for lethal and non-lethal recovery too!
The more encapsulated each house-rule is, the easier it is to drop into a campaign (with all the other house-rules a person might have).
(Throughout this post and from here on I will refer to the RAW damage system as "standard damage".)
You have a point about blood loss.
I'm trying to find a way to make bleed damage bad, but also make it non-lethal after a while (like real life). The only thing I can think of is that bleed damage is lethal at first (initial damage and continuing damage from the bleed). After the bleed is treated and after 8 hours of rest, the bleed damage changes to non-lethal (and can be healed as such).
Sneak attacks should be lethal. The main point to remember on everything is this - lethal damage is equivalent to how damage is by standard. Changing something to non-lethal makes it weaker, overall. The only difference between lethal damage and standard damage is your different healing rate. So, let's keep rouges as they are, and make it lethal. It also represents hitting a vital spot, so it works in fluff, too.
I like the option for an incapacitating attack. I also like your recovery rates and all the rules except as posted above.
If any attack brings a creature to zero hit points or lower, the attacker may choose to have that attack deal deadly damage. If the attacker chooses to deal non-lethal damage instead, the creature is at 0 HP and unconscious.
First a question, why give the attacker the choice to do non-lethal on the hit that drops the defender? The general assumption of the game is that with every attack you're trying to kill your target and if you're not you take a -4 to hit to deal non-lethal. Why change that?
Second I presume the intent here is that if attacker deals deadly damage and drops the defender then the defender is unconsious and bleeding out as per normal is that correct?
My gut reaction on sneak attacks is that given the descriptive text of the ability they should be deadly damage but on the other hand it dosen't seem fair to have the fighter suddenly doing mostly non-lethal while the rogue maintains his full deadlines. I could really go either way on this one myself.
Torger
First a question, why give the attacker the choice to do non-lethal on the hit that drops the defender? The general assumption of the game is that with every attack you're trying to kill your target and if you're not you take a -4 to hit to deal non-lethal. Why change that?
That wasn't my intention. You caught me altering the way combat works to suit my mental picture, which is something I was trying to avoid. It made sense to me at the time of writing that if you're bound to deal non-lethal damage on a non-critical hit, you should be able to keep doing that. But you're right, intentional subdual should require the -4 penalty. Good catch.
Second I presume the intent here is that if attacker deals deadly damage and drops the defender then the defender is unconsious and bleeding out as per normal is that correct?
The last hit is lethal damage so that it starts the normal negative HP bleeding and stabilization rules. This clause is actually the most important one in the whole house rule, because it is what makes non-lethal standard attacks effectively equal to lethal attacks.
My gut reaction on sneak attacks is that given the descriptive text of the ability they should be deadly damage but on the other hand it dosen't seem fair to have the fighter suddenly doing mostly non-lethal while the rogue maintains his full deadlines. I could really go either way on this one myself.
Perhaps the fighter was a poor choice of example, because of all the martial classes they have the easiest time increasing critical hits. Nevertheless, it's a valid point.
Because of the "final hit is lethal" clause, non-lethal damage is functionally the same as lethal damage. PCs benefit from it vastly more than NPCs, because the real payout comes between combat encounters, right? The only difference, then, between the martial character's non-crit damage and the rogue's sneak attack damage is that the sneak attack damage will linger for days until healed.
Now, there are types of targeted, underhanded damage that make sense as non-lethal. Like a kick in the nuts. But Sneak Attack is one of those rules that really exploits the abstract nature of RAW HP, so this is probably going to be a tricky one to resolve.
I like what you've done here Lincoln. I like that an evoker caster actually becomes more dangerous in this scenario as his damage is more "real".
I do, however, think that things like a rogue's sneak attack should be "deadly" damage. This is, after all, in many ways like a crit (rolling 4d6 for damage is kinda a crit, isn't it?) and thematically it, like rending, is about dealing real damage to places where it hurts.
However, this kinda puts the rogue infront of the "real damage" crowd; so I would suggest to balance this out against the brute fighter types by adding: when a hit exceeds the target's AC by 5 or more, then it is a "deadly" hit.
Or, related (though this kind of subsumes the above): I think there should be an option to deal "deadly" damage on demand, for example by taking a -4 penalty (similar to trying to do sub-dual damage on purpose). I'd also rule that using power attack to deal "deadly" damage would only require half the normal penalty to deal "deadly" damage.
Well, technically, the evoker isn't more dangerous, but it does feel that way. And that's what's important, right?
Everything is just as deadly as it was before, just some damage is easier to heal after the fight.
During the fight, everything is pretty much exactly as it is in the RAW. This pleases me.
I like the rules you have so far, except ruling sneak attack as lethal. Sneak attacks are just as lethally inteded as favored enemy damage, smite damage, weapon specialization/weapon training or whatever other damage mechanic you want to use.
I could see making the first d6 or so of sneak attack be vitality draining while the rest are stamina draining. This still keeps the idea that you are aiming for (and hitting) vital points, but doesn't make NPC rogues that much more deadly than NPC fighters, or even just a bigger drain on resources.
Sneak attacks are just as lethally intended as favored enemy damage, smite damage, weapon specialization/weapon training or whatever other damage mechanic you want to use.
Agreed.
You're also right in that this whole concept is really about the healing difficulty of NPC damage vs. PCs. NPCs mostly won't care about the lethal/non-lethal distinction at all.
Still chewing on this one.
That's a good idea
How about the sneak attacks from rouges that are flanking are non-lethal, (unless the normal damage is a crit), and sneaking up undetected while they are actually flatfooted is lethal.
That is a cool suggestion.
I'm a little concerned at the pile up of "what about x type of attack?" issues. That may prove to be the true source of complexity for this rule. There will NEVER be an end to such queries, as the game is always coming up with new forms of punishment. We need a "razor" that can really apply to any attack and tell us which it is.
To that end, I'm tempted to return to "Everything is non-lethal except crits and failed saving throws." Even bleed attacks. Simplicity is very valuable.
Of course, the GM still has a lot of leeway making certain damage sources deal lethal if it makes sense. But in general, even a smite/SA/FE ought to deal non-lethal, because if it isn't a crit it represents a nullified attack that taxes the target's defensive resources. It's that much more taxing because it is driven by the wrath of an angry god... but it is still a "miss" unless it's a crit.
We just need to get used to sorting the drama damage from the real "cut you open" stuff. It ain't easy.
The basic premise "most attacks deal non lethal damage as soaked by armor, dodged, or parried" is highly portable I think.
All that's really needed to make it work is that rule where the final hit is treated as deadly.
After that point, I expect every GM would want different things from it, so I expect to see multiple implementations.
What's important is that — no matter how you use it — you post back here and tell us what you did and how it worked out!
To that end, I'm tempted to return to "Everything is non-lethal except crits and failed saving throws."
I would strongly argue in favour of this.
It would worth going through the magic section and see if there are any spells that A) do not allow saving throws and B) do not rely on an attack roll (and therefore cannot score a critical) that really should deal deadly wounds, but my intuition is that there aren't.
The way I see it, the deadlier the attack, the more it SHOULD deal stamina damage (rather than deadly wounds). Surviving immersion in lava or a 100' fall (or having your throat slit, or being dipped in acid, or being crushed by the club of a giant etc.) without any impairing injuries is so unlikely that I'd rather accept that 'something' made that the injury never took place, rather than the body shrugging the normally lethal injury as if nothing ever happened.
'findel
The basic premise "most attacks deal non lethal damage as soaked by armor, dodged, or parried" is highly portable I think.
My favorite part is that this is highly portable in a low magic setting that doesn't want to be a gritty E6 campaign...