This thread is for the discussion of Damage Penalties, which have recurrently cropped up in discussion of the Strain-Injury HP Variant Rule.
I hope the homebrew forums will forgive me for spamming today, but we agreed it would make everyone's life easier to have a separate thread. Happy Houseruling!
I really like the idea that only injuries cause penalties.
Rules that say at 25%/50%/75% etc I take penalties X/Y/Z have never really played out well to me.
Example, fighter with 100 hp. you take -1 to hit for every 20% of your hp you lose.
He takes 80 one hp paper cuts, and he is -4 on all rolls.
He takes 1 19 hp severe gash injury on his arm, and takes no penalties.
This just doesn't feel right to me.
I really believe that penalties should be based all or mostly on injury damage.
Possible solutions
1. Only injuries generate penalties. This is easiest.
2. Injuries count for more than strain. Eaxmple: An injury would count as 3 times the injury amount in strain, and penalties are based on strain. So a 10 points of injury with 30 points of strain would be 60 points of strain for penalty purposes.
The Fatigued and Exhausted conditions are quite popular for damage penalties too. I find them a little too complex myself, but if I had a special sheet drawn up that had space for the modified values of all of the relevant Str and Dex cascades (or hell, even an asterisk) it would be a lot smoother.
The Fatigued and Exhausted conditions are quite popular for damage penalties too. I find them a little too complex myself, but if I had a special sheet drawn up that had space for the modified values of all of the relevant Str and Dex cascades (or hell, even an asterisk) it would be a lot smoother.
Yes, but they have a lot of other interactions with the rules. You can become immune to fatigue. Being fatigued makes you vulnerable to certain spells. It seems realistic, but it makes for some potentially complex baggage.
Solid points. I would like to hear what the proponents of Fatigue-Exhaustion damage penalties have to say to that.
Another idea to steal from Shadowrun. A lot of people like to use the 25%/50%/75%/100% for penalty progression. Shadowrun uses a 10%/30%/60%/100% progression. Just an alternate idea.
In my experience, that progression leads players to end up at the deadliest levels of damage more often than not... which can be action-packed, but it can also lead to a vicious cycle.
The real trick with damage penalties is ensuring that they affect all character types equally. A common mistake is to under-represent casters in the penalty scheme.
Heck, since we're near the beginning of the conversation, I may as well call out the big 3 houserule offenses:
Anthropocentric — A hit location table that doesn't work for non-humanoids is almost useless in Pathfinder. Any good rule for Pathfinder is going to work on monsters and humanoids equally (or differ in an intentional way).
Martial/Caster Bias — I have seen many rules that are great for low-magic campaigns but completely overlook the specifics of casters. For example, the popular Fatigue/Exhaustion damage penalty doesn't even slow most casters down. Some systems over-compensate by penalizing casters more... if that's intentional, it needs to be called out in the Meta-Game Analysis.
NPC complexity — Highly-detailed damage penalty systems are a total pain in the ass to GM for. What seems awesome and gritty on a PC character sheet may lead the GM to avoid running certain encounter types altogether.
In my experience, that progression leads players to end up at the deadliest levels of damage more often than not... which can be action-packed, but it can also lead to a vicious cycle.
Yes, and no, it really depends on exactly what the penalties are at each level.
So in the interest ot having SOMETHING to discuss, here is my proposal.
Injuries are made location specific. I am not going to provide a hit table, but rather leave it up to the DM to provide the hit location based on the narrative. Rather I would roll a d6 and choose a location based on the roll and the consequence to the character. For example, if I rolled a 1 on a wizard, it would be an arm injury(little to no consequence for a wizard), if I rolled a 6, the wizard would get a head injury, a 3 would probably net the wizard a leg injury, while a 4 would net him a check injury(dex and con loss).
Injuries to to limbs impose a penalty to hit with any attack that uses that limb, and a penalty to movement if that limb is used for movement.
Body injuries impose a penalty to all physical stats. Head injuries impose a penalty to all mental stats.
The penalty is based on the number of injuries recieved. Each injury is a -1 to hit/-5 movement/-1 to stats depending on location. 5 gash injuries on your right arm is a -5 to hit on attacks with your right arm. 3 injuries to your torso is -3 to all physical stats.
I think this provides a decent caster/martial balance. Casters are more concerned with mobility than full attack martial types. Head injuries will hurt the casters while the fighter getting kicked in the head doesn't matter because they got nothing to hurt up there anyhow. Monks get things a little easier on limb hits because they can always make attacks with a different limb, but being MAD dependant, they get hurt by both head and torso injuries alike.
See, I'm not convinced that system, or even an expanded one like it, would work fairly across character types.
How does a broken leg interfere with the fly spell? How does a broken arm interfere with casting?
What about the vast library of spells that don't rely on save DCs for their effectiveness? What about being able to heal your own spells?
I'm glad you made these suggestions, because they represent some of the common problems with damage penalties in PF. But... in the end, I think I would rather go the route of Shadowrun and have the damage penalty apply a -x to all stuff, and exhaustively define stuff to inhibit casters as thoroughly as martials.
See, I'm not convinced that system, or even an expanded one like it, would work fairly across character types.
How does a broken leg interfere with the fly spell? How does a broken arm interfere with casting?
What about the vast library of spells that don't rely on save DCs for their effectiveness? What about being able to heal your own spells?
I'm glad you made these suggestions, because they represent some of the common problems with damage penalties in PF. But... in the end, I think I would rather go the route of Shadowrun and have the damage penalty apply a -x to all stuff, and exhaustively define stuff to inhibit casters as thoroughly as martials.
I am not sure that ANY system will be able to effectively inhibit all casters. When you can be completely physically paralyzed and still pop off teleport as an SLA, how to you stop them? The whole point of magic is to work around physical limitations. Injuries are by definition physical limitations.
Perhaps head injuries give a 10% chance per injury of spell failure while torso injuries give a 10% chance per injury of missing an attack(think of it as the fighter getting blinded by pain and missing an opportunity to attack).
Actually, I was pondering the spell failure idea while driving home, and I think if you want something with a real bite on casters, that is a way to go.
Basically, injuries force caster to make concentration checks at the standard DC of 15 + 2 x spell level. For each additional injury effecting the spell add +2 to the DC of the check.
So here is the list of locations from least dibilitating to most.
Limb(combat): -1 to hit with attacks from that limb, casting somatic spells requires a concentration check
Limb(movement): -5 movement, -1 to attacks with that limb
Body: -1 to hit with all attacks, verbal spells requires a concentration check(harder to breath and thus speak clearly)
Head: -2 to hit with all attacks, all spells, SLAs, and supernatural abilities requires a concentration check
So a character has an 2 arm injuries, an injured chest, and an injured head.
If they wish to use an supernatural ability or SLA, they have to make a standard concentration check.
If they want to use a spell with verbal, but no soematic component, they have to make a DC 12 + 2 x SL concentration check.
If they want to use a spell with a verbal and soematic component, they have to make a DC 16 + 2 x SL concentration check.
If they want to make an attack that does not use their injured arm they are at -3 to hit.
If they want to make an attack that does use their injured arm, they are at -5 to hit.
The thing I like about system is that most of the injury penalties can be avoided or minimized if the player changes tactics. A caster can used still or silent spells, and fighter woudl avoid using their injured hand, and so on.
The more i think about it, the more i think I should move away from actual locations, and just make a table of random penalties.
Something like
1: -5 move
2: -1 to hit all attacks
3: 10% miss chance with all attacks
4: Verbal or Somatic(pick one) spells require a concentration check
5: All spells require a concentration check
6: All SLAs and supernatural abilities require a concentration check.
If you are already required to make a concentration check, then 4, 5, and 6 add +2 to the check.
If you have multiple injuries with the same result, the effects are cumulative.
Once the DM has the injury effect, they can explain what the injury is that caused that effect.
Example, rolls a 3, you take a nasty bleeding gash above you eye that is obscuring your vision. You have a 10% miss chance on all your attacks due to partial blindness.
What I like about the 25%/50%/75%/100% is it corresponds nicely to the healing/wounding Cure/Inflict Light/Moderate/Serious/Critical wound spells. I never liked the idea that a Cure Light would fully heal one person but have practically no effect on another.
What I like about the 25%/50%/75%/100% is it corresponds nicely to the healing/wounding spells Cure/Inflict Light/Moderate/Serious/Critical wound spells. I never liked the idea that a Cure Light would fully heal one person but have practically no effect on another.
Your system, if 25% is a light wound, 50% is moderate wound, 75% is serious wound. 2 lights = 1 moderate, 3 lights = 1 serious, 2 moderates = dead.
With the 10/30/60/100, it take 3 light wounds = 1 moderate, 6 light wounds = 1 serious, 2 moderate wounds = 1 serious, and 4 moderate wounds = dead, 10 light wounds = dead.
The beauty of the 10/30/60/100 system is that is actually puts a larger difference between what constatutes a light wound vs other wound levels.
The downside is that you start getting penalties a lot sooner.
Your system, if 25% is a light wound, 50% is moderate wound, 75% is serious wound. 2 lights = 1 moderate, 3 lights = 1 serious, 2 moderates = dead.
With the 10/30/60/100, it take 3 light wounds = 1 moderate, 6 light wounds = 1 serious, 2 moderate wounds = 1 serious, and 4 moderate wounds = dead, 10 light wounds = dead.
The beauty of the 10/30/60/100 system is that is actually puts a larger difference between what constatutes a light wound vs other wound levels.
The downside is that you start getting penalties a lot sooner.
hmmm Good point. I haven't actually put this into effect or run the numbers on it. I'll have to think about it some more. :)
What if there was no penalty until the 30% (Moderte) level?
Your system, if 25% is a light wound, 50% is moderate wound, 75% is serious wound. 2 lights = 1 moderate, 3 lights = 1 serious, 2 moderates = dead.
With the 10/30/60/100, it take 3 light wounds = 1 moderate, 6 light wounds = 1 serious, 2 moderate wounds = 1 serious, and 4 moderate wounds = dead, 10 light wounds = dead.
The beauty of the 10/30/60/100 system is that is actually puts a larger difference between what constatutes a light wound vs other wound levels.
The downside is that you start getting penalties a lot sooner.hmmm Good point. I haven't actually put this into effect or run the numbers on it. I'll have to think about it some more. :)
What if there was no penalty until the 30% (Moderte) level?
That could work, or you could make it where the light penalty was significantly weaker. Something like light = -1, moderate = -3, serious = -6.
I think our friend here may be negative levels. We could use the same penalties (except the hp loss) and have them go away when you get healed. Not sure how frequently they should be applied though.
You're seriously going to recalculate encumbrance twice in the middle of a tense battle? I'm not sure I'd recommend that.
What I WOULD recommend is that you ditch the whole idea of exhaustion and fatigue as injury penalties. Everybody who tries seems to gradually change every single aspect of the two conditions and you don't even need names for these things. They can just be the injury penalties.
You're seriously going to recalculate encumbrance twice in the middle of a tense battle? I'm not sure I'd recommend that.
What I WOULD recommend is that you ditch the whole idea of exhaustion and fatigue as injury penalties. Everybody who tries seems to gradually change every single aspect of the two conditions and you don't even need names for these things. They can just be the injury penalties.
This is why i backed away from the physical stat penalties I suggested earlier upthread. Too much mid combat recalculation(HP, encumberance, saves, etc) and too much interaction with other stuff that is already in the game(ability damage/drains).
Something else I would stay away from are defensive penalties. With the HP system(or injury/strain variant), loss of hp already represents an inherent loss in defense.
If you look at it in terms of effective health(EH = health / chance to be hit). Lets say I have 100 hp, and my enemies have a 25% chance to him me for 10 damage. My effective health is 400 hp. This means it will take around 40 swings by the enemy to bring me down. Now if I take 50 damage, my effective health drops to 200. Now lets say that at 50% we decide that I take a -5 AC penalty(This is intentionally steep for demostration purposes). Now the enemy has a 50% chance to him me. This means that my effective health is now only 100 HP. So instead of it taking 20 more swings for the enemy to bring me down, it now only takes 10.
Defensive penalties on top of HP damage can greatly accelerate the downward spirial that damages penalties can have.
I'm thinking
1/2 hp: -2 to all d20 rolls and +20% spell failure chance.
1/4 hp: -4 to all d20 rolls and +40% spell failure chance.
And that's that!
Sounds ok, but I'm not convinced that damage should be penalising saves. I'd say if anything it should be penalising spell save DCs instead. I also wonder why it increases your chance of failing spells by 20/40% and your chances of failing all other rolls by half that.
What about something like the condition track/damage threshold system from saga edition.
Rather then basing it on a % of hp, make it so there has to be a significant injury to debilitate someone. And ofcourse 'significant' would vary based on how tough you were.
I'm thinking
1/2 hp: -2 to all d20 rolls and +20% spell failure chance.
1/4 hp: -4 to all d20 rolls and +40% spell failure chance.And that's that!
I prefer the concentration checks with increasing DCs over a flat chance of spell failure.
My reasoning is thus.
If a fighter gets injured, there are things they can do to improve their odds. They can stop power attacking or move into a flank position. In short, they have ways to mitigate the penalty.
If a casters gets injured, the concentration check gives them some options for mitigating the penalty. They can use lower level spells.
Also, with those rules, SLAs and supernatural abilities are uneffected. This means that a wizards school abilities, cleric domain abilities, witch hexes, etc are completely uneffected by injuries.
We've been using fatigued/exhausted* for years, and the interaction with "immune to fatigue" has been a feature, not a bug, because we sprinkled abilities like that through the fighter and ranger class ability progressions (and allow barbarians to ignore these conditions while raging).
* For ease of play, -1/-3 to everything, including spell save DCs.
We've been using fatigued/exhausted* for years, and the interaction with "immune to fatigue" has been a feature, not a bug, because we sprinkled abilities like that through the fighter and ranger class ability progressions (and allow barbarians to ignore these conditions while raging).
* For ease of play, -1/-3 to everything, including spell save DCs.
Does that also mean -1/-3 to AC?
Does that also mean -1/-3 to AC?
Yes -- it's standing in for -2 to all ability scores/-6 for all ability scores -- that's why save DCs drop as well. Yes, it means that it's harder to fight when you're injured. This adds value to things like fireballs (slightly inhibit large group's fighting ability) and to channeling energy/healing in combat (get your guys back up to fighting trim). I also have an Endurance skill that allows you to temporarily ignore these penalties.
We've been using fatigued/exhausted* for years, and the interaction with "immune to fatigue" has been a feature, not a bug, because we sprinkled abilities like that through the fighter and ranger class ability progressions (and allow barbarians to ignore these conditions while raging).
* For ease of play, -1/-3 to everything, including spell save DCs.
The beauty with fatigued/exhausted is that the later is a more severe state of the former. Thus, you can easily set two non-linear conditions that'd trigger damage penalty.
For example (and that remains my favourite damage penalty variant for Strain-Injury), a character could become fatigued when injured for the first time or at 1/2 hit points, whichever comes first. If both conditions are met, the character gets exhausted instead. This would put a bit more pressure on the "injuries are bad" principle.
I like how exhausted is a worst state than twice the fatigued penalties, and how it meshes in the already existing system. Like Kirth, I find the fact that some characters get immune to fatigue and therefore immune to damage penalty a feature rather than a bug.
'findel
I like how exhausted is a worst state than twice the fatigued penalties, and how it meshes in the already existing system. Like Kirth, I find the fact that some characters get immune to fatigue and therefore immune to damage penalty a feature rather than a bug.
'findel
The immunity doesn't bother me as much as how fatigued interacts with other spells and abilites.
"Doing anything that would normally cause fatigue causes the fatigued character to become exhausted."
That is the part that bothers me.
Also, being injured enough to make you fatigue would make you immune to spells that cause fatigue. That just seems wierd.
I am pretty sure that fatigued and/or exhausted makes you vulnerable to some really nasty spells.
True, but we are talking about damage penalties after all.
Whether fatigued is too severe of a penalty is a legitimate question however. It is rather harsh (you can't even run nor charge on top of it). My own hit-points variant has less severe damage penalties than that.
On the other hand, if you're going to the trouble of incorporating damage penalties, they should be significant enough to have a certain impact on gameplay.
Also, being injured enough to make you fatigue would make you immune to spells that cause fatigue. That just seems weird.
You mean being injured enough to be exhausted makes you immune to spells that make you fatigued?
It isn't that weird to me and frankly, it would be a poor choice of spell from the enemy spellcaster...
I am pretty sure that fatigued and/or exhausted makes you vulnerable to some really nasty spells.True, but we are talking about damage penalties after all.
Whether fatigued is too severe of a penalty is a legitimate question however. It is rather harsh (you can't even run nor charge on top of it). My own hit-points variant has less severe damage penalties than that.
On the other hand, if you're going to the trouble of incorporating damage penalties, they should be significant enough to have a certain impact on gameplay.
Whether it is too severe or not isn't the question. The question is whether fatigue/exhaused comes with too much other baggage.
In short, why not just say at -1 to all rolls at 50% and -3 at 75%? Why does it have to be fatigued/exhausted?
In short, why not just say at -1 to all rolls at 50% and -3 at 75%? Why does it have to be fatigued/exhausted?
Because I'm not suggesting 50% and 75% (although Kirth does).
I'm suggesting fatigued at 1+ injury damage point OR 50% hit points, whichever comes first.
You get exhausted when you are down to 50% hit points AND have received injury damage.
Only fatigued/exhausted allow that because one is a worst state of the other and my penalty conditions aren't linear (one could receive injury damage before being down to 50% hit points, or vice versa).
The other way would be to have -1 penalty on everything at 50% hit points, and another (cumulative) -1 penalty when injured. Only, I find that fatigued/exhausted already does that, and better.
'findel
In short, why not just say at -1 to all rolls at 50% and -3 at 75%? Why does it have to be fatigued/exhausted?Because I'm not suggesting 50% and 75% (although Kirth does).
I'm suggesting fatigued at 1 injury damage point OR 50% hit points, whichever comes first.
You get exhausted when you are down to 50% hit points AND have received injury damage.
Only fatigued/exhausted allow that because one is a worst state of the other.
The other way would be to have -1 penalty on everything at 50% and injured, and another (cumulative) -1 penalty when injured.
Or it could be -1 per 2 injuries recieved, or however else you want. When the penalties apply isn't really the point.
My point is that fatigued/exhaused conditions come with possibly unintended side effects. Would just using a -1 to all rolls and not calling is exhausted/fatigued be cleaner?
Also, fatigued/exhausted hits martial characters a lot harder than casters. If I have a -3 to my spell DC, I will just swap to using spells that don't allows a save. A fighter really doesn't have an option to use attacks that don't require an attack roll.
My point is that fatigued/exhaused conditions come with possibly unintended side effects. Would just using a -1 to all rolls and not calling is exhausted/fatigued be cleaner?
Not from my perspective, but YMMV.
On the contrary, fatigued and exhausted are already existing condition with their own clearly defined effects. I find it much cleaner to use already existing material than to create yet another condition or set of penalties.
As I previously mentioned, I find that the interaction with existing circumstances causing fatigue a positive feature, and since two fatigued makes one exhausted, things get simple and clean IMO.
Besides, exhausted is severe enough for me. No need to be at -3 on everything AND exhausted (from whatever else reason).
If I have a -3 to my spell DC, I will just swap to using spells that don't allows a save.
Those usually require an attack roll, on which you have a -3 penalty as well (and if you take the -3 on anything literally, on your spell's damage rolls also). If you took damage, your concentration check suffers from this penalty as well etc. I find that this hits caster pretty hard actually. There are spells, especially defensive ones, that allow no save and require no roll, but your selection gets pretty narrow.
And the fact that you call it exhausted rather than -3 on everything changes nothing about that.
'findel
My point is that fatigued/exhaused conditions come with possibly unintended side effects. Would just using a -1 to all rolls and not calling is exhausted/fatigued be cleaner?Not from my perspective, but YMMV.
On the contrary, fatigued and exhausted are already existing condition with their own clearly defined effects. I find it much cleaner to use already existing material than to create yet another condition or set of penalties.
As I previously mentioned, I find that the interaction with existing circumstances causing fatigue a positive feature, and since two fatigued makes one exhausted, things get simple and clean IMO.
Besides, exhausted is severe enough for me. No need to be at -3 on everything AND exhausted (from whatever else reason).
Fair enough.
If I have a -3 to my spell DC, I will just swap to using spells that don't allows a save.Those usually require an attack roll, on which you have a -3 as well (and if you take the -3 on anything literally, on your spell's damage rolls as well). If you took damage, your concentration roll suffers from that penalty as well. I find that this hits caster pretty hard actually. There are spells, especially defensive ones, that allow no save and require no roll, but your selection gets pretty narrow.
And the fact that you call it exhausted rather than -3 on everything changes nothing about that.
'findel
Exhaustion has other effect beside a -3 "An exhausted character moves at half speed, cannot run or charge."
It hits melee harder than ranged. It hits ranged harder than casters.
A caster could still Dim Door or teleport to get away from the enemy. Summon monster still works just fine. Having played around with a no save caster type, I know there are plenty of great spells with no save and no attack roll(Waves of Exhaustion, for example).
An enemy could run circles around an exhausted melee type without the melee type have any chance of catching them.
Exhaustion has other effect beside a -3 "An exhausted character moves at half speed, cannot run or charge."It hits melee harder than ranged. It hits ranged harder than casters.
A caster could still Dim Door or teleport to get away from the enemy. Summon monster still works just fine. Having played around with a no save caster type, I know there are plenty of great spells with no save and no attack roll(Waves of Exhaustion, for example).
An enemy could run circles around an...
I give you that much.
Waves of Exhaustion would be the perfect way to even-out the odds actually; give them a -3 penalty on saves to cancel your -3 on spell DCs and you're back to square 1!
Actually, I'm not sure how to get to casters without crippling them altogether. If I suggest X% spell failure, I'm going to start receiving hatemail from every player who isn't fully dedicated to play fighters...
Has anyone thoroughly processed the Vigor/Wounds variant from Ultimate Combat? Playtested?
I read through it the other day, but I'm a little put off by the complexity when compared to Strain/Injury. Looking for thoughts or testimonials...
|
Wounds are a very tricky subject because they can seriously exacerbate the he-who-strikes-first-wins nature of D&D combat. If you take two opponents who are identical in every respect, the one who wins initiative will win the majority of fights in normal Pathfinder. Add in injuries, and you tip the scales from "majority" to "vast majority".
I'm honestly not convinced that the basic d20 system can really handle an injury system past just hit points. There are systems that do handle injuries well, but they're all designed from the ground up with assumptions that support injuries. There are also a lot of systems that try to implement injuries and just end up with the first guy who gets injured being nothing but meat.
|
I use the Wounds/Vigor system in my Skull and Shackles game, and it's been a blast. It really is quite simple when you change a character sheet to include wounds/vigor.
The Wounded/Staggered thresholds make the PCs feel like they're actually hurt, and rapid vigor recovery means players are willing to get back into the fray faster.
Overall once you use the system a bit it becomes quite intuitive. Although adding a spell-failure chance to the wounded condition sounds reasonable. I'd probably go with 5% per wounds taken.
I did add the following though:
Injured: A PC who has taken any Wound damage takes a -1 penalty on attacks, saves and skills due to the distraction of pain. (I might add: Spellcasters take a 5% spell failure chance for each wound taken).
Also:
Second Wind: Once per day a PC may take 10 minutes to recover half their vigor, this represents readjusting armor, centering oneself and bandaging minor cuts and abrasions. A PC may not do this if they are fatigued, exhausted, poisoned, sickened, nauseated, diseased or unconscious. A character may make a DC 20 heal check to give another character a Second Wind even if they are suffering from the above conditions. The PC must be relatively free of stress and distractions to do this.
I posted in the wrong post earlier, so quoting something Evil Lincoln said:
It occurs to me, Da'ath, that the real trouble behind damage penalties that are equivalent for casters and everyone else, it that the game doesn't really have proper mechanics for penalizing spellcasters. It has a few disparate systems, (concentration checks, arcane spell failure) but they are either arbitrary (as ASF, and % doesn't integrate well with other modifiers) or ineffective (concentration DCs? hahahahaha).
So I'm starting to feel like any real damage penalty solution needs first to fix (and unify) concentration checks, arcane spell failure, and maybe also negative levels.
I just had a thought. Let's take the penalty progression from something I was using earlier and I'll add in the "thought" to illustrate:
Original I posted a while ago.
Condition Track (Example Only)
Normal State: No wounds.
1st Wound: -1 penalty to armor class, saving throws, attack rolls, ability, and skill checks.
2nd Wound: -2 penalty to defenses, attack rolls, ability and skill checks.
3rd Wound: -5 penalty to defenses, attack rolls, ability and skill checks.
4th Wound: Move at half speed; -10 penalty to defenses, attack rolls, ability and skill checks.
Final Wound: Helpless (unconscious or disabled)
The Thought: Your opponents receive a bonus equal to the wound penalty to their saving throws against your spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural effects. Alternatively, you could reduce the Save DC for the spells they cast by an amount equal to the penalty.
Random Example: Your a wizard. You've taken 3 wounds. There are three orcs left and all you have is a fireball - unfortunately, Sir Blunder, your fighter, is off fighting a guy on his own instead of protecting you. You have the space to safely cast (safely is defined as it'll only catch the rogue in addition to the orcs) and do so - due to your wound penalties, the three orcs receive a +5 bonus to his saving throw against the spell, less importantly, so does the party rogue.
It seems like a way to include casters in the penalty box with everyone else, I'm just not sure how good of an idea it is.
|
Wounds are a very tricky subject because they can seriously exacerbate the he-who-strikes-first-wins nature of D&D combat. If you take two opponents who are identical in every respect, the one who wins initiative will win the majority of fights in normal Pathfinder. Add in injuries, and you tip the scales from "majority" to "vast majority".
...
You haven't played it correctly then. Wounds are not touched until they get hit with a critical hit or when their vitality points are all gone. No other circumstance bypasses vitality, not even flat footed. Next, I wouldn't include injuries with this anyway.
---------
Using my fatigue score idea in DnD/PF would need a couple changes, but might work. First, casters would roll a caster lvl check for every spell to determine the caster lvl (d20+abl mod+lvl in casting class VS. DC 15+2 per spell lvl).
Second, the fatigued and exhausted conditions would be replaced by the fatigue score which gives a penalty to skills, atk rolls, and AC.
Third, a new skill "endurance" which allows you to ignore fatigue up to your ranks in the endurance skill.
DLH, I suspect Mr. Senn was speaking generally, and not referring to the UC system specifically.
|
|
DLH, I suspect Mr. Senn was speaking generally, and not referring to the UC system specifically.
Correct. That said, my point still stands for the UC system. The first guy to lose all of his vigor points has almost certainly lost the combat, and with two identical combatants that's most likely to be the guy who lost initiative.
Anyway, I'm not trying to suppress conversation on the topic or anything. It's just that d20 is not, IMO, a system that lends itself to penalties for being hurt. Any attempts to add one have to be very careful, need a lot of thought put into exactly what the effects would be.