Injury HP Variant: Damage Penalty Option

One of the perennial complaints about the Hit Point system is the lack of damage penalties; or as my group likes to express it: "You're perfectly fine until you're dead." Obviously not every person has an issue with this — you know who you are.

Some other RPG systems include damage penalties, for a number of reasons. It may be "more realistic". It definitely creates a sense of dread regarding mortal injuries. It also becomes a source of new mechanics that can suppress the penalties but not the damage itself, which is very cool for characters like juicers and barbarians.

But the major setback with damage penalties is that it changes the game. In a system where striking first and hardest is already important, damage penalties would tend to exacerbate the problems faced by slower characters. Front line combatants are currently effective as long as they're above zero — damage penalties would change all of that.

Recently myself and some other forumites have been working on a rule that separates abstract damage from concrete damage in Hit Points. I think it makes an excellent jumping-off point for a damage penalty system. But we should really take a methodical approach here — we need to define in explicit terms the goals of a damage penalty system. Only then can we create an easy, logical rule that people will actually want to use in their campaign. If we get carried away with notions of "realism" instead of looking at what makes the gameplay better, we will fail to make a good rule.

So I put it to you all: Why damage penalties? What makes you want such a system? What have you tried before in actual play? What are the consequences? How might the Injuries HP variant open up new options?

One thing I have been considering about the Injury HP variant is that the HP loss itself is a damage penalty. Because diminishing HP brings you closer to taking an injury from a normal (non-crit) attack, it is not unlike taking a penalty on your defensive rolls in other systems.

Obviously, when we speak of damage penalties, people are thinking about a rule that provides a direct penalty to rolls of some kind. But it's worth considering what kind of "penalties" already exist, before going in to add new ones.

My players have complained of this as well, actually. It just feels... weird. I see what you're saying about the concern for it really being double penalties. Since HP is primarily defensive, what if the penalties only apply to offensive abilities?

The simplest, but perhaps not the best, thing I can think of looks something like this.

1/2 HP or lower: -1 "injury" penalty to attack rolls, damage rolls, ability checks and skill checks.
1/4 HP or lower: -2 "injury" penalty to attack rolls, damage rolls, ability checks and skill checks.

That way saves and AC aren't penalized, so you're not in double jeopardy, so to speak.

I almost made it a circumstance penalty but then realized that if you're injured and in hindering terrain, those SHOULD stack, so this would be a new kind of penalty.

That or you could just say someone at 1/2 HP or lower gains the Shaken or Sickened condition, maybe.

Well, Tim, at first glance that method is really kind to casters.

Well, Tim, at first glance that method is really kind to casters.

Apply the penalty to concentration checks, caster level checks? For that particular variant, that is. I'm not sure it's the best possible rule on the issue.

EL, in my games were keep HP gained at level 1 separate from HP gained at later levels. First level hit points are called, "hit points," (; and additional HP is called, "SDC," if you are familiar with paladium.

After 5 minutes rest, all damage to SDC is completely restored, so long as no damage got through it into the hit points. After 1 minute, 50% returns. Basically, SDC represents skill, endurance, luck and divine favor. HP represent meat. The character won't be able to spontaneously regain HP until they are healed back up to full completely, because it HURTS and they were injured.

Magical healing during a fight for character with just SDC damage is a request for divine intervention.

This system lets the players get along without a healer if they are careful. It also lets me hit them repeatedly with higher CR fights. It also gives the tactical consideration, "I'm getting by butt kicked, someone switch with me."

In another way, it helps me explain why high level characters need so much more healing. The gods become jealous of your ability and will not heal the wound of a powerful fighter without a powerful priest praying REALLY HARD for him. While any cleric can heal a farmer of a stab in the gut, he can't heal Hector because the gods will scoff at his request, unless he has done a lot for them in the past. The gods are petty that way.

___________________________________________________

On to the damage thing - when a character takes HP damage I was originally applying a still penalty to their physical attributes and only allowing partial actions. I dropped that quick when I noticed my players considered being relegated to the ordinary healing system to be such a draw back that I didn't have to do much else to get the point across.

The only problem is really getting the point across that a wound isn't healed just because all of the characters HP is restored. In another way - magical healing has to affect SDC first, then HP, and as long as you have HP damage, SDC can't spontaneously regenerate.

Another form of "damage penalty" that has caught my interest in play is the GameMastery Critical Hit decks.

Unlike a generic penalty system, which as we see upthread can have a "caster blindspot", the conditions granted by cards are quite often crippling to spellcasters. The cards have their own balance issues as well.

But what are we really going for? Is it realism? Because I feel that realism is unattainable in this context, and we'd be better off focusing on fun.

What makes for a fun damage penalty rule? Some will say hit-location tables. Some people will say the opposite.

In general, having your character conditionally limited is not very fun.

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Well, Tim, at first glance that method is really kind to casters.

Apply the penalty to concentration checks, caster level checks? For that particular variant, that is. I'm not sure it's the best possible rule on the issue.

I'm not sure it's the best either, I'm just trying to keep it simple because, well, I'm better at designing small scale than large scale. Could do the same penalty to concentration checks, caster level checks, and maybe even spell and special ability DCs. And of course it'd apply to attack rolls and damage rolls for spells as well, though that's more minor by far.

Another form of "damage penalty" that has caught my interest in play is the GameMastery Critical Hit decks.

Unlike a generic penalty system, which as we see upthread can have a "caster blindspot", the conditions granted by cards are quite often crippling to spellcasters. The cards have their own balance issues as well.

But what are we really going for? Is it realism? Because I feel that realism is unattainable in this context, and we'd be better off focusing on fun.

What makes for a fun damage penalty rule? Some will say hit-location tables. Some people will say the opposite.

In general, having your character conditionally limited is not very fun.

Oooh -- being at risk is more fun than being limited, for sure, which brings me to the random idea that maybe you should incur -more- injury damage if you're already injured?

So bleed, basically?

So bleed, basically?

Hm, maybe you could use a bleed mechanic, or maybe you could introduce iterative damage increases on injury damage. So if you take injury damage while you already have some, for instance, you take an additional 5 damage; then 10 on the third injury, etc. I don't know about the scale. I haven't thought it through, really, just throwing it out there.

Dotting.

Nothing to contribute...yet.

This "caster blind spot" is an interesting issue.

Outside of spells with a touch attack, attack roll penalties don't affect casters at all.

Spell damage is based primarily on the spell, modified only by the caster's level, making damage penalties rather odd.

Penalties to concentration checks are only relevant if the caster has to actually make a concentration check, and that is generally avoided.

Forcing a concentration check adds a die roll and runs into questions about the DC (fixed DC will either start impossible, quickly become no-fail, or both, and a scaling DC would be tied to what? cumulative damage?) and has a result of a failed concentration checks means one of the caster's limited number of spells per day is gone (I've advocated making casting easier to disrupt, but only for save or lose, this would shut down casters completely in short order).

I've personally been looking at using the fatigued/exhausted conditions as a basis for damage penalties. They target Str, Dex, and movement. While Str mostly affects martial types, movement and Dex affect everyone. Granted the Dex penalty means AC drops and the target becomes easier to hit (unless the character's armor Max Dex is lower than their Dex), but it is a logical penalty.

Physical injury may not affect your ability to deal damage, but it will always affect your ability to defend yourself and avoid damage.

Physical injury may not affect your ability to deal damage, but it will always affect your ability to defend yourself and avoid damage.

Do note that some systems actually exempt defensive rolls from damage penalties. That keeps them from becoming vicious cycles that end in character death. At any rate, the spirit of your above statement is covered 100% by the Injury HP variant, I believe. No penalty necessary.

So it's become a question of how does one penalize all characters (somewhat) evenly?

I personally love the idea of using the Fatigued and Exhausted states as a damage penalty, but without some kind of check on casters as well, it doesn't work. You can add a rider that says "casting while fatigued is a concentration check". I guess that makes sense, but what's the DC? If it ends up being trivial, then you might as well scrap the rule and save the paperwork!

One thing I like with damage penalties is that it can make the game LESS deadly, because fleeing becomes a more valid and easy option.

Personally, I like the alexandrian's solution here: link.

EDIT: For caster penalties, why not a flat %spell failure, like deafness? Casting while fatigued would be maybe 10%, while exhausted would be 20%.

One thing I like with damage penalties is that it can make the game LESS deadly, because fleeing becomes a more valid and easy option.

Personally, I like the alexandrian's solution here: link.

EDIT: For caster penalties, why not a flat %spell failure, like deafness? Casting while fatigued would be maybe 10%, while exhausted would be 20%.

Nice link. I read it, it got me thinking. Unfortunately, not about damage penalties. :(

I would probably go for 20% and 50%, like partial and full concealment. If simply wearing armor interferes with the motions of arcane spells, clutching your sundry entrails has got to be pretty hard.

Not convinced that a % is the way to go at all, though.

I've seen a few responses that actually called out what people want from damage penalties, but I think we need more.

EDIT: Ooooooohhhhhh... I see. Actions.

That keeps them from becoming vicious cycles that end in character death.

The balance between realism and fun. Being at 100% until unconscious is fun. On the other end of the spectrum is a progressive damage penalty which is most realistic. The best compromise for balance I see is a staged penalty (say once at 1/2 total HP, once at 1/4) with a fixed penalty.

So it's become a question of how does one penalize all characters (somewhat) evenly?

I personally love the idea of using the Fatigued and Exhausted states as a damage penalty, but without some kind of check on casters as well, it doesn't work. You can add a rider that says "casting while fatigued is a concentration check". I guess that makes sense, but what's the DC? If it ends up being trivial, then you might as well scrap the rule and save the paperwork!

But Fatigued/Exhausted does affect casters as well since it lowers AC and movement. What it doesn't affect is spell casting. The problem with affecting spell casting is it is mostly independent of the character. The only character stat that affects all spells during casting is caster level. The only thing in the rules that affects that is negative levels.

For caster penalties, why not a flat %spell failure, like deafness? Casting while fatigued would be maybe 10%, while exhausted would be 20%.

This has potential. It still adds a roll, and a failed roll means the spell is lost for the day, but it does avoid the issues of trying to set a concentration DC.

EDIT: What about a spell failure roll that did not involve the spell being lost?

Ooooooohhhhhh... I see. Actions.

Please tell me you aren't thinking of denying full round actions. Casters are already ahead in the action economy. This would inconvenience casters (spells are almost all standard actions) while crippling martial characters (who rely on their full round actions).

Nice link. I read it, it got me thinking. Unfortunately, not about damage penalties. :(

Depends on how you define damage penalties, but basically in that system, hit points are doubled but when you've lost half hit points you're disabled.

What I want/do not want is:
1. I want it to not kick in too soon.
2. I want it to hurt ranged characters who get hurt more than melee ones.
3. I want it to be simple enough to be remembered directly by even my most basic players, without having written instructions in front of them.

What I don't want is:
1. Many more mechanics, new stats and so on.
2. An increase lethality of combat for those who have taking damage as part of their job.
3. More rocket-tag.

------

Another way to punish casters is to make them pay an action fee. Of the top of my head you could say that focusing on spellcasting when fatigued/exhausted, so that you remember how to cast the spell, is a move action.
I know that's a bad rule as it is, but i'm just brainstorming now and maybe it can turn into something good.

We've been using this for over a year:

dotted. can't read til later.

So E. Lincoln, would that be inscribed within your stamina/injury (or whatever it is called now) system? In other words, would these be penalties that only kick in when someone actually receive injury, or would it be based solely on hit point total?

It seems that what you are looking for is a condition (or conditions?).

From the premises of the stamina/injury system, I'd be inclined to give a wounded or injured condition that takes effect as soon as someone receives injury damage. I'm not sure what this condition should carry, but an annoying (yet not crippling) penalty to range fighters and spellcasters would be appropriate (rather than a set of melee-based penalties).

As for hit points total, someone who take 'abstract' damage is already penalized. Losing hit points IS that penalty; he is already winding down and exhausting his resources. That in itself is a kind of penalty that illustrates that even the best of fighters cannot waltz around the battlefield dodging and parrying blows all day long.

I think I need to sleep on that before elaborating further, but I agree with stringburka that anything that favours the rocket-launcher tag race would be undesirable.

'findel

[edit] Aha, post-monster try to get me, but I outsmarted him! Ye me!

Laurefindel, our thought processes are way too similar.

* In game, fatigue just applies a -1 to everything -- including concentration checks and spell DCs!

** Exhaustion applies a -3 penalty to everything (and you can't run).

I like those re-write of the conditions Kirth.

I'm starting to like ability boost and penalty/damage less and less. I know I'm probably get an uproar of disapproval from the whole community, but I'm seriously considering writing out everything that affect someone's stats for my next game...

Laurefindel, our thought processes are way too similar.

Well, you know what they say about great minds ;)

Persistent conditions

Whenever characters receive any injury damage, wounds that affect their effectiveness are also inflicted. Each time Injury Damage is taken, the character applies -1 to combat, skill and save rolls, imposes a +5% spell failure chance and the wounded character loses 1 hp each day. This remains until treated.

As characters regain 1 hit point per level for a night of sleep the impact is not as much as this seems unless the char-acter refuses to rest, however it is possible to also die of ones wounds if the persistent condition is serious enough and not treated.

Each condition -1 normally must be healed individually with either a DC20 Heal check for Deadly Damage/Surgery (DC25 for conditions inflicted over 24 hours earlier and DC30 for any condition older than a month) or with a cure light wounds in addition to any hit points restored. A cure moderate wounds allows for -2 to be healed in a single instance, Cure Serious Wounds -3 and so on. Lesser Restoration removes -2 in a single instance. Restoration and Heal remove all persistent conditions.

As an optional rule is that conditions can be ignored by a DC10+Number of conditions Fortification Save at the beginning of each round, with modifications inflicted by the condition still applying.

It's worth remembering that adding a % failure chance to everything a character does doubles the amount of rolling. Rolling more than once for anything is never ideal.

I like Kirth's fatigue thing though, that's good.

The problem with penalties is that they slow combat down when they penalise offence, the create a viscous cycle when the penalise defence and they create a serious slippery slope effect when they penalise both. Just throwing that out there.

I'm starting to like ability boost and penalty/damage less and less. I know I'm probably get an uproar of disapproval from the whole community, but I'm seriously considering writing out everything that affect someone's stats for my next game...

I also wonder if one couldn't just make ability damage a 1:1 penalty ratio, since they changed the way it works in PF. You take a -1 per 2 points of ability damage regardless of whether your score is odd or even. Even though it would be more lethal, I think that 1 Str damage should just become a -1 on all Str rolls.

But, we digress.

We need to be careful about feature creep here.

What's the goal, again? We cannot revisit that enough!

I've always liked the idea of retooling Fatigue and Exhaustion to cover spellcasting. But the result would be a very broad damage penalty, which leads to a vicious cycle when someone is damaged, because they become ineffective.

I think what I would like personally is more like the Critical Hit Deck — penalties that are specific enough that a caster-killer like "Shattered Jaw" might land on a martial and do comparatively little, or an effect like "Broken Weapon" might land on a caster who doesn't care. That kind of rule is more of a dramatic vehicle than a mere nod to "realism".

Now, the crit deck by another name is a critical hit table, which I feel less good about. But still, that kind of effect has served me well in many game sessions.

I want to make sure people keep an eye on the Magus in this variant.

As a class which has both attacking people and casting spells as central to its function, they will be hit with both the caster penalties AND the melee penalties.

And they frequently moonlight as front-liners, so they will likely be damaged.

I want to make sure people keep an eye on the Magus in this variant.

As a class which has both attacking people and casting spells as central to its function, they will be hit with both the caster penalties AND the melee penalties.

And they frequently moonlight as front-liners, so they will likely be damaged.

I think this holds true also for bards and inquisitors — but I'm not too worried. If something applies equally to casters and martials, all that does is keep all classes (including the Magus) from having access to a work-around option.

In other words, a Magus taking a -3 attack with a -3 concentration check is exactly as fair as any character taking two -3 attacks.

So I put it to you all: Why damage penalties? What makes you want such a system?

I feel a good reason behind adding damage penalties is to change the way the characters approach being hurt.

Characters in D&D typically act, and react, similar to the heroes in an action movie. Rarely do they get any kind of injury that causes what we'd deem a "penalty", they seem to tough it out and go 100% balls out all the time (even when they are seen limping along, they seem to still kick ass).

Rarely, you come across that movie or show or book where the hero gets a real butt-kicking, and starts to fail at a lot of things until he gets to the point that he can recover and react like a hero again.

The first type is a Die Hard movie. The second feels like a Gumshoe, private eye movie.

This would be the reason to introduce penalties to D&D: to get the players to react different to combat.

Maybe it's what's meant by "gritty" combat.
The players will act more "human" towards wading into combat, and be more willing to back out when the fecal matter hits the fan. And planning. I don't know how many times (as DM and as a player), that I've seen players perfectly fine with wandering into the middle of combat without any stealth, buffs, or even organized walking order.

It gives the impression that Adventurers are psychotic thrill-seeking nutjobs the second someone says "Roll Initiative", no matter what their character concept was.

.
Granted, I love playing action movie D&D, so there's something to say for that kind of gameplay the current system reinforces.

But "Gritty Combat" is likely the best reason I can think of to making these kinds of changes.
So think of any kind of change that reinforces protecting your soft bits, thinking about how to avoid/circumvent combat, or even just making people consider non-lethal damage and the better part of valor.

Some rules to consider that follow in that vein:

- The Staggered condition at 0 hitpoints has too little face time. This is a perfect idea of a "crippled" person (half actions), but it shows up at exactly one point during the hitpoint depletion process.
How about something like "You are staggered when your hit points reaches your HD or less, and you fall unconscious when it goes below 0". With the exception that you can never be staggered when at full hitpoints (for those poor souls who have rolled low and have negative Con). Actions causing hitpoint damage would still only happen when at 0 or in negatives, of course.
To counter the gap between casters and non-casters (since many spells are standard actions), you can create a special move+attack standard action that can be used when staggered: move at half speed, and make a single attack at -5 penalty (similar to an iterative).

- Penalties suck, especially when you make a character sheet full of stats that will never get used.
Instead, a simple +1 bonus (to any roll/effect, so spell DCs too) when at full hitpoints, that disappears once you are damaged, is easier to keep track of. This way most of the time you are going to be using your normal stats, and a +1 bonus with a ridiculously simple to check condition is easy enough to keep track of.

- Having Fatigue and Exhaustion happen more frequently, and affect spellcasting more, are both good ideas brought up already.
Rolling Fort saves to prevent being fatigued from hitpoint damage is a good idea. Rolling Will saves to prevent being fatigued from X many spell levels in X rounds would be another good one.
This does make those that can ignore/stave off fatigue stronger. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.. not everyone in the group is likely to get this kind of effect, so it makes those people shine a little stronger in this kind of game.
I warforged is supposed to be a scary thing in combat, for this very reason. It'd be nice to see this applied mechanically, instead of just in campaign lore.

.
Just some stuff I could think off the top of my head.

Thanks Kaisoku! In the spirit of your post, here is everything that has been said so far to answer the question:

Why Damage Penalties?

For us, there was a stronger reason:

Excellent point, Kirth. In fact, I think that might be the best reason I've yet heard.

It certainly supplies us with a better defined goal. That is hugely important so that we don't get bogged down chasing a nebulous goal of "realism" and making rules just because the feel right.

My other example from before somehow disappeared:

"The medusa's baleful gaze would have instantly turned you to stone, but the last slash of your blade made her reel back in agony, the blood running into her eyes, and so the effect was weaker -- and you are able to resist the effects and press on with your attack."

Making wounds affect save DCs means that, although fighters take penalties as they soak damage, they're also increasing their own survivability as they dish it out.

P.S. We've also added ways to reduce or ignore fatigue penalties: generally by succeeding at an Endurance skill check (a new Con-based skill). However, barbarians in a rage also ignore fatigue for as long as the rage is maintained; rangers grow progressively resistant to the effects of fatigue as they advance in level; etc.

For us, there was a stronger reason:

Add value to direct-damage attacks.

Oooh, good one!

It's not just Fighters and Evocation specialists that it helps. Even the secondary fighting classes (like Rogue, Monk, and any other middle BAB or "middle of the road" fighters), since they feel the "can't kill things outright" even worse.

Now that's a laudable mechanical goal.

Generic vs. Specific wounds

Generic meaning that the damage penalty is generalized: you are wounded, therefore you are compromised in all actions. A good example is Kirth's 50% Fatigue and 25% Exhaustion.

Specific meaning that the damage penalty represents a specific wound, a broken leg, or a pierced cheek. Different wounds may very well affect certain character types more severely than others, but there's "something for everyone". A good example is the critical hit deck, or an old-style critical table.

Both of these can up the effectiveness of direct damage. I think they both have pros and cons unto themselves, it really is a matter of preference. I just wanted to inject the terms into the discussion.

I've run a game with the Specific wound style of penalties.

I found that it was considered "awesome" when the players got a chance to use it against creatures. It was conversely "upsetting" when the bad guys do it to the players.

Similar to the arguments against critical fumbles being too severe: players do a lot more rolls in their lifetime compared to an individual monster.

Such a mechanic would have to be approached with great care. Heroes could end up looking like Edward Scissorhands by the high levels.

Similar to the arguments against critical fumbles being too severe: players do a lot more rolls in their lifetime compared to an individual monster.

Laurefindel wrote:

I'm starting to like ability boost and penalty/damage less and less. I know I'm probably get an uproar of disapproval from the whole community, but I'm seriously considering writing out everything that affect someone's stats for my next game...

I also wonder if one couldn't just make ability damage a 1:1 penalty ratio, since they changed the way it works in PF. You take a -1 per 2 points of ability damage regardless of whether your score is odd or even. Even though it would be more lethal, I think that 1 Str damage should just become a -1 on all Str rolls.

But, we digress.

We need to be careful about feature creep here.

Meh, that was only me rambling about an old pet-peeve of mine. I actually know better than to twist everybody's ideas with my own unsolicited opinions...

...or do I?

'findel

Generic vs. Specific wounds

Generic meaning that the damage penalty is generalized: you are wounded, therefore you are compromised in all actions. A good example is Kirth's 50% Fatigue and 25% Exhaustion.

Specific meaning that the damage penalty represents a specific wound, a broken leg, or a pierced cheek. Different wounds may very well affect certain character types more severely than others, but there's "something for everyone". A good example is the critical hit deck, or an old-style critical table.

Both of these can up the effectiveness of direct damage. I think they both have pros and cons unto themselves, it really is a matter of preference. I just wanted to inject the terms into the discussion.

As a one time fan of critical hit/fumble tables, I would like to voice my preference for generic over specific.

Specific, much like critical hit/fumble tables, is very flavorful. It is more interesting to break an arm rather than just do numerical damage.

I however have reached a point where, while I find such random specifics amusing, I prefer a more internally consistent game.

When fighting a snake, a result of a broken arm makes no sense. It leads to a trap of either negated by an effect roll or re-rolling till something applicable comes up.

Generic is consistent. I applies to all instances (fairly) equally. It doesn't become a mini-game within the game.

--------------
@Helaman
While I like your concept, there is one thing about it I have an issue with.

Whenever characters receive any injury damage, wounds that affect their effectiveness are also inflicted. Each time Injury Damage is taken, the character applies -1 to combat, skill and save rolls, imposes a +5% spell failure chance and the wounded character loses 1 hp each day. This remains until treated.

This is a progressive penalty. What I mean is it is a cumulative effect adding each time the character receives injury damage. It is much more of a death spiral than staged penalties at 1/2 and 1/4 HP.

The staged penalties can still be persistent, but stay until the character's HP total is raised above the threshold.

---------------
@Laurefindel

You aren't alone in your displeasure with stat alteration in the game, but that is a separate topic for another thread.

Generic vs. Specific wounds

A generic type of injury/impairment would IMO mesh better with the abstractness of hp in D&D/Pathfinder.

If it appeals to the GM and PCs, that injury can be fleshed-out in the narrative the same way parries and narrow escapes can be used a narrative elements when using your stamina/injury system. Let the players turn on their own 'drama' switch if they want to.

Don't get me wrong, I like the specific wounds idea, but I'd reserve it for the more the already more specific attacks/results such as criticals / fumbles / called shots etc.

So for a penalty based on lost points, I'd go with a clearly defined yet rather generic condition that the victim acquires upon reaching a certain status.

With that said, the rest is a bit more blurry in my mind at the moment. fatigued and exhausted used as RaW are not enough for me, especially since they don't affect ranged fighters and spellcaster enough IMO. I'm hesitant to change their definition to keep this rule as modular and independent of other variant rules as possible (yet even this reason might turn out to be a designer's white elephant). A new condition might seem a better option, but since conditions do stack, we have to be careful about how it is worded to avoid excessively crippling situation.

that's where I am at the moment

'findel

It is possible to create a new condition (let's say "Injured") and have it grant the fatigued or exhausted condition in addition to our desired effects. Other conditions have child conditions like that, and although I don't like the cross-referencing inherent in that design, it can be avoided by simply restating the consequences of the child in the parent's description.

For us, there was a stronger reason:

Add value to direct-damage attacks.

[edit] we have a 'favourite' / +1 option now?!?!?
[edit2] hehe, marked as favourite...

Kirth Gersen wrote:

For us, there was a stronger reason:

Add value to direct-damage attacks.

** spoiler omitted **

spoilered threadjack response:

Do you have a hard and fast way to apply to this to CR/EL, or do you just eyeball that kind of thing? Just curious because I may adopt it for my own game.

@ Evil Lincoln
Didn't think of a parent clause of conditions. Good idea.

@ Tim4488

It is possible to create a new condition (let's say "Injured") and have it grant the fatigued or exhausted condition in addition to our desired effects. Other conditions have child conditions like that, and although I don't like the cross-referencing inherent in that design, it can be avoided by simply restating the consequences of the child in the parent's description.

Pop out a first draft solution?

dotted

@Evil Lincoln
I'm not responding in spoilers for your threadjack conversation, because it ties into my discussion about the Specific injury.

It is false that a fumble rule somehow screws PCs because they're around for more encounters than NPCs. The logic behind this complaint is very much skewed to a player perspective. As a GM, I am always rolling more than the PCs ever do, and therefore enemies fumble more frequently than PCs do if you take all enemies as one "team" and the PCs as another "team". Contrary to the commonly made argument, a PC should want a fumble rule for any encounter in which they are even slightly outnumbered.

I might have emphasized the wrong part of my point.

I was saying to be careful about making the effect "too severe". The reason the PC making more rolls than an individual monster matters is because of this severity.

If it's a minor inconvenience, then you are right, it's probably in favor of the PCs.

If it's a longterm effect (like a maiming effect, etc), then the monster will die before it's "full duration" comes to effect, while a PC will see that effect for as long as it can last.
Losing a hand on a monster lasts for a couple rounds, losing a hand on a PC can last a horribly long time.

It's not the rolls, so much as the face time of an individual creature.

This is similar to how some abilities are fine as a monster ability for an encounter, but hell on wheels in the hands of a PC (like a low monster CR with a Gaze of death/stone/blind effect that would have a huge "level adjustment", to borrow a 3.5e term).

It's important to make sure that a Specific injury doesn't have too long a duration, or have too hard a counter (automatically goes away as opposed to needing, say, a regeneration spell to regrow a hand or something).

Condition: Injured

Once a character receives Wound Damage they are subject to -1 to all rolls. Spell casting becomes 1 phase slower - so a swift spell becomes a move, a move becomes a standard action and a standard action spell becomes a full round action. (option to roll Fort vs damage taken to ignore penalty as a free action if you want another roll)

- This affects casters and melee monsters both.

Badly Injured: Character Falls below 50% of their total Injury points are subject to the fatigue condition as well as the Injured condition.

Near Death: Character falls below 10% of their total Injury points are Exhausted as well as the Injured Condition.

- 25% seems a bit to close to 50% at early to mid levels and leaving it to the last 10% gives characters an option to run... which is not an effective option for Exhausted characters. 10% and 50% are slightly easier to calculate than 25% for those so challenged.

Conditions are removed once injury points exceed the threshold