[Strain-Injury Variant] A Minor Change to Hit Points


Homebrew and House Rules

201 to 250 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

So I mistakenly began using this by describing strain as being like nonlethal damage. And so we eventually began calling it nonlethal damage. This had a weird side effect when dealing with certain things that convert lethal to nonlethal and reduce lethal such as ablative armor and certain archetypes. What I'm saying here is that it is important to stress that while 'strain' is not lethal and nonlethal damage is strain, strain is NOT nonlethal damage. To avoid doing lethal damage is still a -4 to hit (otherwise knocking them out does lethal and potentially kills them). Ablative armor converts lethal, and attacks that deal nonlethally (whips, saps, and merciful spells and attacks) are reduced by 5. The same thing goes with the unarmed fighter's Sheer Toughness.


@Rainzax, that looks kinda cool. It reminds me of some earlier damage systems I dabbled with that used Con the way you're using HD. Let us know how that works out for you...

@Ragnarok Aeon, if non-lethal damage weren't so ingrained, I would drop it altogether, it's a total pain. One approach, when explaining things, is to focus on Injury/Wounds as being "permanent damage" and just say "everything else heals off with a short rest."

I also tend to say "there is no non-lethal damage, only non-lethal attacks." That's cleared things up a lot.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
I also tend to say "there is no non-lethal damage, only non-lethal attacks." That's cleared things up a lot.

Love this.


Soon I'll be having an alchemist, and with alchemists comes something special... Splash damage. Splash damage is odd in the fact that it's hit to ac (as in any other thrown weapon) but if it misses, it causes splash damage which one can make a reflex to save against. This causes a really strange sensation where missing (or just hitting the floor) is more likely to create lethal damage than actually hitting the target... How do you guys deal with this situation?


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Soon I'll be having an alchemist, and with alchemists comes something special... Splash damage. Splash damage is odd in the fact that it's hit to ac (as in any other thrown weapon) but if it misses, it causes splash damage which one can make a reflex to save against. This causes a really strange sensation where missing (or just hitting the floor) is more likely to create lethal damage than actually hitting the target... How do you guys deal with this situation?

Great question.

Does the splash damage occur on a successful hit as well?

Also, remember 'Findel's admonishment: The more deadly the damage ought to be, the more you need to describe it as strain. The goal of the variant isn't merely to segregate damage types, it's to explain how people are even able to recover from all this seemingly lethal damage.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
Soon I'll be having an alchemist, and with alchemists comes something special... Splash damage. Splash damage is odd in the fact that it's hit to ac (as in any other thrown weapon) but if it misses, it causes splash damage which one can make a reflex to save against. This causes a really strange sensation where missing (or just hitting the floor) is more likely to create lethal damage than actually hitting the target... How do you guys deal with this situation?

Great question.

Does the splash damage occur on a successful hit as well?

Also, remember 'Findel's admonishment: The more deadly the damage ought to be, the more you need to describe it as strain. The goal of the variant isn't merely to segregate damage types, it's to explain how people are even able to recover from all this seemingly lethal damage.

RAW, no. A direct hit deals damage as normal while the splash damage deals minimum amount (so 1 damage per d6 plus the alchemist's intelligence) with a reflex to save for half damage.

My initial reaction is to just apply a reflex save to direct hits as well or assume that direct hits are always failed saves.

Grand Lodge

rainzax wrote:


Injury by Severity

basically, when you sustain an Injury (from a critical hit, a fumbled saving throw, or a knockout), you total the damage and record it separately.

after the combat, you must make a Fortitude saving throw for each potential Injury (DC = damage), lest it becomes an Injury (not healing by standard means).
if you do sustain the Injury (fail the Fortitude save), you must determine how Severe it is, determined by how many times it is a multiple of your (highest) HD. thus it is named:

1x - Light Wound
2x - Moderate Wound
3x - Serious Wound
4x - Critical Wound
5x - Mortal Wound

for example:
Wizard (d6) sustains 13 damage (and fails Fortitude vs 13) - that is a "Moderate 13".
Fighter (d10) sustains 19 damage (and fails Fortitude vs 19) - that is a "Light 19".
Rogue (d8) sustains 27 damage (and fails Fortitude vs 27) - that is a "Serious 27".

the only difference in naming it is what "Cure" spell will heal it automatically. for example, Cure Light Wounds will remove a Light Wound. otherwise, a Heal check must be required (with a DC equal to initial Fortitude DC) accompanied by a time investment. (i have not decided this yet)

an untrained Heal check my only address a Light Injury, at best.

this is still a thought in process.
cheers!

I'd be interested to see if this idea has been refined some.

Verdant Wheel

hmm... beta phase coming once i am ready to run again.

Prime Rule:
the only additional in-combat bookkeeping is the recording of injury damage as separate from strain damage. this is the most important point. anything more is in all likelihood overkill.

that said, on the horizon, in the rough, is:

-interaction with the Heal skill directly following combat

-like maybe allowing Heal to sub in for the post-combat Fortitude save so long as that happens immediately

-like allowing 'stepped' magic healing. ie, Cure Light Wounds reducing a Critical wound to a Serious wound, a Serious wound to a Moderate wound, a Moderate wound to a Light wound, and removing completely a Light wound

-basically, the separation of Cure spells and Heal skill as a combat action and a protracted ritual.

-maybe even a set of 'conditions' (like sprained ankle, broken rib, severed finger, etc) compiled and scaled by Severity. and so a Cure spell can either cure HP mid-combat, or remove a condition as a protracted ritual.

-interaction between Restoration, Regeneration, other non-Cure 'cure' spells, and wounds.

open to ideas to share here... sticking with the Prime Rule...


@ Evil Lincoln:
Thanks again for these rules, I will test them as soon as my campaign finally starts.

But, could you also update the formatted PDF you like to in the googleDOC?

BTW: The "Non-lethal Damage" headline is ill-placed atm.

Thank you all very much.


DracoDruid wrote:

@ Evil Lincoln:

Thanks again for these rules, I will test them as soon as my campaign finally starts.

But, could you also update the formatted PDF you like to in the googleDOC?

BTW: The "Non-lethal Damage" headline is ill-placed atm.

Thank you all very much.

I fixed the Non-lethal thing.

I'm probably not going to maintain the PDF, it is much more hassle than it is worth. You can print the GDoc to obtain a PDF. If I *do* do the PDF in future, I'm going to actually use more professional tools for the job.

So, I recently played a Summoner, and Eidolons are indeed a weird case for Strain. I have decided to eat my words from upthread, and treat all damage as injury for the Eidolon... but I haven't had a chance to playtest it yet.

Anyone been using Strain with Summoners that can give me some guidance?


Dotting. My computer at work is too archaic to display the document correctly.


I even have an alchemist in one of my 2 campaigns (both now using this variant) and the splash didn't come up for some reason. The one time it caused damage the monster had a resistance so it didn't do anything. I'll have to keep an eye on the thread for developments there.

However the one complaint I HAVE had is: if they take damage to themselves in the form of strain, and I've described it as twisting/overextending and such, then they rest and REFIT then where is the damage to their ARMOR and such?

For ex: I had a fight with a horde of vermin. One of the giant centipedes got a great hit in on the fighter; not quite an injury but close. Anyway I said that the thing reared back then struck, doling out a couple nasty flesh wounds with its mandibles but also knocking the wind out of him and wrenching the muscles in his back. I explained this was all due to, among other factors his armor being wrent by the creature's lunging attack.

During the rest and refit he asked how his armor could've failed. I'm not using the GP/HP variant healing, so technically there was no mechanical way to rationalize my explanation, other than a GM fiat to say "it happened."

Has anyone else had difficulty explaining the refit or implications of this rule on gear?


The "refit" aspect of rest and refit isn't meant to be a mechanical system, just a descriptive one. Basically, if the character is an unarmored monk, I will describe the defensive strain as the monk actually grabbing the attacker's arm and turning his back momentarily to the other opponents. If the character is a full-plated knight, I will describe the strain damage as a shield parry reeling him back on his feet, or his helmet being knocked off.

Strain described as armor damage reflects very minor damage to the armor that is easily corrected *when you have time to fix it*. Armor gets pulled out of alignment with your body or pieces get knocked/pulled off and fall on the battlefield. But when the fight is over, you can walk over and pick the helmet up or adjust your straps; no gold cost or skill roll necessary.

This doesn't require the broken condition, the defensive penalty is represented by the HP lost to strain, which makes a killing blow easier. Losing 5 HP by having your helmet knocked off makes it that much easier for the next attack to be an injury as the final blow.

Now, you could ad lib some rules to let the player get some mileage out of craft (arms and armor), if you like. I think the GP damage option is the best rule for such things. In general, GP damage is best handled as abstract armor damage, abstract healing kit usage for minor scrapes, and even food and drink rations that are consumed during the rest and refit.

It's important to note that you should let the actual rules for armor breakage do their thing. In the Strain-Injury variant, lost HP are considered a defensive penalty, making a killing blow more likely in a way. Broken armor has its own penalty, a lost AC bonus. Really minor breakage that is not sufficient for the broken condition and is easily fixed during a short rest should be represented as lost HP.

This is all included under potential strain descriptions in order to keep the description dynamic. I've said that parrying is the best form of strain description (and it is! when in doubt: it's a parry), but in truth, you want to mix it up as much as possible. You may want to keep "the list" on hand to make certain you're changing up your descriptions often:

  • tiring parry or dodge (GP Damage: food/drink rations, weapon maintenance)
  • armor or shield wear and tear (GP Damage: minor repairs)
  • superficial cuts, bruises and pricks (GP Damage: Healing Kit)
  • divided attention*
  • dwindling morale (GP Damage: Stiff drink)
  • dumb luck (GP Damage: offering to the gods)

*can anyone think of a really solid form of GP damage for this one?

I'm always happy to add more descriptions to that list, by the way. Any attack result that would open the target up to a subsequent final blow is suitable for strain description.


Evil Lincoln wrote:


  • divided attention
    can anyone think of a really solid form of GP damage for this one?
  • Japanese tea ceremony?

    Personally I'd fold it in the "tiring parries" category: good food and drink reestablish fellowship with companions and helps one concentrate on the task. Also, tobacco for pipeweed-smoking wizards, hobbits and dwarves, honey-camomile cordial for them elves, strong ale for our barbarian friends...

    At work, I know a good pot of coffee will fix my crew's divided attention...

    [edit] This could be an interesting route to find a mechanical use for such consumable luxuries as tobacco, first-grade food and drinks, armour maintenance kits and so forth. I wouldn't make it obligatory for rest and refit, but I could see some slight bonus/benefits...


    Laurefindel wrote:
    This could be an interesting route to find a mechanical use for such consumable luxuries as tobacco, first-grade food and drinks, armour maintenance kits and so forth. I wouldn't make it obligatory for rest and refit, but I could see some slight bonus/benefits...

    That's certainly a direction you could go. And I think it's fairly intuitive.

    If we were looking at a brand new game, and someone said "you can take a short rest and eat to recover your energy" I don't think it would be too out there.

    The 3gp/1hp rule should keep that exactly on-par with the normal post-encounter healing ritual. In fact, only wounds become significantly different from the RAW healing balance in that event.

    Dark Archive

    I realize I'm resurrecting a somewhat old topic, but I had a couple questions.
    Exactly what percentage of hp becomes strain/injury?
    Is this hp system compatible with armour as damage reduction?


    Jason Beardsley wrote:

    I realize I'm resurrecting a somewhat old topic, but I had a couple questions.

    Exactly what percentage of hp becomes strain/injury?
    Is this hp system compatible with armour as damage reduction?

    The rule only changes the healing rate to bring the healing rules in line with the definition of Hit Points in the book. (The CRB says HP are partly abstract, the healing RAW treats all damage as concrete injury.)

    Both types of damage deplete the same pool of hit points. Characters do not have separate injury and strain pools. When both damage totals together reach a certain point, the last hit is going to incapacitate you. It can be any combination of the two that drives you into negative HP.

    For example, parrying all of a maralith's attacks is hard, and might leave you open to a killing blow... if all of her attacks hit but none is a crit, the HP damage you took was a whole lot of strain. If you rest for a scene, you'll be in good shape since she didn't draw blood, but during this combat you just parried ten attacks and you're not in a good position to ward off the eleventh. If you lose your last HP to an attack that should have done strain, it becomes a "final blow" and does injury damage anyway.

    Is it compatible with armor as DR? Should be, although I'd expect some weird interactions. In many ways, the variant relies on armor as an explanation of why strain damage is so temporary. If there's a conflict between the two rules, it would really be a conceptual one, not a mechanical one... since armor doesn't affect healing rates, it should behave in exactly the same way.

    In other words, this is a healing rate houserule. Other than healing rates, it works exactly the same as the RAW. That's what makes it a good non-invasive stand in for more complex solutions like Vitality Points and the UC system, which do actually affect the balance of combat.


    Actually, I was pondering this thread yesterday when reading about Armor as DR rules. Instead of combining this with the armor as DR rules, I would instead use armor to convert injury to strain.

    All hits cause injury. A fighter in armor that gives +10 to AC converts 10 points of every injury to strain. The nimble high dex character may have more AC, but that will be a lot more likely to take injury when hit.


    I've used the rule too long to do this now, but along the lines of the 3GP/HP rule: if you use this option and your PCs are absolute cheapskates, you could hand-wave the GP if they used the mending and create water cantrips.

    Think about it - when else is anyone actually taking mending? So now your five min rest b/comes a 10 minute rest, but so long as you feel safe and secure enough to rest that long between battles your rest is accompanied by cool drinks (like handing out bottled water or giving water and a spit bucket to a boxer between rounds) while one of the party members knits up armor, shields, cloaks and such.


    I'm SOOOOOO gonna try this...


    Charender wrote:

    Actually, I was pondering this thread yesterday when reading about Armor as DR rules. Instead of combining this with the armor as DR rules, I would instead use armor to convert injury to strain.

    All hits cause injury. A fighter in armor that gives +10 to AC converts 10 points of every injury to strain. The nimble high dex character may have more AC, but that will be a lot more likely to take injury when hit.

    Hm. I don't really support that, Char.

    After a certain point, most attacks are wounds, which brings us back to the original problem of damage being outright silly. As it stands, strain gives us parries and endurance and lots of action that's missing from the concrete damage game. Going back to hyper-frequent injuries seems like a step back.

    It also makes the paperwork more complicated, and that's rarely a good thing. If you did go that far with it, why not have the armor take the damage? Like GP damage, these are things I would only advocate if the players were deep into micromanagement.

    Of course, I'd love to see someone try this anyway, and tell me all about how fun it is and how wrong I am, but those two points stand against it. :)


    Looks like Helaman had something going on with armor DR here.


    DR as a static number make some attacks invalid, and allow the PC to become invulnerable in certain situations. That's bad from a balance point of view.

    I'd only use armor as DR if it were non-static. For example, leather has 1d4 DR, chain shirt 1d6, chain mail 1d8, breastplate/half plate 1d10 and Full Plate a 1d12. That avoid becoming invulnerable, although it's too slow in a game with multiple attacks.


    Evil Lincoln wrote:
    Charender wrote:

    Actually, I was pondering this thread yesterday when reading about Armor as DR rules. Instead of combining this with the armor as DR rules, I would instead use armor to convert injury to strain.

    All hits cause injury. A fighter in armor that gives +10 to AC converts 10 points of every injury to strain. The nimble high dex character may have more AC, but that will be a lot more likely to take injury when hit.

    Hm. I don't really support that, Char.

    After a certain point, most attacks are wounds, which brings us back to the original problem of damage being outright silly. As it stands, strain gives us parries and endurance and lots of action that's missing from the concrete damage game. Going back to hyper-frequent injuries seems like a step back.

    It also makes the paperwork more complicated, and that's rarely a good thing. If you did go that far with it, why not have the armor take the damage? Like GP damage, these are things I would only advocate if the players were deep into micromanagement.

    Of course, I'd love to see someone try this anyway, and tell me all about how fun it is and how wrong I am, but those two points stand against it. :)

    I didn't see it as a change to the injury/strain system but rather as a way to implement an armor as DR that avoids a lot of the problems inherent with those systems. I have play tested multiple armor as DR ideas, and they all have a certain set of problems that always cause me to go back to the normal way of doing things. Switching to strain damage over outright damage negation would minimize or eliminate a lot of the inherent problems with armor as DR.


    gustavo iglesias wrote:

    DR as a static number make some attacks invalid, and allow the PC to become invulnerable in certain situations. That's bad from a balance point of view.

    I'd only use armor as DR if it were non-static. For example, leather has 1d4 DR, chain shirt 1d6, chain mail 1d8, breastplate/half plate 1d10 and Full Plate a 1d12. That avoid becoming invulnerable, although it's too slow in a game with multiple attacks.

    Yeah, I have run into the same problems when I tried the grim and gritty system way back in 3.5 days. At some point, 80% of attacks result in no damage dealt. then you have some big creatures with high strength creatures(like giants) who make a mockery of any DR value you throw out there. It bogs down combat a lot. If you instead make heavier armor better at converting injury into strain, you still get some of the verisimilitude benefits of the armor as DR system without bogging down combat. Since the damage is just converted to strain, and not straight out negated, you can also tweak the actual DR values without having to worry about maintaining the delicate balance between damage dealt vs damage negated.


    Charender wrote:
    gustavo iglesias wrote:

    DR as a static number make some attacks invalid, and allow the PC to become invulnerable in certain situations. That's bad from a balance point of view.

    I'd only use armor as DR if it were non-static. For example, leather has 1d4 DR, chain shirt 1d6, chain mail 1d8, breastplate/half plate 1d10 and Full Plate a 1d12. That avoid becoming invulnerable, although it's too slow in a game with multiple attacks.

    Yeah, I have run into the same problems when I tried the grim and gritty system way back in 3.5 days. At some point, 80% of attacks result in no damage dealt. then you have some big creatures with high strength creatures(like giants) who make a mockery of any DR value you throw out there. It bogs down combat a lot. If you instead make heavier armor better at converting injury into strain, you still get some of the verisimilitude benefits of the armor as DR system without bogging down combat. Since the damage is just converted to strain, and not straight out negated, you can also tweak the actual DR values without having to worry about maintaining the delicate balance between damage dealt vs damage negated.

    But then, unless armor also gives AC bonus, it's largelly irrelevant.

    what's the point of paying for a expensive full plate, reducing your movement, and taking encumbrance penalties, plus also paying a feat for heavy armor, if it does nothing at all in combat? (At best, the only thing it does is reducing the amount of healing needed out of combat.)


    gustavo iglesias wrote:
    Charender wrote:
    gustavo iglesias wrote:

    DR as a static number make some attacks invalid, and allow the PC to become invulnerable in certain situations. That's bad from a balance point of view.

    I'd only use armor as DR if it were non-static. For example, leather has 1d4 DR, chain shirt 1d6, chain mail 1d8, breastplate/half plate 1d10 and Full Plate a 1d12. That avoid becoming invulnerable, although it's too slow in a game with multiple attacks.

    Yeah, I have run into the same problems when I tried the grim and gritty system way back in 3.5 days. At some point, 80% of attacks result in no damage dealt. then you have some big creatures with high strength creatures(like giants) who make a mockery of any DR value you throw out there. It bogs down combat a lot. If you instead make heavier armor better at converting injury into strain, you still get some of the verisimilitude benefits of the armor as DR system without bogging down combat. Since the damage is just converted to strain, and not straight out negated, you can also tweak the actual DR values without having to worry about maintaining the delicate balance between damage dealt vs damage negated.

    But then, unless armor also gives AC bonus, it's largelly irrelevant.

    what's the point of paying for a expensive full plate, reducing your movement, and taking encumbrance penalties, plus also paying a feat for heavy armor, if it does nothing at all in combat? (At best, the only thing it does is reducing the amount of healing needed out of combat.)

    It still gives you the AC bonus. This avoids another pitfall of some armor as DR systems, hit rolls becoming meaningless.

    So the AC values stay the same as normal PF, but heavy armor will mean you take more strain damage and less injury damage and thus recover quicker after a fight. This keeps the balance really close to the standard PF system, while giving some of the verisimilitude benefits of an armor as DR system.


    Is the DR value ad-hoc\arbitrary, or based on materials and design? How would magic protection factor in? For instance, if you are still using AC (and I agree on that point) then would enchanted armor's enhancement bonus boost both its AC and DR?

    I would suggest that perhaps that makes a certain amount of sense, seeing as how a weapon's enhancement adds to Attack and damage, armor could reasonably be seen as an inverse to that.

    However, if Armor enhancement is factored into both AC and DR, what advantage would Adamantine plate have over Steel, for instance, assuming both are of equal AC and enhancement?

    Another thought, how does stacking AC like Natural and manufactured AC work?

    EDIT: And also, what about mundane but non-material AC bonuses, like a Monk?


    Nephelim wrote:

    Is the DR value ad-hoc\arbitrary, or based on materials and design? How would magic protection factor in? For instance, if you are still using AC (and I agree on that point) then would enchanted armor's enhancement bonus boost both its AC and DR?

    I would suggest that perhaps that makes a certain amount of sense, seeing as how a weapon's enhancement adds to Attack and damage, armor could reasonably be seen as an inverse to that.

    However, if Armor enhancement is factored into both AC and DR, what advantage would Adamantine plate have over Steel, for instance, assuming both are of equal AC and enhancement?

    Another thought, how does stacking AC like Natural and manufactured AC work?

    EDIT: And also, what about mundane but non-material AC bonuses, like a Monk?

    It is less of a DR value and more of an injury to strain conversion, and it is equal to the AC value of the armor. A chain shirt gives a +4 AC and converts 4 injury to strain. A suit of full plate gives +9 AC and converts 9 injury to strain. The idea is to give an effect similar to armor as DR rules while avoid a lot of the pitfalls inherent with those rules.

    Admantine armor still gives you true DR just like normal. Full plate converts 9 injury to strain. Adamantine full plate ignores 3 damage, and converts 9 injury to strain. Same with the barbarian's DR from class levels. If you get hit for 15 damage in full plate, you take 9 strain, and 6 injury. If you get hit for 15 damage in admantine full plate, you take 9 strain and 3 injury.

    Enhancements bonuses on armor should increase the conversion since it is an enhancement of the armor, not a separate bonus. This allows the reduction to scale with level some.

    Natural armor is less effective at preventing injury than armor because it in a part of the creature taking damage, so I would make it only counts half for purposes of converting injury to strain. So a creature with 10 natural armor would have +10 to AC and convert 5 injury to strain. this also allows players injury to strain conversion to scale with level via amulet of natural armor.

    So someone wearing adamantite fullplate +5 with amulet of NA +4 gets +18 to their AC, ignores the first 3 points of damage, and converts 16 of the remaining injury to strain per hit.

    Since monks are the odd man out. I would probably let them have a mystic ability to avoid injury, and thus let them add their wisdom modifier to the amount injury converted to strain if they are not wearing armor.


    Monks shouldn't convert Wis to strain. It's a dodge bonus. He use it vs touch attacks, armor does not. If it's dodge bonus for the good things, it's dodge bonus for the bad ones too.

    Edit: He could convert his bracers of armor, though


    What would be a nice mixture of Armor as DR with this system is if it converts a certain number of injury damage (final blows, critical hits, etc) into strain damage. I would also have armor negate that same amount from nonlethal attacks. This similar to how I handled ablative armor when it came up.

    Only coming up during only dire moments makes DR on armor useful without overly upsetting the balance of the game IMO.


    While the thread's bumped, any playtest reports? Problems? Testimonials?


    I tried it when I first heard of it a while back...

    Though I think I will stay with the Wounds & Vigor system...


    My players are still getting used to it and sometimes I forget as GM what is strain vs injury; in those cases I've just erred on the side of the players and given them strain. Overall we like it though I'm kicking myself for not choosing to use the 3GP/HP variant rule for the refits as this would've really added to the realism of the rest.

    One thing just to re-clarify: any time you fail a save, the damage is an injury right? And that being said, if the source of the damage promts a save and you make it, that damage is a strain right?

    Special Ex: tonight the party fought a ghost with a touch attack that inflicted physical damage. However that damage could be halved by a successful Fort save. I ruled that failed save = injury, successful save = strain. Did I do that correct?

    Verdant Wheel

    If it hasn't been said, i think Traps ought to automatically inflict Injuries (instead of merely Strain), making them deadly indeed, increasing the danger of a party foolish enough to be in company without a rogue...


    You did it right, Mark Hoover.


    rainzax wrote:
    If it hasn't been said, i think Traps ought to automatically inflict Injuries (instead of merely Strain), making them deadly indeed, increasing the danger of a party foolish enough to be in company without a rogue...

    I just ran into this problem myself, traps with attack rolls...

    Technically the trap with an attack roll should deal strain unless it crits.

    In practice, this means traps get a lot less deadly unless combined with an encounter, since strain is virtually meaningless outside of a combat (or a timer on the site of some kind).

    Definitely something for GMs to bear in mind.


    gustavo iglesias wrote:

    Monks shouldn't convert Wis to strain. It's a dodge bonus. He use it vs touch attacks, armor does not. If it's dodge bonus for the good things, it's dodge bonus for the bad ones too.

    Edit: He could convert his bracers of armor, though

    Normally, I would agree. Dodge = no DR, but with monks having the whole mind over body thing, I can see a decent reason to allow them to convert wisdom injury to strain. That is just how I would personally handle it.


    Pure damage traps that don't do enough damage to kill somebody and aren't part of a larger encounter seem mostly pointless to me anyway. Where's the fun if there's no potential for serious consequences?

    I don't think there's much call for such a trap unless there's some kind of time pressure, at least.


    So in the case of the ghost's touch attack: since it requires an attack roll then regardless of the save vs half, the damage is all strain.


    Mark Hoover wrote:
    So in the case of the ghost's touch attack: since it requires an attack roll then regardless of the save vs half, the damage is all strain.

    I think the odd question is this.

    What if the ghost lands a crit(which should make it all injury), then the player makes the save(which should make it all strain)? I think it ends up being all strain.


    I've been using this for my Rise of the Runelords game for a while now, and its been very helpful, seeing as how the party has been without a Cleric from the start (replying on the Paladin's healing). I still have been having the hardest time modeling it correctly, but it has made the players more willing to take risks. I think the players see it as "safer" to go running into the thick of things, considering that most damage is going to be shrug-able... This should not be seen as a fault of the system, quite the contrary.

    I still love the idea, and will continue to use it. Adding the Armor as DR thing is tempting, but I think it would possibly make things too safe, unless we assume all damage is injury otherwise, which defeats the purpose, I think.


    Nephelim wrote:

    I've been using this for my Rise of the Runelords game for a while now, and its been very helpful, seeing as how the party has been without a Cleric from the start (replying on the Paladin's healing). I still have been having the hardest time modeling it correctly, but it has made the players more willing to take risks. I think the players see it as "safer" to go running into the thick of things, considering that most damage is going to be shrug-able... This should not be seen as a fault of the system, quite the contrary.

    I still love the idea, and will continue to use it. Adding the Armor as DR thing is tempting, but I think it would possibly make things too safe, unless we assume all damage is injury otherwise, which defeats the purpose, I think.

    Yeah, I wouldn't combine the two. The armor as DR(converts injury to strain) idea is meant as straight replacement for the crit = injury rule.

    So you would have failed saves, and hits that are more than your armor value causing injury. Unless you have a lot of heavy armor wearers, that will likely result in more injuries overall.


    Nephelim wrote:
    I've been using this for my Rise of the Runelords game for a while now, and its been very helpful, seeing as how the party has been without a Cleric from the start (replying on the Paladin's healing). I still have been having the hardest time modeling it correctly, but it has made the players more willing to take risks. I think the players see it as "safer" to go running into the thick of things, considering that most damage is going to be shrug-able... This should not be seen as a fault of the system, quite the contrary.

    In my group at least, what slowed us down before shouldn't even be called "caution" — it was just math.

    In the RAW, once the players (rightly) decide to re-up to full HP, it becomes nothing more than a multi-step healing dance for 3gp/1hp that takes 2-10 minutes of paperwork to sort out. *yawn*

    Neph, it pleases me to hear that you can dispense with that and get on with the action!


    I had a fun moment in the game this weekend. The party took some damage, retreated out of the dungeon to a "safe zone" (literally an area warded that no creatures could attack them) and began to rest and refit. About halfway along the corpse of the creature on the floor suddenly just levitated, into the air, and began to propell down the hall in a jiggling gait, hovering just off the ground; a sickening sucking sound could be heard as it passed.

    The party looked around, confused, then the fighter stuck his head in and made an aces Knowledge: dungeoneering check. "Gelatinous Cube" he announces. I announce it appears to be turning around and headed right for him, he gets ready with his weapon.

    "You know we haven't finished resting yet right? you're still down 16 HP?" one player asked him. At the last second the dwarf pulls his head back out as it oozes just inches from his beard...

    Liberty's Edge

    I've started using these rules on a Rappan Athuk PbP, and the issue of trap damage will very soon become relevant to the group...

    There's no real point to the Strain damage out of combat, but at the same time I feel like traps become extremely deadly if they immediately deal injuries. Most traps deal a significant amount of damage with one hit in order to be a threat.

    One idea is that you could consider the "failed saving throw" to be the Perception check required to discover a trap. You fail to notice it - you take an injury for it. Plus, many traps are even better than that, giving you an effective "second chance" with their Reflex for half or Reflex to avoid.

    I think I'll be making traps deal Injury damage, but I also allow anyone to spot and disarm traps, not just rogues.


    Traps doing immediately injuries aren't more deadly than regular traps in a regular game using the vanilla rules.

    And everybody can spot and disarm traps. Rogues (and some bards, oracles, alchemists and rangers) can disarm magical traps, but everybody can disarm mundane traps, and everybody can spot traps, mundane or magical.


    Alice Margatroid wrote:
    One idea is that you could consider the "failed saving throw" to be the Perception check required to discover a trap. You fail to notice it - you take an injury for it. Plus, many traps are even better than that, giving you an effective "second chance" with their Reflex for half or Reflex to avoid.

    I really like this suggestion... but

    I'm not sure this is a problem. It's already the case that HP damage from traps is a mere nuisance (and often "unrealistic") outside of combat, but traps can be effective and fun if included in a larger ongoing encounter. The same is true with strain, we just take the paperwork out of chugging potions. Unless you took a final blow from the trap, in which case, the result is injury anyway. *dusts off hands*

    Falling into traps is only "fun" with a narrow escape — a staple of adventure stories and yet something the rules currently don't handle. Right now you either bypass or disarm or fall victim. Strain creates a nice spot in the rules for the "close call", springing the trap but escaping somehow. If you have a moment to catch your breath after ducking that scything blade, then yes, you are unscathed.

    So the moral of this story is, PCs are going to be able to set off traps but escape them much more often. If you don't want that, make sure your traps are saving throws, deal crits often, or deal enough damage to bring the PC to zero HP. If you think about it, these are the trap types that make conceptual sense to be considered "inescapable" once triggered. An attack roll with a low crit threat and low damage ought to be the kind of thing that people escape with an action-packed "close call" trap scene... something missing from the current rules.


    People have an instinct to make the game more "realistic" by making it more deadly. This variant rule works by explaining why things like swords and fire are as survivable as they seem in the rules, rather than changing their deadliness. We do that by explaining what action occurs to mitigate the threat. Parry a sword, leap past a trap.

    The only part of the RAW that needs to change to make this work is the rate of healing.


    Evil Lincoln wrote:

    People have an instinct to make the game more "realistic" by making it more deadly. This variant rule works by explaining why things like swords and fire are as survivable as they seem in the rules, rather than changing their deadliness. We do that by explaining what action occurs to mitigate the threat. Parry a sword, leap past a trap.

    The only part of the RAW that needs to change to make this work is the rate of healing.

    Agreed, even with the idea about using armor to convert injury to strain, the intent is to try and keep the ratio of injury to strain from changing too much.

    If you increase injuries too much, you might as well just use the normal HP rules.

    201 to 250 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / [Strain-Injury Variant] A Minor Change to Hit Points All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.