Laurefindel |
Thanks for all the suggestions. I'll have to double check with my players if it is really something they are interested in... One played a system where something like this was part of it as mentioned above (L5R I think) and they brought up the suggestion. Thanks for the feed back everyone.
I think that if you and your group are interested in this mechanics, you should try it. People on this board are pretty vocal against damage penalties, but there's nothing like first-hand experience to make-up your mind. What people mean by "not fun" generally means "not fun for them".
There are a few reasons as to why damage penalties in D&D/Pathfinder often don't work as intended however.
1) Unlike L5R and 7th Sea, d20 doesn't offer much strategies to fall back to when you start to run low on hit points other than "hitting harder and hope the baddies will drop before you do". At best you can do nothing and put yourself in full-defense, but offense almost always trumps defense in this system, and there are few alternate supporting actions.
2) Damage penalties rarely affect spellcasting, thus making casters yet-again superior to melee characters who are more likely to end-up with those penalties in the first place.
3) Yet another thing to track/remember. Pathfinder is rule heavy; it doesn't take must more to make it unbearable. You can somewhat circumvent this problem by applying existing conditions, such as 50% hp = fatigued and 10% = exhausted for example.
4) The nature of hit points make it more abstract to start with. One could argue that even at 1 hp, his/her character isn't wounded but rather worn down, or strained, or just running out of luck. The 50% hp = seriously wounded isn't that clear to start with, so the "realism" argument in favour of damage penalties is hard to defend.
In the end, damage penalties is a fun concept when it prompts players to change/adapt their strategies, or else forces them to accept defeat and consider flight as a valid option. Saying that d20 is not meant for neither would be wrong, but they aren't what the system focuses on.
Gingerbreadman |
Should spell casting with verbal or symatic components be effected, like spell failure percentage?
Thoughts?
If you want to include something don't leave out the spellcasters, they need all the attention they can get. Just give them the penalty on other rolls times 5 as spell failure percentage. Not just those with verbal or somatic components, being injured generally hurts concentration.
And give them the same penalty on concentration checks because you penalize both attack and AC, too.Cyrad RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not go the other way? Give character a bonus to saves if they are at > 75% HP.
This avoids the "death spiral" and makes it harder for casters to wreck an encounter with an opening SoD spell.
I think this is a fairly clever idea. It's also easier to remember bonuses than penalities, in my opinon.
Ricardo Pennacchia |
I do remember that Star Wars SAGA RPG had a similar mechanics. Might be worth checking it.
You can use a 'wound' system similar to the 'Earthdawn' roleplaying system.
You define threshold for damage per hit. Everytime you get more damage than your threshold you get a wound in addition to the damage. If the damage dont ecxeed your threshold everything is fine and you only get damage. Every wound is a -1 penalty to dice rolls.
The threshold can be CON, 10+lvl, ..
A wound is healed with a healing spell in addtion to the damage.
We tested this in the past with D&D3 and it worked good. You only count wounds and use penalties. That is not much paperwork.
Try it if everyone in your group wants more realism.
I would suggest a threshold of CON + 2 x BAB, so it could benefit martials a good deal.
Umbranus |
I do remember that Star Wars SAGA RPG had a similar mechanics. Might be worth checking it.
Eridan wrote:I would suggest a threshold of CON + 2 x BAB, so it could benefit martials a good deal.You can use a 'wound' system similar to the 'Earthdawn' roleplaying system.
You define threshold for damage per hit. Everytime you get more damage than your threshold you get a wound in addition to the damage. If the damage dont ecxeed your threshold everything is fine and you only get damage. Every wound is a -1 penalty to dice rolls.
The threshold can be CON, 10+lvl, ..
A wound is healed with a healing spell in addtion to the damage.
We tested this in the past with D&D3 and it worked good. You only count wounds and use penalties. That is not much paperwork.
Try it if everyone in your group wants more realism.
If you use con or con +2xBAB then it is impossible to wound a level 1 char without killing him and it's even close for a level 2 one. The result would be that you can hit a low level pc, bringing him below zero and he's unwounded but the high level pc can be hit that bare nicks his hp but wounds him.
Because of that I'd rather take con bonus instead of con but perhaps BABx3 instead of x2Gaberlunzie |
Why not go the other way? Give character a bonus to saves if they are at > 75% HP.
This avoids the "death spiral" and makes it harder for casters to wreck an encounter with an opening SoD spell.
That's a great idea. Somthing like this?
"Fresh: A character that has more than 75% of hit points remaining and isn't fatigued or exhausted gains a +2 bonus on saving throws."
Also, I like Alexandrian hit points and they create something similar to this too; a positive hit points you're fine, between 0 and -maxhp you're disabled, then you're dead.
Valfen |
If your objective is to find a solution to the narrative dissonance created by hit points, you could also try the incredibly awesome Strain/Injury variant created rule by the most excellent Evil Lincoln.
It's the cleanest design I've seen thus far to solve the traditional issues with the HP abstraction.
As a bonus, it would be extremely easy to tack on penalties on it for injuries, even though I too would recommend against introducing it, if only because PF/3.5 is not really built on this assumption and it could skew a lot of things badly.
Zhayne |
I remember reading a blog post about this years ago, and someone was saying the Champions system actually had a good way of dealing with this.
I don't know anything about Champions and didn't care to look into it at the time, but if that would be a good starting point. Someone here might know?
HERO System's Impairing and Disabling optional rules only work because HERO separates out lethal damage and knockout damage (BODY and STUN). Incompatible with PF's regular HP system, but could theoretically work with Wounds and Vigor.
Kazaan |
Not only that, but the Core Rulebook actually says:
"What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one."So Pathfinder's hit points actually really do represent physical health/injury (even if the author of UC's "Wounds and Vigor" system missed that memo).
"...the ability to take physical punishment and keep going..." Hit points represent your physical endurance as the ability to suffer damage but still keep fighting at optimal capacity. The only issue is the fact that you drop from optimal to K.O'ed with almost no interval; you must be left with exactly 0 HP to be considered conscious but also staggered. There are some abilities that represent a stretching of this "gray area" such as those that let you act as if staggered while in negative HP (but not yet dead).
So, if one were going to use a houserule to make that interval between 'fighting optimally' and 'out for the count' a bit wider, maybe certain thresholds where you can fight as if staggered; say based on half the size of your hit-dice? So with 1d6 HD, you fight optimally down to 1 HP, then are staggered from 0 to -3, and then are considered dying. If you have 1d12 HD, you can go from 0 to -6. If you have different sized HD from different sources, use the one you have the most of; ie. if you have 3 levels of 1d6 and 6 levels of 1d8, base the calculation on the 1d8. If 3 of 1d8 and 6 of 1d6, use the 1d6 instead. If it's a tie, just use the bigger one (1d8 in this case).
thejeff |
Jiggy wrote:"...the ability to take physical punishment and keep going..." Hit points represent your physical endurance as the ability to suffer damage but still keep fighting at optimal capacity.Not only that, but the Core Rulebook actually says:
"What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one."So Pathfinder's hit points actually really do represent physical health/injury (even if the author of UC's "Wounds and Vigor" system missed that memo).
"and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one". Why do people keep quoting the whole sentence and then focusing only on the first half to prove their point?
That's a rhetorical question, that is.Kazaan |
The "serious blow into a less serious one" relates to the massive damage rule. If you have 101 or less total HP, massive damage applies if you take 50+ damage in a single attack; if you take 50+ damage from any single attack, you must pass a fort save-or-die. But if you have more than 101 HP, that threshold goes up. At 200, you must suffer at least 100 damage from a single source. It can also apply to the idea that, for a fixed amount of damage, it is shaving off a lesser percentage of your total HP the higher your maximum is. 15 damage to a 30 HP character is half of what they can withstand and still keep going. By contrast, 15 damage to a 120 HP character is only 12% and they could take 7 more shots like that before dropping. The mere presence of the HP value is your ability to continue fighting at full capacity despite injury and the size of the HP bar represents your ability to turn serious blows into less serious ones; that 30 damage can be half your capacity to withstand, or it can be an eighth, or a hundredth, etc. depending on how much total HP you have relative to the damage of the attack.
thejeff |
The "serious blow into a less serious one" relates to the massive damage rule. If you have 101 or less total HP, massive damage applies if you take 50+ damage in a single attack; if you take 50+ damage from any single attack, you must pass a fort save-or-die. But if you have more than 101 HP, that threshold goes up. At 200, you must suffer at least 100 damage from a single source. It can also apply to the idea that, for a fixed amount of damage, it is shaving off a lesser percentage of your total HP the higher your maximum is. 15 damage to a 30 HP character is half of what they can withstand and still keep going. By contrast, 15 damage to a 120 HP character is only 12% and they could take 7 more shots like that before dropping. The mere presence of the HP value is your ability to continue fighting at full capacity despite injury and the size of the HP bar represents your ability to turn serious blows into less serious ones; that 30 damage can be half your capacity to withstand, or it can be an eighth, or a hundredth, etc. depending on how much total HP you have relative to the damage of the attack.
I'm not sure that linkage is quite so close as you suggest.
And you're still talking in abstract hp bar terms, rather than actual physical damage. I still say that a blow that would kill a normal man - say 20hp worth - is a massive or deep cut or crushed skull or something similar when you apply it to a 1st level commoner. When a 20th level fighter takes a 20 hp blow, he doesn't get the same physical injury, but just ignores it because he's the Black Knight and can keep fighting even with his arms and legs chopped off.Greylurker |
you might be able to get the feel you want without the "Spiral of Suck"
Just let people stay concious after they run out of Hit Points. At 0 Hit points make a Con check DC 10+(your Negative HPs) you can act but are staggered.
You still get this "I'm on my last legs" sort of feel but in reality you are buffing the system by letting people stay up when they should be down.
Ninja in the Rye |
Ninja in the Rye wrote:Why not go the other way? Give character a bonus to saves if they are at > 75% HP.
This avoids the "death spiral" and makes it harder for casters to wreck an encounter with an opening SoD spell.
That's a great idea. Somthing like this?
"Fresh: A character that has more than 75% of hit points remaining and isn't fatigued or exhausted gains a +2 bonus on saving throws."
Also, I like Alexandrian hit points and they create something similar to this too; a positive hit points you're fine, between 0 and -maxhp you're disabled, then you're dead.
I'd like the bonus to be something that is fairly significant and scales with level. 2 + 1/4 level, perhaps. WIth the bonus reduced when saving against HP damage effects (but not against potential rider effects, like dazing spell).
I like that idea that if the Fighter is going to get Dominated and turned against his friends, it might require weakening him by knocking down some of his HP first.
Laurefindel |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "serious blow into a less serious one" relates to the massive damage rule. If you have 101 or less total HP, massive damage applies if you take 50+ damage in a single attack; if you take 50+ damage from any single attack, you must pass a fort save-or-die.
Like thejeff, I too believe that it relates to the fact that a hit dealing 20 hit points is a killing blow for a low level character, but only a good scratch for a high level adventurer. The fact that it has more hit points doesn't mean its skull got thicker or that its body contains a higher volume of blood, but that he has learn to turn a lethal blow in a less serious one (i.e. more hit points)
Ashiel |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did this once, and it's a bad idea. Pathfinder cannot be made "realistic" without making it so convoluted as to be unplayable.
Next you're adding hex grids
Just tossing this out there, but the d20 system is freakin' baller with hex grids. I scarcely understand why it isn't the default. I've done some experimenting with hex grids and movement, spell placement, cone effects...pretty much everything is just better with a hex grid. There's no nonsense like every other diagonal square is 2, or anything like that.
Reach is easier. Movement is easier. I just...can't think of anything that is actually bad about using a hex grid. o_o
Gaberlunzie |
Yeah we run hex grids. I only have two issues with it:
1. It reduces the angles in adjacent melee from 8 to 6. It makes it harder for me to swarm my players with goblins hehe. Though as movement is just 10 times easier with hexes that more than weighs up in terms of running many creatures.
2. It makes 5ft corridors ugly as frakk, and can make square rooms look a bit weird.
But all in all, I feel hexes are so superior it's funny. Especially two things are fantastic with it:
1. Movement. Seriously, not having to calculate diagonals at all is great, and makes a lot of difference in how quickly combat is run.
2. Small area-effects.
Kazaan |
Better than Hexes is to just sub-divide the grid. Instead of 5' squares, have 1.25' (about 0.5m) squares. Each medium creature takes up 4x4 squares, small takes up 3x3, tiny takes up 2x2, etc. That smooths out both diagonal movement and clears up diagonal attack range and threatening with reach weapons. You can even add to it by having a finer grid on which to simulate weapon size where small weapons like daggers have slightly less reach than larger weapons like Longswords or Greatswords, but the larger weapons also have minimum reach similar to a Reach weapon, but less than a full 5' square. It can also better handle in-fighting in that characters can partially overlap their areas and this is where close weapons get best use.
JoeJ |
Yeah we run hex grids. I only have two issues with it:
1. It reduces the angles in adjacent melee from 8 to 6. It makes it harder for me to swarm my players with goblins hehe. Though as movement is just 10 times easier with hexes that more than weighs up in terms of running many creatures.
2. It makes 5ft corridors ugly as frakk, and can make square rooms look a bit weird.But all in all, I feel hexes are so superior it's funny. Especially two things are fantastic with it:
1. Movement. Seriously, not having to calculate diagonals at all is great, and makes a lot of difference in how quickly combat is run.
2. Small area-effects.
You can still draw straight walls and square rooms, just make the hex grid lighter and a different color. Any hex that is more than 50% within the room/corridor is playable.