Low hit points=dice roll penalties?


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Hey there!

I was talking to some friends about some house rule changes...and was looking for advice...

My thoughts were if you are fighting, bleeding, and injured, you would be far less effective in combat, so how could this be done in game? I was thinking at certian % of hit points loss certian stats, skills, and actions would take a penalty.

Here is an example
At 75% hit points players take a -2 to attacks, AC, combat maneuvers, and any strength, dexterity, or constitution based checks, maybe a speed reduction too?
At 50% this penalty changes to 3, and at 25% it reduces further...maybe to 4?

Maybe there is a bonus to checks, like looks pathetic for sympathy? Should spell casting with verbal or symatic components be effected, like spell failure percentage?

Thoughts?


That is no good idea. Just forget about it and take the rules as they are - abstract constructs to simulate a battle. Everything else can be added narrativly.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

The problem with this sort of mechanic is it is a "spiral of suck." As you get damaged, you become less able to avoid damage, thereby speeding your progress toward the next step in the cycle.

It is realistic that you become less capable as you get more damaged. But with the swingy nature of the game, with magical healing, with the way combats are balanced…

It has a lot of unexpected fallout, a lot of (for many, if not most groups) reduced fun, all for a perceived problem in realism in a decidedly unrealistic game.

That being said, if you and your group really want it, I would a) suggest making the initial step -1 instead of -2 and possibly holding off the next stage. Off the cuff:

75% health remaining: -1
25% health remaining: -2
10% health remaining: -3

You might also consider granting some sort of desperation mechanic at low HP (that only benefits the PCs) to balance it out.

Scarab Sages

I would be against this for 2 reasons:

It creates downward spiral of helplessness, where if you're injured you are suddenly mush less useful, so one or two bad rolls at the beginning of combat will basically take you out of a fight.

It creates more bookkeeping, annoying on the part of the player, nearly impossible to keep track of as a DM. Anything that makes even more things to keep track of and apply I'm against.

Lore wise think of it this way: a humanoid doesn't have racial HD, thus HP doesn't represent physical wounds for them. Humanoids don't get injured until they die (yah, we're fragile).


I don't think the "spiral of suck" is much of a problem as long as it applies equally to the monsters. What is a problem is that then the bookkeeping also applies equally to the monsters. This especially makes it that much harder to have the party fight a large horde of low-level opponents, which is a very iconic scene in a lot of fantasy.


The monsters are more than likely going to die anyway. This spiral is only going to increase the chance the the PC's will die. I would not use it.

Scarab Sages

First off, this should be in the homebrew thread.

Secondly, It's a bad idea. Pathfinder is not a simulationist system. Combat and hit points are an abstraction and using them to assign penalties is a bad idea and makes the hit point gulf even more unrealistic.

If you want a realistic treatment of wounds and damage then a more realistic system such as GURPS is going to be a better fit than trying to shoehorn it into a non-realistic system like pathfinder.


Count me on the side of, this is a bad idea. It's also even worse because you only listed penalties to martial characters so far, which are already considerably weaker than casters.

If you do implement something like this, you will need to find a way to penalize spell casting as much as martial characters to make it fair.

But I still wouldn't do it. In Pathfinder Combat is abstract, and doesn't support realism at all. Don't try to force it in because it wont work well.


If desired, you could work it similarly to how a negative level interacts. Basically a -1 on die rolls. (i'd abstract it to just attack rolls, skill checks, and concentration. Not Saves-imo)

If you wanted the final penalty to be a -3, then a 75/50/25% threshold would work for easy to calculate/recall. (I suggest rounding down when doing the calculation)

If you want a final penalty of -4, then 80/60/40/20% would follow the same logical path as above.

This would require a slight bit of extra book keeping during combat, as most monsters would have to record how hurt they were % wise as well, to keep things fair.

Alternately, you could simplify it and make your threshold similar to 'blooded' in 4E, which is under 50%. you could add in a flat -2 or what not and do the speed penalty or what have you.

Various ideas for thought.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Still this would weaken martials.

The Exchange

I don't like this for Pathfinder much, although I do want to find a way for something like this to work.
I recently played in a Legend of the Five Rings game and I absolutely LOVE how that system works and how there is a degradation of ability from injuries. I felt like a hero in the game but you definitely have more respect for enemies in the game. There is none of Pathfinder's "one high level dude vs. 30 low level mooks is just a matter of how long it takes for the high level dude to hit them all". If you get in a fight with 4-5 guys you are gonna be hit and you are gonna take damage even if they are low level and you are high level....it could even be lethal.
If I could figure out a conversion of the combat from L5R to Pathfinder I would never look back.


Wasum wrote:
Still this would weaken martials.

include the -1 variable penalty to spell DC and/or Caster Level as well as concentration checks then. Now it would not only weaken martials.


I'm gonna start off with you already seem to have the basic idea.

Second of all gonna state others are correct this is a bad idea. Combats are already decided by who goes first. This is only going to increase the issue as anyone who goes first does a good chunk of damage and now the opponent has spell failure, movement reduction, all forms of penalties in combat.

Basically once the first side goes the second side, who was already at a disadvantage for going 2nd, is now taking major penalties to go with it. You'd have the spiral of suck start before one side even got to go.


My thoughts are... extra paperwork. I like some nods at realism my games, but there is already a great deal to keep track of, so no thanks.


Aside from the other reasons mentioned, I really dislike the idea of mechanics scaling off HP. Why is it that a level 8 fighter with 25hp left is taking a penalty that the first level fighter who only has 14 hp at full health isn't taking?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Aside from the other reasons mentioned, I really dislike the idea of mechanics scaling off HP. Why is it that a level 8 fighter with 25hp left is taking a penalty that the first level fighter who only has 14 hp at full health isn't taking?

Because he gets to enjoy the benefit of not being dead, unlike the 14hp fighter after the same damage? HP are abstract, but damage does represent damage. (mostly i am just stating a possible perspective, and am not the OP)


I tend to agree with those who say that it's too much bookkeeping. That said, two thoughts:

1. If you're going to introduce penalties at lower HP, maybe you should give bonuses at high HP? So instead of -1,-2,-3,-4 it's +1,+0,-1,-2?

2. Reduced performance could be done with randomized status effects or ability damage. This would take the simulationism a step further, so a wounded arm feels like a wounded arm instead of a nebulous "reduced performance".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

OTOH, something along these lines does help counter the martial/caster disparity, as long as penalties apply to casters too. Damage is generally not the caster's thing, battlefield control - which often involves applying penalties and thus degrading the other side's ability to attack - is.

Letting martials do the same kind of thing, just by doing damage does have potential. It's along the same lines as suggestions to let martials have ways of applying conditions with attacks, just more automatic. And more likely to be applied to the PCs.


A group I played in once had a similar houserule. It didn't work out well, not equally affecting all characters. The synthesist summoner was for example hardly affected due to the massive amount of temp hp he had.


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.

Scarab Sages

Eridan wrote:

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.

Again, it hurts martials more than casters. Martials are more likely to be in combat and thus get wounded, and they are the only once that a penalty on attack rolls would hurt. God Wizards don't roll dice.


Imbicatus wrote:
Eridan wrote:

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.

Again, it hurts martials more than casters. Martials are more likely to be in combat and thus get wounded, and they are the only once that a penalty on attack rolls would hurt. God Wizards don't roll dice.

OTOH, as I suggested, they're also the ones doing damage and thus applying the penalties that normally only casters get to apply.

I do agree that penalties need to apply to casters to - probably by dropping the DCs of their spells.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I like my fantasy game to include badasses who don't slow down 'til they drop. YMMV.


Rathendar wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Aside from the other reasons mentioned, I really dislike the idea of mechanics scaling off HP. Why is it that a level 8 fighter with 25hp left is taking a penalty that the first level fighter who only has 14 hp at full health isn't taking?
Because he gets to enjoy the benefit of not being dead, unlike the 14hp fighter after the same damage? HP are abstract, but damage does represent damage. (mostly i am just stating a possible perspective, and am not the OP)

So a higher level character with more resources left is taking a penalty that a lower level character with less resources left isn't taking. What game are you playing where that makes sense, because it sure isn't pathfinder?

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
I like my fantasy game to include badasses who don't slow down 'til they drop. YMMV.

You could still do that with feats or abilities that allow martials to ignore all or a certain amount of penalties, something like "Tough as Nails" or "It's Only a Flesh Wound" feats.... There is always easy ways to allow something in general in the game and let specific things have a way to avoid them. The trick is to do it with an easy mechanic that doesn't bog down the game or make it less fun....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fake Healer wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I like my fantasy game to include badasses who don't slow down 'til they drop. YMMV.
You could still do that with feats or abilities that allow martials to ignore all or a certain amount of penalties, something like "Tough as Nails" or "It's Only a Flesh Wound" feats.... There is always easy ways to allow something in general in the game and let specific things have a way to avoid them. The trick is to do it with an easy mechanic that doesn't bog down the game or make it less fun....

So now I have to get a feat to make the game not "less fun"? Super.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Every feat you add is either not taken or 'must have' and takes the place of another feat the character could have taken instead.


Fake Healer wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I like my fantasy game to include badasses who don't slow down 'til they drop. YMMV.
You could still do that with feats or abilities that allow martials to ignore all or a certain amount of penalties, something like "Tough as Nails" or "It's Only a Flesh Wound" feats.... There is always easy ways to allow something in general in the game and let specific things have a way to avoid them. The trick is to do it with an easy mechanic that doesn't bog down the game or make it less fun....

Just what the game needs, ANOTHER martial feat tax.

(Let's see how this goes over...) I think that casters should have to take their % damage as a concentration check penalty (so if you are down 80% of HP then you take a -80 on concentration checks) and casters must make a concentration check if they are injured at all. There will be a feat called "improved combat casting" which has combat casting as a prerequisite which removes the penalty.

Scarab Sages

BigDTBone wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I like my fantasy game to include badasses who don't slow down 'til they drop. YMMV.
You could still do that with feats or abilities that allow martials to ignore all or a certain amount of penalties, something like "Tough as Nails" or "It's Only a Flesh Wound" feats.... There is always easy ways to allow something in general in the game and let specific things have a way to avoid them. The trick is to do it with an easy mechanic that doesn't bog down the game or make it less fun....

Just what the game needs, ANOTHER martial feat tax.

(Let's see how this goes over...) I think that casters should have to take their % damage as a concentration check penalty (so if you are down 80% of HP then you take a -80 on concentration checks) and casters must make a concentration check if they are injured at all. There will be a feat called "improved combat casting" which has combat casting as a prerequisite which removes the penalty.

Which just becomes another caster feat tax that does nothing to powerdown casters. The only thing it does is delay access to Spell Perfection or a craft feat.

Shadow Lodge

Don't explain the joke.


BigDTBone wrote:
So a higher level character with more resources left is taking a penalty that a lower level character with less resources left isn't taking. What game are you playing where that makes sense, because it sure isn't pathfinder?

The lower-level character is taking a worse penalty, namely death. You're being a bit narrow-minded about this, it's not illogical. You're free to disagree that it's a good mechanic, but the reasoning is sound.


Two things ...

1. Death spirals suck. It's just kicking you while you're down and making the go-first rocket-tag paradigm that much more important.

2. Hit Points are abstract. It is completely narratively possible for you to go from 200 HP to 1 without taking a lick of physical damage.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
2. Hit Points are abstract. It is completely narratively possible for you to go from 200 HP to 1 without taking a lick of physical damage.

I personally really dislike that version of HP. It really screws with healing magic, injury poisons, bleed effects, failed saves on AoE damage, being on fire... a host of things in the game are predicated on the assumption that HP damage is actual physical harm. 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).

I prefer it that way. To me, it's less immersion-breaking to just say that my flying, dragon-slaying, world-altering fantasy heroes are just that tough that to try and work around all the bajillion things that just don't work with nonphysical HP. YMMV.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rathendar wrote:
Wasum wrote:
Still this would weaken martials.
include the -1 variable penalty to spell DC and/or Caster Level as well as concentration checks then. Now it would not only weaken martials.

Most casters aren't going to be putting themselves on the front line to bleed. Since that's the job of the melee martial, they would be feeling the impact on this rule more than those who stay behind to strike from range.


Jiggy wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
2. Hit Points are abstract. It is completely narratively possible for you to go from 200 HP to 1 without taking a lick of physical damage.

I personally really dislike that version of HP. It really screws with healing magic, injury poisons, bleed effects, failed saves on AoE damage, being on fire... a host of things in the game are predicated on the assumption that HP damage is actual physical harm. 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).

I prefer it that way. To me, it's less immersion-breaking to just say that my flying, dragon-slaying, world-altering fantasy heroes are just that tough that to try and work around all the bajillion things that just don't work with nonphysical HP. YMMV.

This is why I said 'narratively possible'. Obviously, some things will require physical damage to be dealt. But I've no issue with two swordfighters parrying the entire fight until one finally gets in the one and only thrust that draws blood.


Zhayne wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
2. Hit Points are abstract. It is completely narratively possible for you to go from 200 HP to 1 without taking a lick of physical damage.

I personally really dislike that version of HP. It really screws with healing magic, injury poisons, bleed effects, failed saves on AoE damage, being on fire... a host of things in the game are predicated on the assumption that HP damage is actual physical harm. 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).

I prefer it that way. To me, it's less immersion-breaking to just say that my flying, dragon-slaying, world-altering fantasy heroes are just that tough that to try and work around all the bajillion things that just don't work with nonphysical HP. YMMV.

This is why I said 'narratively possible'. Obviously, some things will require physical damage to be dealt. But I've no issue with two swordfighters parrying the entire fight until one finally gets in the one and only thrust that draws blood.

Or most of the cuts just being small scratches, until the final one that cuts through. As opposed to each of a dozen hits delivering cuts that are as deep as the one that wound have laid him low at first level.

That's the "ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one" part of the rule.


I do like systems that have a Spiral degrade to combat, Example L5R by AEG. It makes combat feel threatening and makes even simple skirmishes become worrisome. I would suggest like Rathendar said it, added like a negative level "-x to all rolls, where x is the HP%".

On the other side I would make sure any Pathfinder game you run All players agree to this and you have all the details written out.

Nothings is worse then a GM who adds rules that hinder a game you love.


Why would you do this...


In general good game design, you don't do this. I've read books that state that it's not good to penalise players for taking a beating. Having lower hp and being closer to death is enough.

Rachel Carter wrote:

At 75% hit points players take a -2 to attacks, AC, combat maneuvers, and any strength, dexterity, or constitution based checks, maybe a speed reduction too?

At 50% this penalty changes to 3, and at 25% it reduces further...maybe to 4?

This would tilt the odds against anybody who takes damage. Already at 75% they would start to take damage more frequent and do less damage them selves, aka not killing the thing doing damage to them before it can do even more damage.

And if both parts go down equaly quick (applying the penalties to both players' and enemies' AC and attack rolls) the modifiers won't matter. If you have -2 to hit and they have -2 to AC, then there's no point in having this system.

This would only result in your players having to heal as soon as they get close to or below 75%, or they're doing it wrong (from a strategic point of view).

In conclusion: This either tilts combat, giving more advantage to the already stronger side OR it doesn't do anything at all.


Not sure why people are so against Rachel Carter asking this question. My opinion is if no one ask these question then we would simply be stuck playing the 1970s sword and sorcery wargames. When someone simply asked the question what does my character do after combat? We will never evolve


Rub-Eta wrote:

In general good game design, you don't do this. I've read books that state that it's not good to penalise players for taking a beating. Having lower hp and being closer to death is enough.

Rachel Carter wrote:

At 75% hit points players take a -2 to attacks, AC, combat maneuvers, and any strength, dexterity, or constitution based checks, maybe a speed reduction too?

At 50% this penalty changes to 3, and at 25% it reduces further...maybe to 4?

This would tilt the odds against anybody who takes damage. Already at 75% they would start to take damage more frequent and do less damage them selves, aka not killing the thing doing damage to them before it can do even more damage.

And if both parts go down equaly quick (applying the penalties to both players' and enemies' AC and attack rolls) the modifiers won't matter. If you have -2 to hit and they have -2 to AC, then there's no point in having this system.

This would only result in your players having to heal as soon as they get close to or below 75%, or they're doing it wrong (from a strategic point of view).

In conclusion: This either tilts combat, giving more advantage to the already stronger side OR it doesn't do anything at all.

I think the effect is more subtle. It strengthens numbers. It gives more of an advantage to larger groups. A single opponent, even when he doesn't go down right away, will quickly rackup penalties. A large number of weaker opponents will start to drop, but the remaining ones will still be at full strength.

Whether this is to the PCs advantage or not depends on whether they're the group ganging up on the one BBEG or the few facing a horde of mooks.


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, and facing systems.

Then you're adding in wounds systems, because if they get hit in the arm, logically that's going to impede their sword-swinging ability.

Before you know it, it takes a three hour session to run a simple combat.

OP, I sympathize with your desires here, I really do, but this just isn't the system for it.


thejeff wrote:
stuff

I would contend that it favors AOE spells and so forth, since focus-fire is no longer the absolute dominant strategy. Hitting a room of baddies with a fireball is a control effect now.

Rudy2 wrote:

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, and facing systems.

Then you're adding in wounds systems, because if they get hit in the arm, logically that's going to impede their sword-swinging ability.

Before you know it, it takes a three hour session to run a simple combat.

OP, I sympathize with your desires here, I really do, but this just isn't the system for it.

I think this kind of game could be run in a computer-assisted rpg, like if all of your players had iPads that would do all of the recalculating.


thejeff wrote:
I think the effect is more subtle. [...] Whether this is to the PCs advantage or not depends on whether they're the group ganging up on the one BBEG or the few facing a horde of mooks.

Yes, it's middigated by the number of people in the group. However, -2 to AC or attack rolls (aka 10% higher chance to get hit or to hit) isn't subtle, it's a huge advantage to the already winning side.

Whether it is to the advantage of the players or not is not relevant. This rule would change a lot of combat strategy from what Pathfinder is balanced around. It's no longer "stay alive", it's "stay above 75%" to not take penalties so that you can still fight properly and not die faster.

gyggles wrote:
Not sure why people are so against Rachel Carter asking this question. My opinion is if no one ask these question then we would simply be stuck playing the 1970s sword and sorcery wargames. When someone simply asked the question what does my character do after combat? We will never evolve

First: I'm not against the question being asked. I'm against the idea that the question presents.

Second: This has already been tried out before, it's not a question that hasn't been asked before. As I said, there are books about game design and balancing that mentions this already and why it's in general not a good idea. This won't make anything evolve.

Unless the system/game isn't designed specifically for it to work well, it won't. And Pathfinder isn't.

Take a peek at this and maybe this alternate rules to see if this is anything like what you want.


I love L5R(Legend of the five rings) for its combat system, But Ruby2 is right in it takes 3hr sometime to do combat. But it also adds a level of strategy and real life threat that Pathfinder does not have.
Strategy: even with a small skirmish you pick and chose your opponent very carefully because you fear taking damage. You tend to use cover more and try to outmaneuver your opponent. Death almost becomes a secondary threat you hope to never get near.
Real life threat: I have seen fighters with 100+Hp get slammed with an attack that could kill a wizard out right and shrug saying "I have plenty of hp."

Now Am I going to do switch how to run my groups damage, no. I would simply play a game system with a built in "Spiral degrade" but I do see how someone would want to try to fiddle with a new Pathfinder based combat system.


thejeff wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:

In general good game design, you don't do this. I've read books that state that it's not good to penalise players for taking a beating. Having lower hp and being closer to death is enough.

Rachel Carter wrote:

At 75% hit points players take a -2 to attacks, AC, combat maneuvers, and any strength, dexterity, or constitution based checks, maybe a speed reduction too?

At 50% this penalty changes to 3, and at 25% it reduces further...maybe to 4?

This would tilt the odds against anybody who takes damage. Already at 75% they would start to take damage more frequent and do less damage them selves, aka not killing the thing doing damage to them before it can do even more damage.

And if both parts go down equaly quick (applying the penalties to both players' and enemies' AC and attack rolls) the modifiers won't matter. If you have -2 to hit and they have -2 to AC, then there's no point in having this system.

This would only result in your players having to heal as soon as they get close to or below 75%, or they're doing it wrong (from a strategic point of view).

In conclusion: This either tilts combat, giving more advantage to the already stronger side OR it doesn't do anything at all.

I think the effect is more subtle. It strengthens numbers. It gives more of an advantage to larger groups. A single opponent, even when he doesn't go down right away, will quickly rackup penalties. A large number of weaker opponents will start to drop, but the remaining ones will still be at full strength.

Whether this is to the PCs advantage or not depends on whether they're the group ganging up on the one BBEG or the few facing a horde of mooks.

Action economy advantage isn't enough? Do we really need for the party to kill the APL+4 bad guy even quicker?


Torchlyte wrote:
I think this kind of game could be run in a computer-assisted rpg, like if all of your players had iPads that would do all of the recalculating.

True, but that's a high barrier to entry.


Rudy2 wrote:

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, and facing systems.

Then you're adding in wounds systems, because if they get hit in the arm, logically that's going to impede their sword-swinging ability.

Before you know it, it takes a three hour session to run a simple combat.

OP, I sympathize with your desires here, I really do, but this just isn't the system for it.

I agree. If you want detailed, realistic combat it's better to go with something like GURPS where the work has already been done and playtested for you.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

I think it can work, but you must be mindful what kind of effect this has on the game. I have the following recommendations:

1) Keep it simple.

2) Somehow give melee martials resistance or immunity to it.

3) Alter dying and death rules.

I'd probably do a system where every character has a "bloodied" value that is a percentage of their maximum hitpoints. This percentage is lower the higher class Hit Dice the character has (in other words, a fighter will have a low bloodied value). The character takes penalties when under this bloodied value.


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.

1 to 50 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Low hit points=dice roll penalties? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.