No no! I'm sure this genuinely DOES concern the rule. If we're splitting damage into real injury and capacity to prevent injury, we have to make sure we're doing it in the right place. That's all I'm suggesting we change here.
The way I look at it, if a spell, environmental effect, or whatever else doesn't allow you a chance of taking less than the full damage dice, that's equivalent to a failed save.
If I chuck acid at you and you fail your save to avoid it, you'll get injured, but if you succeed, you'll either take half the damage as strain or escape unscathed. I'm sure we all agree that that's just fine.
That obviously means that if you choose not to avoid it and let yourself fail the save, you get injured, so why on earth do we have it set up so if you're not even given the chance, you somehow deal with it and don't get hurt?
It seems to me that we're treating damage with no check as though it's an automatic hit on an attack roll which can never crit. I think we'll get marginally more believable results and (more importantly) a far more consistent system if we treat it as an automatically failed save.
As a nifty bonus, falling would become much clearer this way. It would injure you whether there's a save to avoid it or not.
Oh HO, you ninja me sir.
If it came to dumb luck — someone forgot to refill the acid vat. Take the strain damage from emotional suspense and know that you won't be so lucky a second time.
Sorry, but that is trying slightly to hard for my tastes. I don't think reality should need to be rewritten around the rule to maintain the appearance of consistency, or that anybody should ever take damage from a non-magical thing that didn't actually happen. I thought we were trying to make damage make more sense here, not completely disconnect its mechanic from narrative cause and effect! If anybody made that happen at my table, I'd want to know why I couldn't murder people with social skill checks and bottles or green water.
That obviously means that if you choose not to avoid it and let yourself fail the save, you get injured, so why on earth do we have it set up so if you're not even given the chance, you somehow deal with it and don't get hurt?
It seems to me that we're treating damage with no check as though it's an automatic hit on an attack roll which can never crit. I think we'll get marginally more believable results and (more importantly) a far more consistent system if we treat it as an automatically failed save.
We need to define terms here. We're talking about Inevitable Injury, which may actually be only one point of Injury damage.
It may result from an intent to be injured, as in your last post, or it may result from a situation that is just too hard to describe Strain damage without deus-ex-machina.
'findel and I have been arguing from a perspective that inevitable injury shouldn't be a possibility... even if you run down every possibility to dumb luck, there's still dumb luck. If we enshrine inevitable injury in the rule somewhere, it has some consequences I'm not keen on. Mainly, it undermines our attempt to break the connection between attack deadliness and damage type.
I do think an inevitable injury clause is necessary, but it needs to be carefully worded so that GMs "get" it. It also doesn't belong in the big three, because that overplays its relevance to 99% of situations.
EDIT: Basically, I'm thinking about adding an Inevitable Injury entry to the Damage Interpretation section. This will describe an inevitable injury situation (like jumping off a building with the intent to die, or some of the other examples mentioned) and describe why fiat injuries should be avoided in the vast majority of cases. Having stated that case, we then permit GMs to use fiat in an educated way.
Oh HO, you ninja me sir.
If it came to dumb luck — someone forgot to refill the acid vat. Take the strain damage from emotional suspense and know that you won't be so lucky a second time.Sorry, but that is trying slightly to hard for my tastes. I don't think reality should need to be rewritten around the rule to maintain the appearance of consistency, or that anybody should ever take damage from a non-magical thing that didn't actually happen. I thought we were trying to make damage make more sense here, not completely disconnect its mechanic from narrative cause and effect! If anybody made that happen at my table, I'd want to know why I couldn't murder people with social skill checks and bottles or green water.
You're right, of course. I was trying my hand against the worst case scenario.
Dumb luck is for bullets lodged in holy symbols and the like. The example I gave is just crass, and though I might use it during a moment of desperation, I wouldn't be happy about it.
That may in fact be a better solution, but I really, really dislike "GM says so" situations.
EDIT: We now appear to be ninjaing each other quite gratuitously. I hope I'm not coming across as belligerent here.
I hope I'm not coming off as defensive. Dissent is invaluable, especially when unintended consequences are a threat.
So you'd be okay with treating Inevitable Injury as a corner case rather than than updating the big three?
It certainly doesn't seem ideal, but I don't really have a problem with it. I'm still not convinced about the whole thing, but I don't know that we're about to start seeing eye to eye over it either.
I could hardly take your posts as defensive! I keep attacking what I see as problems with your thing and you keep thanking me, even when I've been wrong. What more could I ask for?
A perfect compromise!
From a descriptive consistency point of view, It seems crazy to me that if somebody gets a save to avoid the acid jet and fails it, he gets injured, but if that same person is shackled to a table and has the same acid poured over him, he can't be harmed in any lasting way until he's suddenly brought to the verge of death.
I agree with all of that Mort, but I still wouldn't make it a category of super-lethal damage.
What you describe appears more like situations where the character cannot defend himself/herself, rather than damage being super-lethal. In other words, I disagree that some attacks should cause automatic Injuries, but I agree that some situations could cause automatic critical hits or automatically make a character fail a save (and by consequently automatic Injury damage).
Note that there is a precedent with the coup-de-grace. I also believe that a paralyzed character automatically fails any Reflex save by RaW, also automatically causing injuries. It wouldn't be a far stretch to expand into these rules.
Your local Fire Giant bully plunges your head into lava? If you failed to escape his grapple, you're toasted (in this case, literally).
'findel
So, we could be looking at an interaction with the Helpless condition rather than a general category of "inevitable injury"?
Or both?
So, we could be looking at an interaction with the Helpless condition rather than a general category of "inevitable injury"?
Or both?
I find that stating that some situation auto-crit or auto-fail a save keeps the strain-Injury rule clear and simple; three conditions to qualify for Injury, no corner cases, done!
I'm all in favour of "rock falls, everybody fails its save".
Coup de grace. Another situation that ought to get called out in Damage Interpretation.
I'm still not happy with Falling. Falling doesn't require a save. I don't like that jumping intentionally, even if you plan to DIE, does Strain. I'm pretty sure that the Reflex save to catch yourself shouldn't qualify for the big 3 save.
Adding a save to falling... and to anything is something I'd like to avoid though.
Coup de grace. Another situation that ought to get called out in Damage Interpretation.
Why?
Coup de grace auto-crit. Crit cause Injury. Seems pretty straightforward to me...
Yeah. Can't hurt to spell it out. Remember way upthread, it was overlooked for a while, causing general confusion as to how Injury should be applied.
I could see something like "attacks that automatically score a critical hit (such as a coup-de-grace) or conditions that automatically cause a saving throw to fail (such as the helpless condition) qualify as conditions causing Injury damage".
I would not specifically call out an exception for coup de grace, because then it forces you to sift through the system for similar conditions that should also be spelled out (if coup de grace was). It also force each houseruled situation to be spelled out.
Barbarians can become immune to fatigue.
Barbarians can become immune to fatigue.
Tireless Rage (Ex)
Starting at 17th level, a barbarian no longer becomes fatigued at the end of her rage.
And furthermore... that's about the damage penalty houserule that isn't actually what this thread's about at all.
But, because Tireless rage doesn't help against that theoretical houserule, and because the barbarian can't rage while fatigued, then the proposed damage penalty would be extra super nasty against barbarians. Hardly buffing AM BARBARIAN. Though I'm sure he would find a contrived but hilarious means of circumventing it.
oracle lame curse dip. Sorry I was referring to a common build not the actual class.
oracle lame curse dip. Sorry I was referring to a common build not the actual class.
As I said upthread, I don't think designing to negate specific "builds" is good design. And AM BARBARIAN doesn't have an Oracle dip, I don't think. But that's all beside the point since this thread really isn't about damage penalties, which could have three threads of their own and still not be stable.
OK, I think I have it guys:
Say that taking strain is always a choice. If you don't employ your training etc to avoid getting injured, you just get injured.
This moves a degree of descriptive burden onto the player. In a fight or other very normal damage-taking situation, the GM will still be saying things like "It dings off your helmet for 7 strain". If it's not obvious how the damage is avoidable, the player says what he's doing to make it strain.
Naturally we'll need a note here, possibly in bold, saying that if the explanation is even slightly believable, the GM should always accept it. I'd use laurfindel's example of running over the surface of the lava here, but I'd remove the part about the save. The player explains why it can be strain and probably loses the soles of his boots, but he largely gets away with it.
If this works like I think it will, The rule it should only come up if the players expressly have their characters do nothing to avoid harm, or if taking strain is so completely unbelievable in the situation that nobody at the table can come up with an excuse for it. Often, this will be when damage is dealt to a helpless victim, but not always. The barbarian who just wades off into boiling oil, the mad halfling who swan-dives into a volcano to retrieve his Precious and the poor innocent whale who tries to befriend ground instead trying not to land on his head will all be injured.
Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps they're helpless according the rules but somebody comes up with a convincing way for them to avoid harm. I can't think of any such situation myself, but I won't rule out the possibility yet.
Oh, if we need other examples, I like this one:
A guy shoves his unprotected hand in a giant fan. Looks like a situation for definite injury, but somebody pipes up. "Wait, the fan could just tear off a fingernail or something and you could quickly draw back your aching hand. This is probably strain."
What kind of damage the fan inflicts now depends on the player. Maybe he didn't intend to shove his hand through the fan but it somehow happened anyway, perhaps due to his own stupidity. Perhaps he has second thoughts about deliberately lopping his hand off. Either way, he can choose to withdraw it and take strain. Alternatively, he might be out to injure his hand, maybe because it's possessed or something, in which case his ability to avoid injury isn't relevant.
To Lincoln and all the others Thank you very much this is great gonna run it by my group this week.
Fantastic! Tell us how it goes!
To Lincoln and all the others Thank you very much this is great gonna run it by my group this week.
Another joins our merry band! Please tell us how it goes.
Say that taking strain is always a choice. If you don't employ your training etc to avoid getting injured, you just get injured.
This moves a degree of descriptive burden onto the player. In a fight or other very normal damage-taking situation, the GM will still be saying things like "It dings off your helmet for 7 strain". If it's not obvious how the damage is avoidable, the player says what he's doing to make it strain.
Naturally we'll need a note here, possibly in bold, saying that if the explanation is even slightly believable, the GM should always accept it. I'd use laurfindel's example of running over the surface of the lava here, but I'd remove the part about the save. The player explains why it can be strain and probably loses the soles of his boots, but he largely gets away with it.
I like this. It's kind of a narrative mechanic. I'm a big fan of those kinds of rules (there are a lot of them in Mouse Guard RPG, my game du jour); where it becomes the player's responsibility to share in the narrative description.
It's not very Pathfinder though. But I think I can live with that. It is only for extreme cases anyway.
Mortuum, 'Findel, I know you guys already have your own house rules on this to some extent... but would you be willing to roll out the Strain-Injury variant in your own campaigns? It seems weird to have 'findel as one of the most vocal proponents and competent explainers not actually playtesting it.
Well, at the time of writing I'm not running a campaign. The last one I ran went pretty badly and ended sooner than I'd hoped. This rule would certainly have helped it a lot.
I put the players under ungodly amounts of time pressure and they wound up feeling that the entire world was out of their blood.
A few people I know have been making noises about playing pathfinder again, so I may run another game soon. If I do, I'll most certainly use this rule but it's likely to be a forum game, so the news would trickle out slowly.
A few people I know have been making noises about playing pathfinder again, so I may run another game soon. If I do, I'll most certainly use this rule but it's likely to be a forum game, so the news would trickle out slowly.
I've never played in a forum campaign, but I'd be tempted to sign on!
If I do start one, you'd be more than welcome.
Say that taking strain is always a choice. If you don't employ your training etc to avoid getting injured, you just get injured.
I can get behind that. I'd add that "if you can't employ your training etc to avoid getting injured, you just get injured". Mind you that's pretty much what the Strain-Injury rule intrinsically says.
Now I would advise DM's against simply declaring "you can't avoid this attack", but rather use the already existing conditions that the game provide that already affect crits, saves and final blows.
'findel
Mortuum, 'Findel, I know you guys already have your own house rules on this to some extent... but would you be willing to roll out the Strain-Injury variant in your own campaigns? It seems weird to have 'findel as one of the most vocal proponents and competent explainers not actually playtesting it.
In truth, I haven't seriously played in over a year now. This is driving me nuts and participating in this kind of discussion is what keeps my sanity (partially) intact.
I do possess a hit-point variant houserule and used it in my last campaign. It wasn't perfect and had its issues, so when this idea was first proposed about a year and a half ago, I seriously thought of switching over. Players voted to keep it the way it was, so I re-worked it a bit. You have no idea how your comments and those of other posters have allowed me to fine-tuned my own hit-point variant into a solid houserule however.
That being said, my old group disintegrated and if I find a new Pathfinder gaming group, I would take this variant over RaW without hesitation. Strain-Injury has a huge advantage over my own variant; its unobtrusive and without big consequences for the player who doesn't care much for a change. Rare are the houserules that can achieve such a degree of change in experience without affecting rules, balance or gaming style. Mine has much more profound implications; it fits my style, that of my old gaming group, but probably not a majority of players who like games like Pathfinder.
[edit] actually I did playtest it for a one shot game. This would have been early in the process, somewhere around page two or three. I never commented on the game now to think of it.
in service
'findel
Sad to hear that, gentlemen. Your input has been great, it's a shame you're both in dry spells. If it weren't for MapTool I'd be in RPG exile too. Maybe a big Strain-Injury Playtest MapTool Skype game could happen some time.
They seem to like the Idea game is starting up after we finsih part 4 of serpent's skull so ill keep you posted.
Also my groups dedicated healer thanks you.
I swear, you poke holes in rulesets like a Devil in a contract
Imagine me as a player. :D
your idea ("Say that taking strain is always a choice. If you don't employ your training etc to avoid getting injured, you just get injured.") is great, and I have the same view as others here about empowering players
You know, it's weird. I never considered that my suggestion could be looked at as a narrativist rule or player empowerment.
I am fan of both, but to me that rule is just another instance of the most basic interaction in Pathinder: The GM asks you what you do, you answer and provided the GM can be convinced it makes sense, you do it and its results are determined by the game's simulationist/gamist mechanics.Looking at it though, I kinda see what people mean.
I should also say that I've never been pushing for realism. I'm of the opinion that an unrealistically powerful character is a fine thing, and that it's only consistent that such a character should be able to unrealistic things. It's that internal consistency that I'm pushing for. The kind of rule that means gods don't die to a finger poke and generic commoners can't jump over houses. I want crappy to be crappy and awesome to be awesome.
I struggle a lot to get my point across. You'd be shocked by the amount of waffle and nonsense I delete from every post and I still think I tend to go on. You're doing just fine and I get you loud and clear.
I think all we need to do to stop people taking it the wrong way is make sure it's universally understood that strain vs injury is never about how powerful or damaging a thing is, but is all about whether or not that thing actually gets you. We're almost all the way there already and in theory it should only take a single carefully considered sentence.
We have a common knee-jerk reaction from most people reading the rule, regarding what Injury damage is or should be.
It isn't enough to establish the rules and trust that GMs are going to know why we did it that way. I really think we ought to spell it out, so that GMs will really think twice before making fiat Injuries.
That said, I know there are cases that slip through the cracks in our current rule. If someone loads a character — hog-tied — into a catapult and fires that character into a ravine, the letter of the rules we have would say that the character suffers Strain damage with no possibility of injury.
I think we should add a rule something like: "If a situation has significant potential to cause injury, but the rules do not call for an attack roll or saving throw, the GM should call for an appropriate saving throw anyway. If the save fails, the damage is injury. If the save succeeds, the full damage is treated as strain."
But we should also include emphatic advice against making any thread deal Injury damage automatically. There really shouldn't be anything like "automatic injury", unless it results from the Helpless condition's existing saving throw clause.
EDIT: Wait... is there no existing clause for Helpless and Reflex Saves?
Just wanted to say, I've been reading this for the past week or so, and yesterday, I presented it to my group, and they were all pleased with the concept (especially the cleric, who thanks you!). Looks like we'll be switching to this system next game! (which is in 2 weeks. Apparently something good is gonna be on TV next Sunday?)
(...) and I had a "eureka" moment while mowing the lawn (...)
And here I am shoveling snow, splitting wood and and freezing my fingers while scraping ice off my windshield...
Stupid cold. Nonlethal damage my ass...
If you want to reduce magic healing and tie it back to the spell name, use the +1 per level thing as the healing threshold for injuries. Cure light wounds? 1d8 strain AND 1 injury per level, max of 5.
Not bad. A bit patchy, but a quick and easy fix.
Our empire grows! Would it be weird to start threads like "[Strain-Injury] Damage Penalties" so that we don't muddle the treatment of the main variant rule?
I've also considered starting a reboot main thread with Strain-Injury in the title and the GDoc linked in the first post. I worry that the sheer size of this thread might be scaring off people who would otherwise dig what we're doing here.
All in favor?
I've also considered starting a reboot main thread with Strain-Injury in the title and the GDoc linked in the first post.
At 11 pages long and a solid interpretation around page 8 or 9, I'd say reboot. Feature the GDoc in OP along with a link to this thread for those interested in its history.
go-go reboot-o-gadget!
All in favor?
Aye.
Also in favour of a thread for variants on the variant. There have been lot of ideas that might turn out to be interesting.
As for calling for additional saves, that could work too. If we do go with that, we'll need at least a very vague DC guideline. Otherwise GMs will just say "There's no way lava should just strain a mere human! DC 65!"
I'm deeply suspicious of the idea. I think it might end up the same as mine, but with discussions about what the save should be instead of suggestions for how it might work. Those amount to essentially the same thing, but the save is more likely to be used in a way we don't intend.
If you attack a helpless person, you make an attack roll. If you Coup de Grace a helpless person, it is an auto-crit, and should be treated as a crit -> injury. The only difference is standard vs full round action, but it is an important difference.
Pouring acid on a helpless person sounds a lot like a CDG.
Evil Lincoln, I don't have a problem with falling damage being all strain. That is where the injury by massive damage rule I proposed comes in. On average, a 20d6 fall would cause a 20 point injury with 50 points of strain.
Also, reboot away.
Pouring acid on a helpless person sounds a lot like a CDG.
Sounds like, might be sometimes, certainly isn't always. It all depends how the acid is getting poured.
That is where the injury by massive damage rule I proposed comes in.
I'm not keen massive damage as injury. That makes people take injury from big, very lethal attacks which they have avoided. The original reason we're making them avoid these attacks it that getting directly hit by them results in crazy descriptions. All the massive rule really does is decrease the degree to which the strain-injury rule applies as the characters level. I mean, if anything taking a very small injury from a terminal velocity fall raises even more questions, because the character has neither burst like a balloon OR miraculously avoided harm.
Pouring acid on a helpless person sounds a lot like a CDG.Sounds like, might be sometimes, certainly isn't always. It all depends how the acid is getting poured.
Yes, depends on if you pour it as as a standard action or a full round action.
That is where the injury by massive damage rule I proposed comes in.I'm not keen massive damage as injury. That makes people take injury from big, very lethal attacks which they have avoided. The original reason we're making them avoid these attacks it that getting directly hit by them results in crazy descriptions. All the massive rule really does is decrease the degree to which the strain-injury rule applies as the characters level. I mean, if anything taking a very small injury from a terminal velocity fall raises even more questions, because the character has neither burst like a balloon OR miraculously avoided harm.
In this respect like many other, it is still an improvement on the current HP system. A 200 HP fighter falls 2 miles, jumps up, and fights off an army with his 130 remaining hp. A commoner falls 20 feet, and dies instantly. A least with this rule, the fighter take a lasting injury.
The rebooted discussion of this rule can be found here:
Please retire this thread and continue the discussion there.