I went a slightly different route.
I wanted some form of healing that applied to martial characters, and some that represented physical endurance.
I simply framed it "health" and "Soak".
Health is straight physical toughness. When something hits your health, it's directly affecting you physically.
Health is your first Hit Die of Character levels + any racial Hit die, and 1 hp/level thereafter.
Thus, most monsters are simply incredibly physically tough. You're hacking on that faerie and the 50 point hit feels like you're hewing into ironwood...or maybe its flesh is getting out of the way almost as fast as you cut it.
Health can be Cured.
Soak is "how the f!+* did he survive that?". Soak is how you jump off a 200 foot cliff and walk away. Soak is how a dragon breathes on you with breath that can melt steel, and you live. Soak is how you take a 100 pt crit from a lance attack, and you live...and with barely a scratch.
All hit die and Con bonuses from level 2+ are Soak bonuses.
Every time you Soak a hit, one point is automatically Health dmg - you are 'winged', bruised, or nicked.
Martial characters can restore up to half of their Soak quickly with a feat (like the Iron Heart manuver).
Soak cannot be Cured. A Heal spell will restore up to half of it, however.
Raging raises Health, not Soak. You become superhumanly tough.
Temporary hit points are 'Soak', in their own way.
The Toughness feat is Health.
The various accumulative HP bonus feats are Health. (For each metamagic feat you have, you gain a cumulative +1 Hp, etc). You're making your body tougher.
Soak cannot be turned off or bypassed. It's 'martial magic'.
Monsters are all Health.
Health can be fast healed and regenerated. Soak cannot be.
You can apply any injury to either Soak or Health as you deem fit, to the minimum of 1 hp/hit going to Health. Health and Soak management then become different things. If you have a healer, you want to put most of it onto health, and get it cured. If you are alone, you want most of it onto Soak, as your Health gets nickeled down, a martial character can get back his Soak.
Soak lets you slam into a wall at fifty MPH, push yourself out of the indent with a bloody nose, and jump back into the fight.
Increases in Health past 20 HP or so mean you are now superhumanly tough, probably with spiritual reinforcement to your flesh making it harder to really injure you. You don't bleed like normal people, your bones are stronger, etc.
I apply the racial levels from PHBII as 'extra levels' people can take at any time. Taking them is considered a gestalt, and the hit dice are added to Health as normal, on top of anything else.
The total of both must go to 0 before you can go to negative HP. There is no negative Soak. If you get nickeled to negative HP before you exhaust Soak, all damage goes to Soak until you go negative, and you are considered staggered.
Soak can be increased by martial characters. Stone Power and the Crusader 'Delay' pool are effectively Soak manipulation.
==Aelryinth
The way I see it, the deadlier the attack, the more it SHOULD deal stamina damage (rather than deadly wounds). Surviving immersion in lava or a 100' fall (or having your throat slit, or being dipped in acid, or being crushed by the club of a giant etc.) without any impairing injuries is so unlikely that I'd rather accept that 'something' made that the injury never took place, rather than the body shrugging the normally lethal injury as if nothing ever happened.
This is an excellent point, and it deserves a home on page 2.
Good idea. However I would like to see a numerical representation of how this works.
Let's use a fighter with 50 hit points for example. If you could provide a mock combat example with this guy taking damage that would be appreciated.
In terms of the 'what kind of damage is x' what if Deadly damage was put in the same category as attacks that are subject to critical immunity? Things like sneak attack, or other special attacks that would seem to fit in the deadly column are already lumped together with Critical hits in this regards. So it could be a convenient dividing line between stamina and deadly damage for physical attacks.
In terms of the 'what kind of damage is x' what if Deadly damage was put in the same category as attacks that are subject to critical immunity? Things like sneak attack, or other special attacks that would seem to fit in the deadly column are already lumped together with Critical hits in this regards. So it could be a convenient dividing line between stamina and deadly damage for physical attacks.
Kolo, can you find a good page reference for this?
In terms of the 'what kind of damage is x' what if Deadly damage was put in the same category as attacks that are subject to critical immunity? Things like sneak attack, or other special attacks that would seem to fit in the deadly column are already lumped together with Critical hits in this regards. So it could be a convenient dividing line between stamina and deadly damage for physical attacks.Kolo, can you find a good page reference for this?
You find it in subtype descriptions of monsters such as the elemental traits.
"Not subject to critical hits or flanking. Does not take additional damage from precision-based attacks, such as sneak attack."Then the individual abilities (besides sneak attack) call it out in the specific ability such as in a duelist's precise strike.
"Any creature that is immune to critical hits is also immune to a precise strike, and any item or ability that protects a creature from critical hits also protects a creature from a precise strike."
What do people think of: "Everything is non-lethal except critical hits, precision damage and failed saving throws" ?
What do people think of: "Everything is non-lethal except critical hits, precision damage and failed saving throws" ?
I like it personally. I think this is going in my game for the next session or something very like it.
What do people think of: "Everything is non-lethal except critical hits, precision damage and failed saving throws" ?
Using the new definiton of nonlethal you have hammered out here. Yes I like that very much.
Implementing said system (non-lethal damage from most things) would drastically empower the healer archetype to the point of unbalance by doubling the healing potential (lethal and non-lethal healing). This could also make negligible the role of the healer in combat as well, which many people do like to play.
How so? These non-lethal attacks are capable of killing (the last blow is lethal) — they are functionally identical to standard damage in the RAW, as far as combat goes. The only difference I can see (and I may be missing something) is the rate of healing. Until the combat is over and a 20 minute rest comes into play, things ought to behave exactly as they used to, right?
How would this obsolete combat healing? Running out of HP still kills you, so I should imagine healing would play the same role.
What do people think of: "Everything is non-lethal except critical hits, precision damage and failed saving throws" ?
I'm partial about precision damage. That would mean that a fight against two barbarians would be "less deadly" than a fight against two rogues. I smell trouble here.
Classes are balanced to deal about the same amount of damages (more or less against their opponent of choice). Your houserule adds another "type" of damage, which should be left out of class features. Rogues and rangers will already favoured by the mean of going two weapon fighting (more chances of criticals). I'd keep it to your original idea or criticals and failed saves. Clear, simple and efficient.
If anything, you could consider damage received when flat-footed as deadly wounds (as suggested above). That would play in favour of the rogue's backstab thing. But even then, I'm not sure if I would.
'findel
How so? These non-lethal attacks are capable of killing (the last blow is lethal) — they are functionally identical to standard damage in the RAW, as far as combat goes. The only difference I can see (and I may be missing something) is the rate of healing. Until the combat is over and a 20 minute rest comes into play, things ought to behave exactly as they used to, right?
How would this obsolete combat healing? Running out of HP still kills you, so I should imagine healing would play the same role.
I think he is talking about that in the game there is a mechanic for non-lethal damage (so its a preexisting game term) and non lethal damage is healed at the same time as regular damage for the same amount per cureing effect.
In essence you need to call it something else like stamina or whathave you.
What do people think of: "Everything is non-lethal except critical hits, precision damage and failed saving throws" ?Implementing said system (non-lethal damage from most things) would drastically empower the healer archetype to the point of unbalance by doubling the healing potential (lethal and non-lethal healing). This could also make negligible the role of the healer in combat as well, which many people do like to play.
Actually, it only release stress on healing after combat. In-combat healing is just as necessary as in RAW.
The only thing that this houserule does mechanically, is to allow a certain portion of your HPs to recover faster out-of-combat. The stamina/deadly wounds thing only establishes the said portion.
Otherwise it's a remarkably unobtrusive houserule, which is why I getting more and more interested by it.
'findel
Otherwise it's a remarkably unobtrusive houserule, which is why I getting more and more interested by it.
I am glad to hear that. Keeping it unobtrusive is certainly a goal of mine.
In essence you need to call it something else like stamina or whathave you.
Hah! Really? Oh well, back to square one then. How do people feel about the wording? Is "Stamina vs. Deadly" more clear than repackaging "Non-lethal vs. Lethal?"
I feel that it is, especially since I have had to type the sentence "non-lethal damage can still kill you" in the last few posts. :p
The similarities between Stamina and Non-lethal are many, though. How to proceed?
Hah! Really? Oh well, back to square one then. How do people feel about the wording? Is "Stamina vs. Deadly" more clear than repackaging "Non-lethal vs. Lethal?"
I feel that it is, especially since I have had to type the sentence "non-lethal damage can still kill you" in the last few posts. :p
The similarities between Stamina and Non-lethal are many, though. How to proceed?
Man thats why I was specific in my affirmative.
Using the new definiton of nonlethal you have hammered out here. Yes I like that very much.
Hm, yes. I certainly never intended to give 2-for-1 healing. That was a side-effect of changing the wording to incorporate non-lethal damage.
However, I should think the healing clauses at the end had me covered. Everything heals equally from magic or treatment, and deadly wounds are treated first.
First off let me say I'm gonna play-test this in my brand new pbp game. I'll try to remember to update you on hwo it works out.
Hah! Really? Oh well, back to square one then. How do people feel about the wording? Is "Stamina vs. Deadly" more clear than repackaging "Non-lethal vs. Lethal?"
I feel that it is, especially since I have had to type the sentence "non-lethal damage can still kill you" in the last few posts. :p
The similarities between Stamina and Non-lethal are many, though. How to proceed?
I decided to call it "Stamina" and "Injury".
Injury seemed specific enough about what the general concept was while leaving the actual type of injury open to interpretation.
I love how this is coming together, btw.
Otherwise it's a remarkably unobtrusive houserule, which is why I getting more and more interested by it.I am glad to hear that. Keeping it unobtrusive is certainly a goal of mine.
It really IS a houserule with great potential. That being said, adding precision damage to the list of "deadly things" would screw that unobtrusiveness IMO, for reasons mentioned above.
How do people feel about the wording? Is "Stamina vs. Deadly" more clear than repackaging "Non-lethal vs. Lethal?"
That'd be fine by me, although other variant could be just as good. My advice, avoid words that already mean something slightly different in any "official" printed material.
'findel
I agree with Laurefindel about precision damage. It goes against the goal of being unobtrusive. Plus, it makes the value of a crit for a rogue less... seeing as how he'd already be doing "Deadly Damage".
Just a thought.
I think there is a balancing act which can only be a judgement call for each individual dm. I like the idea of more then just crits dealing deadly damage vs stamina damage, but an elegant way to differenciate isnt going to be easy to sort out.
I think there is a balancing act which can only be a judgement call for each individual dm.
That's always true here in Houserules, right? But it really is constructive to say "This is the way that requires the least change and has the most mass-appeal."
If we do not override 'lethal' and 'non-lethal' terminology, we must still spell out how it interacts with our system.
Stamina vs. Deadly damage
Normal hits (non-critical) deal stamina damage, which represents taxing dodges, parries or blows absorbed by shield or armor.Critical hits deal deadly damage, which represents solid hits that burn, cut skin, bruise flesh and break bones.
If any attack brings a creature to zero hit points or lower, the attacker may choose to have that attack deal deadly damage. If the attacker was dealing non-lethal damage, the creature is at 0 HP and unconscious (as per non-lethal damage).
Energy damage from spells deals deadly damage if the target fails a saving throw. Otherwise, the spell deals stamina.
Healing
Stamina and deadly damage are both affected normally as Hit Points by effects (other than rest) that replenish HP damage.Healing effects restore deadly damage before restoring stamina damage. You may recover from stamina damage with rest even if you still have deadly damage.
Recovery Rates (optional)
Stamina damage recovers with rest at a rate of 20% of total HP per 20 minutes of non-strenuous activity.Deadly damage recovers naturally at a rate of 10% per week of non-strenuous activity, but requires some kind of treatment to heal at all.
Because of the good points raised upthread, I think all attacks except
critical hits and failed saves should deal stamina damage.I have a complex additional rule that I have been considering. I'd still like to work on tightening up the central mechanic above, but I'm also looking to get some more work out of the rule. Hopefully in a modular way.
The basic premise is that you have a "sheaf" for each creature that tells you the result of the non-critical attack. Fo example, let's say we have a fighter with +2 plate and a +1 large shield, and a +2 dex bonus.
His AC is 25 (for sake of argument). On his character sheet we have a little table (complicated!) that tells you what any to-hit result means:
1-24 miss
25 Dex
26 Dex
27 Shield
28 Shield
29 Shield Enhancement
30 Armor
31 Armor
32 Armor
33 Armor
34 Armor
35 Armor
36 Armor
38 Armor
39 Armor Enhancement
40 Armor Enhancement
41+ Parry
Oh, yes, this is needlessly complex, and certainly a distraction on top of an otherwise clean rule. I just rather like the notion of "The troll hits AC 39... his claws would have easily shattered a normal suit of plate, but the magic has protected you." etc.
Or...
Since Armor, Dex, and other AC mods all already prevent attacks as part of AC, maybe it's... always a parry? Eh.
The whole thing might be needlessly specific. Probably I'd be better off rolling a 1d6 (1 dodge, 2 parry, 3 armor, 3 shield, etc).
:p
Back to the basic rule.
Stamina vs. Deadly damage
Normal hits (non-critical) deal stamina damage, which represents taxing dodges, parries or blows absorbed by shield or armor.Critical hits deal deadly damage, which represents solid hits that burn, cut skin, bruise flesh and break bones.
If any attack brings a creature to zero hit points or lower, the attacker may choose to have that attack deal deadly damage. If the attacker was dealing non-lethal damage, the creature is at 0 HP and unconscious (as per non-lethal damage).
Energy damage from spells deals deadly damage if the target fails a saving throw. Otherwise, the spell deals stamina.
Rework the last part to implicitly include energy damage without singling it out. Deadly wounds from failed saving throw should be a general rule, whether it comes from a trap, poison, bleed, disease etc.
Also, reword second paragraph without the option of dealing deadly wounds. Reducing someone below 0 hp DOES deal deadly wounds UNLESS the attacker takes great care not to (as per non-lethal attacks).
I like the idea, Lincoln.
However, the spell Magic Missile makes me wonder about your magic damage issues. It's a 1st-level energy (force) spell that has no saving throw and auto-hits unless the target has some sort of counter (Shield, etc.) against it. Would that deal lethal damage?
If not, is it because there is no save for the spell? Or is it because the spell doesn't require an attack roll--unlike Scorching Ray, for example?
Excellent catch, roll8dn.
I don't think there are too many corner cases, but a list of which damage certain things do is sort of inevitable.
In the case of magic missile, my inclination is to go ahead and have it do deadly damage. You could also make the case that as a force effect, it is more concussive and therefor stamina damage.
Tough call for sure. Anyone got any other corner cases for me?
I don't know Rory, that looks more complicated to me.
Having every attack be "partly deadly" doesn't really get us where I want to be — that is, having separated abstract damage from "wounds".
Also, almost every character on the battlefield will have a slightly different BAB, and therefor this is like every creature having a DR-level calculation built in to every attack. That's a high complexity cost for little benefit.
It's an interesting mechanic, but I think it would work best in an automated setting (like an electronic game design).
As for what I'm trying to achieve, it's as I said in the first post — the same division between abstract defenses and real wounds as is found in the Vitality Points variant, but without changing the role that HP play in combat.
With VP, one finds that a single lucky crit can kill an opponent (by design). That's something we've removed here.
I think a number of GMs have a hard time reconciling what HP actually represent, and this division just makes it a little clearer what is being described.
I don't know Rory, that looks more complicated to me.
Having every attack be "partly deadly" doesn't really get us where I want to be — that is, having separated abstract damage from "wounds".
Also, almost every character on the battlefield will have a slightly different BAB, and therefor this is like every creature having a DR-level calculation built in to every attack. That's a high complexity cost for little benefit.
It's an interesting mechanic, but I think it would work best in an automated setting (like an electronic game design).
I agree, a kind of deadly damage DR based on any factor would be overly cumbersome, and defeat the purpose of a system that fits neatly over the current HP system. It would make the book keeping considerably harder (likely take twice as long) for very little added value. I think it should remain that either an attack is deadly or it isnt, no mix and match. It is just easier that way.
As for what I'm trying to achieve, it's as I said in the first post — the same division between abstract defenses and real wounds as is found in the Vitality Points variant, but without changing the role that HP play in combat.
With VP, one finds that a single lucky crit can kill an opponent (by design). That's something we've removed here.
I think a number of GMs have a hard time reconciling what HP actually represent, and this division just makes it a little clearer what is being described.
I agree, with a relatively small change the concept behind HP becomes more apparent, and can more easily be described cinematically without delving into the realm of the absurt (someone still fighting with a great axe in their chest).
Okay. I was hoping it was also a method to reduce the Wand-o-CLW syndrome (my own fault for reading too much into it).I have no qualms with the hitpoint system as it is and I do think Stamina vs. Deadly is more complication than benefit.
It's no bother, just not the direction I want to go with it. Certainly nothing to stop someone else from picking it up as they peruse this thread.
Any ideas is good ideases.
I would go with traps generally fall under either the crit category if they have an attack roll, or save if you make a save.
You raise a good question about falling damage.
(Note: I would put lava as an "Always Deadly" exception.)
Interesting, I would go the other way.
My reflex would be to consider the deadliest attacks as stamina damage. If I asked myself the question "should someone simply walk away from X" and the answer is "no", then the damage was probably stamina (soaked by skill, luck, circumstantial conditions, equipment etc).
In other words, there was no "immersion in lava". Something happened so that lava was in minimal contact with the PC's flesh. That'd be my interpretation of stamina points in this particular case, because I cannot erally conceive that someone could be immersed in lava and simply walk out of it simply with fewer hit points.
Same goes for falling. While I can accept that someone can survive a 100 ft. fall, I cannot conceive that that person will immediately get-up and run away without even a reduced movement speed. That would mean that something broke his fall, be it a stack of hay, a large bush, a fruit-seller's stall etc. Again, this is what I imagine "stamina points" to be in that situation. I it had been real injuries (deadly wounds), the falling PC would not have been simply strolling away...
my 2 coppers anyway...
'findel
To continue with avoiding abuse and keeping the rule simple, I'd say that if wasn't a crit or a failed save, damage is stamina, including force effects like magic missile
To continue with avoiding abuse and keeping the rule simple, I'd say that if wasn't a crit or a failed save, damage is stamina, including force effects like magic missile
once again i agree with Laurefindel. (your name is hard to spell, btw)
Yes, let's revisit the basic premise here:
Stamina is damage that wears down your energy, or takes up time parrying even (theoretically) representing armor deterioration, etc. In other words, this is "close call" damage; the same kind of close call damage that is often described when people criticize the lack of realism in hit points.
It often goes:
A: "Hit Points are unrealistic! A guy can take ten whacks with a longsword!"
B: "Well actually, it is an abstraction that represents not just physcial punishment, but a number of different defensive actions based on the competence of your character as a hero..."
Laurefindel is correct. Traps, even seemingly deadly ones, should deal stamina damage like attacks (even seemingly deadly ones) do. This is because they're not deadly until they crit or take you below 0.
So all traps are potentially deadly. A crit or falling below 0 hp means that the spring crossbow bolt hits you and you start bleeding. Any other result means that your armor stopped the bolt, or you threw yourself forcefully out of the way, or chopped the blot out of the air, or hid behind your shield. The attack did *something* to you to wear down your defenses, but that something is not a wound that needs treatment through surgery or magic.
I guess we're not looking to say "Certain attacks are deadlier than others". We are looking to say "Per RAW, some damage isn't actually direct damage, let's call it like it is so that GMs can describe things without suffering an aneurism."
Laurefindel, thanks for remembering all this better than I do.
I welcome Rory's discussion of the BAB system where each attack is partial, but can we start labeling our variants at the top of posts to keep things clear? I think that variant is at odds with some of my goals, so I want to keep them distinct.
Perhaps some examples would be good.
----=}=•
Let's take the lava example; A character is exposed (not immersed) to lava and takes his 10d6 or whatever damage. Because he made his saving throw (fort is it?) the GM rules that the damage is stamina damage — because the lava vaporized his gauntlet and most of his left arm's plate-mail, but he was quick enough to cut the half-melted straps and toss the plates before he got too severely burned.
His lack of arm defense from that point does well to explain why he now has fewer defense resources (HP) in subsequent scenes. When he sits down to rest later, he can bandage the first degree burns, and try to get his armor back in working order... thus replenishing the stamina damage*.
A character who is completely out of Stamina really ought to be missing armor chunks from earlier attacks, with circles under his eyes, and grimey sweat and blood all over, missing the top part of his shield. That's what I'm aiming at.
Whereas a character with a lot fo deadly damage has real wounds, preferably with descriptive locations. Things that they need to remember to get treated.
----=}=•
Conversely, if he fails his save, he takes the full damage. His arm gets burnt up but good — 3rd degree burns if he's lucky (example not for the meek). It's not going away with a nap. He needs weeks of bedrest with surgery and medicine OR magical healing if he is ever going to be rid of that deadly damage†.
But despite the excellent synergy with Fractional HP Penalties, that's not part of the rule we're drafting here, for portability reasons.
Get it?
Deadly vs. stamina doesn't describe the lethality of the attack form, it describes the lethality of the interaction between PC and attack form. You know, all that descriptive stuff that Hit Point System advocates say is represented in addition to straight-up wounds.
More examples as I think of them.
One thing about either system then on to my examples/questions
the order of the shield cavalier already has an ability that lets him convert some lethal damage to non lethal so it may be a disincentive to add another damage conversion for some people. But if it impacts one form of one class its a level of bookkeeping i can deal with.
Lincoln-esque houserule examples
Bob the brick 2nd level fighter with 19 Hp's will be our crash test Dummy in all cases.
example 1
Bob accidentally triggers an arrow trap the trap hits him for 5 stamina damage as this is not a critical hit it is merely a regular hit. Bob has a bit of a lie down for 20 minutes and recovers 4 (3.8 rounded up) of that damage?
Ex 2
The same bow trap crits Bob for 9 lethal damage. Unless Bob recieves medical care or magical healing he has a bit of life threatening shrapnel that simply dosent heal efectively for weeks?
Ex 3
Bob is finally confronting the BBEG's wizard acolyte. during the combat the wizard uses magic missle and hits Bob for 3 damage. This would be stamina as it has no save, and no attack roll(for potential critical hit)?
I really like the premise here and like where Evil Lincoln is going with this. I think the basic mechanic is pretty good.
If you think about a heroic figure from movies/tv, did they ever have someone trailing behind them healing their wounds? Not often. This system relies less on healing than the current hit point mechanic and that definitely ramps up the "heroic" aspect of PF and that is something I can get behind.
I have a few questions. How are these two types of hit points allocated? Let's use Bob with 19 hit points from above me. Does he have 19 stamina AND 19 deadly points, effectively doubling his hit points? If that's the case then I think that might be broken somewhat. Also, would all creatures have this system or just PCs? I would think this would apply to all creatures to keep everything balanced and keep from breaking the game.
I have not read all of this post but I remember reading about types of damage. Here's my thoughts on it.
Stamina damage: non-crit physical damage from any physical source (normal combat, traps, falling, etc)
Deadly damage: critical hit damage, bleed damage, energy damage and precision based damage (like sneak attack).
I don't think this damage split is complicated at all and is definitely a decent representation of how I "visualize" damage.
I have a few questions. How are these two types of hit points allocated? Let's use Bob with 19 hit points from above me. Does he have 19 stamina AND 19 deadly points, effectively doubling his hit points?
IF I understand correctly Bob still only has 19 HP, any critical hit or failed save against an effect that does HP damage would take an amount of "lethal damage" out of that total. This damage heals very slowly over time. Any non crit hit or on a sucessful save would do "stamina damage" out of the same 19 but recovers much much faster. If an attack drops you below zero it is considered a lethal hit as you are near death.
I have a few questions. How are these two types of hit points allocated? Let's use Bob with 19 hit points from above me. Does he have 19 stamina AND 19 deadly points, effectively doubling his hit points?IF I understand correctly Bob still only has 19 HP, any critical hit or failed save against an effect that does HP damage would take an amount of "lethal damage" out of that total. This damage heals very slowly over time. Any non crit hit or on a sucessful save would do "stamina damage" out of the same 19 but recovers much much faster. If an attack drops you below zero it is considered a lethal hit as you are near death.
Ok that makes sense somewhat. I think an easier way to go would be to split the hit point total into 2 columns, favoring the stam column in the event of odd numbers. So Bob with 19 hit points would have 10 stam points and 9 deadly points. Then assign the damage accordingly during combat. I think it's easier to assign damage type to a column rather than trying keep track of the entire total and what damage is what and when, especially at higher levels.
You may be right, Grummik, but the obvious question applies: What happens when Bob has 9 Deadly points, 2 Stamina Points, and gets hit for 7 stamina points?
Maybe it's just me, but I think Lincoln's is actually easier. YMMV.
I'd like to summarize the rule at this point in the thread, as there seem to be some who aren't 100% on what it is.
Hit points are, in combat, functionally unchanged. Players and monsters continue to lose them at the same rate as before, and under most circumstances, only the PCs will need to track which kind of damage is which. Combat healing, defenses, buffs, de-buffs, saves, spells, attacks, and all other factors are 100% as effective (or ineffective) as they were before this rule.
The game says HP serves as an abstraction - it does, to an extent, cover ones' ability to take punishment. It also covers other things, like ones' will to live, unseen magical forces empowering their life (arcane casters), and one's deity showing them favor and giving them divine power (my favorite example of this from WoTC is convincing a bystander that a Paladin hit with a fireball isn't favored by some higher power).
This system simply continues that tradition with the inclusion of taxing dodges, difficult parries, armor/shield absorption, among other things.
Let's remember the two main reasons this system is being suggested -
1. To provide new ways of outlining damage in combat that make sense.
2. To ease the necessity of PCs to heal after every fight.
This system does both of those things - stamina hits are both easier to describe during combat and heal after combat, but not during. These include smashing hits against a shield, large gashes in armor, a difficult and hard roll, and parrying at the last minute.
Deadly hits are clearly attacks that clearly threaten the life of the target - Crossbow bolts in the body, sword gashes that cut deep, axes that drive hard into an enemy's back, and spells that hit home with devastating force. Deadly wounds are harder to heal after combat, and require either extended rest or magically assistance.
The system is simple.
Deadly Damage: Deadly damage is any attack that either results in a critical hit, or is an effect whose saving throw has failed.
Stamina Damage: Stamina damage is everything else.
PCs (and occasionally the GM) will need to mark which damage is which, for the purposes of healing. Any attack that brings a creature to 0 or less HP is deadly unless the attacker chooses otherwise.
Deadly Healing: Deadly damage recovers naturally at a rate of 10% per week of non-strenuous activity, but requires some kind of treatment to heal at all.
Stamina Healing: Stamina damage recovers with rest at a rate of 20% of total HP per 20 minutes of non-strenuous activity.
When magical healing is involved, both heal at the same rate (though not at the same time), and deadly damage is healed first. I assume any excess healing after Deadly has been healed is carried over to stamina.
EvilLincoln: Sorry for the time lapse. I don't have ready access to the internet all the time. How's my synopsis?
At first, I disliked 'Findel's super simplistic system. But the more I think about it, the more I think it's a thing of beauty. Her (His?) mind is far beyond my own in matters such as these.
As for your little AC complexity thing, I kinda like it. But I wonder what the purpose of it is? It would tell you how they dodged it, but unless you're simply horrible at coming with such things on the fly, I don't see much use.
Your table confused me. I will shortly post one of my own after dinner.
Yours,
Sheelah
Oops, I mean TheRedArmy. :-)