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.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.
Dragonsong's explanation is spot on.
Grummik, the type of damage doesn't matter one bit until you resolve how it is healed. Because of that, I think it is easiest to track just the sum of Stamina and Deadly (which would be exactly the same as the normal tracking of HP) — and to keep a note of how much is deadly. Since deadly heals first, that's pretty simple to track. The order of damage isn't important, all that matters for healing is how much is deadly.
Of course, how people actually note HP loss is a pretty individual thing, and that's just how I would do it. I'd be happy to see people using the rule and posting feedback about how they did it, even if it were radically different.
@dragonsong: I would add a few words to your 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?
Example 1: He "just needs to lie down" because the arrow got lodged in his breastplate, and until he can pry it out it is going to keep irritating him. Or maybe he did a crazy backflip out of the way that knocked the wind out of him. Or maybe he just hacked it out of the air with his shortsword and it was a close call. Or maybe he comically ruined a fellow party members equipment to save his own life. In any case, it represents a depletion of his abstract defenses.
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?
Example 2: This time, that bow found a chink in his armor. Let's say it hit him in the cheek (upper or lower, it matters not). The arrow head went into him, and this is now a wound that needs either a suture or a bit of the old cure before it goes away.
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)?
Example 3: This is tricky, because I don't know what a magic missile wound is like. It "strikes unerringly" which is strange language to interact with our system. I honestly think a valid case could be made for either stamina or deadly, but for sheet parsimony I would say that spells with no save deal stamina damage (because if they kill you they deal deadly damage).
Caveat: either damage really leaves the description to the GM. Was the missile a hit but too weak to destroy its target? Or did the PC somehow mitigate it (diving behind a barrel) that sapped it of some force? Does it matter? No, if it brings him to zero, it's gonna leave a mark. Excellent issue to raise though, thank you.
I'm excited to process more examples if anyone wants to cook some up!
Well I think its a good sign that someone other than the writer of the house-rule can explain it.
Thanks for the clarifications and feedback.
Well I think its a good sign that someone other than the writer of the house-rule can explain it.
You and Laurefindel both can. I'm more surprised by this than anyone!
I wonder if the words "Abstract" and "Wound" might be more semantically accurate than "Stamina" and "Deadly" are.
Calling it abstract really hangs a lampshade on what we're asking the GM to describe. Thoughts?
I think "Stamina" and "Wound" is best. (Though I'll be going with "Injury" for the second one.)
The words are entirely semantic. I like Stamina, but am torn on the other. I'll leave it for you guys to decide.
Your AC chart, Lincoln.
Your chart confused me. But now it doesn't. And now I see what you try to do. And I think a simple D6 or D10 table of some sort would be far better suited to this. If I see it correctly, then you want to know what kind of stamina damage was dealt on a successful hit. This is interesting, but I like the opposite - a table that tells you why a monster/NPC/PC missed his target.
This can make a character not only get an idea of whether enemies' AC comes from Natural Armor, Armor, Shields, Deflection, or what have you, but also reinforce good PC decisions (such as benefiting from magical armor versus non-magical), and help you stress important parts of NPCs you wish to express ("He dodges yet another blow with a deft duck under your thrust").
This chart, I would make to look like this for each PC:
0-10: Parry (this is the base 10 AC everyone has, so attacks that fail to hit even AC 10 fall into this category - a nice parry by the defender).
11-20: +1 Full Plate (This covers the armor of the PC, including magical bonuses)
21-23: +1 Heavy Shield (Next comes shield bonuses)
24: Dexterity
25: Deflection Bonuses (such as from Shield of Faith or a Ring of Protection
26: Size Modifiers
27: Natural Armor
28+: Other Modifiers (none in this example)
And Above, we see we have one possible fighter - a Gnome Fighter with +1 Full Plate and Shield, +1 Dex bonus, A Ring of Protection +1, +1 for his size, and a +1 Amulet of Natural Armor.
This good defensive fighter can feel good about specific choices each time you fail to hit him with your monsters or NPCs - and you can give specific things that he has spent time and money on, and reinforces the good feel he had when he first purchased them.
But again - if you want a chart for when PCs get hit, then a simple Die roll tied to certain things is simpler and more efficient.
1 - Size/Dex (if Size is not applicable)
2 - Armor
3 - Shield
4 - Other Modifiers
Damn, I can't thing of much, and even armor/shield doesn't apply to everyone (most notably arcane casters).
In fact, it is the sheer descriptive flexibility that the abstract HP leave to the GM that has me most excited.
Once you take the step of calling certain attacks abstract damage, you really open up the potential for description. Before now, I have always felt locked into the "wound" paradigm, even though I knew that HP logically had to be abstract.
Demarcating the difference will really force me to come up with two whole categories of description.
It's pretty neat!
Awesomeness
(Laughs) I'm glad you're enjoying it so much! I don't particularly envision me or our other GM adopting this, but I do envy your position.
above
Nicely put.
I don't have a specific prescription for non-lethal damage in mind. I'd probably handle it as RAW, except I might change the recovery rate to match that of Stamina damage. It really is different than stamina damage, as we realized upthread, because it implies intent to subdue.
I'm glad people like "Stamina" so much, as I put a bit of thought into that one. It doesn't quite evoke parrying and armor to me, but it works for dodging. It's certainly better than "Vitality" which was the inspiration for the whole thing (all credit where it's due). I think I still prefer "abstract" to "stamina", because it is semantically valid, but heck. Majority rules.
It looks like we have a more or less complete concept here. People should really go about testing their favorite versions, and letting us know how it goes!
Magical healing restores wound damage HP first, then stamina damage HP.
Surgery, as with the "Treat Deadly Wounds" application of the Heal skill, can also cure wounds. Before, I had been kind of irked by just how ineffective this new rule was. During the playtest I was a proponent of making the Heal Skill work like a really slow cure spell.
When you add a distinction for wound damage though, it actually makes a lot more sense...
I don't know if my late input amounts to anything, but anyways...
First off, I think this is a really good idea and I'll try and incorporate it in my campaign when I get around to GM'ing again and will certainly try to persuade our GM to use it.
About using the Heal skill for wounds...
Not sure if this makes any sense, but I was thinking if treaing wounds would somehow "convert" wounds to stamina damage in some fashion, depending on how well you succeed on your healcheck...
Just my 2cp
@roll8dn- Of course! If I wanted to keep it secret I wouldn't have posted it! I want as many people as possible to use it (even variants), and to post feedback so that the rest may benefit.
I concur that the simple method is better, although I think it is best to clearly explain the types and mandate GM discretion.
@Gworeth- thanks!
If you use a conversion from wounds to stamina, watch out because that is tantamount to negating the heal skill in combat. Still, I'll grant you that it makes narrative sense... Even for magic healing in my opinion.
It is never too late for suggestions and feedback!
@Gworeth- thanks!If you use a conversion from wounds to stamina, watch out because that is tantamount to negating the heal skill in combat. Still, I'll grant you that it makes narrative sense... Even for magic healing in my opinion.
It is never too late for suggestions and feedback!
I blame it on me being either dense or not having English as my primary language, but I'm not quite sure I know what you mean about it being tantamount to negating the heal skill in combat. We rarely use heal in combat as it is, and when we do it's to stop people from bleeding or to stabilize them.
But thanks, glad to know I'm not too late :-)
Edit: I understand the word tantamount, so it's not that ;-P... Neccessarily...
I'm not quite sure I know what you mean about it being tantamount to negating the heal skill in combat.
Stamina damage is as-good as Wound damage when it comes to winning the fight. Therefore, converting one to the other is like not healing anything at all, in combat.
This is sort of irrelevant, I realize, because Treat Deadly Wounds requires 1 hour and can't be used in combat!
In the subsequent hour after treatment, a character would then recover 60% of their lost HP. In that case, converting damage from one type to the other seems sort of pointless. Well, it's realistic in a way, but the scenarios in which this sort of healing rate will come up seem few.
----=}=•
So, one thing that strikes me as strange about the Stamina-Wound system is that a character with many hit points can actually withstand a massive pile of mortal wounds — in the exact fashion that abstract HP in the RAW are meant to address.
I mean, if a barbarian with 200 HP takes an unlucky string of crits, he's looking at a big pile of wound damage that does seem rather unrealistic. Does anyone find that to be a problem?
If it is a problem, it's tricky. You can't really limit the amount of Wound damage a player can sustain without changing the way combat works — we'd be back to Vitality Points where crits are basically kill-shots.
It would be pretty exceptional to see enough consecutive crits to make this scenario possible. Even then, if you use a death-from-massive-damage rule, someone might not live through enough crits to push the envelope of believability.
The fact is, this issue is there, and it does bother me a bit.
I'm not quite sure I know what you mean about it being tantamount to negating the heal skill in combat.Stamina damage is as-good as Wound damage when it comes to winning the fight. Therefore, converting one to the other is like not healing anything at all, in combat.
This is sort of irrelevant, I realize, because Treat Deadly Wounds requires 1 hour and can't be used in combat!
In the subsequent hour after treatment, a character would then recover 60% of their lost HP. In that case, converting damage from one type to the other seems sort of pointless. Well, it's realistic in a way, but the scenarios in which this sort of healing rate will come up seem few.
----=}=•
So, one thing that strikes me as strange about the Stamina-Wound system is that a character with many hit points can actually withstand a massive pile of mortal wounds — in the exact fashion that abstract HP in the RAW are meant to address.
I mean, if a barbarian with 200 HP takes an unlucky string of crits, he's looking at a big pile of wound damage that does seem rather unrealistic. Does anyone find that to be a problem?
It is unrealistic, but it makes sense in an action movie sort of way. By making it less common (requiring a bunch of crits), it becomes the big moment in the movie where dispite the sword through the gut the hero moves on and cuts down the bad guy. And only after to the battle does someone see to putting him back together. [Think Boromir still fighting off urukai with 2 arrows in his chest]
If it is a problem, it's tricky. You can't really limit the amount of Wound damage a player can sustain without changing the way combat works — we'd be back to Vitality Points where crits are basically kill-shots.
It would be pretty exceptional to see enough consecutive crits to make this scenario possible. Even then, if you use a death-from-massive-damage rule, someone might not live through enough crits to push the envelope of believability.
Not neccessarily, mid to high level characters can easily do 100 damage on a single crit. In my recent game 2 level 9 characters on separate occassions critted for over 80 damage each. A few sessions before that a paladin 1 level lower (level 8) critted for just about as much on a smite.
If you are going to follow the basic premise of your system (easy fit over existing HP) then you have to be willing to accept that on occassion the hero is going to keep fighting with a sword in his guts. It just wont happen ALL the time like it does under the normal HP system.
Thanks, Kolo! That actually does make me feel better about it. 'Specially the first paragraph.
I'm not quite sure I know what you mean about it being tantamount to negating the heal skill in combat.Stamina damage is as-good as Wound damage when it comes to winning the fight. Therefore, converting one to the other is like not healing anything at all, in combat.
This is sort of irrelevant, I realize, because Treat Deadly Wounds requires 1 hour and can't be used in combat!
In the subsequent hour after treatment, a character would then recover 60% of their lost HP. In that case, converting damage from one type to the other seems sort of pointless. Well, it's realistic in a way, but the scenarios in which this sort of healing rate will come up seem few.
----=}=•
So, one thing that strikes me as strange about the Stamina-Wound system is that a character with many hit points can actually withstand a massive pile of mortal wounds — in the exact fashion that abstract HP in the RAW are meant to address.
I mean, if a barbarian with 200 HP takes an unlucky string of crits, he's looking at a big pile of wound damage that does seem rather unrealistic. Does anyone find that to be a problem?
If it is a problem, it's tricky. You can't really limit the amount of Wound damage a player can sustain without changing the way combat works — we'd be back to Vitality Points where crits are basically kill-shots.
It would be pretty exceptional to see enough consecutive crits to make this scenario possible. Even then, if you use a death-from-massive-damage rule, someone might not live through enough crits to push the envelope of believability.
The fact is, this issue is there, and it does bother me a bit.
What I was aiming at was that on rare occasions, where no magical healing was available, our hero, mortaly wounded, slinked away and through gritted teath and much pain manages to stem the bleeding (Heal-check), and then catches some shut-eye. When he wakes up he's still sorely wounded but thinks he just might be able to catch the bad-guys by surprise... That sort of thing :)
I mean, if a barbarian with 200 HP takes an unlucky string of crits, he's looking at a big pile of wound damage that does seem rather unrealistic. Does anyone find that to be a problem?The big pile of Wound Damage still takes a "long" time to recover vs. Stamina Damage. Your intent is still captured I'd say, especially if you are fatigued (or worse) at lower hitpoints.
Question:
If a character has 200 hitpoints max and has a 10 CON (= dies at -10 hitpoints), if he takes 199 Stamina Damage, and then 11 Deadly Damage, does he die or just gets knocked unconscious?
If the character dies, then you definitely lose your theme compared to the barbarian that takes 199 Deadly Damage and then 11 more Deadly Damage to kill him (assuming death at -10 still).
It the character doesn't die, I think your theme stays intact. You end up making it much harder to die in game for certain though.
My understanding is that the last hit — the one that brings the target below zero — reflects a real and proper mortal wound. If someone is carrying 200 HP of depleted defenses around, they are a mess. They just stand there, bewildered, as the enemy deals the killing blow.
The situation you describe would look rather like a fatality from Mortal Kombat.
At least, this is what I will say until Laurefindel or Freesword or Kolo comes along and explains it better than I can. Again.
Good questions.
How does someone die to 11 Deadly Damage total the same as dying to taking 210 Deadly Damage total (extremely thematically different) ...?
210 deadly damage represents a kind of catastrophic wound — the kind of thing you would expect from being crushed under the foot of a colossus or actually submerged in lava. The real difference is that if you somehow survive this, you are going to spend months if not years in recovery if you don't resort to incredible miracles (high level magic healing, or many many many lesser magic cures).
Meanwhile, 199 stamina damage could be someone who has been fighting for a long time, and has had much of their abstract resources depleted. They're too tired to dodge or parry. Some of their armor is missing or screwed up. When the final attack comes, they are not ready, and it kills them. If if doesn't kill them, and they miraculously survive, that wound might only be a few points like a direct shot to the heart. Something even one cure spell could deal with — it just so happened to be the one that took them down.
The difference is in the description of the wound, but moreover, in how the damage is recovered from.
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 missileonce again i agree with Laurefindel. (your name is hard to spell, btw)
emphasis mine.
... and somewhat hard to pronounce apparently. Fellow players took on calling me 'findel' instead. I still sign my posts that way.
'findel
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.
(snip)
Laurefindel, thanks for remembering all this better than I do.
That's a great houserule you have there Lincoln. As kolokotroni said above: it's not realistic, it's theatrical! I like that.
For me it solve my biggest issue with hit points: the fact that health is an abstract concept but that healing isn't.
4th ED actually addressed this issues but as most things 4ED, I agree with most of the issues that they tackled but I don't like the way they implemented their solutions.
Your rule makes that distinction just fine with neglectable impact on the RAW.
However, should someone decide to use this houserule as a steppingstone to move away from RAW, a whole new genre of houserules can emerge (as Rory proved out), or eventually different take on how stamina damage could be healed based on different skills than heal (rousing speech? a good meal?). Alternate feats, class features or spells could deal exclusively with that form of "health" in the hand of system tinkerers...
the only thing I dislike about your houserule; I'm growing to like it more than my own, which is a lot more obtrusive and for which I had to put a LOT of hours re-thinking and re-writing the system.
curse you EVIL lincoln!
;)
'findel
However, should someone decide to use this houserule as a steppingstone to move away from RAW, a whole new genre of houserules can emerge (as Rory proved out), or eventually different take on how stamina damage could be healed based on different skills than heal (rousing speech? a good meal?). Alternate feats, class features or spells could deal exclusively with that form of "health" in the hand of system tinkerers...
This. I am reticent to sell it as a part of the system, but suspect I will be creatively describing abstract damage and say things like "You can heal this with a craft(armor) check if you like." Or survival for burns, or knowledge nature for poison ivy.
The heart of the rule uses HP as presented, but man, once you accept that it's a pile of abstract defenses you can do some really nutty and cinematic things. Other games often have systems that are dramatic like that — and I often miss that kind of thing in PF — but this rule... I think it might actually be be better than some other systems at allowing GM description.
the only thing I dislike about your houserule; I'm growing to like it more than my own, which is a lot more obtrusive and for which I had to put a LOT of hours re-thinking and re-writing the system.
Ha! Well, you've earned the right to use it. A few times in this thread you've explained the rule back to me when I lost sight of how it should work. I rather think it's as much yours as mine (and with partial custody for the other posters in here).
There's a lot to be said for a rule that doesn't alter the statblock. :)
This. I am reticent to sell it as a part of the system, but suspect I will be creatively describing abstract damage and say things like "You can heal this with a craft(armor) check if you like." Or survival for burns, or knowledge nature for poison ivy.The heart of the rule uses HP as presented, but man, once you accept that it's a pile of abstract defenses you can do some really nutty and cinematic things. Other games often have systems that are dramatic like that — and I often miss that kind of thing in PF — but this rule... I think it might actually be be better than some other systems at allowing GM description.
I love it! Mending and Make Whole can be used by sorc/wizards to Heal theatrical (thanks Kolo)/ abstract damage.
Terminology VOTE!
Post your preferred terms.
I like: Abstract and Wound.
I know we still have some "Stamina" fans out there...
Terminology VOTE!
Post your preferred terms.
I like Abstract and Wound.
I will second abstract and wound.
Also, I think it would be cool if we maintained a list of interesting applications of abstract damage (and wound damage for that matter) like was mentioned in the last few posts.
With some basic organization, it could be an incredible creative resource for GMs.
Terminology VOTE!
Post your preferred terms.
I like: Abstract and Wound.
I know we still have some "Stamina" fans out there...
hmm that is a good question. I think I want to stick with something people can actually say. I hate it when rules cant be referred to without massive metagame implications. Calling it Abstract leaves no easy translation to something a character might say.
Stamina "He looks worn down, or he looks real banged up'. Abstract 'he looks real... existential?'.
Ofcourse this does reduce the variety of options Stamina cant be sensibly healed through craft armor and such, but obviously abstract can if the dm chooses. I guess its a choice between ease of use and flexibility. (Seems thats always the choice in these sorts of things).
Wounds is good though. Wounded is a perfectly reasonable way to describe someone who just got stabbed with a longsword.
Hmmm let me give this one some thought.
Pontificating
In-character semantics is a good goal. I approve.
But... the way it's shaping up, abstract damage describes so many things that I can't think of a way to summarize them in-character. Actually, I can: the military term "readiness".
I still like abstract better though.
PontificatingIn-character semantics is a good goal. I approve.
But... the way it's shaping up, abstract damage describes so many things that I can't think of a way to sum them up in character. Actually, I can: the military term "readiness".
Well lets look at what we want abstract to representfirst and see where we can get after that. Things I see are:
1. Endurance, stamina, ability to dodge/parry
2. Condition of armor/defensive equipment
3. Luck/Plot Armor maybe?
What else?
Well lets look at what we want abstract to representfirst and see where we can get after that. Things I see are:
1. Endurance, stamina, ability to dodge/parry
2. Condition of armor/defensive equipment
3. Luck/Plot Armor maybe?What else?
Anything, inclusively, that can explain why a character's defenses are being depleted by an attack that does not actually wound them.
defense then? Or does that bring up too many thoughts of AC?
I kind of Like Defensive Damange and Deadly Damage as the clasifications.
I gotta run, butI wanted to drop this one in the think tank: Poison.
Discuss!
I'll agree that using the term "Abstract" is (ironically) too abstract a word to have an immediate meaning to a player and character.
I fully support Stamina or Vigor for the first (non-injury) concept. It's a little exclusive at face value to the ideas that armor deterioration and whatnot also contribute conceptually, but it helps me understand what the concept is better.
And I'm a fan of either Wound or Injury for the second concept. Though Wound is already used in the Wound/Vitality alternate rule system, so I'm inclined to suggest against it.
It's also more "in-theme" for the game at large.
I gotta run, butI wanted to drop this one in the think tank: Poison.
Discuss!
No-brainer for me:
Successful save: you sweat-it off. You'll feel better by tomorrow (perhaps with a headache or some stiff joints).
Failed save: you're in (potentially) mortal danger. Heal as deadly wounds.
Obviously, armour and fancy parries are no help here, but it stays coherent with the "abstractedness" of the system as written.
'findel
So it's conceptually fine with you all that the attack the injects the poison is not necessarily a "wound"? I mean, I guess I am cool with it too, but it strikes me as a bit odd.
In most cases I would describe the damage from the bite as negligible, but the poison is injected anyway.
Haven't seen a term submission that I like better than abstract quite yet, although there are some really good ones. Keep em comin'!
Terminology VOTE!
Post your preferred terms.
I like: Abstract and Wound.
I know we still have some "Stamina" fans out there...
Don't like "abstract wounds" for reasons elaborated by Kolo. I kind of liked Stamina however.
Other options: combat points? drama wounds (too much 7th sea?)
'findel
Defense is actually decent. I would still use the word "abstract" to define defense, but I think it covers all the bases and can still mean something in character (although "Hit Points" is meaningless... so we're adding it in).
It works less well as a damage descriptor, though (as in: "Defense Damage"). Something that worked well in place of "(abstract) damage" depleting "(abstract) defenses" would be best.
It's pretty awesome that this issue is the outstanding problem with the rule.
So it's conceptually fine with you all that the attack the injects the poison is not necessarily a "wound"? I mean, I guess I am cool with it too, but it strikes me as a bit odd.
In most cases I would describe the damage from the bite as negligible, but the poison is injected anyway.
emphasis mine
That'd be my my interpretation. I think that the system can assume a fair number of bruises, scratches and blisters that the heroes valiantly ignore until they get back to a relative position of comfort (at which point I can imagine a good deal of off-screen complaining). Kind of like Indiana Jones in 'Raiders'.
And yet when 'saves negate' it's negated. As long as it mechanically remains a fort save (or a reflex save etc), it could fluffed as anything really.
'findel
And ye shall know it to be a good rule, if it maketh ye want to play.
As for poison, a quick look only showed 1 that does HP damage, and that was in addition to stat damage. Since they pretty much focus on stat damage, there should be no issue there or need to include special exceptions.
Actually Freesword's right! Poison rarely deal HP damage. Poisons mainly reduce Stats which in the case on CON can lead to a loss of HPs, but one is only a consequence of the other. No need to adjudicated here.
'findel
Defense is actually decent. I would still use the word "abstract" to define defense, but I think it covers all the bases and can still mean something in character (although "Hit Points" is meaningless... so we're adding it in).
Few things make my DM's blood boil as as much as Players discussing their HP in characters.
/rant