Page 4!
Here's Freesword's formulation again, in case you are just joining us:
The mechanical difference between stamina damage and wound damage is the rate at which it heals naturally.All HP damage is stamina damage by default unless:
A) It results from a crit
B) It results from a failed save
C) It reduces you to negative HPIf the damage is A, B, or C, then it is wound damage.
Magical healing restores wound damage HP first, then stamina damage HP.
Non-lethal stamina damage, ignoring the exceptions A, B, and C above.
I moved some things around and cut a few words for clarity. My additions in are marked in .
Even though I prefer "Abstract", at this point I am leaning toward "Stamina".
Freesword's formulation (above) is one of the clearest we've seen, and changing the terms will only muck this up. Plus, "Stamina" is a kind of homage to "Vitality", and that was the basis for the whole thing.
Out of curiosity, how does one die from nonlethal damage under this system?
I'd agree with making nonlethal damage simply stamina damage. By RAW, nonlethal damage becomes lethal after you've received enough to drop your nonlethal total lower than your HP total below 0. Then it starts to drain your HPs, ultimately leading to death if dropped under CON below 0.
So a direct translation of nonlethal = stamina is relativey faithful to RAW down to 0, but is less transparent beyond that. So that much should be re-invented.
I have a few ideas, but had you any final thoughts about this?
'findel
Out of curiosity, how does one die from nonlethal damage under this system?
I'd agree with making nonlethal damage simply stamina damage. By RAW, nonlethal damage becomes lethal after you've received enough to drop your nonlethal total lower than your HP total below 0. Then it starts to drain your HPs, ultimately leading to death if dropped under CON below 0.
So a direct translation of nonlethal = stamina is relativey faithful to RAW down to 0, but is less transparent beyond that. So that much should be re-invented.
I have a few ideas, but had you any final thoughts about this?
'findel
My understanding is that stamina != non-lethal. Stamina counts as hp loss for death and such. You drop dead of exhaustion or finally succome to lots of smaller injuries. Non-lethal damage would interact with stamina the same way it does HP now.
This is why I didn't really want to tamper with non-lethal :)
But I suppose we're to the point where it must be done.
The least invasive solution would be to make non-lethal damage distinct from Stamina damage. Stamina + Deadly = Lethal Damage HP. Non-lethal should work just as it used to.
Now, I would personally choose to change the healing rate of non-lethal damage to match that of Stamina — but since I think our "mass consumption" version of the rule leaves the exact healing rates undefined, there's no point in adding a clause for that.
Should the (20% hp/20 min) rate be an official part of the rule? I obviously like it, but I also think that the canonical healing rates of (level/hour) and (level/day) would work for Stamina and Wounds respectively. And that would be a "lighter" house rule.
Certainly some people will want vastly slower natural healing rates for Wounds. I think even 20%/week or level/week would be much to fast for most of our deadly wound examples.
So yes, in any case; non-lethal damage should be from 200%-100% as it was before, and it should merely have the same healing rate as Stamina damage, whatever that is. (percentage or level per hour/day, whichever suits you best)
This is why I didn't really want to tamper with non-lethal :)
But I suppose we're to the point where it must be done.
The least invasive solution would be to make non-lethal damage distinct from Stamina damage. Stamina + Deadly = Lethal Damage HP. Non-lethal should work just as it used to.
I think this is what you should sell your "basic package" as.
Now I can take your rules, declare "screw this nonlethal stuff! nonlethal = stamina; you die if you fail fort save DC = nonlethal below 0" (or whatever) and be done with it if I really want to ditch a second (or third?) type of damage out.
'findel
I think this is what you should sell your "basic package" as.
Now I can take your rules, declare "screw this nonlethal stuff! nonlethal = stamina; you die if you fail fort save DC = nonlethal below 0" (or whatever) and be done with it if I really want to ditch a second (or third?) type of damage out.
Yeah, I'd like to pare it down to just what is necessary to attain the stated goals. Healing rates are something a lot of people have already house-ruled, and so it would be better to state "Stamina heals at whatever rate you use for Non-lethal, Wounds heal at the normal HP recovery rate for your campaign."
That way, it still works with 20% hp/20 min in my campaign, since that was already a house rule. But people can go ahead and use whatever rates make sense to them, and still benefit from the rule. All that matters is "Stamina fast, Wound slow".
*phew*
Any other outstanding issues?
Improved Evasion
A rogue who fails a reflex save (who has imp. evasion) still takes Wound damage, right? Just half as much?
Improved Evasion
A rogue who fails a reflex save (who has imp. evasion) still takes Wound damage, right? Just half as much?
I'd be tempted to say so.
Failed save = deadly wounds. Class feature makes it half damage.
I was actually thinking about the (basic) evasion ability. With these rules, the fighter and the rogue may 'evade' a fireball the same way, except that the action is a lot less 'taxing' for the character with evasion than for everyone else. Assuming both saving throws are successful, both characters are unarmed and kept their eyebrows. Only, one is panting a bit more heavily...
'findel
Sounds like the simplest solution to me.
Also, we should keep in mind that making anything Stamina damage is basically giving the players a break. By RAW, everything behaves as Wound damage.
The rogue should be grateful that anything has been changed to fast-recovery damage, and not worry too much about getting hit with a fireball every now and then. It's only as bad as all damage used to be!
Any other outstanding issues?
Any thoughts on damage dealt to flat-footed (not merely denied DEX bonus to AC) and helpless opponents?
Coup de Grace is covered since it automatically deals a critical. Rogue's master strike and Assassin's death attack are also covered since these abilities takes effect on a failed save from their victims.
My intuition would be to keep it to crit and failed save for simplicity sake. A character that would really want to take advantage of an helpless creature should therefore take the full round and deliver a coup de grace.
Including the flat-footed clause would bring more importance to the surprise attack rogue talent, the surprise round in general, the uncanny dodge class feature and the feint action, which are all presently under-represented IMO. On the other hand, I'm not sure if that would be A) necessary and B) a good idea. Besides, forcing wound damage against flat-footed and NOT against helpless would be silly, and if damage against helpless is already deadly, the coup-de-grace action becomes less special...
[edit] I think I found the abuse of my own questioning: dire tigers pouncing in a surprise round. I smell other cheesy combos with invisibility and other nasty tricks.
'findel
About nomenclature...
Are we looking for words that describes the type of damage, or words that describe the source from where that damage is taken from? In other words, nouns or adjectives?
When I try to verbalize it, saying "you receive 10 points of wound damage" sounds off. Lethal would have been more accurate but its already taken. But lethal is an adjective that describe the type of damage, not from where its taken from.
Unlike vitality/wounds that describe two different pools of points, Lincoln's system uses different types of damage of points taken from the same pool.
So 'deadly' works, but 'wound' doesn't. Mionr/major? Superficial/deadly?
just a thought...
'findel
Regarding Flat-footed —
I don't think it needs to be wound damage. Your armor is still there, you could still dodge out of dumb luck, there are a bunch of abstract defenses in place. It should be Stamina. A rogue is still mechanically better at taking advantage of these moments: she deals more stamina damage.
Including the flat-footed clause would bring more importance to the surprise attack rogue talent, the surprise round in general, the uncanny dodge class feature and the feint action, which are all presently under-represented IMO...
Let's not forget our prime directive here: It shouldn't change how combat works. We are doing incredibly well at that so far. Maybe as a "subrule" like rory's BAB thing or my healing rates. The core of the rule must stay pure and unfettered by overreach. Muhuhah. Although I personally agree on the perceived need.
When I try to verbalize it, saying "you receive 10 points of wound damage" sounds off. Lethal would have been more accurate but its already taken. But lethal is an adjective that describe the type of damage, not from where its taken from.
Actually, I hear this as a case for "Wound" as a term. Freesword did a good job of condensing things down:
The mechanical difference between stamina damage and wound damage is the rate at which it heals naturally.
For this definition (which drives the entire system) we might say that "Wound" is the better suited term. In fact, I think it shows that "Stamina" is a suitable term also. I wasn't convinced until this moment. (also, we've used those terms the most so far, whatever that's worth).
Let's not forget our prime directive here: It shouldn't change how combat works.
Indeed, system transparency is one of the main foundation of the rule. I'm the one wandering astray now...
As for the terms, I still like 'Stamina' better than 'Wound' for some reasons. Partly because it don't see myself receiving "10 points of wound damage", partly because "wounds" is already a term coined in another similar variant rule (vitality/wounds) and partly because I grew fond of the original 'deadly' adjective you used early in the thread. But 'deadly' is an adjective 'stamina' isn't, and that bugs me somehow...
I might be over-thinking this
'findel
I might be over-thinking this
It is our blessing... and our curse.
Vitality-Wound is Vitality-Wound.
Stamina-Wound is Stamina-Wound.
We did kind of rip it off. I'm just glad it worked! :)
Again, trying to verbalize the system, I realized that it forces the player to add-up damage until it exceed hp total; as opposed to subtracting damage from a pool of hp.
Interestingly enough, I'm used to 'add-up' damage as a DM, and to 'subtract' damage as a player (which is what is encouraged by RAW).
any thoughts on that?
'findel
Again, trying to verbalize the system, I realized that it forces the player to add-up damage until it exceed hp total; as opposed to subtracting damage from a pool of hp.
Interestingly enough, I'm used to 'add-up' damage as a DM, and to 'subtract' damage as a player (which is what is encouraged by RAW).
any thoughts on that?
'findel
I never really thought about it but i do the reverse. As a player I add up my wounds when I take them and compare them to my HP total. As a dm I cross out and subtract hp totals on my scrap sheet. Cant think of why but I always do it that way.
Again, trying to verbalize the system, I realized that it forces the player to add-up damage until it exceed hp total; as opposed to subtracting damage from a pool of hp.
Interestingly enough, I'm used to 'add-up' damage as a DM, and to 'subtract' damage as a player (which is what is encouraged by RAW).
any thoughts on that?
'findel
Purely personally speaking I add up damage as a player already so that may be why this system already fits into my cognative map.
As to naming convention the more I read of the discussion the more I am liking Vitality & Deadly.
In a game like PF where gear is a heavy component of the game. The descriptive damage to items, as well as abrasions bruises etc can be encompassed by vitality (battle readiness) Where as the critical hit sword strike is deadly.
I believe it can be tracked both ways simply enough.
If you have 80 HP and you take 8 Wound damage, you can write "W 72, hp 72". The wound notation represents your new "max hit points" from rest.
If you then take another hit, let's say 12 Stamina damage, you have "W 72, hp 60".
Using my recovery rate you gain 16 HP back in 20 minutes (back to 76), but without treating the Wound damage you can only get back to 72.
That's how I would do it. In many ways, treating (HP - Wounds) as "the new max" is actually the easiest way to do the math. Note that in either system, I am pretty sure you never need to track Stamina damage separately from HP.
There may yet be some awesome ideas on how to handle the bookkeeping; I suspect they will come up as we playtest.
As to naming convention the more I read of the discussion the more I am liking Vitality & Deadly.
In a game like PF where gear is a heavy component of the game. The descriptive damage to items, as well as abrasions bruises etc can be encompassed by vitality (battle readiness) Where as the critical hit sword strike is deadly.
Vitality is one term I won't consider, because it already functions as the "name" of an existing system that is very similar to the rule we're discussing here; the inspiration, in fact. I'd rather use Stamina — close enough to convey the similarity, different enough to avoid engendering confusion when discussing the two variants.
Vitality is one term I won't consider, because it already functions as the "name" of an existing system that is very similar to the rule we're discussing here; the inspiration, in fact. I'd rather use Stamina — close enough to convey the similarity, different enough to avoid engendering confusion when discussing the two variants.As to naming convention the more I read of the discussion the more I am liking Vitality & Deadly.
In a game like PF where gear is a heavy component of the game. The descriptive damage to items, as well as abrasions bruises etc can be encompassed by vitality (battle readiness) Where as the critical hit sword strike is deadly.
Ahh thats true I had forgotten about vitality points, ohh well if naming conventions is what is the hold up then we are still in good shape.
First, check out my notation upthread: W XX HP XX.
Now, consider:
** spoiler omitted **
I was gonna go there as I presented it to my group (We liked the bloodied idea from 4ed) so incorporating the fatigue thing seems like a nice logical step.
If you decide to deal with that subrule you need to consider effects that work off fatigue and exhaustion. For instance if a character is made fatigued/exhausted by some direct effect, does it impact his stamina or wounds? What about effects that remove exhaustion/fatigue but may not heal hp up to the requisite totals of HP(like a paladins mercy for instance)?
I think in this case then you need to call it something other then fatigued and exhausted or you are scewing with the way things are meant to work. For instance there are effects where 'if the target is fatigued the effect i greater'. If you make it so a character can remove the fatigued or exhausted condition, you are making those abilities that work of them more powerful then they currently are. Messing with existing mechanics is I believe against one of the stated purposes of this houserule no?
I've been tracking it thus:
HP 4/12; Injury 8.
I don't know if that seems easier or more difficult to you guys, but it makes sense to me. Then I just reduce the injury score an amount equal to what is healed off the HP.
Though now that I look at it, it kind of seems... i don't know... not the easiest.
Messing with existing mechanics is I believe against one of the stated purposes of this houserule no?
Hence stated as a subrule and placed under the spoiler.
Everyone should feel free to add some wild ideas, we just need to make sure the basic concept is unobtrusive and simple to explain.
I see your point about the "stacking" nature of fatigue and exhaustion. I hadn't really considered it that far, to be honest.
Damage penalties are something I plan to include some day, but I'll probably just use the base Stamina-Wound rules for a long time first, to ensure that I really understand them before adding anything else on.
Another day, another stamina/wound subrule
alright, my turn...
Resiliency (Ex): Once per day, a rogue with this ability can gain a number of stamina points equal to the rogue's level. Activating this ability is an immediate action that can only be performed in order to avoid being brought below 0 hit points. Stamina point gained this way do not leave after some time like temporary hit points.
Renewed Vigor (Ex): As a standard action, the barbarian heals 1d8 points of stamina damage + her Constitution modifier. For every four levels the barbarian has attained above 4th, this amount of damage healed increases by 1d8, to a maximum of 5d8 at 20th level. A barbarian must be at least 4th level before selecting this power. This power can be used only once per day and only while raging.
(rage for wussies)
Rage (Ex): A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting her additional combat prowess. (snip)While in rage, a barbarian gains a +4 morale bonus to her Strength and Constitution, as well as a +2 morale bonus on Will saves. In addition, she takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class. The increase to Constitution grants the barbarian 2 stamina points points per Hit Dice, but these disappear when the rage ends. Stamina points lost this way do not transform in wound damage like an attack should the barbarian be brought down below 0; simply ignore the balance hp. (snip)
A barbarian can end her rage as a free action and is fatigued after rage for a number of rounds equal to 2 times the number of rounds spent in the rage. A barbarian cannot enter a new rage while fatigued or exhausted but can otherwise enter rage multiple times during a single encounter or combat. If a barbarian falls unconscious, her rage immediately ends with consequences explained above, rarely placing her in peril of death.
'findel
Messing with existing mechanics is I believe against one of the stated purposes of this houserule no?Hence stated as a subrule and placed under the spoiler.
Everyone should feel free to add some wild ideas, we just need to make sure the basic concept is unobtrusive and simple to explain.
I see your point about the "stacking" nature of fatigue and exhaustion. I hadn't really considered it that far, to be honest.
Damage penalties are something I plan to include some day, but I'll probably just use the base Stamina-Wound rules for a long time first, to ensure that I really understand them before adding anything else on.
I have no problem with the idea of having penalties for loss of vitality/wounds as a subrule if thats what you are going for. I just think if you are going to call the penalty fatigue and exhaustion it should behave like fatigue and exhaustion. Otherwise call it something else. Something like "Bloodied' and 'Near Death' could work with whatever penalties you think are appropriate (might want to reconsider fatigue and exhaustion, exhaustion is pretty extreme).
I have no problem with the idea of having penalties for loss of vitality/wounds as a subrule if thats what you are going for. I just think if you are going to call the penalty fatigue and exhaustion it should behave like fatigue and exhaustion. Otherwise call it something else. Something like "Bloodied' and 'Near Death' could work with whatever penalties you think are appropriate (might want to reconsider fatigue and exhaustion, exhaustion is pretty extreme).
I cannot remember do conditional/environmental modifiers stack with one another if so perhaps a penalty using those could be applied?
I've been tracking it thus
Wait, Eben, does this mean you've been playtesting it then? Any reports for us?
Spurn thy moniker and tell us!
Wait, Eben, does this mean you've been playtesting it then? Any reports for us?
Spurn thy moniker and tell us!
Lol. Well, it just started, and it's pbp, so there's not much to tell at this point. I just wrapped up a few very limited combat sequences (introductory encounters), so I'll let you know how those went.
Please note, this game is absolutely wrought with all kinds of variant and homebrew ideas. We wanted to have a sandbox for all the crazy ideas we've thought of. For instance, we're using the Class Defense bonus and the armor as DR rules. The whole setting is magic-free, but we didn't necessarily want a gritty feel, so we're using a very robust version of (daily renewing) Action Points - one of the main uses being a scaling version of self-healing we're calling "Adrenaline Surges"… similar but not identical to 4E's healing surges. And we're trying out something we're calling "Signature Items" which will possibly replace the constant gear-chase. (I think that's called the "Christmas Tree Effect"?)
Anyway, the system in play so far.
The players are lvl 2. One character got involved in a Fight Club style fighting circuit. It's a round-for-round 'last-man-standing' event, so she'll have to do a bout, will have time to recuperate (20 minutes at least) and then go on to the next level of fighting. Given that the fights are supposed to be non-lethal, your system worked very well here. She won her fight taking 5 points of stamina damage total, then had a chance to rest for 20 minutes. So she got back up to nearly full hp going into the second fight.
So for this first fight, it worked perfectly. Had she taken a crit in the fight - equating to actual injury - she would have had to either use an Adrenaline Surge to erase it totally, or she would have carried that damage into the next fight.
The second fight happened unexpectedly to another player in a back alley when trying to get some information out of a contact. Again, no crits were dealt (barely), so all the "damage" was flavored as blocks or near-misses with the gun-fire. That being the case, if that player is able to rest for a while, he'll end up healing all the stamina damage he took.
All in all, I'm fairly happy with how it's playing out, though I'm looking forward to see how it looks when the player don't have time to recuperate or when they take actual Injury damage.
So I actually tried out the base rules last night in my pathfinder campaign. Definately had a few growing pains the first time I tried it, mostly because everyone was not used to it. I kept having to remind everyone of the kind of damage they were taking.
Part of it came from the fact that there was an encounter trap that dealt round by round energy damage for which there is a save. That really ground things down.
What happened was there were gets of freezing water spraying on most of a room, which dealt cold and non-lethal (old subdual) damage each round a character was in the spary, with a save for half damage. That got REALLY clunky really fast. With having to call out full damage for cold, indicating it was deadly if the save was failed, then half damage on successful save and that it was stamina damage, along with the subdual. It wasn't intentional but this actually was a worst case scenario for this system.
After that I am inclined remove 'failed save' from the deadly damage category, and leave it as only critical hits and the damage that takes you to 0 hp.
What I understand is, that you try to accomplish 2 things:
1. More ease when describing injuries.
2. Less downtime between encounters.
Well, those weren't the original goals of this idea. I believe the goal was to make an HP system that better represented the abstract vs. real nature of damage taken on HP, then had a more logical set of rules to heal those two types of damage.
Evil Lincoln (along with myself and at least a few other players) was frustrated with how the abstraction of HP worked with healing (both natural and magical).
1. More ease when describing injuries.
It's not that Evil Lincoln or anyone else thought it was difficult to describe damage, or even think of ways to make our descriptions fit the mechanics.
It was more about the fact that all damage heals the same way. Through magic it heals very effectively. I mean, it's magic, it should facilitate quick healing regardless of the damage type taken. The frustration, however, came into play with the natural healing rules.
It takes days and days for PC's to heal naturally at low level, and at high levels it's more like weeks. Which is fine, if you're dealing with broken ribs, deep sword cuts or what-have-you. The problem is the fact that the HP system in Pathfinder says that your HP (and damage there-to) is more often than not a more abstract concept of a character's survival. his ability to block with his shield, parry with a blade, or any number of ways of not actually taking the damage. Now, because of the fact that mechanically the PC does take HP damage, he heals very, very slow for blocking the attack?
Wait? What?
I block the attack (according to the abstract nature of HP), but it takes me weeks to recuperate from that?
This is why Evil Lincoln began thinking of a mechanical way to delineate between when a PC takes actual bodily injury and when he is able to take this more abstract "survival" damage. (in our case, we've decided to call that Stamina damage.)
So once we establish mechanics to break the two types of injury down into two ideas (in this case we've called it "injury" or "wound" versus "Stamina"), we take a look at how natural and magical healing works with them.
Again, magical healing just needs to be effective, so it wipes both things out at once.
So we move on to natural healing. if I take a sword to the gut ("Wound/Injury" damage), then yes, it should take days/weeks to naturally heal from that.
However, if those attacks were blocked by my shield or parried (which we're changing to Stamina damage), then why in the heck am I having to heal over a period of days or weeks? Once I get a good amount of down-time to recover - this time being used to catch my breath, make sure my shield-arm's not broken, and make sure my shield is back to serviceable condition - then I should be in much better condition to continue fighting. Evil Lincoln suggested this stamina damage recover at a rate of 20% of your total HP over a length of 20 uninterrupted minutes of rest.
Does that help to illuminate our goals and how we've gotten where we are?
What happened was there were gets of freezing water spraying on most of a room, which dealt cold and non-lethal (old subdual) damage each round a character was in the spary, with a save for half damage. That got REALLY clunky really fast. With having to call out full damage for cold, indicating it was deadly if the save was failed, then half damage on successful save and that it was stamina damage, along with the subdual. It wasn't intentional but this actually was a worst case scenario for this system.
I think we've simplified the rules somewhat, though, haven't we?
The only things the players should be worrying about is whether they made the save or not. If they made the save, then they take Stamina damage. If they failed their save, then it's Wound damage. If the damage they have incoming doesn't come from an attack roll or offer a save, then it's automatically Stamina damage.
There was also the idea floating around that this system could make non-lethal damage moot, thus replacing it. This is the direction I'm using in my play-test, as it only comes into play when a character is reduced to 0 through an attack. At that point, if the attacker wishes to be using non-lethal (and is taking the proper attack type or penalty to accomplish that), then the target is knocked unconscious instead of dying.
Thats how I'm testing it, anyway.
What happened was there were gets of freezing water spraying on most of a room, which dealt cold and non-lethal (old subdual) damage each round a character was in the spary, with a save for half damage. That got REALLY clunky really fast. With having to call out full damage for cold, indicating it was deadly if the save was failed, then half damage on successful save and that it was stamina damage, along with the subdual. It wasn't intentional but this actually was a worst case scenario for this system.I think we've simplified the rules somewhat, though, haven't we?
The only things the players should be worrying about is whether they made the save or not. If they made the save, then they take Stamina damage. If they failed their save, then it's Wound damage. If the damage they have incoming doesn't come from an attack roll or offer a save, then it's automatically Stamina damage.
It has to do with general practice at the table. I dont tell them the mechanics behind an event, just the effects. So I dont tell them x damage save for half, I ask them to make saves, and then based on their result tell them how much damage they date. The addition of this damage system to that practice makes things more complicated. For one off events its not a big deal, but if you are constantly having to save against spells or energy damage effects that are areas it gets very clunky.
There was also the idea floating around that this system could make non-lethal damage moot, thus replacing it. This is the direction I'm using in my play-test, as it only comes into play when a character is reduced to 0 through an attack. At that point, if the attacker wishes to be using non-lethal (and is taking the proper attack type or penalty to accomplish that), then the target is knocked unconscious instead of dying.Thats how I'm testing it, anyway.
Well as it stands it doesnt make non-lethal damage moot, as stamina damage is meant to be part of the existing lethal damage, and can kill you. Non-lethal damage shouldnt add up to what can kill you.
It has to do with general practice at the table. I dont tell them the mechanics behind an event, just the effects. So I dont tell them x damage save for half, I ask them to make saves, and then based on their result tell them how much damage they date. The addition of this damage system to that practice makes things more complicated. For one off events its not a big deal, but if you are constantly having to save against spells or energy damage effects that are areas it gets very clunky.
Oh, fair enough. it is another level of complexity, and it's definitely up to every DM to decide what level of complexity they're willing to deal with.
I may find myself in your exact position when my group gets to any kind of complex encounter.
Well as it stands it doesn't make non-lethal damage moot, as stamina damage is meant to be part of the existing lethal damage, and can kill you. Non-lethal damage shouldn't add up to what can kill you.
Ah, yes. I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm trying out a variant that simply replaces non-lethal with Stamina damage. To my mind, they're so similar that I'm willing to try it out. Mostly I'm of this mind-set because I think the benefits to my gaming group in the Wound/Stamina system (an acknowledged complexity) outweigh the general benefits of having another additional (if Core) system in place like non-lethal.
I realize there are probably mechanics and rules i'm not thinking of when I make this decision, but my group is intrigued enough with our little variant rule here (and comfortable enough trying new stuff out) that we're happy to just see where it takes us.
In the end we may realize that using this system in place of Non-lethal is a big mistake. I'll let you know if that's the case.
So I actually tried out the base rules last night in my pathfinder campaign. Definately had a few growing pains the first time I tried it, mostly because everyone was not used to it. I kept having to remind everyone of the kind of damage they were taking.
Part of it came from the fact that there was an encounter trap that dealt round by round energy damage for which there is a save. That really ground things down.
What happened was there were gets of freezing water spraying on most of a room, which dealt cold and non-lethal (old subdual) damage each round a character was in the spary, with a save for half damage. That got REALLY clunky really fast. With having to call out full damage for cold, indicating it was deadly if the save was failed, then half damage on successful save and that it was stamina damage, along with the subdual. It wasn't intentional but this actually was a worst case scenario for this system.
After that I am inclined remove 'failed save' from the deadly damage category, and leave it as only critical hits and the damage that takes you to 0 hp.
Interesting feedback. Being a rather stubborn person, I'll probably try Lincoln's system in its integrity as soon as we resume gameplay. I wonder if I'll come to the same conclusion as you; as we know, theory often differs from what actually happens around the table.
Yet, I too persist to say that this Stamina/Wound system is a good opportunity to re-define nonlethal damage. The idea behind nonlethal is that it can heal faster than typical injuries, which is what Stamina does in this system I understand why Linclon does want to include this in his basic "stamina/wounds" package, but like Eben, that'll be the direction I'll probably take.
This takes some tinkering however, since many source of nonlethal damage comes from the result of a failed save (oh, the irony!). Actually, I'd be inclined to treat nonlethal exactly as any other damage. "Nonlethal" would simply means that it never deals deadly wounds (even from crits or failed save). I'd probably redesign death from nonlethal around a saving throw or something, once the character is unconscious and still receiving damage...
'findel
Kolo, that sounds like exactly the kind of smoke-test we were looking for.
I think the interaction with non-lethal damage is what pushed you over the top. This is good to know.
Are you going to keep using it and see how it works out for other scenarios?
Thanks so much everyone for reporting back.
Oh, and Valkar, it seems you may have misinterpreted some of the goals of the rule, but Eben clarified those as well as I could have.
Actually playtesting and coming back here to share results is what will make this a really great rule. Keep up the good work!
Interesting feedback. Being a rather stubborn person, I'll probably try Lincoln's system in its integrity as soon as we resume gameplay. I wonder if I'll come to the same conclusion as you; as we know, theory often differs from what actually happens around the table.
Yet, I too persist to say that this Stamina/Wound system is a good opportunity to re-define nonlethal damage. The idea behind nonlethal is that it can heal faster than typical injuries, which is what Stamina does in this system I understand why Linclon does want to include this in his basic "stamina/wounds" package, but like Eben, that'll be the direction I'll probably take.
I think the idea behind non-lethal damage is less about how fast it heals and instead about not bringing you closer to death, but instead closer to unconciousness. Stamina damage brings you closer to death. This is something to carefully consider in such a change.
This takes some tinkering however, since many source of nonlethal damage comes from the result of a failed save (oh, the irony!). Actually, I'd be inclined to treat nonlethal exactly as any other damage. "Nonlethal" would simply means that it never deals deadly wounds (even from crits or failed save). I'd probably redesign death from nonlethal around a saving throw or something, once the character is unconscious and still receiving damage...
'findel
Up to you I guess, but personally I wouldnt remove the 'subdual' damage system from the game, there should be a reasonable opportunity to take someone alive.
I also think that the encounter design for that trap Kolo mentioned is... suspect. Non-lethal damage is largely about intent. Can a trap deal damage with the intent not to harm someone?
Because it works in a pinch for faster-recovery type damage, I think encounter designers have leaned on non-lethal to preform in a similar way to stamina — but it also has an important second role that allows characters to be captured.
I personally think it makes sense to merge the two, but we need a rock-solid and non-invasive rule-of-thumb to make certain it operates like it used to. This would be a tempting time to try and "fix" it, but stay strong!
(...) but personally I wouldnt remove the 'subdual' damage system from the game, there should be a reasonable opportunity to take someone alive.
I agree with that, but by having nonlethal damage unable to do deadly wounds, it also become unable to kill. Nonlethal would "wear someone down" to unconsciousness, but not kill (unless you continue to receive nonlethal damage, like being punched and kicked to death, freeze to death or die of dehydration in the desert, which I would be tempted to solve with saving throws).
It actually bothered me a bit that lethal and nonlethal were two distinct types of damage, given the abstract nature of HPs. I never was convinced by the fact that we're supposed to be fresh for a sword fight after being beaten-up in a fist fight, or after crossing the desert.
I personally think it makes sense to merge the two, but we need a rock-solid and non-invasive rule-of-thumb to make certain it operates like it used to. This would be a tempting time to try and "fix" it, but stay strong!
Don't worry, we'll give you plenty of "houserule-free" playtests to legitimize your system :)
Nevertheless, if other similar issues are tackled during playtest, your system would only be stronger if it came with a proved series of "author's notes" warning of the issues and perhaps suggesting ways to circumvent them.
'findel
I also think that the encounter design for that trap Kolo mentioned is... suspect. Non-lethal damage is largely about intent. Can a trap deal damage with the intent not to harm someone?
Well I was using a modified encounter trap from 3.5 dungeonscape. But I dont think it was a matter of intent, it was a matter of effect. Freezing cold both hurts you (cold damage) and puts you sleep (non-lethal). That was the effect the trap is going for I believe. Plus the added tension of stacking damage types edging players closer to being disabled.
Also I dont see why a trap couldnt be designed for non-lethal/subdual damage, it depends on the designer. Non-lethal security measures are used all the time in the real world. It is possible a moral shop owner wouldn't want to kill intruders but just knock them unconcious (with say something from the 3.5 PHBII whelm line of spells or a spell modified with the merciful spell metamagic feat).
Because it works in a pinch for faster-recovery type damage, I think encounter designers have leaned on non-lethal to preform in a similar way to stamina — but it also has an important second role that allows characters to be captured.
I personally think it makes sense to merge the two, but we need a rock-solid and non-invasive rule-of-thumb to make certain it operates like it used to. This would be a tempting time to try and "fix" it, but stay strong!
Indeed. Part of my bias comes from my love and continued use of the 3.5 beguiler, who has a whole host of spells that specifically deal non-lethal damage. But there are similar ideas in pathfinder. For instance the point of the Merciful spell metamagic feat is to be able to use a spell without risk of killing the target. Doing that with stamina damage as it stands would bring a target closer to death and leave a complex issue to be dealt with if that damage brings a target to 0 HP or bellow.
This is where I got the notion for that clause about choosing to deal nonlethal damage on a final blow.
It's far from perfect, but I think this is what I was trying to nip in the bud.
Maybe I've misunderstood how non-lethal works all these years, because I don't really see how this is that much of a departure. Don't you add your non-lethal damage in with your regular damage to tell when you succumb to your injuries and fall unconscious?
All we've done is switch it to make Stamina damage the default type of damage taken, with Wound damage happening on a particularly dangerous/wicked attack that actually cuts flesh.
But cold damage that makes you want to go to sleep feels very in-line with stamina damage. Being hit with a sap instead of a club also feels very inline with Stamina damage.
Okay, well, if stamina represents an abstract depletion of defensive readiness...
And then you deal a final blow with Stamina damage, which represents the moment when the target is least ready, and therefore it deals deadly damage.
Let's say that you can make a non-lethal attack at the -4 penalty, and that simply means that all your attacks deal stamina damage, even on a crit or a final blow.
How would that be different from the current non-lethal system?
Well, if you've been taking a bunch of non-lethal punches and such, and then someone else (with no interest in capturing you) comes up and shanks you between the ribs and chooses to deal wound damage on a final blow... then yes, you start dying. That's different from the RAW. But it also makes more sense than the RAW. *existential crisis*
For Kolo's trap scenario: the trap deals half cold and half non-lethal. That's already pretty complex, accounting for potential resistance and immunities. I would resolve it thus:
"Half cold half non-lethal" specifies that even on a failed save, this attack deals half Stamina and half Wound damage. On a successful save, all of the damage is Stamina damage. It's a "nerf trap".
I think that captures the spirit of the trap's damage — even if you get really pounded, half the damage will go away once you warm up a bit.
My heart goes out to you on this one Kolo... I wouldn't want to have to adjudicate that in the middle of the game, with a bunch of players who don't get the rule yet. Even so, we're lucky it happened to you first! Now we can think of an answer.
Oh and on Kolo's earlier point:
After that I am inclined remove 'failed save' from the deadly damage category, and leave it as only critical hits and the damage that takes you to 0 hp.
Really? Don't you feel that this means Wizards simply cannot deal deadly damage? Something about not ever getting seriously burned by a fireball simply doesn't sit right with me. I definitely think that the issues in your playtest should be dealt with, but ditching failed saves altogether seems like too much of a regression.
Actually, after re-reading and thinking about it, I see where Kolo is coming from.
Previously, if a person had taken any non-lethal damage, then they take enough damage where their damage plus the non-lethal would equal or surpass their HP total, they fall unconscious.
In our system, if someone gets enough Injury and Stamina damage together, they go straight to dying.
Hmmmm.