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.
It goes right to the core of the rule.
I personally think that "Dying vs. Unconscious" should be the choice of the attacker who deals the final blow.
You're all worn down and the attacker sees an opening. He can hit you with the pommel and knock you out, or he can slice you open.
It is slightly different from the RAW, it's true. But the RAW doesn't really make sense... if I hit you with a sword and other people have been punching you for a few rounds... my sword knocks you unconscious?
I agree with you, Evil Lincoln. I just hand't considered how different it actually was from RAW.
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.
hmm... maybe I missed something... lets say you somehow have stamina damage greater then your HP + Con score. Are you not dead? In my head this was when the character falls dead of exhaustion instead of any specific wound. It is unlikely to happen, but it isnt impossible. Example. A character had 30 hp and 12 con. The character gets hit for 29 damage that deals stamina damage. He is at 1 hp, the next hit will be deadly. It is a shuriken dieling 2 damage. He is at -1 and dying, but before that he takes a fireball that deils 24 damage, but he makes the save and takes 12 stamina damage. He now at the point where he should die, and all but 2 of the damage is stamina. If that is a lethal situation, then stamina damage cant replace non-lethal damage.
How would that be different from the current non-lethal system?
As stated above, non-lethal damage doesnt bring you closer to death, stamina does. If you change that, you alter many abilties and options designed around non-lethal damage. And that is no longer a transparent change that fits neatly over hp.
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*
Right but in this case the shank could be a 2hp cut, and it might still kills you if all but 2 of your hp is done in those non-lethal punches.
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.
Thats what playtesting is for right? I didn't actually mean it to be but this is an excellent corner case for playtesting this rule. So all the better right?
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.
Well aside from the fact that wizards can make attach rolls (and thus crit on say a scorching ray) with certain spells, you can still be seriously burned. It just has to be the fireball that takes you to 0 hp. I think failed saves happen ALOT more then crits, so honestly, yea I am ok with it. There just isn't a good answer for situations that have consistant saves vs damage, it gets very clunky to deal with even with a group that was comfortable with the system.
It goes right to the core of the rule.I personally think that "Dying vs. Unconscious" should be the choice of the attacker who deals the final blow.
You're all worn down and the attacker sees an opening. He can hit you with the pommel and knock you out, or he can slice you open.
It is slightly different from the RAW, it's true. But the RAW doesn't really make sense... if I hit you with a sword and other people have been punching you for a few rounds... my sword knocks you unconscious?
Right but by that same token, people have been punching you to -10hp with saps, dealing only 'non-lethal damage', and then someone sticks you with a pen knife for 1 damage and that kills you? The problem works both ways.
Thats what playtesting is for right? I didn't actually mean it to be but this is an excellent corner case for playtesting this rule. So all the better right?
Hells yeah. If there was any doubt, I think your playtest case may be the most important post in the thread! ;)
Actual play is king where I'm from.
Right but by that same token, people have been punching you to -10hp with saps, dealing only 'non-lethal damage', and then someone sticks you with a pen knife for 1 damage and that kills you? The problem works both ways.
But... you can kill someone with a single blow.
And saps or no, stamina represents the sum of your defenses. Once they are depleted, you are vulnerable to "realistic" single-strike kills.
It is a change, and the only justification I can muster is "realism". There are a lot of reasons realism is an invalid rationale for most PF design situations... but if we stumble backwards into a place where our "problem" is that the rule ended up more realistic while addressing another problem, is that really bad?
I honestly don't know... this is an open, non-sarcastic question.
It seems to me that the (awesome) Kolo test case highlights the complexity of the RAW rather than the complexity of Stamina-Wounds.
Resolving that trap as "Half deadly on a failed save" is actually pretty simple by comparison. Well, it seems so, I haven't rolled dice on it.
I think the rule is still solid, but learning experience abound in this for all of us!
Right but by that same token, people have been punching you to -10hp with saps, dealing only 'non-lethal damage', and then someone sticks you with a pen knife for 1 damage and that kills you? The problem works both ways.
It goes right to the core of the rule.I personally think that "Dying vs. Unconscious" should be the choice of the attacker who deals the final blow.
You're all worn down and the attacker sees an opening. He can hit you with the pommel and knock you out, or he can slice you open.
It is slightly different from the RAW, it's true. But the RAW doesn't really make sense... if I hit you with a sword and other people have been punching you for a few rounds... my sword knocks you unconscious?
Wouldn't that be a case of someone being "beaten to within an inch of his life"-type scenario?
He actually is on the very brink of life and any extra damage does him in. I'd say that it doesn't even have to be Wound damage, you can still "beat" someone to death with "non-lethal" damage (as 'findel explained above, beatings, exposure to the elements etc.).Incidentally, I'm also one of Valkar's players, so we'll get back to you with any thoughts of ours after our game tonight (we've crossed over to Tuesday over here) - whether it's just some general thoughts or actual playtest if the group goes for it.
Incidentally, I'm also one of Valkar's players, so we'll get back to you with any thoughts of ours after our game tonight (we've crossed over to Tuesday over here) - whether it's just some general thoughts or actual playtest if the group goes for it.
Please do! Even bad news is welcome. Even more so than good news, actually! There is refining to be done.
Just realized how i'm tracking the two damage types won't work.
Switching to this:
Total HP 30
Stamina Damage X injury Damage X
My previous way did wonky things when you had a mix of damage and someone dropped below 0.
Just an update... no other news. :)
My previous way did wonky things when you had a mix of damage and someone dropped below 0.
Care to walk us through what the problem was? It looks like now you've added a Stamina-specific entry, which means tracking a third number.
My previous way did wonky things when you had a mix of damage and someone dropped below 0.Care to walk us through what the problem was? It looks like now you've added a Stamina-specific entry, which means tracking a third number.
I think that is how its going to play out unless you drastically change non-lethal.
Non-lethal
stamina
injury/deadly
Okay, so a report from our session tonight.
We discussed the premises of the system and everyone agreed that we should try it out. As with any new system, it'll take us a couple of sessions to get everything to run smoothly, but overall there didn't appear to be too much confusion.
We did the "everything is Stamina damage unless it's a crit or a failed save" portion, no problem. We're only 2nd level (although we did hit 3rd at the end of the session), so some single attacks proved to be rather hurtful, like having 13 hp left and taking 14 Stamina damage in one blow, thus making it 14 Wound damage since it dropped you below 0.
Actually, that might not be entirely true... it just occurred to me something that should be looked at. The attack was the bite of a Hellhound, doing 1d8+1+1d6 (fire damage) - but does that count as one pool of damage, thus making it all Wound damage if it drops you, or should it be divided up, so you subtract the individual dice from your current hp and then only the last die is the one that counts as Wound damage?
This could just as easily be e.g. a longsword with the flaming property or any other such combination (like a rogue's sneak attack perhaps?).
Also, which order should the damage be applied in?
Anyway, back to the playtest.
It certainly improved our recovery rate somewhat. We only have one character capable of healing, my Inquisitor (although our Alchemist can make cure light potions, but it's not the same regular access to healing) and I was glad that I didn't have to spend all of my spell slots on Cure Light Wounds. I did end up doing it on two days of downtime, though, because of the badly wounded Ranger (the guy who got hit for 14 points of damage above).
Another thing that we ruled, but I can't remember if it has been discussed here, was that even though you had been dropped below 0, after 20 minutes you started to get your stamina damage back. Thus the two characters that had been dropped in a fight could actually walk from the scene after a while.
A third thing. We decided to just use non-lethal damage as Stamina damage. The reason was that non-lethal damage rarely comes up anyway and there was no special reason to separate it with the system's recovery rate. No instances of non-lethal damage came up this session, however.
I think that was it, I (or Gworeth or Valkar) might add more if I missed something from the session.
We did the "everything is Stamina damage unless it's a crit or a failed save" portion, no problem.
...plus the final blow deals Wound damage, right? I'm thinking of making "Final Blow" a functional term in the rule writeup for this reason.
We're only 2nd level (although we did hit 3rd at the end of the session), so some single attacks proved to be rather hurtful, like having 13 hp left and taking 14 Stamina damage in one blow, thus making it 14 Wound damage since it dropped you below 0.
Hmm. Sounds like it's functioning to spec. That last attack should be a doozy, narratively. Did the players balk at this, or did it make sense more or less?
Actually, that might not be entirely true... it just occurred to me something that should be looked at. The attack was the bite of a Hellhound, doing 1d8+1+1d6 (fire damage) - but does that count as one pool of damage, thus making it all Wound damage if it drops you, or should it be divided up, so you subtract the individual dice from your current hp and then only the last die is the one that counts as Wound damage?
For simplicity's sake, I would recommend it be treated as one unit of damage. If a flaming houndbite puts you below zero, the wound you have to heal later is a combination of serious burn and bite. I don't know what it says about me that I have no trouble vividly picturing a hellhound's smouldering bite wound, nor how it differs from a mere burn or a mere bite medically.
Another thing that we ruled, but I can't remember if it has been discussed here, was that even though you had been dropped below 0, after 20 minutes you started to get your stamina damage back. Thus the two characters that had been dropped in a fight could actually walk from the scene after a while.
That also sounds like the system as-intended. Wound damage doesn't prevent the healing of Stamina damage. Wound damage is healed first, but that doesn't mean it must be healed first in order for stamina damage to recover. I can totally see where that interpretation came from, though.
A third thing. We decided to just use non-lethal damage as Stamina damage. The reason was that non-lethal damage rarely comes up anyway and there was no special reason to separate it with the system's recovery rate. No instances of non-lethal damage came up this session, however.
Makes sense to me. This is what I will be doing as well. It is regrettably a departure from the RAW, but I think the sum of the changes is a net positive. I never really liked how non-lethal damage worked, and to me it seems clearer and more useful if it is just a -4 penalty to attacks if you want to deal stamina damage no matter what.
I'm still open to hearing other solutions on the non-lethal issue, but I do think that is the simplest, most logical solution.
Top notch feedback, thanks to you and the rest of your group!
EDIT: I have been thinking about that with saves and wound damage. For the Hell Hounds breath, it was awsome that it was wound damage. AUCH it hurts. But for a fireball it should not be wound damage. You cannot burn anything with a fireball, so how can you deal wound damage? I think the whole issue about spells is a pain. Flaming sphere is wound damage for sure, force effects for sure not, and so on. I think we need to work more on this issue, instead of simply saying save=stamina, failure=wound. No matter how much you fail from a save, being hit by a force spell will still be stamina damage in my opinion.
Other opinions?
I disagree. Force damage can easily be Wound on a failed save. If we consider force as a "punching" kind of effect, then the failed save on a force effect causes broken bones, broken/cracked ribs etc. Something that actually takes a long time to recover from naturally or healing magic to mend.
As for a fireball, you can actually burn stuff:The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze.
So I'd say it's very likely to cause 2nd or 3rd degree burns on a failed save, thus causing Wound damage.
Flaming sphere is wound damage for sure, force effects for sure not, and so on. I think we need to work more on this issue, instead of simply saying save=stamina, failure=wound. No matter how much you fail from a save, being hit by a force spell will still be stamina damage in my opinion.
First, you're right.
We were going to handle spell effects piecemeal in the beginning. It quickly became evident that we needed a guiding principle, and that's where the "Failed Save = wound" rule emerged.
The GM must be the final arbiter of what kind of damage is what. I think that's important enough to restate "Rule 0" in the house rule. So, as a GM, if you feel force damage is always stamina, then it is.
But the three guidelines (Crit, Failed Save, Final Blow) are important, because they are simple and they give the player some idea what to expect. I highly recommend sticking to them as much as possible, and deviating only when the results would otherwise strain credulity. Players like to play in a stable, predictable system.
--
Now, personally, I can explain away both Flaming Sphere and force damage as either stamina or deadly. What Laurefindel makes so clear upthread is that all damage — regardless of source — can be either deadly or stamina as long as you can explain how an abstract defense (stamina) intercepts it or how it delivers a punishing wound.
Flaming sphere, for example: oh. Well, actually, flaming sphere IS wound damage for sure. Save: Reflex Negates. Well, that's handy.
Force damage: Can be deadly. Force is a beautifully ambiguous term from physics. If you fall off a 5 story building, that's force. If a train hits you, that's force. Magic missile? Force also. Magic missile from a 1st level caster? Like being beaned with a 90 mph baseball. Magic missile from a 9th level caster? Like being beaned with five 90mph baseballs. Could that kill a man? Baseball players wear helmets.
Take home message: any attack form could deal stamina or wound damage, it is the interaction between the defender and the attack that determines which type is inflicted.
Hmm. Sounds like it's functioning to spec. That last attack should be a doozy, narratively. Did the players balk at this, or did it make sense more or less?
I always balk when my character is hurt. But seriously, no, I think it worked wonderfully. I'm a fan of the new system :-)
Tried to explained the system to my spouse. Since she isn't a gamer, she usually helps me put things into intelligible words and can easily spot any incoherency or incomplete information. Without going into much details, we came up with this description:
This system offers a more dramatic - or cinematic - method of handling damage than the traditional hit point system. In essence, it differentiates attacks and blows that physically injure the target from those that were avoided through skill, equipment and luck. While essentially narrative, this technique of handling hit points allows for "abstract" hit points to be recovered at a faster rate.
In this system, hit points still constitute a single pool of resources, but damage is either considered 'Stamina damage' or 'Wound damage'. Damage received from either type is marked down in two respective tallies, but their sum otherwise perform as in the traditional hit point system. The mechanical difference between stamina damage and wound damage is the rate at which it heals naturally (see below).
Stamina damage represents taxing dodges, parries and blows absorbed by shield or armor. It also represents more abstract concepts such as providence, luck and will to live. Stamina damage heals naturally at the same rate as nonlethal damage.
Wound damage represents connecting blows resulting in serious burns, cut skin, bruised flesh and broken bones. Wound damage heals at the same rate as regular hit points.
Natural healing regenerates Stamina and Wound damage simultaneously (albeit at a different rate, as stated above). Magical healing cures wound damage first, then proceeds to cure stamina damage.
All damage sustained by a character is by default considered stamina damage, except in the three following conditions:
A) Damage which result from a confirmed critical (including damage from a coup-de-grace) is automatically considered wound damage.
B) Damage which result from a failed saving throw is automatically considered wound damage.
C) Damage from any attack that brings the character to the dying condition is automatically considered wound damage.Each single attack deals the same type of damage in it entirety (Stamina or Wound), regardless of the number and sources of damage dice and modifiers constituting the attack.
Note that nonlethal damage never deals wound damage on a confirmed critical or failed saving throw. Nonlethal damage otherwise performs normally under this system.
We had a slightly more elaborated description inspired from the format of other alternate rules in the Unearthed Arcana, but information quickly became harder to distinguish and retrieved than in the description above.
She became aware that this system performed better by counting damage up to total hit points rather then subtracting damage from total hit points. Therefore, she suggested to avoid any reference to "below 0 hp" or something of the sort.
She also stuck on the "Wound" term, especially after revisiting the Vitality/Wound rule, and me explaining how this system differed from the other. She quickly became confused as of which "wound" I was talking about. I adopted "deadly" as the type of damage that wasn't Stamina, and comparisons and explanation became much less confusing thereafter. I changed it back for the text indicated above, but I might keep "deadly" in my own games for that reason.
'fidnel
|
I've been working on something like this for over a year and never made it even close to anything this good. I have to say that I would probably not be playing pen and paper RPGs anymore if I had not discovered Pathfinder and, subsequently, these forums.
I play in a very static group in the Seattle area where I am one of two GMs. The other GM is very much in the "I play by RAW and nothing should ever deviate from RAW" camp. I disagree only in so far as I believe that if the RAW impedes story telling, it should be gently repositioned so as to work more seamlessly.
It is an unspeakable comfort to have such an eloquent (most of the time :P), respectful, and knowledgeable community where we can find, create, and collaborate on excellent ideas just like this.
Hats off to Evil Lincoln and Laurefindel in particular. Inspiring!
Finally, as if it needed to be said, doted.
P.S. This rule will see use in my game this coming Tuesday night. I will repost with stories of immaculate success or with clarifying questions. I predict the former though.
P.S. This rule will see use in my game this coming Tuesday night. I will repost with stories of immaculate success or with clarifying questions. I predict the former though.
I hope for the latter! Anyone serious about game design must learn to love problems.
I can see the sense in calling it 'deadly' rather than 'wound'.
Are we locked in to the terminology yet? Or are people still experimenting with their own terms?
I guess I'll transition to Stamina-Deadly vs Vitality-Wounds. Wasn't that the original version in this thread? I don't even know anymore,
Laurefindel, that rewording looks good. Once I am at a keyboard I might perform another editorial pass. Good work!
I can see the sense in calling it 'deadly' rather than 'wound'.
Are we locked in to the terminology yet? Or are people still experimenting with their own terms?
I guess I'll transition to Stamina-Deadly vs Vitality-Wounds. Wasn't that the original version in this thread? I don't even know anymore,
Laurefindel, that rewording looks good. Once I am at a keyboard I might perform another editorial pass. Good work!
looking into your earlier posts, the original terminology seems to have been "deadly wounds" ;)
As far as I'm concerned, "Stamina" is a keeper, "Wound" would have been OK if the terms hadn't been used in another system that also deals about revisiting hit points. Other terms would be equally acceptable, but I like "deadly" because it ties to your OP.
'findel
So, here is my rewrite. The majority of it is purely cosmetic, just changing the wording to suit my personal taste.
Notably, though, I eliminated all language that associated damage type with attacks; such as "it differentiates attacks and blows that physically injure the target from those that were avoided through skill, equipment and luck." That's a fundamentally misleading statement, I think, since attack types are not linked to damage type. I added some language emphasizing this.
Also some minor tweaks: creature in stead of character, etc.
Other than that, I don't think this phrasing is better, just more my style.
This variant rule tracks two types of damage: direct physical harm, and harm avoided through skill, protective equipment or luck. This allows creatures to recover from the "abstract" damage described in the original hit point rules faster rate than notable physical injuries.All damage is classified as 'Stamina damage' or 'Deadly damage'. The mechanical difference between Stamina damage and Deadly damage is the rate at which it heals naturally (see Healing, below). Both types of damage are recorded separately, but the sum of the two functions exactly as the original hit point rules.
Stamina damage represents tiring dodges, parries, and blows absorbed by a shield or armor. It may also represent abstract concepts such as providence, luck or the will to survive. Because of the abstract nature of Stamina damage, any attack form could potentially deal damage of this type; even those that seem particularly lethal. All damage sustained by a creature is Stamina damage by default.
Deadly damage represents connecting blows resulting in serious burns, cut or bruised flesh and broken bones. The following conditions cause a lethal attack to deal Deadly damage:
• Damage from a confirmed (including damage from a coup-de-grace).
• Damage which result from a .
• Damage the or any attack that brings the creature to the dying condition.Note that whether an attack form deals Stamina or Deadly damage is a property of the interaction between the defender and the attack form, not a property of the attack form itself. Each attack deals a single type of damage (Stamina or Deadly), regardless of the number and sources of damage dice and modifiers constituting the attack.
Nonlethal attacks always deal Stamina damage, even on a critical hit, failed save, or final blow.
Healing
Natural healing replenishes both Stamina and Deadly damage simultaneously, albeit at different rates;• Stamina damage heals naturally at the same rate as nonlethal damage.
• Deadly damage heals at the same rate as regular hit points.Mundane or magical treatment cures Deadly damage before curing Stamina damage, but this does not affect the natural healing rate. Objects do not track damage as Stamina or Deadly, nor does any entity that lacks a natural ability to recover lost hit points.
Constructs might need some special mention, as they are usually immune to non-lethal damage. I can see them taking stamina damage as it is also representing other things which contribute to your defense, such as luck and tactical awareness. I think that it's relatively easy to just make a distinction between non-lethal and stamina damage based on it's source, in the same way you say that non-lethal does not lead to a killing blow.
Ug. I just looked back after the edit lock and saw a bunch of copy errors. Grumble.
Constructs might need some special mention, as they are usually immune to non-lethal damage. I can see them taking stamina damage as it is also representing other things which contribute to your defense, such as luck and tactical awareness. I think that it's relatively easy to just make a distinction between non-lethal and stamina damage based on it's source, in the same way you say that non-lethal does not lead to a killing blow.
Stamina and deadly are qualitative of lethal damage only. Non-lethal damage still exist as RAW in addition to this system. Correlating stamina and nonlethal damage would be another houserule, which can be beautifully harmonized with Evil Lincoln's Stamina/Deadly IMO, but not without broader impacts on RAW.
In this system, constructs continue to be immune to nonlethal and critical hits (which means that they "break" less). That brings an interesting point since normally constructs don't heal naturally, so what happens to their stamina in this case?
any opinion?
'findel
Personally, I'd go with "Any creature immune to critical hits and/or nonlethal damage takes deadly damage regardless of source," as an addendum to the normal rule.
For example, undead are immune to nonlethal damage. Most of the mindless undead do not heal naturally, anyway, and the sentient ones generally have Fast Healing, Regeneration, Damage Reduction, or are Incoporeal. Therefore, they are mostly resistant or immune to most forms of normal hp damage, recover it without any sort of external help, or don't normally recover it anyway.
Constructs generally have damage reduction, don't heal naturally, and have large reserves of hp.
It doesn't strain credulity for me that these sorts of enemies can take an axe to the face and keep coming; they aren't living creatures, with living creatures' frailties and limitations.
+1 to some version of that addendum as a lot more undead can be critted in PF than in 3.5
Sorry to drop off the radar.
Care to walk us through what the problem was? It looks like now you've added a Stamina-specific entry, which means tracking a third number.
I had some confusion when i was subtracting different types of damage… specifically when a person dropped below 0.
She became aware that this system performed better by counting damage up to total hit points rather then subtracting damage from total hit points. Therefore, she suggested to avoid any reference to "below 0 hp" or something of the sort.
After going back over everything, this pretty much gets to the heart of my earlier concern. We started counting damage "up", and it makes more sense.
|
|
P.S. This rule will see use in my game this coming Tuesday night. I will repost with stories of immaculate success or with clarifying questions. I predict the former though.I hope for the latter! Anyone serious about game design must learn to love problems.
Ok. Here goes my report on using this system for the first time.
I explained the house-rule.
I immediately had the whole table ask (almost in unison) "Why not use non-lethal damage as written?"
I reexplained the house-rule.
They said, "Well, we don't get it, but we'll try it."
As far a tracking goes, my players generally have the HP pool on the left hand side of their character sheet then just subtract individual hits.
i.e. HP=30 -3 -5 -11
so now the character is at 11/30 HP
The only change I made was in how to differentiate the damage.
i.e. HP=30 -3s -5s -11w
so now the character is still at 11/30 HP. The difference is this character has 1 physical wound worth 11 HP and 8 HP worth of defensive ability lost.
When the first fight was over, my players noticed that "ok, your descriptions are different and combat sounds cooler now. Is that it?"
I just smiled and continued with the game. When they told me that they would return to their campsite and clean their armour, make a stew, etc. I told them to recover stamina damage as if it were non-lethal damage.
At this point I got a unanimous, "OOOOOOOH! That is cool! Now we don't have to blow healing magic or wand up all the time."
I was so happy!
I hope this helps. Evil Lincoln, do you have further questions for me about how it went in specifics? I am going to continue using this rule and will repost if I need anything clarified.
p.s. The only change I made was that precision damage did wound damage if the defender was completely unaware of the attack. (Our rogue uses disguise and invisability and high stealth to take out enemies)
I hope this helps. Evil Lincoln, do you have further questions for me about how it went in specifics? I am going to continue using this rule and will repost if I need anything clarified.
p.s. The only change I made was that precision damage did wound damage if the defender was completely unaware of the attack. (Our rogue uses disguise and invisability and high stealth to take out enemies)
All playtest data helps!
I don't have any specific questions, though I very much enjoyed reading this. I haven't gotten a chance to play it myself yet, but I will make a chance this weekend, no matter what.
About precision damage, I would still stick to the basic 3 deadly parameters... dumb luck and armor are both part of stamina, and those work in your favor even if you are completely unaware... YMMV of course, if the party likes it better. I would think that nobody likes getting sneak-attacked, so to make a rule that so obviously hurts players is dubious.
It's a corner case, though, shouldn't affect the feedback. I definitely think GMs should run the variations of the rule that they want — as long as they make it clear when they post back which version they were using!
So, people generally use either a subtractive or additive system, I'm seeing.
If you normally use a subtractive system (crossing out your total as you go and writing the new total), how should you track HP with Stamina-Deadly?
I was thinking I would track all of my damage together, like I used to, so for example:
30 (full HP)
21 (after a 9 point stamina attack)
6 (after a 15 point deadly attack)
And I would just right "deadly 15" when I took that attack. So I don't have a Stamina column, just a Total and a Deadly column. When it comes time to rest off the Stamina damage, I'll know I can heal all but 15 points of damage.
Is there some trouble people have run into that keeps them from handling it this way? Obviously, if you were already using the additive method, there's not much to recommend this one... but for the subtractive players and GMs?
So, people generally use either a subtractive or additive system, I'm seeing.
If you normally use a subtractive system (crossing out your total as you go and writing the new total), how should you track HP with Stamina-Deadly?
I was thinking I would track all of my damage together, like I used to, so for example:
30 (full HP)
21 (after a 9 point stamina attack)
6 (after a 15 point deadly attack)And I would just right "deadly 15" when I took that attack. So I don't have a Stamina column, just a Total and a Deadly column. When it comes time to rest off the Stamina damage, I'll know I can heal all but 15 points of damage.
Is there some trouble people have run into that keeps them from handling it this way? Obviously, if you were already using the additive method, there's not much to recommend this one... but for the subtractive players and GMs?
Well for a gm at least it doesnt make alot of difference. You expect the vast majority of your monsters/npcs where you are tracking HP to die or be defeated. So subtracting is ok without tracking deadly vs stamina specifically.
For any character you expect to live and be healed though, I think the default should be adding not subtracting. It just gets messy if you have to track both subtracting.
|
|
About precision damage, I would still stick to the basic 3 deadly parameters... dumb luck and armor are both part of stamina, and those work in your favor even if you are completely unaware... YMMV of course, if the party likes it better. I would think that nobody likes getting sneak-attacked, so to make a rule that so obviously hurts players is dubious.
You make an excellent point here. I did not think of that. I will run this idea by my rogue and see if she can cope with it.
The reason for the change was only because she balked at the perceived nerfing of her primary class ability.
However, I think armor and luck should play a roll. Particularly when she kills an enemy militia commander in the dead of night and slipps away unnoticed. Then the party strolls in and mops up the leaderless band.
And I think its an equitable trade knowing that her armor or dumb luck could save her when an assassin comes to call :)
The reason for the change was only because she balked at the perceived nerfing of her primary class ability.
However, I think armor and luck should play a roll. Particularly when she kills an enemy militia commander in the dead of night and slipps away unnoticed. Then the party strolls in and mops up the leaderless band.
And I think its an equitable trade knowing that her armor or dumb luck could save her when an assassin comes to call :)
It's not really nerfing, is it? From a player perspective, 9.75 times out of 10, Stamina damage is just as good to dish out on NPCs as Deadly damage is. If the NPC escapes and rests up before being encountered again, only then does it come into play.
Ok. Here goes my report on using this system for the first time.I explained the house-rule.
I immediately had the whole table ask (almost in unison) "Why not use non-lethal damage as written?"
I'm confused here as this system leaves non-lethal damage as written. did your player meant that all attack would be dealing non-lethal unless on a crit/failed save/killing blow?
I reexplained the house-rule.They said, "Well, we don't get it, but we'll try it."
(snip)
When the first fight was over, my players noticed that "ok, your descriptions are different and combat sounds cooler now. Is that it?"
I just smiled and continued with the game. When they told me that they would return to their campsite and clean their armour, make a stew, etc. I told them to recover stamina damage as if it were non-lethal damage.
At this point I got a unanimous, "OOOOOOOH! That is cool! Now we don't have to blow healing magic or wand up all the time."
I was so happy!
Nice!
As for the "Well, we don't get it, but we'll try it." comment, did you perceive the rules as unclear or hard to explain them properly? Did you feel as a DM (or did your players feel) that the material isn't clearly laid out. That's something we could work on.
'findel
p.s. The only change I made was that precision damage did wound damage if the defender was completely unaware of the attack. (Our rogue uses disguise and invisibility and high stealth to take out enemies)
As the DM, you are certainly entitled to modify any rules as you see fit, but Id side with Lincoln here and suggest to keep to the three benchmarks of criticals, failed saves and wounding hits.
It is tempting to think that stabbing an unaware victim in the back would be deadlier than a typical hit against a defending target, and by RaW of this system, it is: its easier to score a hit and it deals more damage (in the case of a rogue anyways). The bigger the damage, the easier it is to "one-shot" a target, in which case it is deadly damage.
Also, sneak attacks still require a to-hit roll, which means potential critical hits. Automatically dealing deadly damage would put less "exiting factor" on the moments when you actually score a critical in such a situation.
Also, having your throat slit (or having your lungs pierced etc) SHOULD kill you or at the very least, bring you out-of-combat immediately. So why is the guard not only still standing up but running around and yelling for help after he got sneak-attacked? Because it didn't actually worked. He won't be able to pull that stunt twice (unless he really has A LOT of hp) but for a reason or another, he hasn't been seriously hurt. Otherwise he wouldn't be running around crying "intruders!" at the top of his lungs.
It might be a bit frustrating for the rogue, but that's part of the abstractness of the hit point system. Therefore in your narration, the guard should be either OK (minus the lost stamina points) or defeated (regardless of remaining hp).
Alternatively, apply the 50% hit point massive damage rule on NPCs. Such a hit is likely to bust the massive damage ratio for lesser NPCs, which results in a saving throw, which in turn results in deadly wounds if failed.
Finally, Lincoln's houserule is especially useful in the case of PCs, but monsters and NPCs aren't so much affected by this system insofar as we don't really care about what happens to them after combat. Therefore I'd be tempted to tell you to describe hits as you see fit, but keep it to Lincoln's rule when it comes to damage taken by PCs, since the story is unraveling from their perspective.
'findel
I've been following this and I think I really like it. That is all.
More musing around Lincoln's houserule. Not sure if I'll ever use it..
(harmonized with Evil Lincoln’s Stamina/Deadly damage system).
Nonletal damage is treated like normal damage, with the notable exception that nonlethal damage is incapable of dealing deadly damage (even in the previous three exception cases). A nonlethal attack that scores a critical hit still deals double damage, but it remains stamina damage.
A character may be disabled by a nonlethal attack, but never acquires the dying condition from a nonlethal attack. Keep track of any damage in excess of the character’s hit point total. Any lethal damage received thereafter adds to the damage total, with normal (and potentially lethal) consequences.
A single nonlethal attack is never fatal, regardless of the amount of nonlethal damage received. However, any subsequent nonlethal attack may put the victim in mortal peril. A nonlethal attack that brings the character beyond its constitution score passed its hit point total – point at which a character usually dies – is potentially deadly. Such a character must succeed a Fortitude save (DC = damage over the “death threshold”) or die immediately. This fortitude save must be made after every attack, using the newly increased DC.
'findel
Also, having your throat slit (or having your lungs pierced etc) SHOULD kill you or at the very least, bring you out-of-combat immediately. So why is the guard not only still standing up but running around and yelling for help after he got sneak-attacked? Because it didn't actually worked. He won't be able to pull that stunt twice (unless he really has A LOT of hp) but for a reason or another, he hasn't been seriously hurt. Otherwise he wouldn't be running around crying "intruders!" at the top of his lungs.
Actually it doesn't matter if it's Wound or Stamina damage in this situation, unless you can one-shot the guard he can still run around screaming "intruders!" all he wants.
Dealing Wound damage doesn't change that (as evidenced by how RAW damage is essentially Wound damage).So, yes, I'd stick to the houserules as being proposed by Evil Lincoln.
Also, having your throat slit (or having your lungs pierced etc) SHOULD kill you or at the very least, bring you out-of-combat immediately.Actually it doesn't matter if it's Wound or Stamina damage in this situation, unless you can one-shot the guard he can still run around screaming "intruders!" all he wants.
Dealing Wound damage doesn't change that (as evidenced by how RAW damage is essentially Wound damage).
True. Deadly wound or not, a creature is still at 100% of its capacity as long as its has 1 hit point left.
Someone in this tread said that one way or another, we have to accept that a character (PC or not) can fight with with a sword in its guts...
Someone in this tread said that one way or another, we have to accept that a character (PC or not) can fight with with a sword in its guts...
We don't have to accept it, but fixing it is beyond the scope of this rule. If someone wants to take it on, and use this as a base, I welcome that. Might be spinoff thread material though.
It's good to keep new rules as self-contained as possible, so you know what you can drop into a campaign.
Someone in this tread said that one way or another, we have to accept that a character (PC or not) can fight with with a sword in its guts...We don't have to accept it, but fixing it is beyond the scope of this rule. If someone wants to take it on, and use this as a base, I welcome that. Might be spinoff thread material though.
It's good to keep new rules as self-contained as possible, so you know what you can drop into a campaign.
I've considered 'fatigued when wounded' (i.e. received deadly damage), but then thought the penalty to be rather harsh. Besides, it was part of your OP, kind of...
While it would *take deep breath* make sense to have impairment penalties, it creates a situation where things quickly get from 'bad' to 'catastrophic'.
Thing is, active defenses are few and abstract in d&d/pathfinder. Going 'full defense' is rarely a valid option and for good or ill, the game lacks a tangible 'parry/shield block option' (unless you're a duelist) to play safe when injured.
For that reason, I'm hesitant to bring more *take deep breath* realistic impairing injuries to d&d combat.
'findel
|
|
I'm confused here as this system leaves non-lethal damage as written. did your player meant that all attack would be dealing non-lethal unless on a crit/failed save/killing blow?
Some stuff
Nice!As for the "Well, we don't get it, but we'll try it." comment, did you perceive the rules as unclear or hard to explain them properly? Did you feel as a DM (or did your players feel) that the material isn't clearly laid out. That's something we could work on.
'findel
My players thought that all attacks would be doing non-lethal. I don't think it's worded poorly, I think it is my players' lack of experience that made it unclear (the most experienced player has been in to rpgs for 2 years, the least 5 months). I read the rule word for word as Evil Lincoln wrote it on Sun, May 22, 2011, 09:52 AM.
I asked them to explain it to me at that point. They did a poor job. I explained in my own words and thats when they said "Well, we don't get it, but we'll try it."
I think they just wanted to start playing. Once the rule was in practice it was simple enough.
p.s. I have reverted to Lincoln's RAW after talking to my rogue and explaining to her that armor and dumb luck could help NPCs survive too. She accepted that ruling and made the connection herself about crits being cooler if precision attacks didn't automatically do wound damage.
p.s. I have reverted to Lincoln's RAW after talking to my rogue and explaining to her that armor and dumb luck could help NPCs survive too. She accepted that ruling and made the connection herself about crits being cooler if precision attacks didn't automatically do wound damage.
The funniest part about this is: if you look upthread, I originally argued for precision as deadly. It was Laurefindel (I think) who talked me out of it by understanding the rule better than I.
It's really cool to see something take on a live of its own like that.
I don't think it's worded poorly, I think it is my players' lack of experience that made it unclear (the most experienced player has been in to rpgs for 2 years, the least 5 months). I read the rule word for word as Evil Lincoln wrote it on Sun, May 22, 2011, 09:52 AM.
I think they just wanted to start playing. Once the rule was in practice it was simple enough.
OK, good to know. I myself learn (and teach) better by 'playing the rule' rather than 'reading the rule', but that's not an excuse to leave the rule poorly worded (thus I asked).
Perhaps an 'overview' version, easily printable on cue-card format, would be an helpful resource? In my experience, if a rule cannot be easily explained to a green player, it's not properly worded...
'findel
|
|
I don't think it's worded poorly, I think it is my players' lack of experience that made it unclear (the most experienced player has been in to rpgs for 2 years, the least 5 months). I read the rule word for word as Evil Lincoln wrote it on Sun, May 22, 2011, 09:52 AM.
I think they just wanted to start playing. Once the rule was in practice it was simple enough.
OK, good to know. I myself learn (and teach) better by 'playing the rule' rather than 'reading the rule', but that's not an excuse to leave the rule poorly worded (thus I asked).
Perhaps an 'overview' version, easily printable on cue-card format, would be an helpful resource? In my experience, if a rule cannot be easily explained to a green player, it's not properly worded...
'findel
Agreed.
There are two statements in the PRD that I think cut to the heart of the matter:
Hit points are an abstraction signifying how robust and healthy a creature is at the current moment.
This is an important statement because it establishes unequivocally that HP are abstract.
What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.
This. I can't believe I didn't see this earlier.
Depending on how flexible your interpretation of "turn a serious blow into a less serious one" is, it is more or less a perfect description of the combination of luck, equipment, and skill that absorbs stamina damage.
So really, the best way to explain stamina might be to open up to this page, point out this sentence and say: "This rule makes serious blows heal at a different rate than negated attacks."
This. I can't believe I didn't see this earlier.
Depending on how flexible your interpretation of "turn a serious blow into a less serious one" is, it is more or less a perfect description of the combination of luck, equipment, and skill that absorbs stamina damage.
So really, the best way to explain stamina might be to open up to this page, point out this sentence and say: "This rule makes serious blows heal at a different rate than negated attacks."
Really? I thought you use that wording earlier in the thread... Must be imagining things ;)
I never felt that your houserule was far from RaW, at least not in the spirit of how hit point were described in the book. That has always been part of its charm!
What I REALLY like about your concept is how natural healing interacts with lost points; as you said yourself, the problem isn't about the abstractness of hp, but about how these parries and 'lesser blows' take an agonizing long time to heal while real injuries actually regenerate naturally at at amazing rate!
But the best part is how this houserule is in itself 'houserulable'. Don't like the rate of 1hp / level? Houserule it to 20%! Feel like getting rid of non-lethal as another set of hp? Translate them into stamina points! Don't care about monsters but want to give a break to your PCs? Just let the PCs apply the houserule!
everybody win!
'findel