Exactly. The more I watch this thread, the more I am convinced that this is a really sensible change.
That's really it: HP RAW lumps two damage types together in the abstract for taking damage, but then treats all damage as concrete for the purpose of healing.
All we're doing is taking the two types of damage that the RAW specifies and giving each its own healing rate.
So why is it so hard to explain when it's so clear in my head?
Why not try wording it more like this?
Damage sometimes represents actual wounds, but sometimes it just means a character is getting bashed around or having to draw on his reserves to avoid a more serious harm. This system draws a distinction between those two types of damage.
Most damage heals at the same rate as nonlethal damage, but injury damage heals at the normal rate for lethal damage.
Injury damage is any lethal damage inflicted as the result of-a critical hit a failed save the final blow that drops a creature an attack against a creature with the helpless condition. Natural healing reduces injury damage and normal damage simultaneously.
Magical healing reduces injury damage first, then normal damage.
I went for "injury" rather than "deadly" because deadly has the same meaning as lethal and it's only one kind of lethal damage. It also speaks for itself without needing a definition. I removed the term "stamina" completely for a similar reason; once you've defined injury/deadly as special, you can just refer to the rest as ordinary.
I dunno why there's a white box inside the quote there. I find it makes it hard to read.
The white background is a forum artifact. You can circumvent it by copying this character instead: •
(or just option-8 on a mac)
There are a lot of good ideas in there Mort, I'm gonna ruminate on it for a while.
One thing I will comment on is the helpless clause you've introduced. Like precision damage, it seems logical enough; but a coup de grace meets the standards of a critical and therefore deals deadly-wound-injury-type-damage. You pay an action tax (full round action, right?) for that benefit.
By including the helpless clause, you are ruling out armor and dumb luck protecting a character against rushed and sloppy (standard action) attacks. I don't see a need for the clause, myself. I think that the coup de grace rule covers the situation, and if attackers want to ensure that their attacks wound helpless creatures, they were already better off doing a coup de grace.
In other words, if the guy is planning on taking a move action too, you have a good chance of armor or dumb luck saving you... and that's what stamina's for.
I went for "injury" rather than "deadly" because deadly has the same meaning as lethal and it's only one kind of lethal damage. It also speaks for itself without needing a definition. I removed the term "stamina" completely for a similar reason; once you've defined injury/deadly as special, you can just refer to the rest as ordinary.
You bring a pertinent point here with 'stamina' perhaps being superfluous, as it only defines damage by default.
As for the 'helpless' cause, I would run with it if it hadn't been for the coup-de-grace action.
The way I see it (and you may disagree) is that the coup-de-grace is an action where a character goes to extra lengths to make sure that armour and dumb luck will not save its target. A coup-de-grace is a deliberate finishing move, not merely giving another whack. The fact that this option exist presuppose the fact that otherwise, armour and dumb luck might save your target's life. For that reason, I'd leave the 'helpless clause' out of deadly/injury.
As Evil Lincoln explained above, a coup de grace automatically deals a critical and therefore deadly/injury damage, so being helpless is not desirable since it puts you in a situation where grace may be granted upon you.
'findel
You're absolutely right about the helpless clause. I shouldn't have put that in at all.
So, current version of the way I would word it is:
Any lethal damage inflicted as the result of a critical hit, a failed save or the final blow that drops a creature is called injury damage.Most damage heals at the same rate as nonlethal damage, but injury damage heals at the normal rate for lethal damage.
Natural healing reduces injury damage and normal damage simultaneously.
Magical healing reduces injury damage first, then normal damage.
Further reasons why I went for "injury": I like the term because it doesn't carry any baggage that isn't descriptive of its narrative function. It also says what it is and lets the mechanics say what it does.
To me, "deadly" sounds like it either kills you outright or is the same as lethal damage. It also refers to the possible consequences of taking the damage rather than what taking it represents, so it's telling you what it does in the game, (which the mechanics do in more detail anyway) and not what it is in terms of the story, (which therefore needs explaining in an additional paragraph).Edit: Hmmm my definition of the final blow needs work. Probably it would be best to revert to Lincoln's definition of it.
I'm still mulling over the implications of your wording, Mort.
I absolutely agree that it is simpler (and therefore better), but I feel like I will find myself wanting a descriptive term for non-injury damage. The trouble is that it represents so many different things like parrying, dodging and armor degradation — things that really ought to have more screen time in such a medieval combat game as this.
Still, experimenting with your idea, I would take it from this angle:
Normal HP damage represents parrying, dodging, protective equipment and dumb luck; your various defenses get worn down after many intercepted attacks, and this leaves you vulnerable to a more devastating hit.
Injuries are specific damage that physically wounds your character. Injuries heal naturally at a considerably slower pace than normal damage.
An Injury results from:
• A confirmed critical hit.
• A failed saving throw.
• The "final blow" that grants the dying condition.Magical healing cures injuries at the same rate as it cures normal damage, but injuries are always healed first. Non-lethal attacks never cause injuries, instead dealing full normal damage even on a critical hit.
This is worded so that it feels more like an add-on rule than a substitute. Honestly, I really like that.
As long as the parrying and dodging action is called out in the rule specifically, I feel it is well served.
What do people think of this wording? I must admit, it seems a lot clearer to me. I was considering including a version of this clause from the earlier version: "Whether an attack deals Stamina or Deadly damage is a property of the interaction between the defender and the attack, not of the attack itself," but then I realized that the new context makes this clarification less necessary. That is a very good thing.
Good thinking Mort.
This current wording is almost certainly lacking some information that we are all accustomed to discussing. Let's run it by some new people who have never been exposed to the rule, and take note of what you have to clarify.
Glad you like that direction.
Your latest wording there is an improvement on mine, but it never actually says what the recovery rates are. I'd also add superficial injury to the the list, or something like that. As it is, it makes it sound like you might not even have dirty clothes or messed up hair after a fight in which you were brought down to your last hit point.
Oh, yeah, recovery rates.
Well, it's hard to waste a bunch of verbiage describing soething that other people are likely to change, anyway. I suppose I can just borrow your wording.
.
.
Okay here is the version I am thinking of running with:
When using this variant rule, normal Hit Point damage recovers naturally at a much faster rate. Injuries are just like normal Hit Point damage, but recover naturally at a slower rate. Injuries are still healed instantaneously by magic.
Normal Hit Point damage represents tiring parries and dodges, deteriorating protective equipment, strained morale and dumb luck; a creature's various defenses get worn down after many intercepted attacks, and this leaves them vulnerable to a more devastating hit.
An Injury results from:
• Any confirmed critical hit.
• Any failed saving throw.
• Any "final blow" that grants the dying condition (fewer than zero HP remaining).When a creature is injured, subtract the damage amount from its current Hit Points as you would normally, but note the amount of damage that was dealt by that attack separately as an injury.
Mundane or magical treatment cures Injuries and normal HP at the same rate, but injuries are always healed first. Non-lethal attacks never cause injuries, instead dealing full normal damage even on a critical hit. Objects cannot suffer injuries, nor can any entity that lacks a natural ability to recover lost hit points.
Rest replenishes both normal Hit Points and Injuries simultaneously, albeit at different rates;
• Hit Point damage heals naturally at the same rate as the campaign’s rules for non-lethal damage.
• Injuries heal at the same rate as the campaign’s rules for lethal damage.
Alright, ruleswonks. Tear it to shreds. What's missing? What's unclear?
Does "normal Hit Point damage" need a name?
.
.
Okay here is the version I am thinking of running with:
(snip)
Alright, ruleswonks. Tear it to shreds. What's missing? What's unclear?
Does "normal Hit Point damage" need a name?
Starting to look real good. I'll give it a deeper look when I get home.
'normal hit point damage' should either get a name or not be mentioned at all. Either we get stamina/deadly (or variations on it) or damage (unnamed) and injury damage.
'Regular damage' or 'normal damage' could be use in comparison, but unless we give it an actual name, default damage needs to be default damage by default.
...well, you know what I mean...
'findel
...well, you know what I mean...
I do indeed. What I want to know is does the phrase "normal Hit Point damage" make this whole thing less clear? I actually think the current wording is fine — as long as it is evident to GMs that they have great leeway now in describing non-injury damage.
I, for one, am totally psyched to start describing parries in combat.
because I can't stop myself from meddling...
changes are marked in
When using this variant rule, lost hit points recovers naturally at a much faster rate. .
represents tiring parries and dodges, deteriorating protective equipment, strained morale and dumb luck; a creature's various defenses get worn down after many intercepted attacks, and this leaves them vulnerable to a more devastating hit.
An Injury results from:
• Any confirmed critical hit.
• Any failed saving throw.
• Any "final blow" that grants the dying condition (fewer than zero HP remaining).When a creature is injured, subtract the damage amount from its current Hit Points as you would normally, but note the amount of damage that was dealt by that attack separately as an injury.
Mundane or magical treatment cures Injuries and normal HP at the same rate, but injuries are always healed first. Non-lethal attacks never cause injuries Objects suffer injuries any entity that lacks a natural ability to recover lost hit points.
Rest replenishes both normal Hit Points and Injuries simultaneously, albeit at different rates;
• Regular Hit Points heal naturally
• Injuries heal at
- The intro quote is a nice touch!
- Removed a few references to 'normal HP damage' that were superfluous.- Re-installed a short description of what injuries represents, even if the term is more evocative.
- This rule is not effective for objects and creatures that do not heal naturally, therefore they should receive only injuries (i.e. they get broken down as they receive damage).
- Line about non-lethal was suggesting critical hits dealing regular hp damage (i.e. no longer non-lethal).
- Write your rule to fit healing rates as RaW, then invite people to houserule healing rates.
- The first paragraph could end on a short (1-liner) description of the intention behind this houserule (such as: ).
Our work is almost done here. Good job everyone!
'findel
- The intro quote is a nice touch!I like to think it helps to establish this as a "lite" rule, rather than a total overhaul.
- Removed a few references to 'normal HP damage' that were superfluous.Check
- Re-installed a short description of what injuries represents, even if the term is more evocative.Check. Good call.
- This rule is not effective for objects and creatures that do not heal naturally, therefore they should receive only injuries (i.e. they get broken down as they receive damage).Hm. I see what you're driving at, but this presently seems like it makes things unclear, to me. I could be wrong. Maybe a slight wording tweak will work I am going to chew on it.
- Line about non-lethal was suggesting critical hits dealing regular hp damage (i.e. no longer non-lethal).Yes, but. Should read: "(although a confirmed critical may still increase the amount of nonlethal damage received)" and we should try to ditch the parenthesis, even if it means adding a new sentence.
- Write your rule to fit healing rates as RaW, then invite people to houserule healing rates.I should have made it clear that this was literally copied from my houserule page. I was planning to go to war with this version. You're right of course.
- The first paragraph could end on a short (1-liner) description of the intention behind this houserule.
Yes, but. I am sort of happy with just how self-explanatory the motives are! You're right of course.
- This rule is not effective for objects and creatures that do not heal naturally, therefore they should receive only injuries (i.e. they get broken down as they receive damage).Hm. I see what you're driving at, but this presently seems like it makes things unclear, to me. I could be wrong. Maybe a slight wording tweak will work I am going to chew on it.
True, the simpler the better. In the end, the only thing worth noting is that objects and golems don't heal, fast or slow....
- Line about non-lethal was suggesting critical hits dealing regular hp damage (i.e. no longer non-lethal).Yes, but. Should read: "(although a confirmed critical may still increase the amount of nonlethal damage received)" and we should try to ditch the parenthesis, even if it means adding a new sentence.
Gotcha
- Write your rule to fit healing rates as RaW, then invite people to houserule healing rates.I should have made it clear that this was literally copied from my houserule page. I was planning to go to war with this version. You're right of course.
figured as much ;)
- The first paragraph could end on a short (1-liner) description of the intention behind this houserule.Yes, but. I am sort of happy with just how self-explanatory the motives are! You're right of course.
I think the intent is useful for the benefit of a first-time reader, if summed-up briefly. There are a lot of hit point variant rules around, most of them attempting to make the game more realistic or grittier. For once, this is not the case here; I think this is worth noting.
'findel
I'm very interested in adopting this style of HP in my game but I'm finding it hard to collect all the information discussed in the thread.
Is there a post that sums everything up? If there is and I missed it I do apologise. If there isn't then a summary post would be an excellent idea. It would also help others to be able to ask questions (of which I have a few but would rather wait for a summary first) without having to look through the whole thread.
Ok, I have a few questions about this version of the wording.
Why start off explaining that most damage heals faster, but there is injury damage which heals more slowly? Wouldn't it be the same amount of effort to just tell people the actual rates? As it is, you're retreading the same ground later on.
Do people really need to be told what something called "injury" represents, even when they can also see its mechanics? It seems like over-explaining to me.
Why specifically call out non-lethal attacks as never causing injury? Why not define injury as "any lethal damage that results from..." or something like that?
What's the point in declaring that damage to objects is injury? It's not, because the distinction is meaningless for anything that doesn't heal naturally. I don't think it needs a rule, and if somebody else disagrees for whatever reason, it's literally no more than a word on paper, so the rule will still work as intended.
Do we need to tell people how they should track injury?
Jerky, just scroll up 3 or 4 posts.
1) How about the damage penalties? Are you guys still considering those as, at least, an optional part of the rule?
2) There was talk earlier of the rending ability, for example, causing injury. Is there a list of certain abilities or spells that would cause injury as opposed to normal damage?
Do people really need to be told what something called "injury" represents, even when they can also see its mechanics? It seems like over-explaining to me.
Yes, I believe they do.
If we introduce a new type of damage, it needs to be described, if only so shortly. Non-lethal is also self-explanatory, but each term deserves its description.
I guess we could go the other way around, and instead stress the fact that injuring hits are not part of regular damage anymore. Personally, I'd rather describe the new term rather than mess with the existing one, for disambiguation sake.
Why specifically call out non-lethal attacks as never causing injury? Why not define injury as "any lethal damage that results from..." or something like that?What's the point in declaring that damage to objects is injury? It's not, because the distinction is meaningless for anything that doesn't heal naturally. I don't think it needs a rule, and if somebody else disagrees for whatever reason, it's literally no more than a word on paper, so the rule will still work as intended.
You may be right about those being superfluous (mentioning the word 'lethal' is indeed enough for clarity sake). Again it was an attempt to disambiguate things out, which should be left out of the short version.
Do we need to tell people how they should track injury?
Good question.
RaW explains how to keep track of points, and as this is a variant on RaW, it could be worth mentioning... Thing is, it as been an unclear point causing a bit of confusion before.
I definitively appreciate your rationalization behind all of this Mortuum. I hope I don't come across as a 'you are wrong!' type in my answers.
'findel
1) How about the damage penalties? Are you guys still considering those as, at least, an optional part of the rule?
2) There was talk earlier of the rending ability, for example, causing injury. Is there a list of certain abilities or spells that would cause injury as opposed to normal damage?
Rending is a great example, actually.
If you survive a rend, it basically means you weren't rent in twain. Something (probably from the list of abstract defenses) saved you.
If the rend was also a crit, this can mean that your arm was dislocated, and you have some serious wound that will need special treatment later — but you still weren't rent in twain, just wounded.
If you were outright killed by the rend, well. They can still res you if they grab both halves, right? :)
This is a really good example of how attacks themselves are not tied to stamina or deadly damage. A really deadly attack deals stamina damage precisely because the target did not die, and therefore we need a good explanation why not.
My original inspiration for the whole thing was stone giants. I was running out of good explanations for how people were surviving these direct hits with tree-trunk-sized clubs. Under this variant, I have a solution: they aren't being hit, they are hurling themselves out of the way and getting tired out — or just wearing out their luck in general. When the club hits, it hits, and from a stone giant that means 30 some odd damage that will need to be dealt with. It can't be "slept off".
---
As for a summary — I think you're best off reading the first post and the latest from me or Laurefindel. Many others have contributed, but that would give you the origin and the current state. Much of the interim was spent discussing what should and should not cause injury damage, which is pretty well summed up by the "rend" example above.
Sneak attack (and similar) has come up a few times too, and it gets the same explanation as Rend. It does stamina damage because it is deadly and yet did not kill. But the bigger the damage output of any one attack, the more likely it is to deal an injury via the final blow.
Let me make this clear: I am a believer in damage penalties.
Since 1989, the year Shadowrun converted me.
It has always bothered me, the absence of any kind of damage penalty at all in D&D/PF.
But... this rule has a specific mandate:
I think that a really solid treatment of Injuries vs. abstract damage goes a long way to set the stage for more "realistic" rules like damage penalties. I encourage this. Heck, even threadjack here if you want to keep it under spoiler tags.
But I am also a firm believer in conservative, encapsulated design, and lots of playtesting.
I will probably hack away at the issue of damage penalties for my own sake one day, but I think there's still work to be done on the foundation.
Love what you have here but I too am wondering about damage penalties.1) How about the damage penalties? Are you guys still considering those as, at least, an optional part of the rule?
2) There was talk earlier of the rending ability, for example, causing injury. Is there a list of certain abilities or spells that would cause injury as opposed to normal damage?
Hello Helaman and Jerky!
As it stands, Evil Lincoln is working on a 'plain' version of his houserule baring the least impact on the system and on gameplay as possible.
As it stands in RaW, taking damage doesn't bare any penalties until you drop dead (well, disabled really). Therefore, the basic version of this variant won't either.
That being said, this variant opens-up a world of possibilities in the form of additional plug-in houserules. Something like fatigued when injured, or fatigued when injuries = 1/2 total hit points etc. are sensible additions, albeit with a bigger impact on the way combats are handled and on the strategies taken by players and monsters alike.
At this point, Evil Lincoln will have his own modifications, I for myself have a few of these plug-in rules in mind and I will certainly post them, but I have a feeling that it will be dealt on a case by case basis.
'findel
[edit] ahk! Ninja'd!
Why start off explaining that most damage heals faster, but there is injury damage which heals more slowly? Wouldn't it be the same amount of effort to just tell people the actual rates? As it is, you're retreading the same ground later on.
I had intended this statement as a kind of "executive summary", to drill down into details later. I actually think it bears repeating, since it is the basic premise of the rule.
Do people really need to be told what something called "injury" represents, even when they can also see its mechanics? It seems like over-explaining to me.
This is similar to point 1. You are clearly a clever guy who can extrapolate the rule's meaning from its mechanics. I like to have things spelled out for me. :)
Why specifically call out non-lethal attacks as never causing injury? Why not define injury as "any lethal damage that results from..." or something like that?
I just find it cleaner. In my games, non-lethal damage is rare, and I don't want to clutter up the basic injury explanation with words crammed in there to cover corner-cases. I would rather have an explicit statement about non-lethal damage, so that players and GMs don't have to infer it from the linguistic negation of "lethal".
What's the point in declaring that damage to objects is injury? It's not, because the distinction is meaningless for anything that doesn't heal naturally. I don't think it needs a rule, and if somebody else disagrees for whatever reason, it's literally no more than a word on paper, so the rule will still work as intended.
I think you are 100% correct on this one. One of my players is a Warforged, though, and I think the rule should provide clarity for him. Could use a different clause altogether.
Do we need to tell people how they should track injury?
Yes. One danger in the new "injury" wording is that people will mistake it for a condition, or read that it is somehow different from Hit Points. This clause was intended to clarify that, and serve as a sort of "how to use this at the table" guide. I actually like how it turns out, so I'll be keeping it in my version.
Keep up the critical thinking, Mort, it is helpful!
I hope I don't come across as a 'you are wrong!' type in my answers.Don't worry! I was worried I was sounding that way in my questions.
Keep up the critical thinking, Mort, it is helpful!
Thanks. No problem.
I'm still not convinced that injury needs an introduction beyond "It is damage from these sources and it heals at this rate", but I can also see why you might want one.
It's not that I'm some kind of clever guy who can extrapolate the fluff from the crunch, it's just that the name pretty much sums it up for me. You can say that it's damage caused by connecting hits that physically injure the target, resulting in serious cuts, broken bones and burned flesh, but isn't that just a colourful way of saying it's damage that results from a creature being injured?
I was going to explain deadly damage that way in my first stab at wording the rule, but then I shortened it to something more like "Deadly damage represents actual, physical wounds", then to something more like "Deadly damage is injury". That's how I first arrived at the name.
I'm also still a supporter of defining injury as a kind of lethal damage, rather than exempting non-lethal damage from the injury rules. I don't think it lacks clarity, it's a word versus a paragraph and it's part of the flow instead of a bit tacked on the end, so I suspect it will less often be forgotten or missed.
However, I do agree that the rule should explain how to track the damage. People have to do it somehow and they might default to doing it in a way that doesn't work.
Damage Penalties:We can have that discussion under spoiler tags. Reply to this post to see the tag syntax.
Also I'm thinking scaling injuries, based on percentages of total HP, as someone suggested above. The only problem with that is that it will get sorta complicated.
Regardless, here's the breakdown, in my mind:
easier this way
I had to get back to work, so I stopped thinking. :p
The time for this has probably passed, but it came up in conversation with a player;
"Readiness" is probably a far better term than Stamina to refer to the combination of skill, protective equipment, morale and dumb luck that buffers you from Injury.
In our current formulation, non-injury damage isn't named. But if it were, and for the purpose of explanation, I think we ought to consider the term "readiness".
Hmm. Not sure I like that. I can see how stamina has its limitations, but readiness doesn't sound like damage or hit points of any kind. Without the context I would assume it was to do with initiative, or readied actions. It's probably a misleading term.
Hmm. Not sure I like that. I can see how stamina has its limitations, but readiness doesn't sound like damage or hit points of any kind. Without the context I would assume it was to do with initiative, or readied actions. It's probably a misleading term.
"Wherewithal"
Yes? Yes? :)
Moxie.
Chutzpah. Definately chutzpah.
ahem...
carry on.
|
I am assuming that more play-test data is welcome, so here we go!
First though I’d like to put another flag in the camp for stamina/injury as the official words for this house-rule. I switched from wound after reading Mortuum’s post and liked its descriptive effect better. My players said that “injury” made more sense to them too because “injury” sounds more concrete and serious.
I like "stamina" because it represents, at least in my mind, determination and heartiness as well as vitality and readiness.
On Tuesday, my party, which consists of five 5th level characters (Paladin, Inquisitor, Fighter, Rogue, and Sorcerer), got into a fight with a group of 9 slavers/cultists.
I found that tracking stamina and injury damage on the baddies was actually helpful. I believe this is true because these particular slavers/cultists are guerilla style warriors and I expect them to run away at a certain point. It also gives my players a sense of urgency in tracking these people down and killing or capturing them because they know that they baddies can rest and heal up too.
This is beneficial for two reasons:
1. It means that my players won’t take a break after every combat just to get as healed as possible. (Now I don’t have to throw continuous battles to keep the fear in them)
2. It has the awesome feeling of these beleaguered heroes, tired and bleeding, pushing on to get the bad guys without rest. Very much like Aragorn and Co. tracking down Merry and Pippin.
I probably won’t track enemy NPC hit points this way all the time, but I see its use in certain situations.
As far as the PCs were concerned, they had very little trouble making a distinction between the two damage types and said that the enhanced combat descriptions made any annoyance at more clerical responsibilities negligible.
I can see groups who will try to abuse the faster healing rate of stamina damage by holing up for as long as it takes to heal stamina damage while continuing the tradition of wanding away the more serious injuries. I know that’s really up to the GM to fix by not giving them time to rest or whatever, but I feel like GMs who have those kind of players won’t be able to use this rule because of this apparent loop-hole. Maybe there should be a cap on how much stamina damage they can heal per day before needing 8 hours of rest?
Are there any things here that are unclear? Any other questions? I will continue to post my play-tests until I am asked to stop or until you guys decide the rule is finished.
Respectfully,
DSP
I am assuming that more play-test data is welcome, so here we go!
(snip)
I found that tracking stamina and injury damage on the baddies was actually helpful. I believe this is true because these particular slavers/cultists are guerilla style warriors and I expect them to run away at a certain point. It also gives my players a sense of urgency in tracking these people down and killing or capturing them because they know that they baddies can rest and heal up too.
interesting
I can see groups who will try to abuse the faster healing rate of stamina damage by holing up for as long as it takes to heal stamina damage while continuing the tradition of wanding away the more serious injuries.
That would not change much from present gameplay. IMO not a serious issue; it just means less gold spent on wands.
As far as the PCs were concerned, they had very little trouble making a distinction between the two damage types and said that the enhanced combat descriptions made any annoyance at more clerical responsibilities negligible.
very cool. Thanks for the feedback
'findel
I can see groups who will try to abuse the faster healing rate of stamina damage by holing up for as long as it takes to heal stamina damage while continuing the tradition of wanding away the more serious injuries. I know that’s really up to the GM to fix by not giving them time to rest or whatever, but I feel like GMs who have those kind of players won’t be able to use this rule because of this apparent loop-hole. Maybe there should be a cap on how much stamina damage they can heal per day before needing 8 hours of rest?
Not everyone will see this as a problem. For starters, it is no worse than it was.
For me, the issue of curing away damage with magic is a lot more palpable simply because the injury is now a Thing That Must Be Dealt With.
"Are you ready to move out again?"
"No, not yet, I still have a 14 point injury."
On the face of it, this seems almost exactly like it used to be... but somehow I like it better.
|
|
I can see groups who will try to abuse the faster healing rate of stamina damage by holing up for as long as it takes to heal stamina damage while continuing the tradition of wanding away the more serious injuries. I know that’s really up to the GM to fix by not giving them time to rest or whatever, but I feel like GMs who have those kind of players won’t be able to use this rule because of this apparent loop-hole. Maybe there should be a cap on how much stamina damage they can heal per day before needing 8 hours of rest?Not everyone will see this as a problem. For starters, it is no worse than it was.
For me, the issue of curing away damage with magic is a lot more palpable simply because the injury is now a Thing That Must Be Dealt With.
"Are you ready to move out again?"
"No, not yet, I still have a 14 point injury."
On the face of it, this seems almost exactly like it used to be... but somehow I like it better.
To be more clear, I don't have any problem with this "loop-hole" I wouldn't use it that way and neither would my players. And, you're right, its no worse than it was.
I merely state it because someone will eventually and now its been delt with.
8)
DSP
The last game I ran, I pretty much had a player mutiny. I knew how hard I wanted to push them, I pushed them exactly that hard and they just didn't cope. If this rule lets them rest up in the wagon until they feel better, that is absolutely a feature.
The solution to the 20 minute adventuring day can't always just be pressure, after all. Some people hate that.
This even has me wondering about doing something similar for the characters' less powerful spells, but that's another topic for another time and another thread.
This even has me wondering about doing something similar for the characters' less powerful spells, but that's another topic for another time and another thread.
I believe there are some rules like that in the d20 SRD.
Kinda, but not really the kind of thing I was thinking of. I have the beginnings of an idea. If it comes to anything, I'll make a thread.
Or discuss it here, that's fine. Not been much action here lately.
But a new thread would make it easier to find the start later.
Alright, Helaman, I have many thoughts about this.
I will write up an OP for a new thread and post a link back here. Might be a while, there is a lot to say on the topic of damage penalties.
So can we get one final post with the 'finalized' rules (or at least as finalized as they are right now? It seems - pending further play-testing - that the rules are generally agreed upon.