| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
-Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook
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 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, and deal only enough damage to bring the target to zero HP, at which point they become unconscious. 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 naturally at the same rate as the campaign’s rules for lethal damage.
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.
Above is the current version of the text from my house-rules doc, re-worded to use generic healing times.
If there's more work to be done, I'll be glad to hear what it is!
I actually used the variant! Woot!
I found it to be really awkward, actually. I'm just so accustomed to explaining HP in terms of direct hits. But still, it was an interesting change of pace.
Is anyone else fighting the old paradigm while they describe attacks? Can you give me any advice on how to make the descriptions really snappy?
I had a hard time adjusting narratively at first as well. Luckily, i'm trying it out in a pbp game, so i had time to adjust.
So far, any time the attack misses, I narrate it as a fairly easy attack to block or dodge. If the attack hits for non-Injury damage, the force of the blow is blocked, but the character can feel it down to their toes (or whatever). And obviously, crits, failed saves, and final blows are felt deep... cutting through body pats or whatnot.
I had a hard time adjusting narratively at first as well. Luckily, i'm trying it out in a pbp game, so i had time to adjust.
So far, any time the attack misses, I narrate it as a fairly easy attack to block or dodge. If the attack hits for non-Injury damage, the force of the blow is blocked, but the character can feel it down to their toes (or whatever). And obviously, crits, failed saves, and final blows are felt deep... cutting through body pats or whatnot.
I've taken a bit of time trying to work my way through the evolution of this rule, which I am really REALLY impressed with, but I have to admit that I skipped a number of pages once I saw what direction this was headed. The upshot being, if this was already handled, please forgive my missing it.
Having said that, how does this house-rule interact with Fortification, if at all?
Seeing as how the difference between Damage and Injury is really only relevant to PC's, I suppose it is something of a corner case, but I thought it might be worth investigating. If a Druid is Wildshaped into a Huge Elemental, they are immune to Criticals. Does that mean that they are immune to Injury (from damage that does not require a save)? If so, is that a reasonable side-effect?
What about things like Oozes and (if memory serves) Swarms, that are alive but are immune to Criticals?
I've taken a bit of time trying to work my way through the evolution of this rule, which I am really REALLY impressed with, but I have to admit that I skipped a number of pages once I saw what direction this was headed. The upshot being, if this was already handled, please forgive my missing it.
Having said that, how does this house-rule interact with Fortification, if at all?
Seeing as how the difference between Damage and Injury is really only relevant to PC's, I suppose it is something of a corner case, but I thought it might be worth investigating. If a Druid is Wildshaped into a Huge Elemental, they are immune to Criticals. Does that mean that they are immune to Injury (from damage that does not require a save)? If so, is that a reasonable side-effect?
What about things like Oozes and (if memory serves) Swarms, that are alive but are immune to Criticals?
Evil Lincoln might have a different opinion, but from what I can understand, if for a reason or another the critical cannot be confirmed, there isn't any injury damage (but the attack still deals regular damage however).
Fortification is easy to rationalize, as amour and other protective gear are part of the abstraction that makes it that no real injuries have been taken form the hit (only stamina damage).
As for oozes and elementals, it makes sense to me that since they have no bones and flesh to heal, there shouldn't be any injuries. This mean that these creatures would regenerate rather fast, which is totally OK by me (in the rare cases when this would be an actual concern...)
As for the high level druid being immune to one of the three conditions for injuries when assuming elemental shape; I don't think it would be game breaking...
Note that a creature (or player) can still be killed even without any critical hits or failed saves. The concepts of going below 0 hit-points, being disabled, dying and dead are unaltered by this rule. In essence, it only affects the speed at which lost points are being recovered for those who survive a fight.
hope this made sense.
'findel
Thinking of this rule in the dentist's office (let's just say I'd rather type than talk right now...), this houserule makes it more believable that *every* encounter begins with enemies with full hit points...
If a DM wishes so, this rule also gives better narrative tools for encounters with an already injured creature. Mixed with the damage penalty rule, this could be a great way to lower the CR of an encounter 'on the fly' if need be.
'findel
Evil Lincoln might have a different opinion, but from what I can understand, if for a reason or another the critical cannot be confirmed, there isn't any injury damage (but the attack still deals regular damage however).
Completely stands to reason, I agree.
*SNIP*
As for oozes and elementals, it makes sense to me that since they have no bones and flesh to heal, there shouldn't be any injuries. This mean that these creatures would regenerate rather fast, which is totally OK by me (in the rare cases when this would be an actual concern...)
Also makes sense, seeing as how this is largely only a PC-relevant rule, and for the most part PC's are not going to be members of that corner case... except...
As for the high level druid being immune to one of the three conditions for injuries when assuming elemental shape; I don't think it would be game breaking...
Note that a creature (or player) can still be killed even without any critical hits or failed saves. The concepts of going below 0 hit-points, being disabled, dying and dead are unaltered by this rule. In essence, it only affects the speed at which lost...
Your final point here is I think most important. A high-level druid might find that they can be immune to Injuries by staying in the form of a Huge Elemental, but then they are STAYING THE THE FORM OF A HUGE ELEMENTAL, which has its own practical issues. Really though, at high level play its probably not that big a deal, because as you pointed out, you still die at -Con, Fortified or not. It just might take you a little longer to get there.
Cheers -
Neph.
Laurefindel is right, I think.
Funnily enough, fortification always sort of bothered me before, in that it was a very gamey abstract defensive power.
In this context, it actually feels more logical. After all, "harder to wound" makes sense in-character, whereas "harder to crit" is OOC-speak.
Laurefindel is right, I think.
Funnily enough, fortification always sort of bothered me before, in that it was a very gamey abstract defensive power.
In this context, it actually feels more logical. After all, "harder to wound" makes sense in-character, whereas "harder to crit" is OOC-speak.
So - no crits (which also by default holds back on the likelyhood of wounds)?
Still crits, but if you're specially defended against crits, then you're specially defended against wounds.
And if you can't be critted, you can't be wounded by crits. I would say you can still be wounded by a final blow or a failed save.
fooled around with wordings again...
Reverted to the appellation of Injury Damage instead of injuries to clearly identify it as a damage type, kind of like nonleathal damage's big brother...
“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.”
-Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook
This variant rule attempts to distinguish hit points lost by one’s ability to turn an attack into a less serious one from those representing one’s ability to withstand serious injuries by introducing a new type of damage: Injury Damage. Mechanically, the difference between injury damage and regular lethal damage is the rate at which they recover naturally.By default, damage taken in combat represents tiring parries and dodges, deteriorating protective equipment, strained morale and dumb luck. In essence, hit points lost this way represent one’s ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one, reducing its defenses and leaving it ever more vulnerable to a fatal hit.
Injury damage is just like regular damage except that it represents connecting hits that physically injure the target. Hit points lost that way represents one’s ability to take physical punishment and keep going.
Injury Damage results from:
- Any confirmed critical hit.
- Any failed saving throw.
- Any ‘final blow’ reducing a creature below 0 HP.
When a creature is injured, subtract the amount of damage from its current Hit Points as you would normally, but also note this amount separately as Injury Damage. Multiple injuries add-up for a larger amount.Both mundane treatments (from the Heal skill or alchemical items) and magical healing replenish a creature’s hit points as it would normally, AND simultaneously lower a creature’s Injury Damage total (when applicable) by the same amount.
Rest replenishes both Hit Points and sustained Injury Damage simultaneously, albeit at different rates:
- Hit Points heal naturally at the same rate as nonlethal damage, but the maximum of hit points healed that way is limited by the creature’s current Injury Damage total.
- Injury Damage naturally recovers at a rate of 1 point per day (rate at which lethal damage would heal naturally by RaW).
Only lethal attacks may cause Injury Damage; nonlethal damage is never transposed into Injury Damage. Objects and creatures that cannot naturally recover hit points are not subject to this rule and are assumed to deteriorate as they take damage.
That current wording requires a clause stating that Injury damage subtracts from your total HP until healed.
At present, it tells you to subtract HP when you take injuries, but it never tells you how Injuries actually relate to HP (as the previous sentence does).
That current wording requires a clause stating that Injury damage subtracts from your total HP until healed.
At present, it tells you to subtract HP when you take injuries, but it never tells you how Injuries actually relate to HP (as the previous sentence does).
not sure if I follow...
Do you mean that it doesn't explicitly state that the amount of Injuries you received is deducted from your max hit point total for the purpose of determining the amount of hit points that can be recovered naturally?
That current wording requires a clause stating that Injury damage subtracts from your total HP until healed.
At present, it tells you to subtract HP when you take injuries, but it never tells you how Injuries actually relate to HP (as the previous sentence does).
not sure if I follow...
Do you mean that it doesn't explicitly state that the amount of Injuries you received is deducted from your max hit point total for the purpose of determining the amount of hit points that can be recovered naturally?
Yeah. This wording tells you how you get injury damage, and how to get rid of injury damage, but not what injury damage does.
I think the most parsimonious wording is to say that it lowers your effective max HP temporarily. Someone might find a better wording for sure.
One of the things I really like about this system is that in-combat magical healing makes more sense. the Gods are not necessarily intervening in a direct sense, but mostly they are inspiring mortals to persevere, refreshing their stamina, and providing the strength of will to continue even though they've bean through the wringer.. I find that much more palatable then magically closing wounds, and more in keeping with "positive energy" really.
Of course, magic healing that heals Injuries DOES actually represent the gods knitting bone and closing wounds, though it would, statistically speaking, be the minority of damage healed, it keeps enough "magic" in healing to disallow using rousing oratory "heal" people's "wounds."
I guess what I am saying is, hell's bells I like this variant.
Oh, and that wording is good, imho.
Definitely going this route (below). Thanks for the inspiration, guys!
Critical hits, sneak attacks, failed saving throws and 'death blows' result in 'lethal damage', which heals at a rate of 1 hp/extended rest (8 hour period of no activity) or can be healed magically. When magical healing is applied, this damage is healed first.
All other damage is 'non-lethal' which heals 50% after a short rest (between fights) and 100% after an extended rest.
Any time a character is below 50% of his total hit points, they are Fatigued.
I hate the utter reliance of a group of PC's on a 'healer' (as well as any PC being forced into that role out of necessity) and this relatively simple option does a great job of mitigating that need while at the same time making fights a very real and legitimate danger. Moreover, I don't like ALL Clerics able to spontaneously cast healing spells - for many Gods it would be wholley inappropriate. This way I can make my Clerics spontaneous casters across the board so long as they remain in their domains which seems a far more 'realistic' option.
I love it. Thanks again.
I've had a few opportunities to use the Variant now. It was very well received.
For starters, I didn't really bother to explain the rule to players, I just started giving the HP back between encounters. Then, when one of them finally failed a save vs. a fireball and took scads of damage, I told him to write down the damage total separately but also suffer it as normal damage. At the end of that fight, I gave everyone HP and told him that the damage wouldn't heal unless through skill or magical treatment.
I repeated this process for the subsequent critical hits and the like.
Players really liked the ease-of-play when healing between encounters, and I think people also appreciated the "presence" of wounds as distinct damage. It is pretty easy to remember what the source of the damage was, even if you don't write it down specifically.
Personally, I've decided it is simplest to abolish rational healing rates altogether. When using this variant, I have all non-injury HP recover in "a few minutes' rest". Injuries simply don't heal at all without some sort of treatment; although I would use GM discretion in the case of weeks of rest. This makes the system vastly simpler.
Obviously, the "official" version of the rule can retain the "lethal/non-lethal" wording. Some people might feel my "loose" version is a little bit too much like 4e. I see the similarity, but this version makes a little more sense (since there's actually a narrative rationale for the HP recovery, not just a hanging lampshade).
The addition of parrying makes me overjoyed. Parrying, even if it is nothing more the most frequent rationale for describing normal HP damage, just feels right. Swordfights are awesome because of parrying, I can't believe it is so woefully absent from the game RAW.
Anyone else been using the variant?
Here's the latest version:
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.
-Pathfinder RPG Core RulebookWhen using this variant rule, there are two types of Hit Point damage:
• represents real physical harm, such as burnt skin, broken bones, and cut flesh.
• results from any confirmed , any , or the that inflicts the dying condition.
• does not recover without mundane or magical treatment. Injuries are healed instantaneously by magic, and can be treated with the Heal skills Treat Deadly Wounds option. Mundane or magical treatment cures Injuries and normal HP at the same rate, but injuries are always healed first.
• 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.
• results from any Hit Point damage that does not qualify as an Injury.
• recovers completely with a few minutes rest.When a creature sustains an injury, subtract the damage amount from its current Hit Points as you would normally. Additionally, subtract the damage amount from the creature•s maximum Hit Points until the injury is treated.
Special Hit Point Rules
Non-lethal attacks never cause injuries, and deal only enough damage to bring the target to zero HP, at which point they become unconscious. Objects cannot suffer injuries, nor can any entity that lacks a natural ability to recover lost hit points.
This is my "personal use" version, so I understand it contains some departures from the "mass consumption" version. I really do think the abstracted healing rates are much more playable and simpler to explain.
Jason Nelson just suggested a potential addendum: cure spells might restore HP as normal, but only remove injuries if the total result of the cure roll is equal to or greater than the injury amount.
This would create some more dramatic tension during the healing process, and introduce a reason to burn through a few more healing resources (in light of all the free recovery this system awards).
It also distinguishes injuries received from really devastating weapons from smaller, more easily healed injuries.
I think it's a really interesting idea, worth considering if you think the fast recovery of non-injury HP is too cushy.
Jason Nelson just suggested a potential addendum: cure spells might restore HP as normal, but only remove injuries if the total result of the cure roll is equal to or greater than the injury amount.
This would create some more dramatic tension during the healing process, and introduce a reason to burn through a few more healing resources (in light of all the free recovery this system awards).
It also distinguishes injuries received from really devastating weapons from smaller, more easily healed injuries.
I think it's a really interesting idea, worth considering if you think the fast recovery of non-injury HP is too cushy.
The only concern there is that each individual injury would then have to be tracked separately. That might be more bookkeeping then it's worth, as you already have to track two different kinds of damage.
The only concern there is that each individual injury would then have to be tracked separately. That might be more bookkeeping then it's worth, as you already have to track two different kinds of damage.
This echos my own concerns with the idea. Nevertheless, the additional paperwork could be justified if the additional healing is bothersome to you. It also only makes sense with weapon-like damage, really, and falls apart quickly when considering things like multiple body-wide fire burns.
By curiosity, Evil L, did you ever follow-through with this houserule? Have you been using it much?
'findel
Yes, I have.
You'll notice the last iteration of the rule amounts to: "hand-waive hit point recovery between encounters unless it was an injury."
That part's quite easy.
The hard part, it seems, is remember to describe non-injury damage as an action-packed close-call. When I can remember to do that, the game as a whole benefits greatly. Players enjoy hearing about lost HP as desperate parries and denting armor, it is much more interesting than "the giant's club bashes your little toe for 8hp." But breaking a two-decade habit of describing all HP damage as wounds is quite challenging.
Everyone seems to enjoy getting the HP back easily, and being able to really relish the crit and spell descriptions is great. I've also killed a PC while using the rule, so all that extra healing really just serves to change the pace of the game, it doesn't really mess with CR that much.
Anyone else been using it, wholly or in part?
I might even consider letting people get some "Readiness" HP back by spending actions. This basically means catching your breath and getting ready for the next thing. Obviously this doesn't apply to injuries, which requite treatment, so it sidesteps some of the more onerous criticisms of 4e's healing surges and whatnot.
A fighter with 100 hp gets hit by a sword for 12 damage. What happened?
A commoner with 6 hp gets hit for 12 damage. What happened?
In my opinion, the fighter was missed, even if it was sa, while the commoner was run through. If you demand that the fighter was also run through, then you end up with really crazy descriptions of the type and size of wounds characters take.
A fine test!
For the Injury/Readiness variant, a commoner who gets hit for 12hp and is put to -6 hp is dealt a "final blow", he's been stabbed fatally will die within a minute.
The fighter with 100 hp who takes 12 damage, well, it depends on whether that damage was a crit/failed save or not. If it was a crit (maybe a shuriken?) then he was hit in the eye or some other physical wound that doesn't take him out of the fight, but it will affect his ability to stay in the fight for longer, and it isn't going away without treatment.
That same 12 damage might not be a crit (probably it isn't at 12 damage) and reflects the lack of readiness the fighter suffers from having dodged out of the way of the shuriken. Or batting it out of the air. Momentarily taking his attention away from the other combatants, and making it that much more likely that their hit will be the final blow.
Fun!
Thanks for stopping in for the discussion!
I don't know how I feel about the critical hit situation though. Not that I ever really play high level, but don't you feel like adding effects to crits just makes scoring criticals way more important? Are keen scimitars the go to weapon? Is it even more like rocket tag?
I do play to high level, and it is the zaniness of damage at that level that lead me to this rule.
From a descriptive standpoint, crits are "the hits that hit" — normal damage is no longer thought of in terms of physical wounds. The variant doesn't add any effects to crits, it just keeps them working the same as HP by RAW — except you can't sleep them off.
In the context of a single combat, critical hits are no better or worse than they are under the RAW. Once the combat is over and healing is on the agenda, crits are worse because they can't be rested away, they have to be treated. This is irrelevant for NPCs most of the time, and players get the benefit of shrugging off their "Readiness" damage with less paperwork than ever.
Scimitars are the go-to weapon of the sadistic GM now, but they really don't benefit players more than low-crit weapons. The injuries variant is really about roleplaying the hit-point recovery — it scarcely matters whether an NPC falls out of combat due to a dagger through the eye or tripping over his own two feet... unless you're the kind of GM who wants the guy who tripped to come back in another scene.
Hopefully I'm not rambling. I've been using this long enough that I'm really excited about how robust it is, I welcome nitpicking.
I just need to wrap my head around falling damage and poison (or bonus acid damage, or a Hag's weakness ability)!
Are keen scimitars the go to weapon? Is it even more like rocket tag?
Note that dealing injury damage does not kill your opponent faster. Well, critical hits and failed saves do kill your opponent faster, but they do it in their own right; the fact that they deal injury damage has nothing to do with it.
There aren't two distinct pools of points to take from; no 'vitality' to bypass for a quick kill.
The only difference this system makes is that after combat, some lost points heal faster than others. Otherwise, this houserule has no impact whatsoever on combats as RaW (it does affect how the combat is narrated, but doesn't affect the outcome of the fight).
That is the whole genius behind Evil Lincoln's rule!
[edit] ... or what Evil Lincoln said above. Ninja'd by 52 minutes. I must be losing my touch...
'findel
I just need to wrap my head around falling damage and poison (or bonus acid damage, or a Hag's weakness ability)!
Falling Damage:
'Keep It Simple' Solution: No save to fail, no roll to crit: no injury damage (unless 'final blow').
'Evil DM' Solution: Falling cause injury, unless you reduce damage in some ways (Acrobatics on deliberate fall, fall in water for less damage etc).
'Houserule It a Bit Further' Solution: Demand save from all falls (DC 10 + 1 per 10 feet???). The only advantage of succeeding is to avoid injury damage. Perhaps move 1/2 speed on failed save like caltrops / spike stone spell while we're at it?
Poisons:
Except for sassone leaf residue, poisons generally don't deal (hit point) damage, so it's mainly a non-issue IMO. As for sassone leaf, failed save = injury. It'd be consistent...
But as a general rule, I'd keep it to the three guidelines regardless of the source of damage. Yes, acid is nasty and all, but so is a giant with a sword or a sneak-attacking ninja.
'findel
Thanks, fellows!
Poison being covered by save occurred to me last night. Few enough poisons deal direct HP damage anyhow. But the idea that you can avoid the physical harm of the bite and still get the venom... That's going to require some creative description.
For falling, I guess no new rule is adequate, although adding a save seems fair. Could be Fort or Ref, and there's always acrobatics. I hate to decide because it exposes my bias, so no save is the safer bet.
Half move on a failed fall save? Laurelfindel, you've been away too long! That's a damage penalty, and therefore outside our scope! Not a bad idea at all, just doesn't belong here.
I think... I may have a solution for falling:
Falling does include a saving throw! To catch yourself! This would mean that jumping intentionally is not Injurious unless you hit zero HP. Failing to catch yourself might damn well break a leg or worse. It is a little silly, but it's parsimonious and kind of dramatic.
Interpretation for sneak attack: these attacks cost that much more of the target's readiness from being unexpected. It is the surprise that makes these attacks effective, not the placement.
Interpretation for bonus elemental damage (fire, acid, etc): part of Readiness is armor deterioration. This is why you "rest and refit" between encounters to replenish your readiness. If you take acid damage from a non-crit attack by a grey ooze, what happens descriptively is that your armor intercepts the attack but is now smeared with acid. When you rest and refit, you may find a way to safely wipe off the acid, and therefore regain that readiness.
This doesn't work for poison, nor indeed for all contact damage effects ( and there are many), but remembering how armor works with readiness descriptively is helpful.
Intepretation of Poison: This is the trickiest one I've seen.
I'm considering adding "superficial cuts and scratches" to the description of readiness damage. This would allow that a venomous critter or a poisoned blade may strike such that it does not require medical or magical treatment, but the poison is nonetheless delivered. Thoughts?
I feel like I should also tackle rend, but I seem to remember raising that upthread and Laurelfindel schooling me on my own houserule. ;) Time to dig back through it, I suppose.
Getting traction out of the poison rules is like trying to draw blood from a stone. It would be like 2 hours of work for you to write up better poisons, and balance them against the idea that they don't take effect unless blood is drawn.
I'm bias against the poison system though. Your solution is fine. Another option is to say anything poisoned deals an extra 1d4 damage or something in the same way flaming weapons do.
I should clarify: I am a firm believer in encapsulating house rules. Even if the poison mechanics are broken (which you seem to believe), fixing that is outside the scope of this rule. Tacking on little changes, even to things that I don't personally like, is something I've tried very hard to keep out of the rule.
At the end of the day, it's best if GMs can come here, read the perceived problem (The HP rules claim abstraction when dealing damage but not healing it) and judge the offered solution's ability to address that problem.
If I alter the way poison behaves outside of that scope, then I am potentially altering a great deal of mechanics that poison-wielding characters use, and there may be incompatibilities.
This is something I wish that more house-rulers would discuss. If everyone considered these integration issues, I would probably use a lot more of their house rules!
When it comes to sneak attack, flaming swords and so on, or even daggers vs. long swords, what I tell people is that they do damage dice not based on the amound of trauma they cause, but based on how dangerous they are. It isn't exactly the same thing.
Your interpretation of the RAW here is spiritually quite close to the rule under discussion. In the end, though, I hope to get a little grainier with the description, giving GMs the tools to quickly explain what each damaging attack represents. That is to say, as a GM I don't want to be left explaining why fire doesn't burn — I want to have a solution in my pocket (in the case of flaming weapons, that armor intercepted the attack and will need to be refitted during a short rest).
I'm working on a googledoc treatment of the rule that will include an "Attack Interpretation" and "Meta-game Analysis" section for GMs. I'll post a link here, obviously.
Half move on a failed fall save? Laurelfindel, you've been away too long! That's a damage penalty, and therefore outside our scope! Not a bad idea at all, just doesn't belong here.
It does somewhat belong here, insofar as if a houserule is instigated to make a character make a save (against 1/2 move in this case), then it give 'falling' a saving throw to fail and consequently, to deal injury damage. Otherwise by default, no save; no failure and if no fail; no injury.
Some situations allow a save/skill check to takes less damage from falling, but not all. Thus it creates a situation where the character falls from 100 feet and isn't allowed a save (thus not dealing injury damage), and another situation where the character jumps down 10 feet but risk to fail the check/save and receive injury damage. The 1/2 move houserule would bring a systematic save and thus, uniformity in the situation potentially causing injury damage.
'findel
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, here is the first draft of a larger document:
Feedback is key. Please discuss it in this thread, but I have also enabled commenting in the doc if that's your thing.
Not a bad idea at all, just doesn't belong here.
It does somewhat belong here, insofar as if a houserule is instigated (...)
I should clarify: I am a firm believer in encapsulating house rules.
OK, I understand you better.
In that light I would leave the Readiness/Injury rule as pure and simple as possible.
If someone has an issue with falling dealing only readiness damage (for example), let this be settled with the falling houserule; not as an appendix of the Readiness/Injury rule. Same with poison and other special abilities. Harmonizing other houserules to this one becomes difficult if it starts including lots of corner cases.
On a completely different note, I was reading some realllly old alpha and beta treads a while ago, and wondered "where did that toyrobots bloke go? He used to have sharp comments". Then recently, by accident, I clicked your avatar...
:)
But does a failed reflex save to catch yourself count for Injury? I feel it should, but there's a decent case against it.
But does a failed reflex save to catch yourself count for Injury? I feel it should, but there's a decent case against it.
It could but falling, by itself, does not necessarily implies a save to catch yourself (please correct me if I'm mistaken). In most cases, falling IS the consequence of failing to catch your fall. Succeeding the save usually means there is no fall. Therefore, catching yourself isn't part of falling per se, it's part of climbing or balancing (or failing to).
If I look for the "falling" entry in the PRD, there is no associated save to reduce damage from falling; only skill checks in some (but not all) situations).
Bleed damage has me thoroughly vexed.
|
Bleed damage has me thoroughly vexed.
It's funny you should mention this because it is one change I am considering. I am thinking any wound that causes actual injury damage will also cause a bleed effect until treated. This will mean that I don't have to change too many rules for non-lethal or regular damage as if you are bleeding when you go below 0 you are going to die without treatment.
Love this thread and it really has me thinking.
In my game I have been using two house rules.
- I allow players to heal 1/4 of their hit points with a full round action a number of times per day equal to 1 plus BAB. This makes even more sense under your system.
- I use the house rules that creatures are fatigued at 1/2 hp and exhausted at 1/4 hp. Cruel but my players love the effect on combat. Again this works even better under your system where they are literally getting worn down with blows, bruises etc.
Where your system really shines for me is as a way to represent the massive advantage that a well armoured warrior should have. Historically armour and shields were incredibly effective at preventing death blows. For that reason I am tempted to use your system specifically as a way to represent damage done to well armoured creatures (which I would define as a minimum +4 combined Armour, Shield and Natural Armour bonus). Anyone else receives Injury damage from all hits by default.
I would also be tempted to allow anyone to do injury damage by taking a -4 to hit much like the current rules for lethal / non-lethal. This opens the door to creating weapons or feats that have armour bypassing potential.
Loving the ideas everyone has put forward in this thread!