This is a long and pretty old thread, but I just wanted to drop in an offer encouragement. I would love a different take on hit points, one that doesn't muddy things up too much.
I had an idea recently where hit points are a temporary marker that start at zero and move UP as you take damage. Then, after battle (moving out of combat rounds, that is), you make a roll vs. your hit point damage -- a bit like a saving throw... not sure exactly how to work it yet. Depending on how well you beat that number with your roll (or how poorly you failed) you have effects ranging from actual, lingering wounds to simple exhaustion.
Maybe I'll post more in another thread if I ever work out this idea a little better.
Different strokes etc. and I am the threadjacker here after all with all my questions!
Nonsense. I'm a usability guy. Having someone in here trying to grok the rule is the ideal situation. Thank you for the discussion, tangents included.
I had an idea recently where hit points are a temporary marker that start at zero and move UP as you take damage. Then, after battle (moving out of combat rounds, that is), you make a roll vs. your hit point damage -- a bit like a saving throw... not sure exactly how to work it yet. Depending on how well you beat that number with your roll (or how poorly you failed) you have effects ranging from actual, lingering wounds to simple exhaustion.
Interesting. Permanent maiming is something I've always wanted room for in the system. It is really, really tricky to do fairly however. If I were going to tackle it, I might make it occur on a double-crit (Threat-Crit+Threat-Confirm). That seems to model very severe wounds well. I'm not sure it's quite fair though.
Why are you buffing AM BARBARIAN?
Please elaborate. I'd love to know if I am, but it isn't really constructive to come into a workspace and not bring examples.
Also, bear in mind that while AM BARBARIAN is a hysterical abomination sent by the martial gods to punish casters, the barbarian as a class is still underwhelming in my opinion. Not every barbarian takes spell sunder. The one in my party has, but can't rely on a synthesist-summoner dire-bat cohort for vision and movement speed. You'd be amazed at how quickly that brings AM BARBARIAN down to the wizard's equal teammate in practice.
I do not traffic in rule design that caters only to the "broken internet builds" that were made to prove a point; and that nobody actually plays. Just as I would not design a bicycle for a man with his face on his arse upon being shown a picture of such an unfortunate grotesque. Nobody has played or should play AM BARBARIAN in an actual campaign, so as far as he concerns me he lives in Theoryland with Punpun and all of those wizards who have just the right spells prepped.
Plus, he and I are buds. So of course I'll buff him.
Not sure I follow you. Have it still deliver Injury damage but at the non critical multiplier (cause that would work too) or do away with the armour mechanic altogether?
Keep your crit-negating armor mechanic, and basically don't change the way Injuries work. So basically option A). But since you're degrading the armor that did the job, I would no longer use armor degradation as part of nonlethal damage description.
A question for the group:
OR
Also, please note why.
A question for the group:
OR
Also, please note why.
My personal preference: Keep nonlethal terminology and change its definition to fit your houserule.
If I could suggest option 3): Keep nonlethal damage out of your readiness/injury rules altogether; this applies to lethal damage only (in the 'basic' package at any case). By RaW, nonlethal damage is accumulated on a separate tally.
Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points. It is not “real” damage. Instead, when your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, you're staggered (see below), and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious.
Then on a separate houserule (by virtue of encapsulating houserules), redefine what nonlethal damage is and give it a new definition to better harmonised it with your readiness/injury rules; just like damage penalties would be a separate houserule yet harmonised with readiness/injury.
This way, readiness/injury can be used with minimum obtrusiveness, yet the concept can be elaborated further for those who wish, incorporating the (in my humble opinion) rather clunky non-lethal damage subsystem.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that if I bothered going back into the history of the thread, I could quote you saying something along those lines :)
'findel
I like Non Lethal/Lethal - its existing terminology
As in RaW existing terminology, or Evil Linclons's existing terminology?
Actually, I'm pretty sure that if I bothered going back into the history of the thread, I could quote you saying something along those lines :)
I'll bet you're right. Even so, things have changed enough that we ought to keep an eye out for making things even simpler. It would take like 20 minutes to go back and check. I'm too lazy.
option 3): Keep nonlethal damage out of your readiness/injury rules altogether; this applies to lethal damage only (in the 'basic' package at any case). By RaW, nonlethal damage is accumulated on a separate tally.
Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points. It is not “real” damage. Instead, when your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, you're staggered (see below), and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious.Then on a separate houserule (by virtue of encapsulating houserules), redefine what nonlethal damage is and give it a new definition to better harmonised it with your readiness/injury rules; just like damage penalties would be a separate houserule yet harmonised with readiness/injury.
This way, readiness/injury can be used with minimum obtrusiveness, yet the concept can be elaborated further for those who wish, incorporating the (in my humble opinion) rather clunky non-lethal damage subsystem.
Your logic is sound. One thing has caught my interest though: the perceived problem. "The rules claim HP are a combination of abstract and literal damage, but for healing treat all damage as literal."
Since our definition of "non-injury" HP almost entirely overlaps with nonlethal damage as most people perceive it, I would say that — unlike damage penalties — we are firmly within our mandate changing how nonlethal damage is used as a term. I don't think we can leave nonlethal damage as is and claim that we addressed the perceived problem.
If including the change to nonlethal makes the entire rule easier to phrase and use, then it's fair game, I think. On the other hand, if it's kludgy, we probably shouldn't be fussing with it.
Since our definition of "non-injury" HP almost entirely overlaps with nonlethal damage as most people perceive it, I would say that — unlike damage penalties — we are firmly within our mandate changing how nonlethal damage is used as a term. I don't think we can leave nonlethal damage as is and claim that we addressed the perceived problem.
I think including the redefinition of nonlethal damage would be consistent with the intentions and motivations behind the readiness/injury houserules. In a vacuum, the nonlethal/injury works fine and isn't that clunky. Only nonlethal comes with a certain baggage as defined by 3ed/Pathfinder.
Personally I preferred when hit points where divided in readiness and injuries, with nonlethal as a type of damage rather than 'how damage turns out to be'. It made the houserule much more portable without having an impact on RaW (outside faster HP recovery). This reaction might be defensive/impulsive; I might be resisting some kind of ghost. I'll give it deeper thoughts...
I'm of mixed opinion on it, too.
What has me is that explaining it to a new user as "Most damage will now be nonlethal, because it's 'turning a serious blow into a less serious one' " is very easy to grasp.
Even if we have to then qualify that by saying "but nonlethal damage is counter differently and heals faster", that explanatory power is not to be overlooked.
I'm gonna chew on this for a while, maybe read a few more responses.
|
I'm of mixed opinion on it, too.
What has me is that explaining it to a new user as "Most damage will now be nonlethal, because it's 'turning a serious blow into a less serious one' " is very easy to grasp.
Even if we have to then qualify that by saying "but nonlethal damage is counter differently and heals faster", that explanatory power is not to be overlooked.
I'm gonna chew on this for a while, maybe read a few more responses.
Personally I greatly prefer thus option for the exact reasons you stated but I guess you already know that by now! :-) Also you need to change really only the heal rate of non-lethal this way (and clarify the process of dying). Otherwise things are not all that far off RAW. If you read the description of non-lethal it is more or less the same as what you are aiming for.
I also thinking counting up damage ala non-lethal is a much more practical way of tracking both non-lethal AND Injury Damage for a number of reasons.
I used to hate counting up damage instead of counting down from the total until I abandoned my GM screen. This way the players can see how much they have done but not the total I was counting down from.
Another pro argument for using the term nonlethal is that non-lethal weapons work exactly as they ought to.
I'm going to throw a spanner in the works and say I think non-lethal damage is a really, really bad term for this. Seriously. I think you're headed toward trouble.
First off, the non-injury damage in your system can and will get people killed on a regular basis. If you run out of hit points, you're going to die. The fact that only the last hit is technically lethal doesn't matter, because the damage you took previously is what makes it so. I'm not sure it's an appropriate name.
The second problem is that it will mislead and confuse people. You have changed every single aspect of non-lethal damage, save for the name. It's not even the same kind of thing any more. Any understanding of the usual system for non-lethal damage becomes an obstacle that must be overcome.
What's really happened here is the rules for healing normal damage have been changed, that change has made non lethal damage redundant and the function of the non-lethal weapon property has changed to work with the new system.
I'd just be transparent about this and say non-lethal damage no longer exists, but weapons with the non-lethal property won't injure things.
I'd just be transparent about this and say non-lethal damage no longer exists, but weapons with the non-lethal property won't injure things.
Loud and clear, Mort.
So you prefer the wording as it is found here in the documentation, which I had the foresight not to edit because I knew we had our reasons for avoiding nonlethal.
So, what I am taking away from this is: nonlethal damage (RAW) needs to be called out as obsolete, and nonlethal attacks deal non-injury damage... which still desperately needs consensus on a name.
"Non-injury" is the most factually correct name.
"Readiness" encompasses most of the descriptive options pretty well, but...
"Stamina" is great for evoking tiredness from parry and dodge, but cuts a little close to "stamina to endure physical injury" and therefor isn't as clear as "Readiness" which is plainly something else.
"Vitality" makes more and more sense these days. But it's taken.
It should be something sexy, so that players don't feel they are getting shorted when they don't crit.
"Some damage reflects physical injuries, the others reflect <blank>."
Defense?
The second problem is that it will mislead and confuse people. You have changed every single aspect of non-lethal damage, save for the name. It's not even the same kind of thing any more. Any understanding of the usual system for non-lethal damage becomes an obstacle that must be overcome.
This is a matter of perception.
You could also say that Evil Lincoln left nonlethal damage virtually unchanged, but that lethal damage has changed beyond the scope of recognizable since you only take lethal on a crit, failed save or when you've taken more nonlethal than you could.
I'm liking the nonlethal/injury (which could be renamed nonlethal/lethal) more and more, for multiple reasons.
I'll elaborate later tonight if I get the chance.
'findel
I'd just be transparent about this and say non-lethal damage no longer exists, but weapons with the non-lethal property won't injure things.
That would bring us back to the standard readiness/injury rule, with the possibility of a nonlethal damage satellite houserule (whereas nonlethal is redefined as "a source of damage that never deals injury damage")
I think that would be the most simple, less intrusive and easiest to explain. This alone makes this option worthy of consideration.
'findel
"Readiness" encompasses most of the descriptive options pretty well, but...
My biggest gripe with this appellation is that it makes you wonder why you don't automatically take injury damage when flat-footed, denied a Dex bonus to AC or otherwise "unready" for battle.
non-injury says what it's suppose to say, but is blander than plain oatmeal...
I always was partial to Stamina, even if isn't quite evocative of deteriorating equipment. That was your first tentative name for "non-injury" if I remember. It still remains my favourite.
My issue with stamina: it doesn't do enough to break away from all-damage-is-wounds.
Whatever the non-injury damage type, it needs to be explicitly clear that it represents defensive cost, not physical sturdiness alone.
If anything, non-injury damage could be thought of as Defense or Readiness, and Injury damage could be though of as Stamina.
Sheesh. Everyone is duly warned, I love vacillating over mechanic names until the perfect one is concluded upon.
I can't believe I haven't seen this thread earlier. Like many here, I have wrestled with the "HP as an abstraction" beast myself before and never came close to a satisfying solution.
I think the problem is unique in that it frustrates great GMs who love describing the action. This is only confirmed by the participation we've seen here. Thanks for the kind words.
** spoiler omitted ** -->That said, I do like the simplicity of half non-injury or injury = fatigued, both = exhausted as a starting point, even if the thresholds would probably need tweaking.
I think it's the best damage penalty rule (we're outside the scope of injuries rule here). To be really great though, I think it would require a special character sheet that had three values for everything that factors Str and Dex. The pain of having to refactor a dozen abilities on the fly is a huge point against Fatigue/Exhaustion as damage penalties. It's a big part of the reason that other games apply penalties generically, instead of as a secondary consequence of a condition.
The problem with all these names being put forward for non-injury damage is they are all names for a new kind of hit points. We're not trying to name a separate resource, we're trying to name a way of losing an existing one.
How does one use terms like stamina and vitality when one can only gain the thing the are supposedly the name of as they are harmed?
I vote for making the two kinds of damage Injury and Hurt.
Hurt to me would seem to sum it up nicely: It has no long-term consequences, but something bad is happening to you. It's not the same as merely deflecting an attack, because you can't keep it up for long. It allows room for hits that fail to wound as well as hits avoided by extreme effort.
If I slap your face, that hurts. If I make you stagger under a rain of blows you can barely defend against, that hurts too, even if I only touch your shield. Get too hot or too hungry? That's also going to hurt. I think it covers all bases, but gets the point across in spite of being so broad. It even lets you know what your character feels like after losing a ton of hit points and somehow avoiding injury: He's aching.
I agree with your premise, Mort, but I'm not a fan of Hurt.
You're right, we're naming a type of damage (like injury) not a way of enduring damage (like "stamina").
"Guard" is also pretty good since it encompasses blocks, dodges and parries. But again, it is the defense, not the damage.
The problem with all these names being put forward for non-injury damage is they are all names for a new kind of hit points. We're not trying to name a separate resource, we're trying to name a way of losing an existing one.
(...)
I vote for making the two kinds of damage Injury and Hurt.
Hurt damage isn't much more evocative than Stamina damage IMO. But you are right; the name should apply to a type of damage, not to a type of resource points. In that regard, "defence", "guard" or "readiness" don't pass the test either.
That was one of the reason why I liked nonlethal; it does describe the type of damage very well, and within what the game already acknowledges (nonlethal damage isn't real damage and goes away quickly).
But for me this is nick-picking. Since Injury is not an adjective qualifying a type of damage in the first place, I don't mind have another word with an intrinsic definition.
"Wind" could also work (as in being winded down after dodging so many attacks), and could be used similarly to Injury.
Wind damage vs. Injury damage.
You only lose hit points, but when you take wind damage you get winded. When you take injury damage, you are injured. This can be used ingame as well: "Help me cleric, I'm injured!" or "I'm OK, a little winded but otherwise alright."
'findel
Ok. Where does hurt fall down for you? Does it imply something you don't think normal damage should have to involve? Does it fail to communicate one of the qualities of normal damage?
The big thing about hurt that I didn't go into above is its usability in game. "Am I injured by that?"
"No, but it hurt you a lot."
"How's the ogre holding up?"
"Looks pretty badly hurt."
I think the measure of a good name will be that it can be used naturally in descriptions, although hurt might prove a little too easy to use and might cause confusion.
Another possibility is Wear, which implies being tired out without sounding specific to the living or (hopefully) being too easy to confuse with fatigue and exhaustion. You could certainly hear a person or thing described as worn down and get the right impression.
Ok. Where does hurt fall down for you?
mainly because it sounds weird to say that someone is hurt but not injured.
Another possibility is Wear, which implies being tired out without sounding specific to the living or (hopefully) being too easy to confuse with fatigue and exhaustion. You could certainly hear a person or thing described as worn down and get the right impression.
Yes! That would work.
I just suggested "wind" but "wear" goes along the same lines.
'findel
Let's take another look at what the semantics must encompass:
- (tiring) parries
- (tiring) dodges
- damaged shield/armor
- superficial cuts/bruises/pricks
- strained morale
- dumb luck (of a limited quantity)
Wear and Hurt are both pretty good, but the one-syllable anglo-saxon noun doesn't quite sit right. In addition, it's helpful if the term itself implies "not-wounds". That's where "wear" winds over "hurt".
Come to think of it, Mouse Guard RPG has a similar number that's basically an abstract yardstick of how close you are to defeat. They call it "Disposition", mainly because it is used to resolve all conflicts, not just battles. That's the kind of thing I'm looking for.
We've burned more posts trying to name this thing than we did inventing it, making it work, and playtesting it.
What's wrong with a single-syllable anglo-saxon noun? Is that not the very best kind of word with which to appeal to a person's lizard-brain?
Other possibilities: Strain, Attrition, Doom, Je Ne Sais Quoi, Trouble, General Badness, Expenditure, Crap, Stress, Bashing or Punishment. Add "damage" to the end of any of the above words or do not, to taste.
I especially like "Crap Damage".
We've burned more posts trying to name this thing than we did inventing it, making it work, and playtesting it.
Perhaps, however proper semantic is important to describe, explain and exchange about the discussed product.
In D&D/Pathfinder, taking damage is pretty much synonymous with losing hit points. Your rule changes that a bit.
One of the (initial) goals of your rule was to keep a single pool of hit points. Therefore, one will not be losing injury points or vitality/hurt/wind/what-have-you points; hit points are the only points you have to lose. Similarly, one does not spend its readiness/stamina/resilience/disposition; one is taking damage. however we call it, conceptually and mechanically speaking, the difference is in the type of damage you take; either "injury" damage or "non-injury" damage. IMO, non-injury or noninjurious simply doesn't sound right.
Nonlethal works perfectly but for the baggage it comes with.
Alternatively, you can declare that loosing hit points (non-injury) is different from taking damage (injury), in which case we don't even need qualitative for types of damage. Going further along this route, you could rename hit points altogether (the best would be to find a name that can be abbreviated with hp). If you rename hit points as your pool or resourcefulness (or whatever), then you can spend some of your resource OR get injured for a certain amount of points. Conceptually, that would reinforce the idea that injuries lowers your hp total (or resourcefulness), like how CON damage works by RaW.
I think it's a TERRIBLE idea to change the meaning of the term damage as part of a rule like this. Please don't do that.
What do you think of Stress? (As referring to non-injury damage, not renaming damage in general)
I guess strain is very similar, and also pretty good, mort.
What's wrong with a single-syllable anglo-saxon noun? Is that not the very best kind of word with which to appeal to a person's lizard-brain?
Other possibilities: Strain, Attrition, Doom, Je Ne Sais Quoi, Trouble, General Badness, Expenditure, Crap, Stress, Bashing or Punishment. Add "damage" to the end of any of the above words or do not, to taste.
I like strain a lot. Good one Mortuum.
I like how it can apply to yourself, your equipment of even your luck. It works better than stress IMO, although their principles are equivalent and both are equally versatile.
'findel
So the system would be "Strain-Injury" which I think makes a lot of sense. I still kinda like stress though.
They both capture that element of being stretched thin defensively without actually being hurt. We're real close.
How I wish we had a polling feature here...
A quick poll of my friends has a 50/50 split for stress and strain.
Strain has a more physical connotation, which is something people like. But I'll point out that we want to differentiate this damage type from physical wounds, so a non-physical connotation might be preferable.
Your opinions?
Your opinions?
I find that strain represents well the "pushing your luck", physiological exhaustion and material degradation. Stress on the other hand, represents the 'anguish factor' that makes one less ready to defend himself/herself much better than strain. But since this part isn't really represented by hp damage*, I'd be tempted to go with strain.
*Many situations that could also be described as 'stress' are already represented by conditions that are negated (or lessened) by a saving throw by RaW.
Unlike 4e, Pathfinder's damage is mostly physical in nature, so a descriptor with a more physical connotation isn't inappropriate IMO.
my 2 cents anyhow...
'findel
I think Strain-Injury is about as good as we're going to get. But I'm still listening, in case of a dark horse.
After some quality time with the dictionary and discussions with my players, Strain is now music to my ears. I am committed to Strain. Long live Strain!
Working on the newest iteration in light of this. Will post.
I incorporated the Strain terminology into the .
I also fleshed out some of the Damage Interpretation section of the doc.
Does anyone have further thoughts on Falling and Regeneration?
I agree that strain and stress are both good enough terms. Strain probably is the better of the two.
I showed the document to a friend of mine and it provoked an interesting discussion. He thinks it will be awesome for many games, but no good for games in which the party is meant to care about things like safe houses and conserving resources, mostly because a quick break is so much easier than recharging spells.
Such games could always just not use the rule (or add a variant to it) but should that be required? Should there be some kind of limitation on how long you can keep recovering from strain, such as a pool of reserve points from which your hit points are replenished?
I also think the rule in its current form has a problem. Non-lethal damage has changed enough that some rules that use it might not work as intended. Regeneration is tricky, as Valfen says, plus merciful weapons are stronger and frequently won't be very merciful at all.
We're almost there guys. I think we'll have cracked this very soon indeed.
Well, the way it works in strain-injury at the moment, I can hit you with my merciful sword for most of you hp, then the barbarian can shank you for exactly the same damage and you'll die. That's a problem for me. It often makes non-lethal pointless unless it's the final blow. "Stronger" was the wrong term; it's actually just far more lethal than before.
I understand exactly what happens. I just don't like it.
I don't think there's much point in "merciful" weapons if they frequently get people killed, particularly when removing the mechanic which prevented them from doing so raises questions about deprivation, regeneration ect.
I showed the document to a friend of mine and it provoked an interesting discussion. He thinks it will be awesome for many games, but no good for games in which the party is meant to care about things like safe houses and conserving resources, mostly because a quick break is so much easier than recharging spells.
Such games could always just not use the rule (or add a variant to it) but should that be required? Should there be some kind of limitation on how long you can keep recovering from strain, such as a pool of reserve points from which your hit points are replenished?
What's really changed about resource conservation? As has been discussed, most parties do everything they can to be at max hit points for every encounter. That's gotten a little less expensive, but Injuries are still a drain on party resources — especially since they require treatment.
In playtesting, I've noticed that the pace of resting and finding secure camps still exists because of spellcasters. My party rarely stops because they are running out of Hit Points (they tend to deal with Injuries ASAP) but rather they stop when they are running out of spells.
Under the RAW they always acquired enough resources for Hit Points, and responded to a dearth of hit points by quitting the mission until they can get more. If you added a rule limiting the recovery of Strain damage, I expect you'd see this same thing occurring — the party will quit the mission until they get their HP back, and they will secure camps in the field if they have spellcasters.
I don't really know how your games are paced, so I can't provided definitive (or even correct) answers for you. I think you should remain open to the idea that perhaps hp conservation doesn't work in practice the way you imagine it does — that's been my own experience.
I also think the rule in its current form has a problem. Non-lethal damage has changed enough that some rules that use it might not work as intended. Regeneration is tricky, as Valfen says, plus merciful weapons are stronger and frequently won't be very merciful at all.
Regeneration no longer uses nonlethal damage at all. Watch that 3.5e -> PF stuff!
Merciful weapons (and saps) still give you the ability to take a captive on the final blow without a -4 attack roll penalty. That's as useful as it was before — actually slightly better, because your allies can menace the target with Strain damage but not Injuring him beforehand. In situations where it is imperative that no harm come to the target, the guy with the merciful sword will be the only one rolling without penalty.
Yes, nonlethal damage has changed. I think, for the better. It had to change because we were creating a whole new category of damage that is not lethal. It now makes a lot more sense than it did before.
Well, the way it works in strain-injury at the moment, I can hit you with my merciful sword for most of you hp, then the barbarian can shank you for exactly the same damage and you'll die. That's a problem for me. It often makes non-lethal pointless unless it's the final blow. "Stronger" was the wrong term; it's actually just far more lethal than before.
The entire variant was intended to create descriptive situations where people actually die when they are actually shanked by a barbarian. The idea that you should somehow not die when shanked by a barbarian because his friend was distracting you with boxing-gloves is something I find hard to picture.
The Strain-Injury version makes more sense. If you flip the combatants around — Shank the Barbarian deals Strain (never actually shanking) and the Boxer deals a final blow with a nonlethal attack — the result is still logically consistent. I consider this to be a vast improvement on the nonlethal rules for playability, GM practicality, and description. You're right though, it's a change.
If you're new to the thread, the rule is here:
Commenting is enabled. If you want to be a collaborator on the doc, please let me know.
I'm gonna use hit points and injury. Injury is just a special type of hit point loss.
I favored this approach for a while, and you should be able to find the wording upthread.
It becomes difficult to explain the different damage in practice without a special term, though. And with the added confusion of nonlethal damage that recently cropped up, I think to explain it clearly and concisely we needed a term like Strain.
It could be that you don't have those problems in practice, or that you hit on a new wording that works. In either case, it's generally good to have someone running a parallel version. Let us know how it works for you.
Aaaand, a few typos (probably some others, those are the ones I saw while reading) :
- "Poison" section : dealth instead of dealt, twice.
- "Sneak Attack" section : greivous instead of grievous.
- Page break leading to an annoying blank page between "Constriction" and "Burn" sections.
Thanks! If you find any more, please leave a comment in the doc and I'll fix it.