Concerning the Alexandrian Disabled and Dead Rules
Very glad that you guys pointed that out! Another houserule that I'll adopt in my next game.
Well, maybe not in their entirety, but I like getting rid of the dying condition and extending the disabled condition until one dies.
That being said, Alexander's rules on death are rather modular and while it meshes well with these variant HP rules, they can be fully applied or totally ignored without any impact on Kirth's damage penalty rule.
'findel
I'm a fan of that article too, but the best aspects of it cover the dying mechanics... and we're concerned mostly with damage penalties here. I think there's great potential for combining the two, but I am committed to the creation of small rules that work independently.
I prefer buffet-style.
|
*** page jump ***
Concerning Damage Penalties:
- -1 to AC, spell saves DC and to all and every dice roll.
- -3 to AC, spell saves DC and to all and every dice roll.
A more brutal-to-spellcasters option might add that penalty to one's *caster level* as well. A 1st level spellcaster who is suffering injury damage would be utterly hosed, unable to concentrate sufficiently to use a spell (being treated as CL 0). A 2nd level spellcaster would still be able to get that sleep or burning hands off, but it would last half as long, or do half the damage, as he's at CL 1 right now.
By 4th+ level, you'd have progressed to the point that no level of injury that didn't knock you down would stop you from casting spells, but you'd still have a notable reduction in duration and / or damage, depending on the spell cast. Even at 10th level, a half-dead mage with only a few hit points remaining is going to be limited to throwing 7d6 fireballs.
*** page jump ***
Concerning Damage Penalties:
- -1 to AC, spell saves DC and to all and every dice roll.
- -3 to AC, spell saves DC and to all and every dice roll.
A more brutal-to-spellcasters option might add that penalty to one's *caster level* as well. A 1st level spellcaster who is suffering injury damage would be utterly hosed, unable to concentrate sufficiently to use a spell (being treated as CL 0). A 2nd level spellcaster would still be able to get that sleep or burning hands off, but it would last half as long, or do half the damage, as he's at CL 1 right now.
I thought about that too, but then thought it would be too harsh.
I was also thinking of wizards whose spells are 'loaded' upon preparation. In a more vancian conceptualization of magic, a spell's energy is stored when the spell is being prepared and then released in full or not at all. It works similarly for clerics whose prayers are granted by a third party who may or may not be influenced by the condition of their follower.
I'm still on the fence there...
'findel
I'm a fan of that article too, but the best aspects of it cover the dying mechanics... and we're concerned mostly with damage penalties here.
That's what I meant to say. That set of rules is nice but unconditional to your set of variant rules..
There isn't a mechanical reason that damage penalties should be tied to injuries.
If HP represent an "overall abstract readiness to survive the next attack", then it seems to me that the damage penalty should apply at 50% and 25% hit points, irrespective of injuries. That makes it a rule that works equally well with the RAW.
The injuries HP variant is really a rule about HP recovery. If we include injuries into the damage penalty rules, we introduce a serious bias to spellcasters when it comes to combat resolution; something the injuries variant doesn't interact with at all.
Spellcasters would have more ways to dish out penalties, and martials will still only get a tiny slice. Damage penalty should interact with HP only, not injuries. That way blaster mages and martials get a sure thing added to their arsenal.
EDIT: I know full well that I put Injury HP in the title of this thread and now I'm backpedaling trying to separate them. But, I've got to stick to my principles!
Kirth, did you ever consider another set of thresholds, like 75% and 50%?
There isn't a mechanical reason that damage penalties should be tied to injuries.
If HP represent an "overall abstract readiness to survive the next attack", then it seems to me that the damage penalty should apply at 50% and 25% hit points, irrespective of injuries.
I humbly disagree, to a certain extent.
If HP represents a readiness to survive, then the loss of HP is already penalty in its own. Penalizing those who are already low in their readiness to avoid another blow is kind of a double-whammy.
On one hand, it does break the linearity of HP loss, which is good IMO. On the other hand, tying this rule to your variant HP rule is the kind of interesting synapse that I like in game design.
The reasons I came up with my proposal were the following:
- I hate calculating 25%. It isn't hard, but I have plenty of things to think about already. One threshold is enough
- Being injured IS incapacitating. It's not about the pain per say - the adrenaline takes care of that - its about your body not being able to do what it usually does.
- Your variant HP rule distinguished blows that hurt from those that didn't. Adding a penalty to this is a sensible consequence IMO. Monsters and NPCs won't care much for injury damage or stamina damage, but they will about penalty or no penalty.
- It would bring a bit more oomph to lucky criticals (and valour unlucky criticals that deal sucky damage).
- With conditions both at 50% HP and first injury, neither blasters nor fighters lose much of their use. IMO, both will get better glory time.
Let me insist more on the fact that for most monsters, the difference between stamina damage and injuries is trivial. I'd imagine that most DMs (including myself) won't even bother noting injuries for most NPCs, which deprives the players from dealing 'special' damage.
I know that the whole point of the injury HP variant isn't so much about dealing special 'injuring' damage as about receiving special 'not-so-lethal' damage, but the correlation is there nonetheless.
Given that we are dealing with a houserule that makes combat more dangerous (by applying penalties to wounded creatures), it isn't a far stretch to associate special impairing penalties with special injuring damage.
'findel
Points!
I don't like calculating 25%. It isn't hard, but I have plenty of things to think about already. One threshold is enough
Half of half. Ain't so bad, especially when you can just write it down. The damage penalty rules I've played with were basically this, or more complicated. The thresholds only change when you level, so the complexity is definitely manageable.
Being injured IS incapacitating. It's not about the pain per say - the adrenaline takes care of that - its about your body not being able to do what it usually does.
Agreed. But being distracted, or unlucky, or tired, these are also sources of penalty. Injury still counts, in fact, but the multiplicative property of crits, injuries count a LOT. They speed you along toward that penalty threshold faster than anything short of a disintegrate. So I'm not suggesting we exclude wounds from contributing to penalties, I'm suggesting we include the other elements of HP.
Your variant HP rule distinguished blows that hurt from those that didn't. Adding a penalty to this is a sensible consequence IMO. Monsters and NPCs won't care much for injury damage or stamina damage, but they will about penalty or no penalty.
It was sensible to me too, that's why it's in the thread title. Except, let's think: a rule that works with RAW and injury, vs. a rule that works with injury only. Now, there's also no mechanical reason to do it, and it's much simpler not to. And it doesn't directly address the target problem — we're doing it because we like the idea.
It would bring a bit more oomph to lucky criticals (and valour those that deal sucky damage).
By bringing luck to only criticals, instead of all attacks... and then giving a sure thing to blaster mages, you introduce a further imbalance to an already tenuous system.
With conditions both at 50% HP and first injury, neither blasters nor fighters lose much of their use. IMO, both will get better glory time.
This may well be. I'll let my other points stand.
This has gotten interesting.
good counter-arguments...
Actually, you got me convinced with most of your points a few posts back.
Originally, I didn't like tying penalties to HP total at all. I ruminated on the matter for a coupe days actually, and now I see sensible reasons to do so.
I still like tying penalties to injured characters (as your variant HP rules) for reasons stated above.
Making both injury and 50% total HP conditions for damage penalties made the most sense for me then (you get the first stage of penalties for being injured OR being dropped to 50% HP, whichever comes first) , and I think it still does as of now. At this point it may be a question of taste...
Let me insist more on the fact that for most monsters, the difference between stamina damage and injuries is trivial. I'd imagine that most DMs (including myself) won't even bother noting injuries for most NPCs, which deprives the players from dealing 'special' damage.
This helps my case, I think.
If Damage Penalty is tied directly to HP and no other houserule enters into it, then the GM just has to track HP. If injury causes a damage penalty, then the GM needs to start tracking NPC injury. We all know that we're lazy GMs who won't track NPC injury beyond what is necessary... why add the need?
Both rules work quite well in isolation from each other, I think.
If injury causes a damage penalty, then the GM needs to start tracking NPC injury. We all know that we're lazy GMs who won't track NPC injury beyond what is necessary... why add the need?
Oh I definitively am a lazy DM (who don't even like to bother calculating 25%!), but I'd just 'check' injury besides the monster's HPs and be done with it. No need to keep track of injuries, its just a 'yes' or 'no' question in their case.
'findel
Let me suggest again tying the first 'threshold' to Fort Save as a Total - its a figure right there on the character sheet, its not extreme (apart from perhaps level 1) in being too high as a % of characters total HPs and gives an edge to fighters/Full BAB types to make up for the fact that penalty to casters is relatively minor.
Hey Hela!
I red your previous posts with great interest. I simply haven't commented yet.
I considered dealing with action type before and abandoned the idea. The concept isn't bad but has large ramifications. And once you start applying this to one situation, you realize many other situations want to mess with action types as well... My experience was a bit messy.
The 'Fortitude bonus threshold' idea is an interesting one however. It definitively gives a hedge to fighter type characters over the squishy ones. It would definitively dispel the potential frustration of the 10th level character being told:
"Aha! The goblin crit for 4 damage! All your rolls are now at -1"
or
"You walk in a spike growth. Roll for reflex. You failed? That's 3 points of injury to you. Oh, where you already below 50% HP? Then that's a -3 to everything then".
I might consider that instead of the 'penalties on first blood' condition. There's also CON score and CON modifier, but these don't scale with level. Fortitude bonus is a nice touch. I haven't decided if that would be worth the hassle of tracking injury points and compare it to a threshold. Also, I would expect most situations dealing injury damage to bust that threshold in most CR-appropriate encounters, but it would solve the few potential frustrating corner cases... You given me some stuff to think about.
'findel
stuff about Great Fortitude and Endurance...
Yes, you mentioned that before and it makes sense. More food for thoughts...
I'd like to see some sort of movement penalty but don't know how it would fit - creates possible dramatic tension in any chase or flee situations
the -1(or-3) to AC, spell DC and all rolls was inspired from Kirth's re-interpretation of the fatigued and exhausted conditions.
In RaW, exhausted forces you to move 1/2 speed and can't run nor charge. It wouldn't be hard to add this to the second stage of penalties...
'findel
I don't have the rules in front of me but going by PURE tactical movement, movement is detiremined in squares (and so doesn't have an impact in the long term/long distance stuff) but once we move to running (X3 or X4 speed) and out of the traditional encounter then I think there are rolls needed to keep it up etc - the -1/-3 would impact on skill challenges/rolls needed to maintain movement.
As far as I know, both number of 'squares' moved on the tactical map and overland distance traveled in a day rely on your base speed (which is halved when exhausted). Normally, exhaustion is easily healed out of combat (just wait 1 hour) and then you're down to fatigued (which does not carry any movement restriction). Tying it to injury will make this last potentially longer. Then again, exhaustion isn't curable with Heal skill, but injuries are...
I'm a bit concerned about the 'not being fast enough to flee' part. I'm afraid this could degenerate in a real spiral of death. It would be realistic, but I'm not convinced it would be desirable. To a lesser extent, I'm afraid of PCs easily tracking down fleeting opponents and finish them all one by one.
'findel
This brings me back (almost) to Kirth Gersen rule...
.
..
...
....
(harmonized with the injury variant HP rule)
A character that receives damage in battle loses its capacity to fight efficiently. Be it form weariness or as a result of an injury, the character receives penalties according to its current state.A character becomes fatigued when one of the two following situations apply:
- the character has lost more than 50% of it total hit points.
- the character has received at least 1 point of injury damage.
A fatigued* character becomes exhausted** by doing something else that would normally cause fatigue, including when both situations stated above apply simultaneously.*fatigued = -1 to AC, spell save DC and all dice rolls.
**exhausted = -3 to AC, spell save DC and all dice rolls. An exhausted character moves at half speed and cannot run nor charge.Fortitude bonus variant rule:
Replace "the character has received at least 1 point of injury damage" with "the character has receive more injury damage than its Fortitude save bonus (The Endurance feat grants a +4 resistance bonus to a character's Fortitude for the purpose of determining its injury threshold)."
Caster level loss variant rule:
Replace "-1 to AC, spell save DC and all dice rolls." with "-1 to AC, caster levels, spell save DC and all dice rolls." and "-3 to AC, spell save DC and all dice rolls." with "-3 to AC, caster levels, spell save DC and all dice rolls."
Casting time variant rule:
Replace "An exhausted character moves at half speed and cannot run nor charge" with "An exhausted character moves at half speed, cannot run nor charge and consider all casting time as one step higher (swift action becomes standard action, standard action becomes full-round action, full-round action becomes 10 minutes etc)."
'findel
So you guys think the DC penalty shouldn't apply to Stunning Fist, bomb splash, etc.? Just spell save DCs?
The only problem I see is the reverse of the Magic Missile situation. Some abilities require multiple checks to pull them off.
A fireball only requires one save, whereas other spells (or abilities like stunning fist) require additional attack rolls, or even multiple saves.
These abilities are balanced assuming that standard rules. Applying a penalty (especially at a factor of 3 when really hurt) can greatly widen that rift between these spells and abilities.
I'm not sure if that was the intention. Considering most non-caster abilities require an attack roll on top of a save or whatnot, it seems like there might be more "hidden" drawbacks for martial characters.
.
On the flipside, if this includes damage rolls, then low dice, high bonus damage rolls have a serious advantage over the multiple dice damage effects.
Rolling a -3 on a d6 leaves only an average of 0.5. Maybe just a -3 to the whole pool of dice thrown? Makes more equivalent sense.
No need for a 2d6 Greatsword to average 1 pt of damage, vs the 1s12 Greataxe dealing 3.5 damage.
On the flipside, if this includes damage rolls, then low dice, high bonus damage rolls have a serious advantage over the multiple dice damage effects.
Rolling a -3 on a d6 leaves only an average of 0.5. Maybe just a -3 to the whole pool of dice thrown? Makes more equivalent sense.
No need for a 2d6 Greatsword to average 1 pt of damage, vs the 1s12 Greataxe dealing 3.5 damage.
I'm pretty sure you would apply the penalty once per roll, and the multiple dice are part of the same roll. Otherwise you'd see things like fighters adding their weapon training bonus multiple times when hitting with a greatsword or vital strike :)
The wording isn't the same as Weapon Training (which states: "+1 to attack and damage rolls").
This rule is saying "any and all dice rolls". This can be taken quite differently, depending on interpretation.
And while it might seem obvious to most, why leave it open for a Rules Lawyer to abuse, or even just someone new who is looking at it without knowledge of the intention or common practice that the rest of us have.
While it sounds hard to keep track of, the wording for Exhaustion is very clear on what it's doing: -6 penalty to Strength and Dexterity. Anything that needs Strength or Dexterity is affected, so skills, attack rolls, CMB and CMD, etc.
Alternatively, negative levels list out every single thing that it affects.
Actually.. why not use negative levels? It's been redesigned to be easily applied during combat, and the wording all already there.
Maybe a new glossary section for injuries that applies non-negative energy negative levels.
Though, that does hurt the 1st level character quite a lot. Perhaps negative levels from injuries go away faster/easier, and cannot reduce your character to below 1 (so a 1st level caster can still cast). Or maybe just make it so a 1st level caster is stuck casting cantrips...
While it sounds hard to keep track of, the wording for Exhaustion is very clear on what it's doing: -6 penalty to Strength and Dexterity. Anything that needs Strength or Dexterity is affected, so skills, attack rolls, CMB and CMD, etc.But doesnt affect casters, hence the negative to spell DCs...
That was an example to prove my point, not a suggestion for a change to the rule.
Actually, to apply it equally, you could make it a penalty to all stats. That would apply equally across the board for anything except level dependant effects, etc.
I think the negative level language works better (and easier to track.. just -1 to "everything you do"). Not sure about the -5 hitpoints thing though. There's a reason negative levels typically don't show up at the beginning levels.
So you guys think the DC penalty shouldn't apply to Stunning Fist, bomb splash, etc.? Just spell save DCs?
No, I was making it simple for the sake of clarity, but like Kirth re-interpretation, I consider the penalties to be -1 and -3 to everything that is ability-dependent, regardless if it is active (like attack rolls and saving throws) or static (like AC and spell DC).
The penalties should indeed serve for assassin death attack, creature's spell-like abilities, gaze attacks, stunning fists and other ability-dependent class features.
The only ones I'm not sure about (but should go down for the sake of consistency) are poison and disease spread.
[quote=]Helaman
As this differs slightly from the 'book' definitions, should we call this Battle (or Combat) Fatigue and Battle (or Combat) Exhaustion?
Again taking from Kirth Gersen, I'd re-write fatigued and exhausted with these new descriptions altogether.
So yes, a character that is fatigued form having exhausted 50% of its HP will get exhausted if affected by a touch of fatigue spell for example.
For one thing I'm not sure if I'd want damage penalties to stack with fatigue otherwise, and it makes the rule much more simple altogether.
Two thresholds - one about HP, one about injuries; both causing fatigue. Since two fatigue = exhaustion, the penalties worsen as your condition degrades. It works for me.
This is probably where I depart from Evil Lincoln's preference of modular or 'buffet-style' rules, as my iteration of damage penalties has other implications outside the rule (the re-writing of two conditions and the synapse link with another houserule).
In addition, this re-write of fatigued and exhausted suits my personal preferences as I'm considering writing every stat-altering spells, abilities and conditions out of the game.
'findel
This is probably where I depart from Evil Lincoln's preference of modular or 'buffet-style' rules, as my iteration of damage penalties has other implications outside the rule (the re-writing of two conditions and the synapse link with another houserule).
I just think it best for collaboration. I'm gonna use my own version, as everyone else will use theirs, I think. But if we work to keep things down to the essentials, we make rules that benefit a larger number of independent ruleswonks who are all trying to add the same thing (damage penalties) to their games, and may or may not like the injury HP variant (or even know about it!)
I just think it best for collaboration. I'm gonna use my own version, as everyone else will use theirs, I think. But if we work to keep things down to the essentials, we make rules that benefit a larger number of independent ruleswonks who are all trying to add the same thing (damage penalties) to their games, and may or may not like the injury HP variant (or even know about it!)
This is probably where I depart from Evil Lincoln's ...
Definitively.
My goal may be more egoistic and less noble than yours, but in reading other people's ideas, suggesting mine and listening to their counter-arguments, critics and opinions, I can develop much better material, much faster in a much more coherent way; even if none ends-up using my rules as I write them.
That's why I love this forum!
'findel
That's why I love this forum!
And how!
Ok... so exhaustion at 10% of HPs? 50% makes the fighters pretty damn fragile and especially so at level 1 and 2.
Using my iteration of the rule, a fighter wouldn't be exhausted at 50%. Unless he also happens to be wounded (had received injury damage), he would only be fatigued.
Using Kirth's iteration of the rule (and Evil Lincoln's I believe), he would have been exhausted from the moment he dropped under 25% of his hit points (regardless of the type of damage he received).
If you include caster levels in the set of penalties, it isn't the low level fighter that is in trouble; its the spellcaster. Below 25% hit point total (or both impairing conditions are met, depending on which version you go for) the 4th level wizard casts as a 1st level. Spellcaster of level 1-3 wouldn't be able to cast any spells at all!
Problem... feature... y'know.
Oh I definitively am a lazy DM (who don't even like to bother calculating 25%!), but I'd just 'check' injury besides the monster's HPs and be done with it. No need to keep track of injuries, its just a 'yes' or 'no' question in their case.
I calculate the 50% and 25% in advance and put it right in the monster's stat block; e.g.,
hp 53 (7 HD; LW 26/HW 13)
I put spaces on my character sheets for PCs to record these values, too, and check boxes for which apply. After all, any houserule has to be evaluated in terms of what it adds vs. whether it slows down play.
Actually this works better than my Fort Save / 10% thingy...
Anyone else have something to add?
Nothing new to add, other than your method isn't bad in itself.
The 50%/25% method considers hit points in general. Yours, like mine, take into consideration Evil Lincoln's injury variant. I don't think one approach is inherently better than the other. One is simple and detached form any parent houserule, making it highly portable and modular. The other IMO, makes a better job of synergising two houserules in a slightly more coherent whole, but is more disruptive of the system as RaW.
What I meant to ask is whether your 10% applies to injury damage only or hit point damage in general?
Personally, I like to have a bit of both worlds, hence my 50%/1st injury (whichever comes first) proposition.
So what's next on the table? fumbles?
'findel
I'm not quite sure we are "there" yet with this.
On the HP/Injury thing it seemed to crystalise into a Epiphany momement and a "Ahhh - there it is" that just needed some polishing to get it to (I believe) its final version.
I'm not feeling that here.
I know, right?
I think the difference is that the other rule was created to address a very specific grievance. For damage penalties, we basically reverse-engineered a rationale for the rule that we knew we wanted ahead of time.
I haven't given up hope for an idea to come out of nowhere and change everything. But if you have Kirth's grievance, then Kirth's solution is pretty damned good.
I'm not quite sure we are "there" yet with this.
[quote=Evil Lincoln)
I know, right?Sorry guys, I taught you were much more definitive with your own respective versions...
So let's recap then, and correct me when I'm wrong.
This variant aims at giving penalties as the state of a creature/player degenerates (for the sake of realism? Tactical play? Verisimilitude with R-L behaviors?)
So far these penalties come in two 'levels' of gravity, but there could be more as there could be only one.
For maximum portability and minimum RaW impact, this rule wants to be self-contained, affecting only a character's abilities between full HP and 1 HP (i.e. not yet disabled, dying or dead) with no other ramifications other than the potential direct implications on gameplay.
Receiving a [/i]condition[/i] as been brought out as a way to label this set of penalties. Kirth's suggestion was to tie it to the fatigued and exhausted conditions (or in the same order of magnitudes as fatigued/exhausted). However, that isn't necessarily a definite pick yet.
It has been acknowledged that this penalty(ies) should affect melee characters, ranged fighters and spellcasters equally (actually, It was brought out that spellcasters and ranged fighters shouldn't be spared by this rule).
Now, Kirhk Gersen proposed a solid model IMO, both in terms of ease of application and in terms of crystalline simplicity. However, Kirth's models implies that fatigue and exhausted be re-written, should it be only to add spell save DCs to the description.
One ting I like about Kirth's model is that by RaW, two fatigues equal exhaustion. This makes the applications of the penalties incredibly versatile. It also means that an already exhausted character cannot be further impaired, which diminishes chances that these penalties degenerate in an endless spiral of death.
A bit more complicated but equally versatile would be to create new conditions that accept fatigued and exhausted as child clauses (ex: Wounded = character is fatigued and receive a -1 penalty on all spell-save DC).
Personally, I'd like to add '-1 on spell save DC and all other ability-dependent extraordinary, supernatural and spell-like abilities'.
'findel
When a creature is injured, subtract the damage amount from its current Hit Points as you would normally, but also take the amount of damage that was dealt by that attack separately as an injury from maximum hit points.
Wait... I'd have to track the same hp loss twice, in separate entries? And I'd potentially need to do this for multiple monsters? No, thanks -- I'll stick with something tied directly to normal RAW hp, without adding the extra "injury" hp besides.
When a creature is injured, subtract the damage amount from its current Hit Points as you would normally, but also take the amount of damage that was dealt by that attack separately as an injury from maximum hit points.Wait... I'd have to track the same hp loss twice, in separate entries? And I'd potentially need to do this for multiple monsters? No, thanks -- I'll stick with something tied directly to normal RAW hp, without adding the extra "injury" hp besides.
Kirth, this is an HP recovery rate rule.
For monsters that you never plan to have rest and return in another encounter, there is virtually no reason to track injuries (unless you're using injuries for damage penalties, which I do NOT recommend.)
If you look through the design rationale, I think you'll see the logic. But I really do feel that damage penalties should be based on total HP, not wounds. Injuries are a healing rule for the benefit of PCs and elite NPCs.
EDIT: Drat, I got my threads mixed up. Ah well, the sentiment is still the same, but when I say "this" I mean Injuries from the other thread.