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?
Yes, that's part of Evil Lincoln's variant HP housrule where an extra type of damage is introduced; injury. While injury points heal naturally by RaW, normal 'abstract' damage heals at a much faster rate (same as non-lethal damage). Therefore, injury points are tracked in addition to hp loss in such a way that we can tell which proportion heals at this faster rate.
Technically, this houserule mainly benefits PCs, so as a DM I wouldn't bother to use it for monsters. For me, things start to get interesting when tying damage penalties (which I based on your own re-interpretation of fatigued and exhausted) to injuries, basically mingling two houserules together. So while I wouldn't track injury points for monsters, I would put a 'check' next to a creature that has received injury damage for the sake of tracking damage penalties.
Therefore in my version of the damage penalty rule, you get fatigued if a)you get below 50% hit point total or b)you receive any amount of injury damage (whichever comes first).
Since by RaW two fatigues = exhausted, you get exhausted when you are both injured AND below 50% hit point (or if in the meantime you do or receive something else that causes fatigue, of course).
That being said, Evil Lincoln wishes to produce a rule on damage penalties that is independent and not correlated in any ways from his hit point variant rule.
'findel
[edit] whoa, triple ninja'd!
My base rule for DM run critters is 1st injury (ie the first time they eat a Crit or a failed save) or 50% and we are at -1. On their last 10 (or 25% - not sure which) hps they are -3.
That would give you 3 'triggers' for 2 conditions. That's why in my version I don' teven use the 25% or 10% threshold; that got replaced with the 1st injury clause.
The main change is that by Kirth's rule, 50% is always going to happen before 25%. In mine, the first injury may happen before the 50% threshold, in which case the second trigger causes the exhaustion, regardless of which one caused fatigue.
'findel
'findel
Yeah - so first injury or wound drops monsters to -1 (gives the PCs incentive to share the joy) and a crit or once they hit 25% then drop a -3 on em?
Not quite.
First injury (from a crit or a failed save) drops the opponent to -1. When that same monster hit the (normal) 50% hit points threshold, slap the -3 penalty.
...or the other way around. It's possible that the monster will be dropped to 50% without a critical hit or a failed save, at which point it'd only get the -1 set of penalties. If it get crit before it dies, then slap the -3 penalties. Otherwise it could be possible that a monster never get the -3 set of penalties if it never receives a critical or fails a saving throw.
As you said, I would do that mainly to let players enjoy their criticals, even if the said critical doesn't deal a million points of damage. Similarly, small goblins with scimitar (high threat range) become a slightly bigger threat since criticals on PCs are equally bare immediate consequences.
I understand Lincoln's reasons to keep damage penalties solely about hit points and completely separate from his injury rule. But these two rules combined gives me an opportunity to bring something that I've been wanting to introduce in the game for a long time, the fact that some blows DO break bones and cut tendons, impairing the player's movements and ability to fight efficiently. the critical deck manages that very well but has its own issues. This combination of two houserules is for me as perfect as it can be!
'findel
The latest iteration of my version for this rule...
.
..
...
....
(harmonized with the injury variant HP rule)
A creature that receives damage in battle progressively loses its capacity to fight efficiently. Be it from weariness, deteriorating equipment or as a result of an injury, a creature receives penalties according to its current state of health.
A creature becomes fatigued when one of the two following conditions applies:
a) the character has lost more than 50% of it hit points.
or
b) 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 conditions 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.
I really like the way at least 1 point of injury damage and having lost more than 50% hit points stacks to result in a greater penalty, however I must agree with Helaman's position on at least 1 point of injury damage being the threshold for the first penalty.It just feels wrong that if on a failed save one takes no more than 1 point of damage one incurs penalties even if one was at full hit points when one attempted the save. Granted this is the extreme edge case, but I use it to illustrate the logic upon which I am basing my position.
For myself, I still favor the 50% and 25% of total HP thresholds, (although 50% and Fort is also a possibility I am considering).
I acknowledge there are many excellent reasons to consider hit points only (forget about injury damage) for damage penalties. I believe my reasons to use Injury Damage as a conditions for damage penalties are equally good, but they do take the game in a slightly different direction.
Part of my reasoning is that I like to put things in favour of the players, and to give them satisfying conditions. Lincoln's HP variant rule mainly benefits players, since they are the one that the story care about regarding regenerating lost hit points.
Slapping a penalty on someone who receives 1 single point of Injury damage will benefit the players on the long run, since (in my games at any case) they are more likely to force saving throws upon enemies and maximize their characters for criticals. This greatly preludes to my personal style and YMMV on that part.
For me, it sounds gratifying for the player to impose a penalty on the BBEG on a lucky critical early in the combat, and rewarding to win against goblins who managed to exhaust you out by their numbers and their nasty scimitars, not their sheer strength.
I like Lincoln's variant hp rule, what can I say...
Coolio - its starting to feel like its coming together now. Let me have a long ponder with this. The wording is good.
I still dont like 'first injury' because there is no way to remove it apart from completely healing and failing a save vs a 1D4 burning hands just sucks when you have 5 HD BUT thats personal preference and your way is very straight forward.
Your fort save threshold is an excellent solution to circumvent that. At this point we are indeed in the territory of personal preferences...
In other words, I agree that we disagree.
Well cheers to that then!
... and who knows, I might come back in three weeks telling you guys how a bad idea that was...
I'm not actually trying to convince anyone at this point, but I want to make it crystal clear that I advocate keeping Injuries and Damage Penalties separate.
That said, I think Laurefindel's take is really cool, and I'd be tempted to adopt it if it weren't for the above reasons.
I'm not actually trying to convince anyone at this point, but I want to make it crystal clear that I advocate keeping Injuries and Damage Penalties separate.
No mechanical goal is addressed by merging them
Vastly easier for the GM to track
Doesn't favor spellcasters
More generic rule can be dropped in with fewer strings attached. That said, I think Laurefindel's take is really cool, and I'd be tempted to adopt it if it weren't for the above reasons.
One thing I agree with, the 'official' housrule should be distinct and totally separate from your variant hp rule. If I or other people want to customize it further, that's our call. But let's work on an 'official' version.
Are you going the 50%/25% route?
I won't have much time until monday however...
Are you going the 50%/25% route?
Actually, I'm going the "no damage penalties at all" route. My house rules use the Crit and Fumble deck on an unconfirmed 20 or 1, respectively, with confirmed crits as per RAW on top of that. (before you crucify me, remember you only fumble on a 1 if it is your first attack that round.)
My players love the chaos that this generates. Around 10% of attacks involve some kind of penalizing wound or persnickety event. I think that making direct damage inhibit action is a laudable mechanical goal, but it isn't one that I see an expressed need for in my own game.
It would be too much when combined with the wacky, random penalties that my party already enjoys. Ain't broke. Won't fix it.
Damage Penalties are just another on the long list of rules I think are good in theory, but ultimately the RAW is more fun. Not because the RAW is theoretically better, but it is stable and that is worth more than realism and balance combined.
Once I start to concede to these good ideas, after a fashion it snowballs into... well, Shadowrun. Damage penalties, Combat Skills, Magic Skills, bell curves — all of the innovations that have popped up in the last 40 years of gaming that D&D and its ilk have willfully ignored.
In the end, my players want to make use of the deck-building aspects of Pathfinder, scour new books for powers, and kill monsters. I don't need to change anything to achieve that.
But it sure is fun to think about!
Are you going the 50%/25% route?Actually, I'm going the "no damage penalties at all" route.
You know what I mean you smart ass! (well, donkey) ;)
Ok let me re-phrase...
This 'official' damage penalty rule that should be Independent of the Injury damage variant, should it be based on the 50%/25% hp threshold like Kirth suggested?
This 'official' damage penalty rule that should be Independent of the Injury damage variant, should it be based on the 50%/25% hp threshold like Kirth suggested?
I think 50%/25% makes a lot of sense yeah. 66%/33% might also, but it is a pain in the math.
I've started a new thread, mainly to cover the dying rules. I didn't think it was related to damage penalties when I started it. Silly me, I was wrong.
This is a logical branching point. If you're with me, you're thinking about a 50%hp damage penalty, but using 0hp as then 50% mark.
If you're with Kirth (and there are good reasons) we should keep that discussion in this thread. I think Laurefindel's version that incorporates injuries with damage penalties belongs in this thread too.
We've made hard-fought progress here, I think, but the discussion of death and dying motivates me more.
Thinking out loud...
Unless we also re-define the existing fatigued and exhausted conditions to put more pressure on spellcasters, applying these conditions for damage penalties would hurt melee-type characters more than spellcasters. IMO, that wouldn't be desirable.
As much as I like Kirth's redefinitions of fatigue and exhausted, this rule has to leave existing conditions intact and alone to be truly independent and modular.
Unless we make it a rule that affects PCs only, it should be made easy enough for DMs to use it on the fly, potentially with several enemies and NPCs simultaneously. Similarly, that rule shouldn't create more delays from PCs with multiple characters/companions/eidolons/cohorts/summoned creatures etc. Thus it need to be quick and easy to use/ apply and remember.
As for easy of use, I like the -1 (or-2, or -3) penalty to everything, or perhaps more in the spirit of D&D 3.5, a -2 (or -4 or -6) penalty to all stats. The last part would also mean hp loss from CON drop, so not a good idea after all. We could also make it a -2 penalty to Str, Dex, Int, Wis and Cha, which wouldn't result in a drop in poison or disease DC (which is a bit incoherent with the spirit of damage penalties IMO).
Again thinking out loud, does the rule really need two 'levels' of penalties? Again for the sake of having an easy rule to apply, perhaps a single condition would be sufficient; OK and not-so-OK. In which case, what would the be the appropriate penalty? I think a -2 penalty (or a -4 penalty to stats) would be adequate without being crippling.
more to come later...
To continue my thoughts...
So we could have a single set of damage penalties kicking in at 50% (easiest figure to come with).
If via the dying-houserule-in-the-making a set of penalties comes at 0 hp, this could provide the second 'level' of damage penalties we had before(albeit a more debilitating one).
These two houserules could be made independently and yet mesh together rather well. I'm curious to set how the dying rules will turn out...
'findel
Hello, I was Skimming through this thread and thought I would add my 2 CP.
I think that the best and most accurate reasons to implement a system like this have already been stated.
The ideal Injury system would in my opinion be a mix of the more "generic wounds system" and the more "specific system."
a system like that is great for every day fighting and suitably simulates a mechanical effect of being closer to death. and the fact that it is removed by simply regaining enough HP is even better, this has the side effect of making healer types and direct damagers more useful in a fight. It also gives players a sense of being truly a "Bad M@#$% F&%#$" as their Fighter manages to slay the last of the Orc horde despite his battered state.
It's situations like these that create memories at the table feeling like the odds are stacked against you but still succeeding. The Critical Hit deck does a great job of handling "Specific Injury" type wounds as does Dragon Age: Origins.
If one Where to use these two systems together "Generic injury" should be tagged to HP loss and "Specific Injury" should be tagged to Critical Hits or being brought to 0 HP.
just my 2 CP on the matter, and Sorry for the long post.
Hello, I was Skimming through this thread and thought I would add my 2 CP.
(snip)
just my 2 CP on the matter, and Sorry for the long post.
Hello and thanks for the post. AS we say, it takes coppers to make a gold pieces!
I'd like to note that Kirth's rule doesn't use already existing conditions by RaW, as neither fatigued nor exhausted cause any impairment whatsoever on spellcasters. Part of the genius of his rule is in the re-writing of those two conditions, but for that reasons it doesn't work perfectly in a scenario where RaW needs to be left intact as much as possible. Otherwise if you are willing to accept the ramification of re-writing fatigue and exhaustion as such, it is an awesome houserule (note that my version is virtually identical to his but harmonized with yet another houserule about damage and hp).
I'm curious as how you would mix generic with specific? Any example?
'findel
[edit] and if these are your 'long' posts, you're welcome to post anytime!
Thank you for the kind words Laurefindel, I didn't see your version of Kirth's house rule on my first go around but went back and looked it up.
I think that your on the right track with that line of thinking and you make some excellent points. I all most wonder if it might be most beneficial and logical to create a new condition named Injured have work like you said sort of like the fatigued condition but applied to spell casters as well as the non-caster.
maybe something like this.
I thought that applying a penalty to Concentration was a bit too soft for the rule so I figured "why not make injured casters make Concentration check?" I do like the idea you mentioned about reducing max HP when Injured but I feel that adds in a lot more book keeping.
So taking your comment about the rule needing to be easy to remember and able to be applied on the fly (both very good points I hadn't considered)I think the best way to do "Generic" type Injuries would be to make a new condition with an easy to remember trigger.
As for blending to two rules the main idea I had was using something like the Injured condition above and the Critical Hit Deck in tandem. that way you can get all the fun of battle fatigue and losing a limb! :)
another idea that just sprang to mind for mixing the two methods of injury would be to adapt something like the "Vitality and Wound point" System, only instead of dying at 0 wounds you gain a wound drawn from a simple list of pre-gen wounds and effects.
I have to think on this a bit more it's nearly my bed time hear on the east coast. I'll be back with something more substation latter.
let me know what think and a good night to you all.
Without rewriting conditions, they can still be used as bases, so that healing lost hp also alleviates wound conditions (as someone else pointed out upthread), and so they still play nicely with additional fatigue.
For example, a new condition might be Injured: You are fatigued, and additionally suffer a -1 penalty to AC; to the save DCs of all spells, spell-like abilities, and extraordinary abilities; and to concentration checks. Any effect that would normally remove the fatigued condition, or worsen it to exhaustion, also removes the injured condition or worsens it to seriously injured (or whatever).
NICE
Not originally my idea; Evil Lincoln specifically mentioned it on page 1, I think, but it got lost in the shuffle. I'm just putting rules language around his suggestion.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
My home campaign does something like this.
[Note: My home campaign uses the Warriors and Warlocks system, a d20 fantasy game based on Mutants and Materminds, with tactical movement added back in. The game system tracks the number of injuries a character has received. In Pathfinder, I'd suggest either
(a) keeping track of the number of attacks against a character that do at least 2 hp of damage, or
(b)using 5 hp as a unit of injury. That is, someone with 13 hp of damage would have 2 "injuries".]
Under normal circumstances, I don't like the Fumble Deck, because it feels unheroic to end a combat, one way or the other, with a death-dealing fumble.
But that changed when I re-wrote the fumble threshhold to the number of injuries the attacking character has received. Now, you can fight for as long as you like in combat and not risk a fumble, so long as you're uninjured.
But now, if you injure an opponent, you place it in jeopardy of fighting dangerously. And it does indeed feel heroic when a big threat rolls a '3' on its attack, and has 4 injuries, and confirms the fumble, and takes itself out of the fight. Because it was your 4 succesful attacks that threw it off its game.
I use a Wound Level system, we divide the total HP into three wound levels:
1st Wound Level(Winded): -2 penalty to everything(All rolls, including DCs for casters)
2nd Wound Level(Strained): -4 penalty, 1/2 Speed, 10% Spell Failure.
3rd Wound Level(Bloodied): -6 penalty, 1/2 Speed, 25% Spell Failure and you gain the Staggered condition(Back in the day we used to say "you can only take partial actions, that is 1 Standard OR 1 Move OR 2 Swift).
I've used it in a year long campaign and it performed well up to 12th level when the campaign ended. At lower levels the first wound level was crippling, as it should, because your character is not a hero just yet, he has too much to learn before he can shrug minor wounds like nothing. At higher levels, it's negligible, as it should, now your Hero can look at a -2 penalty and say it's only a "flesh wound".
The second wound level it's trickier, it begs the question of to fight or to flight, but forces the party to make a decision because the third wound level is Death's Door.
For me a Bloodied character is in "red HPs" if you will, he should be begging for mercy or swinging for the fences, or forcing his comrades to maneuver a tactical retreat or shift tactics to cover and heal him.
Using this combat became a deadly affair, as it should IMHO. Players only engaged when they had to or when they had planned for it, they turned away random encounters if they could, always planned a retreat in case of something going wrong. I was delighted with this, and since I hand waved levels at story points, they never felt like they "needed" to fight.
I must admit, however, that I use a whole lot of homebrew, like dividing AC into Defense(DR) and Dodge(not getting hit), Jans Carton's Players Roll All the Dice variant, and in my recently started campaign we have happily incorporated SKR's Advancement System instead of Experience Points and we are loving it. And I am just starting to read Kirth Gersen's own House Rules and I must admit I am very impressed, the way he handled Weapon Proficiency and Groups as well as Skills is something I truly fell in love with.