I've been less than active recently. I do have a comment!
Under Lethal Attacks With No Save, you wrote "Extremely deadly threats should deal Injury driven by the amount of hit point damage they cause". Now, given the context its clear what you mean, but you're pretty much starting out by saying the opposite of what you mean. That's bound to confuse somebody (I know it surprised me for a second there), so I'd change "should" to "most often" or something.
Thews!
Perhaps "by virtue of" or "as a result of" the amount of hit point damage they cause?
Naturally, this is assuming I understand what you were suggesting, namely, that Extremely Deadly Events with No Save (tm) - a.k.a. the Lava Bath - cause a very large amount of damage (thus, Extremely Deadly) which is in itself likely to cause injury due to being a "last hit."
Perhaps "by virtue of" or "as a result of" the amount of hit point damage they cause?
Naturally, this is assuming I understand what you were suggesting, namely, that Extremely Deadly Events with No Save (tm) - a.k.a. the Lava Bath - cause a very large amount of damage (thus, Extremely Deadly) which is in itself likely to cause injury due to being a "last hit."
Not only is that correct, I may steal that phrasing for the doc. Thanks!
Changed the wording to:
Extremely deadly threats already deal Injury damage more frequently as a result of the amount of hit point damage they cause — threats that deal more damage are more likely to deal a “final blow”.
I just updated the doc, filling in some of the missing Damage Interpretation sections.
It seems that for a few of these damage types, I'm throwing up my hands and saying "the RAW is broken here too and I'm not going to fix it... do whatever you did before to avoid this nonsense."
Not the best answer, but if we try to fix the old falling and lava problems, pretty soon we'll end up with a different game. Adding in a massive damage optional rule alleviates most (but not all) of the silliness.
I'm going to start working toward making description easier on GMs, since that's the hardest part. I happened upon the term "defense loss" to describe strain, and I think it's a pretty good way to relate the meaning of the rule.
I have 4 comments.
Looks awesome and eminently usable. Well done.
In the description of strain, you coloured the kinds of thing that cause it blue. In the description of injury, you did not.
I still think "the short version" should be right on the very first page, between the title and the contents. If you only want the short version you don't need to scroll through a list of page references for parts of the long version. It'd make it a lot less intimidating and the document would arrive at the point pages sooner.
Finally, you mention the possibility of allowing strain damage described as armour degradation to heal while taking damage over time. I think that muddies the waters about what strain really is, complicates things by introducing different kinds of strain and if the players were to read that and demand it, people could end up facing about half the discussions in both strain/injury threads while they work out how best to apply the rule. We need to give a definitely answer to this kind of scenario, and I think it has to be the one that remembers that the character, not his armour, takes the damage while simplifying things into the bargain.
If this kind of thing bothers people, then we should advise them to stop describing strain as armour damage rather than try to heal it as though really was armour damage.
Simple enough to just cut that bit. You're right it will probably just confuse people.
Update!
Sort of. I massively reformatted the doc, and while I hope it looks sharper now I am worried it may display weirdly on other computers. Such is the price of web applications...
Let me know if it looks okay, and anything else.
I'm still eager to hear back from the people who said they were using the variant. It's been going great in my own campaign, I finally got the hand of describing "mere" hits as parries and taxing dodges. It's less satisfying for the players on the offensive, but they really like the description of their character adroitly dodging blows instead of standing there and taking it... meanwhile, whenever someone does land a crit and they get a gory description, it's awesome!
The new document looks amazing EL!
For my part, I've just started up a new campaign, and I'm hoping to make use of these mechanics. I forgot about them on day one (when trying to play fast & smooth I often remember RAW before house rules), but I'll be sure to let you know how it works out if and when we actually begin to use them.
For my part, I've just started up a new campaign, and I'm hoping to make use of these mechanics.
You absolutely must report back. You are honor-bound. You're on the credits page.
I forgot about them on day one (when trying to play fast & smooth I often remember RAW before house rules), but I'll be sure to let you know how it works out if and when we actually begin to use them.
Breaking the old habit is hard. I invented the damn rule and that's the only trouble I have with it; going against 20 years of habit.
When in doubt, a "mere" hit is a parry!
That little guideline makes a huge difference for me. If they can't parry (no shield or weapon), then you start thinking about armor/blocks. If they don't have that, describe dodges and divided attention. If all else fails, dumb luck.
Trust me, players will notice how the description seems more "action packed" when you're describing a parry as a result of most attacks. Be sure to mention how they "strain" their "mighty thews"!
Okay, Heleman, I cut the graphics out for now.
The "columns" are achieved with tables, but the problem with doing that is that columns run over to the next page instead of the next column. :(
There's no good way to do text-based columns in googledocs, so I have to add the column breaks manually. I knew there might be display problems on other OSes :(
What OS are you using Heleman? I'll try to fix it.
Hm... Depending on the firefox version, that's likely the problem. Does not play nice with Googledocs.
I will see about uploading a PDF with the best formatting and posting a link back here.
When in doubt, a "mere" hit is a parry!Write this into the rules! Its very insightful and provides a solid clear guideline for DMs.
It was in the rules already; "Describing Combat", 3rd paragraph. I've bolded it now because you called attention to that. It really is key. Should it be moved somewhere more prominent?
Couldn't agree more. Trying to make Gdocs do something it just isn't built for...
You absolutely must report back. You are honor-bound. You're on the credits page.
Haha, I know! I was kind of surprised when I saw that, by the by, but I won't object. Expect news on Sunday.
Re: the gdoc thing... 's rough that it's not more malleable. Let me know if you ever want it as like, a web page somewhere. That would be more flexible, and also it would give fuller control over design and presentation. I'd be happy to provide my services.
Okay, if things don't look right on GDocs in your browser, and it should look all purdy-like.
(feel free to spam all your friends with it, too)
Re: the gdoc thing... 's rough that it's not more malleable. Let me know if you ever want it as like, a web page somewhere. That would be more flexible, and also it would give fuller control over design and presentation. I'd be happy to provide my services.
If someone wants to make a website of the rule, they have my full support as long as they link back to this thread.
While websites are great for presentation, I still consider this rule to be in "testing" so a googledoc is better for managing updates.
cool cool cool :)
My experiment in adding columns to a googledoc is a complete failure, then. Ah well. It looked good on some configurations.
It will live on in the PDF.
A valiant effort, and the PDF is sexy.
the PDF looks great, and I am putting a motion on the floor with the group I play with to include this as a house-rule. I will report any progress\results. I know of at least one other potential DM who is mightily intrigued by this as well.
Okay, if things don't look right on GDocs in your browser, and it should look all purdy-like.
(feel free to spam all your friends with it, too)
ooooooh! looking good E-L!
Don't have much more to say, which in itself is huge compliment coming from me...
What about tracking the THP from the Eidolon separately?
The Eidolon could have its own injury value, which could only be healed with Rejuvinate Eidolon. Healing the Summon while wearing the Eidolon, I would say that while possible, split the healing evenly between injuries on the Summoner and the Eidolon. Strain would heal as normal.
You still have the "Stab your eidolon to bed" issue, RAW, but if it were me, I would rule that Eidolons can carry Injury just like the Summoner can, whether it is an eidolon suit or a stand-alone one. As the Eidolon accumulates Injury, it protects the Summoner less and less until it is rejuvenated.
Just like an overnight of rest does not heal the Summoner's injuries, I don't see a balance issue with the Eidolon's injuries also only being healable with treatment... and of course, being an otherworldly pseudo-thing, healing it is even more difficult. If anything, it would act as a buffer on the awesomeness that is the Synthesist.
Yeah, when in doubt look at the semantics. I know very little about the Synthesist, but it seems weird to me to have it work differently than for normal characters. This may also expose some issues with temp HP that we haven't considered yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my initial recommendation after reading up on the Synthesist: I would not allow the Eidolon to "rest and refit" without returning to its plane of origin. The in-game rationale would be that the eidolon is in adverse conditions being cut off from its home plane, and can't replenish its defenses, much as a character cannot rest and refit while starving or dehydrated.
This means that the damage sustained by the eidolon is still either strain or injury for descriptive purposes, but it all functions like injury for healing purposes.
That's what I'd do if I had to GM for a Synthesist today. I may change my mind in future, of course, if a more nuanced approach is necessary.
As an interesting aside, I think the difference between a house rule and a variant rule is probably something like:
A variant rule is designed to be deployed to many tables with an analysis of all of the effects it has on the larger game, whereas a house rule is designed to meet the needs of a single gaming group and doesn't require analysis of the effect on the larger game.
So by that definition, yeah, Strain-Injury would be a variant. I think house rules are awesome too, though, they just fill different niches.
As an interesting aside, I think the difference between a house rule and a variant rule is probably something like:
A variant rule is designed (...) with an analysis of all of the effects it has on the larger game (...)
Indeed,
I see variant rules as objective alternatives to the mechanics of the game to address/alter a clearly defined portion of the rules as written.
Variant rules also need to be self-contained, altering the portion of the rule they need to address without influencing the rest of the game. Knowledge of the system and analysis of the consequential changes are also required.
Houserules are not bound by objectivity or self-confinement. Their motive can also be more personal (yet not necessarily less pertinent).
Interesting, I never stopped to ponder on the "definition" of houserule vs variant rule. Would the decision of using a rule variant be considered a houserule?
'findel
Interesting, I never stopped to ponder on the "definition" of houserule vs variant rule. Would the decision of using a rule variant be considered a houserule?
Welcome to the ruleswonk philosopher's club!
Yes, I think adopting a variant is a house rule. For one, I always note all of the house rules for a campaign in a single document, and any variants used are noted there; be it Strain-Injury or something like spell points from UA.
Used it today. I need to work on my descriptions, but the players understand the rule, and in purely mechanical terms it's amazing.
Give us more details about the overall game experience - please.
Sorry for being spare in my last post; I was in a bit of a rush to get somewhere and just wanted to pop in quickly.
I guess the main thing of note is that it lets me throw a lot of stuff at my party. By recovering strain quickly between encounters at no resource cost, my players feel better able to continue adventuring longer—which is convenient for all sorts of reasons. Each individual encounter feels as deadly as it should be, and they're still expending their daily resources during those encounters, so it's not like they could go on forever, but as the doc for the variant describes: it basically solves the 15-minute day problem.
So in that regard, at the very least, I like it - just from the standpoint of what it does to gameplay. At one point I realized that I was still using the term "hit" for attacks that did strain damage, and took a moment to explain to my players what I actually meant; one of them was like, "yeah, this is obvious and intuitive, it's the difference between taking a glancing sword blow and being impaled on it." I figure if my players understand the rule, its implications, and its value after less than 1 session, that's a good sign for the rule!
one thing I was unsure of
If a character has strain damage - and then takes injury as part of a 'final blow' - but is stable - can he 'rest & refit' despite being unconscious? I'm sure it says somewhere in the document but I didn't have time to check for that detail during game. I ruled yes, so one of my players went under and then sprang back once the encounter was over, healing all but the injury damage from the 'final blow.' (Note we're REALLY low level, so "all but the injury" means like, half of his HP, and also that if he gets hit 2 more times he's likely to go down again.)
My thoughts on whether or not this was a 'good' ruling can wait until I know whether it was the wrong ruling or not. Does the variant say you can't heal strain if you're unconscious? If so, where (just for my sake)?
another clarification for me please~
Regeneration & fast healing only interact with injury damage? The doc seems to say that, but I wanted to make sure!
===
ok Flak out, hope this post was useful!
*fails his will save while lurking* I am so glad to hear it, Flak!
At one point I realized that I was still using the term "hit" for attacks that did strain damage, and took a moment to explain to my players what I actually meant; one of them was like, "yeah, this is obvious and intuitive, it's the difference between taking a glancing sword blow and being impaled on it."
This is why "mere hit" has become a crucial term at my table. Almost every round in melee I find myself saying something like: "<Creature x>'s turn; one claw misses, the second claw gets a mere hit, and the bite... threatens a crit, and confirms. You leap over the first attack, and redirect the other with your <sword/shield/etc.>, but that leaves you open to his savage chomp!"
Okay, I wish I was that on top of it every round, but you get what I mean. A "mere hit" is a good way to remind players of the meaning without changing the rules at all.
If a character has strain damage - and then takes injury as part of a 'final blow' - but is stable - can he 'rest & refit' despite being unconscious?
That's a good question, and I don't think it is in the rules.
I would personally allow a rest and refit if the character is being treated by another while unconscious. Thematically, if you can't straighten your own codpiece and polish your armor, someone else needs to do it for you. Mechanically, this is supported by the HP rules:
Stable: A character who was dying but who has stopped losing hit points each round and still has negative hit points is stable. The character is no longer dying, but is still unconscious. If the character has become stable because of aid from another character (such as a Heal check or magical healing), then the character no longer loses hit points. The character can make a DC 10 Constitution check each hour to become conscious and disabled (even though his hit points are still negative). The character takes a penalty on this roll equal to his negative hit point total.
If a character has become stable on his own and hasn't had help, he is still at risk of losing hit points. Each hour he can make a Constitution check to become stable (as a character that has received aid), but each failed check causes him to lose 1 hit point.
So, like starvation/thirst or environmental heat/cold, until the source of continuing damage is dealt with, you can't rest. Treatment deals with the source of damage (stops it) and so you can rest and refit.
GMing it, I would be certain to describe the treating player pulling off crushed armor to get at the broken rib, or some other suitable description of strain damage.
If you're lying alone at the bottom of a gulch and you're lucky enough to have self-stabilized, AND you make all the rolls to wake up on your own, then you wake up with with all your strain damage. You can rest and refit at that time, and the GM damn well ought to describe it as "getting your bearings".
I really do want storytime, though, can you maybe walk us through a good part and also a rough spot from the game you ran?
I added the stable/unconscious thing to the doc, but I'm still willing to change it if I hear a case that it should work differently.
I agree with your take on the unconscious thing. As for storytime... what kind of detail do you want?
Excellent contributions by the way, two bugs squashed!
Did you rely on parrying in your description?
I'm especially happy to hear what people choose to do if there's no obvious parry/shield/armor to use in the description of Strain damage. At that point, I have to rely on "dodge" descriptions, which I usually reserve for misses...
But any data is good data!
Negative. That takes a bit more effort. I'll look into doing it tomorrow.
Well, not having been back here for a while it's good to see things are still moving.
The PDF is looking great and it's good to see we're still identifying bugs, since I was pretty sure there must still be some around.
Work on this rule continues to impress.
Let's talk about Temporary Hit Points.
Because they are hit points, they aren't "strain" or "injury", because that is the property of the wound, not the pool of HP (i.e. we don't have separate pools for strain and injury).
What happens when your temporary HP expire after sustaining Injury damage? I suppose it matters whether they are "lost first" like default temp HP, or "lost last" like Barbarians have to suffer beneath inexplicably.
Unfortunately, this runs the risk of getting very complicated.
Helaman has a good point. Its certainly the simplest way of handling them. THP's seem to model a increase in endurance and an ability to ignore the physical strain of conflict, not making one's flesh physically tougher (using Barbarian Rage as the most prominent example). As such, they would apply to Strain hits, but I don't see how THP's would apply to Injuries.
Of course, there is an argument to be made for they Synthesist that they are in a "shell" that provides additional physical protection, not a buoying of spirits like a Barbarian's rage. I would disagree, seeing the Synthesist's Eidolon as more like Power Armor. While it is intact, the Eidolon is the one who is exerting itself to avoid damage, more than the Synthesist "piloting" it. Of course, a Critical hit or a Failed save could be modeled as a hit that penetrates a chink in the armor, or that the Eidolon, who is after all kind of Pseudonaural, just wasn't "there" enough to prevent to hit, while the 0HP Injury hit could only happen after the Eidolon had been beaten or dismissed in the first place, so its rather moot.
So, yeah... THP's have to be tracked independently anyhow, so I would say that they only apply against Strain.
I agree with "only strain" for THP.
I'm not sure that's a solution.
Bonus HP should be type-less. They should protect equally against both types of damage, otherwise we are changing the combat balance (albeit only slightly).
The question ought to be: do temporary HP absorb injury damage and the disappear with it, or does the injury damage "sink" -- since these provide identical results in a single combat.
Assuming that by "sinking" you mean that once the THP effect is either dispelled or expired\used up, the Injury damage stays behind, then I think the only difference between that and saying that THP's do not apply to Injury damage will be that in the case of Sinking damage, THP would last a shorter time, as more damage would then be applied to the THP's.
While I see the logic in that, not wanting to make any change to the THP mechanic, I have a hard time visualizing how THP-soaked Injury damage "transfers" or "sinks" down to the target of the THP effect.
On the other hand, I don't like the idea of a source of THP's essentially taking Injury damage with it when the effect ends. That strikes me as not only counter-intuitive, but granting THP's far more capability than they should have.