|
To solve that you need to encourage different tactics that have equal merit.
I don't think any system lends itself to penalties for wounds. All hp is, is a time buyer to give time for different tactics to come out on top instead of straight first strike. With W/V you at least have chance able to give /Major/ advantage to one side instead of just minor variance.
-----
Idea, have wounds only, but when you get hit you have to make a fort save (DC 10 + damage from atk) a fail results in losing 1 wound point. When you run out of wound points you die. These wounds may also incur a penalty. Or it could cause con damage instead having no wounds, the con modifier would be decreasing for fort saves and thus acts as a hefty penalty for anyone.
-----
Edit; BTW, What is UC system?
|
|
Has anyone thoroughly processed the Vigor/Wounds variant from Ultimate Combat? Playtested?
I read through it the other day, but I'm a little put off by the complexity when compared to Strain/Injury. Looking for thoughts or testimonials...
I thought I mentioned this but I edited it out or something.
I am assuming wounds/vigor is like wounds/vitality (haven't seen Ultimate Combat)
I have played Wounds/Vitality in star wars d20, It is a good system, doesn't include attached damage penalties (separate condition track) but it does make criticals much harsher, you can also use it in other ways (piercing atks that hit deal 1 point of dmg to wounds despite remaining vitality, falling damage and concussion[sonic] dmg hits wounds directly, etc).
|
|
The four basic types of damage tracking that I know of, please add any others.
One Pool - One pool, when depleted results in death*
DnD, PF, Shadowrun
Two Pools - One small pool and one large, character dies when small pool depletes, some special circumstances like criticals bypass the large pool
Star Wars D20
Save - Make a save or take a wound which may have penalties, fail save by certain amount and die*
Unearthed Arcana Variant DnD
Save & Pool - Make save or take a wound which may have penalties, receive too many wounds and die*
Savage Worlds
* Can be actual character death or simple removal from play(become unconscious, etc) with true death checks later.
Any of these can have damage penalties but what should these penalties apply to? Should the penalties apply to the above and/or should they apply to other things like skill checks?
I tried Mousegaurd (based on burning wheel) but I didn't really like it's combat very much period, though I would classify it as pure roleplay or even storytelling rather then roleplay/tactics like DnD/PF.
Mouseguard != Burning Wheel. They have the same dice pool mechanic and the similarities stop there. Burning Wheel has individual wounds (unlike the shared Disposition of Mouse Guard) and is very, very simulationist. Armor by location, called shots baked in, weapons with varying armor penetration, and tables, tables, tables.
Now, I hope we can curb the "should we or shouldn't we" talk and switch back to " if we do, how and why?"
A 'sickened' penalty to attacks, etc. for melee, and a concentration check required to cast spells while 'bloodied' (at half health or less) would make the condition meaningful for both melee and spellcasting classes, and also poach one of the ideas from 4E that I really liked.
As mentioned to Da'ath above, any clean fix for damage penalties based on conditions must first look at whether or not conditions afflict spellcasters and non-spellcasters equally. They do not.
Consider the following patch:
Does that DC scale alright? It's based on my subjective experience GMing. Higher level casters will be able to get their lower-level spells off, but negative levels will now be particularly nasty since they lower concentration rolls AND provoke concentration rolls. And that should make all the difference.
|
|
That reminds me, earlier someone said something about 3.5s mistake in having a concentration skill. Why was that a mistake?
No your DC does not scale alright (only 5 to 45), PF doesn't follow the same DC rules as 3rd. As a lvl 12 character I rolled 50 on a skill check without rolling a 20. Pf overpowered skills should be examined for average, max, magiced skill checks at various lvls. Use that as your ruler. Since a concentration check is just a special spellcraft check.
------
Alternately, you can have casters roll spellcraft for the caster level of their spells. (DC 10 + 2 times spell level, CL equals your check minus the DC) thus making their spells weaker with conditions without denying them casting of spells (fighters don't roll to see if they attack or not, their attacks just get weaker and whether they hit, still partially depends on the target)
That reminds me, earlier someone said something about 3.5s mistake in having a concentration skill. Why was that a mistake?
Well, there was a feeling at the time that the concentration skill was only of use to casters (unlike, spellcraft, which is of conceivable utility to non-casters), and for casters it was essential, making this something of a "skill tax". With the current system, it makes a bit more sense, I feel. Not that casters needed the boost, but it is cleaner — if only casters need it, why not make it a part of the casting mechanic instead of skill?
No your DC does not scale alright (only 5 to 45), PF doesn't follow the same DC rules as 3rd. As a lvl 12 character I rolled 50 on a skill check without rolling a 20. Pf overpowered skills should be examined for average, max, magiced skill checks at various lvls. Use that as your ruler. Since a concentration check is just a special spellcraft check.
Level 12 + roll 19 + ability... 12? You either had a 34 in an ability score or a bunch of caster level modifiers I am unaware of. I'm not saying you're wrong, but could you show your work so I can set the DC in an informed way?
At any rate, the DC was chosen not to totally ruin spellcasting at those levels, but rather to create a 10-20% chance of spell disruption, which I consider to be fair when compared to a -1 or -3 penalty to attacks, skills, saves, etc.
Also note that the condition penalty counts on the concentration roll, effectively making these DCs a little higher, depending on the severity of the condition.
Alternately, you can have casters roll spellcraft for the caster level of their spells. (DC 10 + 2 times spell level, CL equals your check minus the DC) thus making their spells weaker with conditions without denying them casting of spells (fighters don't roll to see if they attack or not, their attacks just get weaker and whether they hit, still partially depends on the target)
That seems to me to be very much math for very inconsistent payoff. My players would not like that.
|
|
I used as a DM against a rogue once, he set off a trap of itching powder while breaking in, he had to roll concentration to try to anything with finesse, like picking the lock and disabling the second trap.
-----------
31 Stealth 6 ability mod(enhanced), 12 ranks, 3class, 3 skill focus, 2 stealthy, 5 cloak.
Thank you for having me run over it again, I forgot that skill focus jumps to +6 at 10 ranks so I rolled 53 actually.
Updated math,
34 Stealth 6 ability mod(enhanced,) 12 ranks, 3class, 6 skill focus, 2 stealthy, 5 cloak.
--------
Fighters roll many times every round, so why should casters get off so easy? Granted it's inconsistent, which is why I like the bell curve variant rules (roll 3d6 instead of d20)
I used as a DM against a rogue once, he set off a trap of itching powder while breaking in, he had to roll concentration to try to anything with finesse, like picking the lock and disabling the second trap.
See, I would say that calling for a skill check once against a class that was unlikely ever to put ranks in said skill is s strong indicator that it should be an ability check instead.
31 Stealth 6 ability mod(enhanced), 12 ranks, 3class, 3 skill focus, 2 stealthy, 5 cloak.
Thank you for having me run over it again, I forgot that skill focus jumps to +6 at 10 ranks so I rolled 53 actually.
Updated math,
34 Stealth 6 ability mod(enhanced,) 12 ranks, 3class, 6 skill focus, 2 stealthy, 5 cloak.
Ah, I see where our miscommunication lies. I am using the Concentration check from Pathfinder, which is fixed at Caster Level + Ability Bonus. There are a few traits and abilities that can raise either caster level or concentration checks, and quite a few ways to raise ability scores, but the rate is fixed. And it is lower than expected skill bonuses, but at least 3 points, but in practice quite a bit more.
The expected concentration roll bonuses for level 1-20 I used to set the DC: 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30. That's Caster Level plus a starting 18 ability score, with a presumed ability score boost by +1 (modifier) per 3 levels. That's fast or slow depending on what level you're at, but I don't feel like giving people a hard time about their first level spells. This could well be a flawed method, feel free to submit an alternative.
Your point would be absolutely valid under 3.5 rules, where Skill Focus and its ilk would be an option.
Fighters roll many times every round, so why should casters get off so easy? Granted it's inconsistent, which is why I like the bell curve variant rules (roll 3d6 instead of d20)
Fighters don't lose their attack forms on a miss. Losing a high level spell is a bitter pill to swallow. I'm all for more Concentration checks, and for giving them teeth, but remember that the stakes are higher for the caster.
While I'm all for bell curves in simulation, Pathfinder is a game that embraces the highs and lows. It's more action-packed due to its uniform distribution. Completely "unrealistic", but it makes for great drama!
|
|
Gm style differences here, I would use concentration often, but that's just me.
-----
My last GM had me roll spellcraft vs the concentration DCs (makes more sense then CL and AB mod, what if I don't put ranks into spellcraft or K Arcana? But it makes no difference?) and I didn't realize it was house ruled, sorry for that.
----
Exactly a fighter slowly loses effectiveness, rolling Caster level with penalties allows casters to slowly lose effectiveness rather then simply wasting actions and spells.
A caster that rolls caster level can end up failing to cast or casting only a 1d6 fireball due to penalties. He still can do something but it's not as effective as when he is full up.
Take away his spells and he can't do much unless he multi-classed.
I do not think that changing the conditions for the sake of using them as damage penalties is wise.
If the damage penalties need new rules anyway, there's no need to change everything else that fatigues or sickens to accommodate them. You'd be better off creating a new condition which already does what you want it to and calling it Injured or something. It makes the addition more concise and less invasive.
I am of the opinion that while injury penalties should work against you, they should never make you more vulnerable to further injury. Don't, for example, reduce saves and AC. Instead, reduce people's chance to hurt others.
"He's injured, so he's not so much of a threat" seems more interesting than "he's hurt, so he'll probably get hurt again." If injury only penalises attack, you will see situations like characters retreating because they're unable to contribute enough when you'd otherwise just see them die more often.
|
|
I can see what you mean with the conditions, I was simply adapting an idea from my game system (which doesn't have those conditions).
I think in character thoughts should be along the lines of "he's hurt, let's finish him off first so we can deal the others," this is more like what would actually be thought and where as injury would make it harder to attack it usually penalizes defense far more then offense, in reality. So saying that it doen't affect ones def at all seems a little jarring (balancing the effect on off and def isn't so bad because that's a matter of how much)
Well, the effect of wounds reducing defence is frequently the same as reducing hit points, only harder to judge and balance. I'm not sure I want that. I also think it's redundant, considering there's already a strong incentive to think as you say players should.
That's not going to go away, as the HP mechanic will remain the deciding factor in battle and it inherently rewards focus fire.
I don't see the harm in making focus fire a moderately less obvious choice, but increasing its strength seems excessive.
I do see the omission of spellcasting from most conditions as being an error.
It would be much easier to implement damage penalties if it weren't for that error. Now, you'll need a lengthy description or a new condition with its own lengthy description to achieve what should be fairly simple.
|
|
I can see your point Mortuum, I just don't entirely agree.
But Evil Lincoln I think is pointing out the biggest error. Solve how to penalize spellcasting regardless of source, then it can be tied to wounds afterwards.
---------
I still think casters should roll something whenever they cast a spell, just like how fighters roll every attack or maneuver.
I suggest rolling caster level, it makes spellcasting a less sure thing which brings casters more in line with mundanes (granted, less of a problem in PF) Besides casting a fireball and not knowing how many d6s you get to roll would be cool, exciting even when you roll a nat 20 and get roll a fistfull while still 5th level.
|
|
You could say that a caster has to make a concentration check to cast a spell anytime he suffers from appropriate penalties, then have those penalties apply to the check. If he passes spell casts as normal, if he fails spell is wasted. Optionally, if he fails by more than 10, a magical backlash occurs.
I think penalising casters is a valid and interesting topic all of its own. Concentration checks could work, but I suspect the most consistent way is to make conditions which penalise attack roll penalise spell save DCs equally.
I think penalising casters is a valid and interesting topic all of its own. Concentration checks could work, but I suspect the most consistent way is to make conditions which penalise attack roll penalise spell save DCs equally.
Attack rolls OR skill checks, methinks.
DC = Spell Level * 5, concentration roll is modified by the same penalty as to attack rolls or skill checks.
This is probably going to become a house rule, for me. I'm waiting for it to come up one more time and frustrate me. It will probably be negative levels. I just hate that you can level drain a wizard to almost nothing and he can still cast his best spells, while a fighter is made nigh impotent.
Star Wars Saga ed. has a pretty decent system for wounds vs Hp.
Give it a look.
|
I think in character thoughts should be along the lines of "he's hurt, let's finish him off first so we can deal the others,"
But this is what already happens. There's no benefit in the current rules to having 2 half dead creatures when you could have 1 dead creature and 1 full health creature. Focus fire has been the goal ever since 1st edition. If you're just making a system to encourage people to focus fire, I have to ask why, because the current system should already do that.
It's also not at all realistic. Heavily injured fighters are usually ignored in favor of people who actually have a chance to hurt you. In medieval wars, most casualties weren't people who were killed outright in battle, but rather those who were wounded too badly to continue fighting and were left on the field. The winning side would sometimes go through and kill all the enemy's wounded after they'd won, but it'd be suicidal to go around killing wounded soldiers while there's perfectly able ones trying to kill you.
Also, remember that any rule which makes it easier to kill both monsters and PCs is going to heavily, heavily favor the monsters. In the course of a given campaign, a party of 4 PCs will face hundreds or thousands of monsters. To boot, the monsters are designed to be killed and the PCs are designed to be challenged but not killed (in general). It's the same reason why "three natural 20s in a row on attacks means an instant kill" is a bad, bad rule to apply to PCs.
|
|
@William Senn
I think I wasn't clear on my point. Someone was saying that they didn't want to have the death spiral of having one's defenses take penalties with lower health. My point was that it should take penalties to keep the pressure on.
In reality the injured on the battlefield were ignored because they were not fighting anymore (aka neg HP). The ideas running around here are for before reaching the point of being useless.
If the field is equal then always winning is something special, if the GM sets it up so that death isn't going to occur for the PCs then it cheapens any success. Challenge is not challenge when failure can't occur or is unlikely to occur.
If the field is equal the PCs will lose 50% of the time and all die nearly as often. I think I like my campaigns to average longer than 2 encounters. Winning absolutely CANNOT be special in a game like D&D unless we're talking about exceptional circumstances, like fighting a serious boss or sequence-breaking an AP by killing powerful bad guys early.
Making early luck with the dice count more throughout the rest of the encounter is going to favour the side at a disadvantage. That's got to be the monsters most of the time or there wouldn't be a game.
I don't think "everyone dies a bit more" is a sensible representation of the effects of wounds on any level. We already have the same dynamic going on through abstracted hit points, for one thing. The effect doesn't feel as much like wounds to me as sheer damage plus penalties and limitations on actions do and I don't think the mechanic will enhance the game.
The effect doesn't feel as much like wounds to me as sheer damage plus penalties and limitations on actions do and I don't think the mechanic will enhance the game.
Mort, those kinds of arguments position you strongly in the camp that believes damage penalties shouldn't exist at all.
While I think you have good reasoning, this thread was created specifically to foster open discussion among those who do want to add a damage penalty. I think all such designers should be aware of the points you raise, but statements like the one above are something of a buzzkill.
Remember, this is the Damage Penalty thread, not the main Strain-Injury thread. We kept them separate for a reason!
Oh no no! I don't disbelieve in them. I just don't think the penalty for getting hurt should be getting hurt more next time. There's far more range to possible penalties than increased vulnerability to further damage.
If damage penalties primarily slow you down, make your spells fail, penalise your attacks or what have you, fine.
I am neutral towards damage penalties in general, but interested in what they might bring to my game. That said, I think that in fluff terms, increasing vulnerability is well covered and that introducing a second mechanic to model it will not bring about anything positive.
I'm not against introducing it as a side effect of something else, but I'd be very cautious about doing so, since characters die enough for my tastes already.
Hm, yes, I was confused also.
|
|
I'm glad you have PC deaths, I rarely feel like my character is in over their head, which is more GMing then rules. However if I include damage penalties then I don't want them penalizing something that wouldn't be in reality or to say I can still do "this" but not "that" when both would obviously take penalties.
Because I am trained in real combat, both in martial arts and modern warfare, the disjunction between reality and game mechanics bothers me. Abstraction is usually fine but saying that something can or can't occur because of something that wouldn't have that effect does.
When you get injured you slow down, you start to lose focus, you basically become fatigued and then exhausted, both of which affect skills (dodging and attacks are just special skills) the only reason casting remains unaffected is because they are not tied to skills.
I say use fatigue or similar but include the penalties in CL, concentration checks, and checks to overcome SR. And require concentration checks whenever they take a penalty.
I'm using these rules:
Damage Penalties
A character that receives damage in battle loses its capacity to fight efficiently. Be it from weariness or as a result of an injury, the character receives penalties according to its current state. Penalties remain until Hit Points are restored beyond the point the penalties are triggered.
A character becomes bloodied when the character loses more than 50% of their maximum hit points. If a character loses more than 75% of their maximum hit points then they become weakened (instead of Bloodied).
These conditions replace those in the Core Rules.
Bloodied = -1 to AC/saves, save DC and all combat and skill rolls.
Weakened = -3 to AC/saves, save DC and all combat and skill rolls. In addition, deals ½ damage on melee/ranged/spells except on a Crit (deals normal Critical damage not reduced)
Uses 4E terms because they fit really well.
Yes, this means you fight worse when you lose most of your health whether spellcaster or warrior.
Doesn't affect non-spells like breath weapon, but dragons are stil less fearsome in melee when wounded.
I recently bought a Critical Hit deck and found that the effects work really well with the Straint/Injury definition of HP.
For those that don't know, it's a 52 card deck that has a four different injury effects on it for blunt weapons, piercing weapons, slashing weapons, and magic. When someone rolls a critical, you draw a card from the deck and prescribe the effect listed. It can be anything from having your foot pinned to the ground to getting slashed across the eyes.
Since the majority of injuries with this system are the result of critical hits (generally speaking physical attacks are used more often than spells) it works very well to make combat more descriptive.
Thinking it over (and casting Raise Thread). The way kirthfinder handles penalties from wounds would work well it applies fatigue and exhaustion but the penalties affect casters as much as Martials and are simply turned into flat penalties instead of specific ability score penalties.
I think penalising casters is a valid and interesting topic all of its own. Concentration checks could work, but I suspect the most consistent way is to make conditions which penalise attack roll penalise spell save DCs equally.Attack rolls OR skill checks, methinks.
DC = Spell Level * 5, concentration roll is modified by the same penalty as to attack rolls or skill checks.
This is probably going to become a house rule, for me. I'm waiting for it to come up one more time and frustrate me. It will probably be negative levels. I just hate that you can level drain a wizard to almost nothing and he can still cast his best spells, while a fighter is made nigh impotent.
CL * 5 seems a little steep. A level 20 mage(30 int) with a single -1 injury is looking at a having a 55% chance of completely failing to cast a level 8 spell. Meanwhile the fighter is at a whopping -1 to hit(5% less damage on average)
I am thinking the base concentration check should be 5 + 3xCL modified by penalties. That still makes it pretty safe for a level 1 caster to get a level 1 spell off (DC8 vs a +5 with a -1 penalty = 85% chance of success)
Meanwhile a level 20 wizard with a +30 with 1 injury is at +29 vs a DC of 32 -> 90% chance to suceed
How about straight penalties to all scores based on % hp? Exhaustion and pain affect you mentally as well as physically.
You could do that. I think the cast against it is that modifying ability scores during combat is already irritating, since the changes cascade out to so many different ratings. What you're calling for is to change virtually every number on the sheet.
Some people might be okay with doing that in their heads, others might be able to crunch the numbers ahead of time, but in general this is more work than just a single penalty applied to everything after the fact.
---
As for me, lately I've been finding that the various strain descriptions seem to fill for the absence of damage penalties. I still approve of a damage penalty rule in theory, but until it can affect casters and martials somewhat equally, it's too risky.
Needs moar necro!
Personally, I'm going to be trying Laurefindel's variant (Fatigued at 1st injury or 50% hp, exhausted when both are met) combined with EL's Concentration check (apply the equivalent penalty to the DC of the check (+1 or +3 to the DC)). In fact, that penalty is probably always going to be included with Fatigue/Exhaustion.
Yes, this might mean that casters lose reliable access to the highest levels of spells under duress, but I'm ok with that. Casters should be worried about getting hurt, seeing as they are meant to be physically vulnerable.
1- fatigued
2- lose swift action
3- Exhausted
4- lose move action
I don't think there's much point in extending the list beyond 4, as someone with 4 injuries (or 3 and less than 50% HP) is borderline out of the fight (exhausted, standard action only) but not entirely defenseless.
I would probably either require a separate use of healing to remove each penalty (helps with bookkeeping, and fluffs out as focusing the effort on one wound at a time), or tracking each injury separately to determine when it is removed.