I'm starting a campaign and I'm forcing the players to have a somewhat confined background. They must be nobles, and up to age of ten~ish they do what they want, then after ten to about 18-20 they are being trained harshly and I'm giving them the following bonus feats: Iron will, improved iron will, toughness, endurance, run.
I won't go into the details about what the training entails of it's not important. I know that those feats won't break the game, I want to give them a custom feat that will.
Greater Iron will: whenever you would roll a d20 or roll damage you may take one point of constitution damage and add your will save modifier as a bonus that stacks with all sources except itself, you may also take a point of constitution damage and add your will save to the DC of any effect that is created by you (ie not an item or some-such). As a clarification you could add this bonus to a will save, as it is a separate bonus, but you could not add it twice for two points of constitution damage. If this effect is used to increase an intimidate check add an additional +2 due to the disturbing nature of your composure. Additionally you may at the end of your turn as a swift action take one point of constitution damage to remove the conditions shaken or frightened, or spend two to remove the condition panicked. If you are immune to constitution damage, or in some way do not actually take the damage, you gain no benefit, as to be arbitrated by the GM (me).
I realize this is strong and that there are ways to easily regain constitution damage such as lesser restoration, but that's fine I intend them to actually be able to use the ability somewhat freely. I'm wondering if I should make it half the will save modifier instead of the full thing, I think that would be better.
Comments; criticisms; suggestions?
It seems a little weird that getting good at Will Saves makes you capable of self-harming yourself so you can get a bonus hurting other people or better at accomplishing a task.
Is the Con damage meant to be a limiting factor? Is there a reason you're not using Action Points or Hero Points instead?
It's way too powerful, and the math is totally broken. You're adding your ENTIRE Will saving throw bonus to ANY d20 roll and ANY damage roll. That's absolutely ridiculous.
What will this add to the game for you? Just one of any of the five standard feats you list could be attributed to harsh training or a rough upbringing. It seems like too much and I don't understand why you would give five free feats plus a custom ability to all characters.
Would it be multiplied on a critical hit? And if so, can you choose to use it after the critical hit is confirmed?
I've rethought it and I'll go with half the will save rounded down.
Yes the con damage is meant to be a limiting factor, but it is also meant to represent that you are pushing yourself past your limits and your body pays the price, the only reason you can do this at all is because of intense mental fortitude and self control. When you strain yourself so hard you start bleeding from your eyes and your fingernails fall out eventually. You get the idea.
Not multiplied on a critical hit, and everything is before the roll.
I don't really like hero points because they lack flavor. You are awesome because you are awesome. Yay.
One of the reasons I'm doing all this is because when they face challenges beyond their abilities I want them to have a trump card, also plot.
Also think about it like this: you use this ability 4 times in a combat/encounter that's 4 con damage. That's not nothing. You use it 8 times that's 8 con damage, that's potentially disastrous. It's a high risk high reward ability. Yes you can remove damage, but no matter how it is done it costs resources or at least time.
As to in general why I do this sort of thing? To put it simply I find it more fun when the PC's are a bit special in some way. Nothing in there (asside from the custom ability) is game breaking, and it hammers in to the PC's that what they have been through was extreme, to the point where they can feel justified in thinking to themselves when they meet an NPC they know that that person just cannot empathize with the life they lead up till this point. I don't know if I am properly explaining this. I don't think the five feats will break the game and I personally think it will be fun. The custom ability might, but I don't think so. Besides many of my players are adept at that all on their own. We shall see...
Any more comments? I have appreciated your feedback. If I do go through with this I'm thinking that even at half rounded down a will save may become to large, and I'm wondering if I just put an arbitrary limit such as no higher than +6.
If I do put such a limit what should it be considering once again that it does cost a point of con damage.
Why not character level? Or better yet, character level/4?
With bonuses based on Will save, the very characters with the strongest opportunity for swing from this thing (casters) have the highest ability to heal themselves. I'm not normally the one who starts crying over martials' bad fate, but this seems incredibly poorly balanced.
"Tapestry Weaver (Su) As a swift action, you may cause yourself a point of temporary Constitution damage. No effects may prevent or deflect this damage, but it may be healed through natural or magical means as normal. For as many rounds as your character level (including the initial round), every time that you make a d20 roll, roll twice and take the highest result."
It does break the game (i.e. adversely affect it) because you're adding your Will saving throw to ANY d20 roll. That breaks the math for many different types of checks and rolls. You can use this to always win initiative, add the saving throw to caster level checks, etc. It's adding a potentially large number to any d20 roll with complete disregard for how the math of the roll works.
Constitution damage isn't enough to balance this at all. Not only is the cost fairly insignificant compared to how much it can alter a roll, but also it's incredibly easy for players to game the system by choosing lots of options that remove ability damage. At higher levels, the cost will be negligible.
I also don't see how this really adds anything to the game or make it fun beyond just doing monty haul shenanigans.
It's like the opposite of 5e's Bounded Accuracy. It's just going to make some encounters even swingier.
It's going to remove some challenges.
At 2nd level, your PCs will be able to add +5 (plus their Wisdom modifiers--which they WON'T be dumping).
By 5th level, some PCs will be adding +10 to rolls. That's almost like Taking 20 on some things.
So either your NPCs will need super high ACs, saving throw DCs, attack modifiers, CMDs, etc., which will force your PCs to give themselves Con damage or else they will totally suck, or your BBEG will be twknEGs (teeny weeny kinda naughty evil guys) because your PCs will be able to just swarm them.
What if one of your PCs is a paladin? Occasionally they will be adding Strength and Charisma and Wisdom and +2 +1/2 HD to attack rolls.
I expect you will have lots of bards, clerics, druids, paladins, maybe sorcerers and wizards, inquisitors, oracles, maguses, summoners, etc.
Cyrad and SmiloDan, I'm curious what you think of my classified idea. (It's classified because my players haven't gotten it yet.)
Cyrad and SmiloDan, I'm curious what you think of my classified idea. (It's classified because my players haven't gotten it yet.)
There's no such thing as "temporary Constitution damage." I'd change it to an immediate action and have it only affect a single d20 roll.
Yeah, what Cyrad said. :-) Or have it last 1 round.
I appreciate the responses, however I would appreciate it if people read my posts other than just the OP.
I already said I would change it to half the will save round down, and then perhaps apply a cap. Lets say you take a point of con damage for a +4 on a roll at level 4. That's not that unbalanced. At least it's not in my opinion. I don't mind applying a immediate action as an additional limiter, and that does favor older classes that don't have as many swifts.
My question is how easy is it to regain constitution damage 'for free' during combat at higher levels?
As to the question of concentration checks, it's not hp damage no check required (I think).
I could go with the roll twice and take the better result thing, but I like a flat bonus a little better, and it's a bit more flavorful.
One of the reasons I'm putting this in the game is that I like when a PC is able to put a bit more effort into something they think is important. That's what this is.
At this point the only thing I'm really worried about is higher level are there ways of trivializing con damage -in combat- if they spend an action to remove it that's fine, but if it's free that's not as good.
How would it interact with Bear's Endurance?
Would having an odd Constitution score encourage using it for free once per day?
Are you disciplined enough as a GM to not plan encounters that will rely on this special trump card ability?
Then you prefer a flat bonus. That's fine. But I still think it should be on some basis other than a save that's so highly associated with caster classes and not martial classes. The Wisdom bonus is at least unassociated with some casting classes, and somewhat associated with some martial classes (especially roguish sorts and monks). You'll have a very perceptive party, but that's not bad! (And some SAD classes will become MADdened, which is great, but I'm sure there's MAD classes that would break under the strain of yet another ability score to boost. Something else to consider.)
Have you looked at the fiend flayer archetype for an example of brakes on Con damage for a bennie?
~~~~
Cyrad, if "temporary Constitution damage" is wrong, how do you say the kind that isn't "permanent Constitution drain"? Just "Constitution damage"?
I appreciate the responses, however I would appreciate it if people read my posts other than just the OP.
I already said I would change it to half the will save round down, and then perhaps apply a cap. Lets say you take a point of con damage for a +4 on a roll at level 4. That's not that unbalanced. At least it's not in my opinion. I don't mind applying a immediate action as an additional limiter, and that does favor older classes that don't have as many swifts.
My question is how easy is it to regain constitution damage 'for free' during combat at higher levels?
I don't care if it's full or half the Will saving throw. The math is still broken because you're adding a big scaling number to ANY d20 roll and ANY damage roll with complete disregard for how the math of each roll works. A +4 bonus to a skill check is not the same as a +4 bonus to an ability check or a caster level check. Rolling twice and taking the higher result is more mechanically sound because it doesn't actually increase the maximum result; it just makes success more reliable.
Another problem is that you're only thinking in terms of in-combat. With this system, it's easy for a party to take several points of Con damage and then use a couple of lesser restoration scrolls every fight. There's little incentive to not abuse this every fight, which goes completely against what you're going for. Even outside of combat, this is an extremely useful ability.
If you're trying to offer a trump card to use in a desperate situation, there's WAY better ways to accomplish that.
Cyrad, if "temporary Constitution damage" is wrong, how do you say the kind that isn't "permanent Constitution drain"? Just "Constitution damage"?
The correct terms are ability damage and ability drain. Ability damage can be healed naturally while ability drain actually reduces your ability score and is permanent unless healed by magic.
Cyrad, if "temporary Constitution damage" is wrong, how do you say the kind that isn't "permanent Constitution drain"? Just "Constitution damage"?The correct terms are ability damage and ability drain. Ability damage can be healed naturally while ability drain actually reduces your ability score and is permanent unless healed by magic.
And yet, I know I've seen "permanent ability drain," apparently to stress that it's the more serious kind. My problem is that I haven't yet memorized those terms, LOL, so I keep having to look them up! I suppose as a result, I've started throwing around the unorthodox word "temporary." So thanks for pointing out that it IS unorthodox! And possibly confusing.
I appreciate the responses, however I would appreciate it if people read my posts other than just the OP.
I already said I would change it to half the will save round down, and then perhaps apply a cap. Lets say you take a point of con damage for a +4 on a roll at level 4. That's not that unbalanced. At least it's not in my opinion. I don't mind applying a immediate action as an additional limiter, and that does favor older classes that don't have as many swifts.
My question is how easy is it to regain constitution damage 'for free' during combat at higher levels?
I don't care if it's full or half the Will saving throw. The math is still broken because you're adding a big scaling number to ANY d20 roll and ANY damage roll with complete disregard for how the math of each roll works. A +4 bonus to a skill check is not the same as a +4 bonus to an ability check or a caster level check. Rolling twice and taking the higher result is more mechanically sound because it doesn't actually increase the maximum result; it just makes success more reliable.
Another problem is that you're only thinking in terms of in-combat. With this system, it's easy for a party to take several points of Con damage and then use a couple of lesser restoration scrolls every fight. There's little incentive to not abuse this every fight, which goes completely against what you're going for. Even outside of combat, this is an extremely useful ability.
If you're trying to offer a trump card to use in a desperate situation, there's WAY better ways to accomplish that.
I love how you are constantly telling me this is a bad idea, it will break the game and there are way better ways to accomplish this, and yet you suggest absolutely nothing.
Scrolls of lesser restoration don't bother me, and I don't understand why they seem so threatening. They cost money and while you can have a lot if them they don't fully heal you just 1d4, lets say that cures 3 in a shot, and they use the ability a lot a good amount. That's several hundred gold per encounter spent.
Also I may abandon the will save thing because of the push back, however what if I made the scaling like this: half your will save until your will save is +10, then one point for every five points of will.
This means that it will in general be around +5-+8 on the higher end, and people who don't invest as much in will, such as those with a weak will save won't be as severely punished since getting your will to +10 is not so great of a accomplishment.
It would interact with bears endurance the same way bear's endurance interacts with all con damage.
Yes I'm disciplined enough to not have all encounters assume this ability. I won't really explain my philosophies on GM practice here, but I feel there is more to the game than the figurine war game.
Having an odd con score wouldn't give you one free use a day, you would always have one free use a day, damage is not drain and is only calculated in pairs, where drain counts every notch. This is because damage is more common than drain, and recalculating for every-time you take say strength damage is a pain, so certain things about it a just a little easier to deal with. To sum up if you have 14 con and you take one point of con damage you do not recalculate hp. You recalculate if you take 2. If you have 15 con and you take 1 point of con damage you do not recalculate HP, you recalculate if you take 2.
I do like the idea of fatigue coming into play, but not after 1 shot, and it would be a more useful detractor if it was important socially, as there will be a strong social focus in the campaign.
I haven't read this whole thread but I just thought I'd pop in to say I really like this idea I think I understand what you're going for.
It does seem quite strong though, consider maybe limiting it to be half and have a reducing return to each time they do it the bonus goes down by 1 or 2 maybe (there is a word for that but I can't remember what)? to represent their will power weakening throughout the day, as they get wrung out.
What is it that you do not like about Hero Points?
Not enough of them at a maximum of 3? Then just give the Extra Hero Points feat Hero’s Fortune so PC's have 5.
Too much bonus? +4 when you know the d20 result and +8 before the d20 result is too much? Then GM fiat the bonus to be half of that [as with the Aid Another limits on Hero Points (+4 before the roll, +2 after the roll)].
Not enough damage is in the game? With all the extra feats you are giving, PC's can now select Maximize Spell or Weapon Specialization types of feats.
I love how you are constantly telling me this is a bad idea, it will break the game and there are way better ways to accomplish this, and yet you suggest absolutely nothing.
I love how you're open to criticism and suggestions, but you've been stubbornly defending your decision to implement this houserule!
But sarcasm aside, what don't you like about hero points? Hero points are nice because the GM decides when players get them. It's a resource that's completely in the GM's control.
Have you considered maybe giving players a tier of mythic power? You could set it up so that they have to do something special to replenish their mythic power (see the dependency mythic flaws).
Or maybe a system where you can spend a resource to add 1d6 to an attack roll, ability check, skill check, or saving throw. If the result is 6, the dice explodes.
Some tables (GMs and PCs) don't like things like hero points because as you say its totally under the GMs control, its basically GM fiat and feels like characters get stronger and weaker depending on the GMs mood and whether they're feeling generous.
I hate them personally. Similar problem with additional Grit and Panache recovery mechanics for 'doing something kewl'.
Not saying this is the OPs problem, but its one of mine.
Some tables (GMs and PCs) don't like things like hero points because as you say its totally under the GMs control, its basically GM fiat and feels like characters get stronger and weaker depending on the GMs mood and whether they're feeling generous.
I hate them personally. Similar problem with additional Grit and Panache recovery mechanics for 'doing something kewl'.
Not saying this is the OPs problem, but its one of mine.
I think a better modification is to do something like Fate Core where there's a consistent way to get the points. Fate Core allows a GM to give a point in order to increase the DC of a check or complicate a character's decision. However, a player can choose to request a point from a GM at the cost of making a task more difficult. You could do the same with hero points.
How would it interact with Bear's Endurance?
Would having an odd Constitution score encourage using it for free once per day?
Are you disciplined enough as a GM to not plan encounters that will rely on this special trump card ability?
The effects of ability damage don't depend on your ability score. Even/odd doesn't matter.
1 point of ability damage does nothing. Every two points of ability damage imposes a -1 on appropriate stats and abilities.
Damage isn't the same as drain.
Is that a new rule? I thought any reduction to an ability score (drain or damage) was a reduction to the ability score, and if it gets reduced from an even number to an odd number (12 to 11, say), would reduce the ability score modifier by one (+1 to 0).
At least that's how every D&D and PF table I've played at has done it that way.
I've been playing 5E lately.
I haven't read this whole thread but I just thought I'd pop in to say I really like this idea I think I understand what you're going for.
It does seem quite strong though, consider maybe limiting it to be half and have a reducing return to each time they do it the bonus goes down by 1 or 2 maybe (there is a word for that but I can't remember what)? to represent their will power weakening throughout the day, as they get wrung out.
I like this idea, the way I'm currently thinking of using it is mostly listed in my previous posts, except that applying the bonus to things that take longer take more points of con damage, and that it cannot be healed while you are doing the things you are getting the bonus for: 1 con up to 1 round, 2 con, a number of rounds equal to the bonus, 3 points minutes equal to the bonus, 4 points 10 minutes per point of bonus, 5 points hour per point of bonus, 6 con damage would cover the day.
I'm thinking for every -1 to their con score they have to chose to reduce the bonus by one or take 1 more con damage. Maybe not I dunno. I still have until monday...
I love how you are constantly telling me this is a bad idea, it will break the game and there are way better ways to accomplish this, and yet you suggest absolutely nothing.I love how you're open to criticism and suggestions, but you've been stubbornly defending your decision to implement this houserule!
But sarcasm aside, what don't you like about hero points? Hero points are nice because the GM decides when players get them. It's a resource that's completely in the GM's control.
Have you considered maybe giving players a tier of mythic power? You could set it up so that they have to do something special to replenish their mythic power (see the dependency mythic flaws).
Or maybe a system where you can spend a resource to add 1d6 to an attack roll, ability check, skill check, or saving throw. If the result is 6, the dice explodes.
Yes I've been stubbornly defending this little houserule of mine, but in case you did not notice, I've been toning it down each time I posted, thanks to responses.
I don't like hero points for the reasons that I've stated previously, and because it's not really a resource players can count on because of how infrequently it is naturally received. In shadowrun you have a stat called edge that functions vaguely similar to how hero points work (emphasis on vaguely), but you regain one every time you sleep. Additionally the higher your edge rating the more bang for your buck for each individual use of edge. Hero points are max 3 once per level and gm fiat. Since I expect them to level slowly that puts all the power of their ability into my hands. Me no likey.
A tier of mythic power is not what I want for a variety of reasons; balance, flavor, lore of my world. I don't really feel like going into it. I may give them mythic eventually, but not right off the bat.
The d6 that can explode, well it's very similar to what I'm suggesting, only more capable of swing at low levels, otherwise very similar, but less fitting. However this one I will consider. In fact I may at character creation offer the option, you choose one and stick with it. This way those who want to invest in will will be rewarded, and those who don't will not be penalized. The way I'm currently working the bonus it is unlikely to get above 8 or so anyways, so they have similar levels of power.
Thank you that was a genuinely useful suggestion.