.jpg)
I agree with him. His commenters saying that adding a complicated sub-system for tracking fatigue points is undesirable though, and I agree with them too. What we want is to keep the game simple and streamlined, and provide an option for anyone who wants to include some sort of rule for character fatigue or decreased fighting effectiveness due to wounds etc. in the game.
Here's what I'm proposing:
Combat Fatigue, Weakness and Wounds
A character or monster can not cause more damage from a physical attack than its own hit point value.
Example1: A wounded fighter with 3 hit points rolls a d8 for damage with their long sword. They also get a +1 bonus on damage for their high Strength attribute. However due to their hit points being 3 any value higher than that is counted as a 3.
Example2: A kobold charges the Wizard with it's spear. It rolls a d6 for damage but it only has 4 hit points so it can inflict a maximum of 4 damage against the Wizard.
This system has no additional points to track while representing a limited amount of 'combat fatigue', 'wounds' and weakness / inexperience. When character are at higher levels or not at low hit points the system fades into the background. It applies to both players and monsters and reduces some of the 'swingy' nature of combat making fights with weaker monsters easier to apply tactics to at lower levels.
It also changes some of the basic D&D combat tactics. Instead of ganging up on Orcs one at a time to remove them from combat (good D&D tactic, bad combat emulation) the party would alternately be wise to reduce all the orcs to low damage output by spreading their attacks around.
Let me know what you think. I thought of this on my walk to work this morning and haven't had a chance to try this in a game. :)
29 comments:
Elegant. Is magic exempt?
Problem: this telegraphs game system info about monsters to the PCs (number of HP remaining). I like that stuff to remain uncertain. 4E does this often (bloodied values, minions doing fixed rather than variable damage) and I find that it focuses people more on the combat mechanics than on the situation, which I don't like. From that experience, I would be hesitant to introduce mechanics which may have a similar effect to other games.
Magic and Mechanical weapons (Crossbows, Firearms) would be exempt.
I like the players knowing the hit points of the monsters once they engage in combat with them. It represents their character being able to judge the relative fighting ability of their opponent and it removes the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" uncertainty about whether the GM is just fudging everything.
I don't think this would focus us on the game mechanic at that moment anymore than we already were (eg. d8 for damage... roll a 5... but I have 3 hit points, so that's 3.)
1st level fighters with 1hp are hosed more than usual by this rule.
I like it. I might suggest that characters and monsters that have not been wounded are able to do damage as normal though. Backstabs would have to be exempt too.
It's an interesting idea. Would players go for it though?
1st level fighters with 1hp should buy a crossbow. :)
On the bright side, for the friends of the weak old man with the crossbow, the kobolds and goblins will tend to be doing reduced damage as well.
Backstabs would have to be exempt too.
In B/X a backstab from a Thief does "twice the normal amount of damage" which could still apply. The normal amount of damage is what is limited by low hit points.
@Simon: As a player I'd take the trade-off so that the 3hp goblin isn't doing 1-6 damage. Most 1st level fighters would have much greater longevity vs Goblins. Even for lower hp characters it reduces the amount of 1 hit deaths from weak monsters. Big monsters are still a big threat though - and should be run away from. :)
@Jeff: Do you use this rule from B/X (or something similar)?
(First level characters may easily be killed in battle. As an option, the DM may allow a player character to roll again if the player has rolled a 1 or 2 for the number of hit points at first level only.)
So 1st level player characters would be at 3hp or more to start.
I appreciate the desire for increased realism, but I'm concerned about its impact on later stages of combat.
Using this rule, as a fight gets more desperate, and as I get closer to death, I become less powerful, and less able to take out a foe that I really need to take out. I can see that being frustrating, but I don't see it being fun.
I become less powerful, and less able to take out a foe that I really need to take out. I can see that being frustrating, but I don't see it being fun.
If fun = max PC power + winning then I agree this isn't a good rule for your group.
Keep in mind as you fight the enemy they become less powerful as well. An Ogre with 5 hit points isn't doing 1-10 damage on each hit with its club anymore.
This lets the players know how many hit points an opponent has and more severely penalizes foes who do more damage with each attack.
But I admit I like D&D combat to look like this, so I'm good with hit points as written.
On an unrelated topic, that mini of the hospitaller and the templar is awesome!
This is elegant. Well done
Stuart, no I do not. I'm a jerk that way. However, you've got a good rule going here and I'd be tempted to try it when I run LotFP, which calls for max hit points at 1st level (or some other relatively high minimum HP).
(PS Has the interface always been in French around here?)
I'm afraid that this system will boil down to an unwieldy advantage to whoever wins initiative. Scoring first blood decreases the opponent's ability to fight back, which will lead to a downward spiral to defeat for whomever gets hurt first. I can see a lot more TPK's arising from this system.
Furthermore I'm not certain that it really is realistic since it fails to account for the adrenaline rush of life-and-death combat.
@Jeff: I switched it to French for my amusement. :D
@Sean: I'm not sure I agree with your argument, but it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. :)
Very suitable for SBVD. May I steal? (credit where it is due, of course)
I agree with you, and several of the other commentators, that adding unnecessary complications to a combat system is undesirable. I would be equally opposed to a combat system that takes hours, rather than minutes, to resolve (cough) 4E (cough).
That some oppose combat fatigue emulation on the basis that it is "un-fun" leaves me bewildered.
Since when did hanging out with your friends, rolling dice and making up s**t also require having fun?
@Chris: Be my guest. :)
@Aaron: Different ideas about fun. For me Tension is more important than Heroics for the creation of "fun". Other people may have different ideas, and that's okay. :)
I agree with Jeff's original comment. I'd change it to "A *wounded* character or monster..." Also, this should only apply to creatures that can feel fatigue: half-HD skeletons do a full d6 damage until destroyed.
In the spirit of your new french language interface: précisément!
@Talysman: I could see that for some monsters (like Skeletons).
I like this rule for uninjured but low hit point characters -- one of the reasons crossbows (and later firearms) were historically given to armies was they didn't require as much training. So your low hit point conscripts can do good damage with them despite not having the same amount of training that the longbow men required.
In D&D it makes the crossbow the better option for the lower hit point 1st level characters and the bow is only a better choice for fighters and more skilled (above 1st level) characters. Which to me seems to make sense.
I like that it's a (very) simple rule but it affects the game in a number of different, interesting and good (subjective, but good for me) ways. :)
It doesn't float my boat, but I do like the principle behind it.
As an alternative you could have PCs make Con Checks whenever they go below 0HP to stay functional or pass out in pain, and what ever they're down to is also the penalty used against their actions. So a fighter down to -5HP is -5 to attack/skill checks.
I love this idea but I feel the need for it to scale somehow....
Now that I think about you, you could technically yank the concept of "Bloodied" out of 4e and instead of bonuses, start applying negatives maybe? I don't know...
I like this idea a lot. I'm tempted to use it, but I have to roll it around in my head more. I see both sides of many of the comments.
I'd go with affecting the wounded in this fight only, you can take an action to catch your breath and ignore penalties until hit again, magic users can do up to their prime trait, and critical hits do full damage.
I agree with Brendan's suggestion about unwounded characters being able to do more damage, and otherwise with the system as suggested. I do think it would be good to have some means for a desperate PC or monster to lash out with unusual strength if, say, they roll a 20 or whatnot, for players who would not enjoy the certainty of increasing weakness as a battle progresses.
Overall, I think the idea is a good one because it encourages players to think in terms of strategy. 'Can we take this battle right now? Should we avoid it or run from it? How do we change the conditions of this battle before engaging it so the odds are more favorable, if we MUST fight?'
an elegant idea indeed. i like it.
Post a Comment