PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Houserules on injury



Myou
2010-02-22, 09:19 AM
My player and I agree that being unimpeded by damage and able to function perfectly when your HP is very low is rather silly, so this thread is for me to see what you think of my ideas to change that, and get help fleshing them out, and others to post their own houserule on the subject.

My idea is that when your HP drops below 1/2 you have to make a fort save each time you get hurt or you become injured and take some sort of stacking penalty on checks and rolls, and have to make concentration checks to cast spells, and then when you're below 1/4 HP you have to make a fort save every time you're damaged, or become disabled.

I'd also rewrite disabled a little, as here;
A character who is disabled, either due to failing a fortitude save to resist injury, or having 0 or less HP but being stable, may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). He moves at half speed for all forms of movement. Taking move actions doesnít risk further injury, but performing any standard action (or any other action the game master deems strenuous, including some free actions such as casting a quickened spell) deals 1 point of damage after the completion of the act. If the character had 0 or fewer hit points upon taking a strenuous action then unless the action increased the disabled characterís hit points, he is now in negative hit points and dying.

A disabled character with negative hit points recovers hit points naturally if he is being helped. Otherwise, each day he has a 10% chance to start recovering hit points naturally (starting with that day); otherwise, he loses 1 hit point. Once an unaided character starts recovering hit points naturally, he is no longer in danger of losing hit points (even if his current hit points are negative).

This is just a rough outline of my idea, what do you think?

Moglorosh
2010-02-22, 09:25 AM
IMO that's just a way to unnecessarily punish your PC's for no tangible benefit. Even if it affects enemy NPC's as well, it still doesn't add anything to the game and would probably only serve to make combat more tedious.

Mastikator
2010-02-22, 09:30 AM
Not gritty enough!

How about also expanding it? When you're down to 1/2 you take a -1 circumstance penalty to all skill checks, ability checks, saves, attacks and AC and you move at 75% speed, you also count as 1 less HitDie creature for the purpose of effects that are based on hitdie (such as sleep)
When you're down to 1/4 the circumstance penalty increases to -2 and can no longer run at full speed, slow down to 50%, the hitdie reduction counting increases to -2
When you're down to 1/8 it increases further to -4, your speed is at 25% and you automatically take 1 damage each time you make a standard action. finally the hitdie reduction reduces to a final -3

I'm a fan of grittyness.

I like the idea. This makes HP damage more feasible and feel more realistic.

Kurald Galain
2010-02-22, 09:34 AM
If you want a gritty setting, there's more fitting systems for that than D&D.

I'd say the problem with Myou's approach is that it requires numerous extra rolls (the fort saves). The problem with Mastikator's approach is that the negative effects do not impair spellcasters.

Overall an issue is that frontliners tend to get hurt more often than casters, so injury rules in D&D would tend to tip the balance in the favor of casters. Of course, the balance is plenty tipped like that already.

bosssmiley
2010-02-22, 09:52 AM
Myou, your death spiral mechanic seems to operate on the assumption that HP represent tissue damage. There's a case to be made that HP instead represent a state of combat readiness.

Look at it this way: well-rested and/or more experienced soldiers are more likely to survive the vagaries of combat (ie: have more HP) than exhausted or green ones. As they spend time in hazardous situations their readiness gradually deteriorates (HP loss), and can only be restored by R&R (natural healing). Eventually a soldier run out of luck/foresight (for which read: hit points) entirely, and their number is up.

This explains why some effects (sword swipes, arrows, shrapnel, the concussive force of a magic missile, etc.) cause HP damage, while some (stepping on a landmine, direct hit from artillery) are save-or-dies that circumvent HP entirely. Save-for-half? That's duck and cover in action. :smallwink:

If you still want to follow the "HP is damage" path then you might want to treat D&D HP in a similar manner to WFRP Wounds: no significant mechanical effects until you run out entirely, but, once you reach 0HP you continue to deteriorate and eventually bleed out ("-8, -9, -10...") unless healed.

Justin Bacon did some fun stuff with this (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/advanced-rules/optional-death.html) over at The Alexandrian. IIRC his rules allowed for 'bloodied and battered dying strike' and 'final speech' scenes in a way that RAW D&D doesn't.

(Or you could just port over the WFRP Critical Injuries table (which awards ever more severe injuries based on degree of grotesque overkill inflicted by the fatal blow) in its gritty, sadistic entirety. :smallwink:)

Treating HP as fatigue, rather than the lopping off of actual physical gobbets of meat and muscle, reduces the gimping effect that death spiral mechanics have on armour-plated frontkampfers who go through hit points like a fat kid goes through candy. But it still allows you to inflict delicious harm on people who lack the sense to scream "Medic!" when they get to 0HP.

Myou
2010-02-22, 10:10 AM
This is of course just an idea. I don't want grittyness, it just seems unfair that a monster on 1 HP is no different to one on 100 when it has its turn.

Kurald is right, too many saving throws is a bad idea. Casters will get hurt at times though, and concentration checks mean that it will be pretty bad for them too.

I think now that this should only kick in at 1/4 HP, not half. For simplicity's sake.


Myou, your death spiral mechanic seems to operate on the assumption that HP represent tissue damage. There's a case to be made that HP instead represent a state of combat readiness.

Look at it this way: well-rested and/or more experienced soldiers are more likely to survive the vagaries of combat (ie: have more HP) than exhausted or green ones. As they spend time in hazardous situations their readiness gradually deteriorates (HP loss), and can only be restored by R&R (natural healing). Eventually a soldier run out of luck/foresight (for which read: hit points) entirely, and their number is up.

This explains why some effects (sword swipes, arrows, shrapnel, the concussive force of a magic missile, etc.) cause HP damage, while some (stepping on a landmine, direct hit from artillery) are save-or-dies that circumvent HP entirely. Save-for-half? That's duck and cover in action. :smallwink:

If you still want to follow the "HP is damage" path then you might want to treat D&D HP in a similar manner to WFRP Wounds: there is no significant mechanical effect until you run out entirely. Heck, you could just port over the WFRP Critical Injuries table (which awards ever more severe injuries based on degree of overkill inflicted by the fatal shot).

I've heard this before, and it interests me. Would you say then that a monster hitting and doing damage would be more of a 'you block, but the impact takes a toll on you' sort of thing? Or, 'you dodge, but only just', with the implication that you can't keep dodging indefinitely?

bosssmiley
2010-02-22, 10:16 AM
I've heard this before, and it interests me. Would you say then that a monster hitting and doing damage would be more of a 'you block, but the impact takes a toll on you' sort of thing? Or, 'you dodge, but only just', with the implication that you can't keep dodging indefinitely?

Totally. Think of it in terms of concussive effect, or blunt force trauma, or whatever works for you. You might still be standing and ready to take another hit, but you're not feeling quite so perky about things as you were a minute ago.

YMMV of course...

Calimehter
2010-02-22, 10:19 AM
My simple house rule is to expand the HP range of Disabled. Instead of just being disabled at 0HP, you are disabled anytime you go below 10% of your normal HP total.

It has worked out quite well for us. It isn't such a big change that it comes up every fight or anything, but it makes the Disabled rule (and HP damage in general) somewhat more useful. Over the course of the current campaign that rule has led to many meaningful tactical decisions on the parts of both PC and foe alike over the many sessions we have used it.

Myou
2010-02-22, 10:38 AM
Totally. Think of it in terms of concussive effect, or blunt force trauma, or whatever works for you. You might still be standing and ready to take another hit, but you're not feeling quite so perky about things as you were a minute ago.

YMMV of course...

I like it as explanations go. :3
Also, I think it would work really well with my own ideas - you actually start getting hurt at 1/4 your hp.

The Alexandrian idea also has an appeal, but at the same time it seems like a larger departure.
But it also seems like a really nice idea.

Putting aside the idea of permanent deah - that's not really important to the main rules, this is what I'm now thinking about;


You die at the additive inverse of your max HP, eg -23 if your max HP is 23, and from 0 Hp dow you're injured, which means the following:

Injured characters may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can they take full-round actions). They move at half speed for all forms of movement. Taking move actions doesnít risk further injury, but performing any standard action (or any other action the DM deems strenuous, including some free actions such as casting a quickened spell) deals 1 point of damage after the completion of the act. Injured characters take a -2 penalty to all attack rolls, skill checks, ability checks, saves and AC, and must pass a DC 10 concentration check to cast spells (this stacks with any other concentration checks such as the check to cast a spell defensively).

Harperfan7
2010-02-22, 08:21 PM
Satyr had some cool injured rules, which I modified very slightly.


Damage Steps and Wounds
The more a character is injured the harder it gets for him to fight on. There are three different damage steps which brings penalties to all throws, checks, and attack rolls based upon the relation of total hitpoints to suffered damage.


75% of Hitpoints left (Hurt) -1, -5ft. Speed moved, 10% spell failure
50% of Hitpoints left (Wounded) -2, -10ft. Speed moved, 20% spell failure
25% of Hitpoints left (Mauled) -3, -15ft. Speed moved, 30% spell failure

The speed penalty isnít an actual penalty to speed. Itís a subtraction from the total distance moved per round (to a minimum of 5ft.) and it doesnít affect 5ft. adjustments. For example, if you take a single move and your speed is 30ft. and you are mauled, you can move a total of 15ft. that round. For a double move, it would be 45ft.

The spell failure is for all spells cast, period.

Whenever a creature suffers more than 50% of its total hit points, through a single hit, it must make a Fortitude save against DC = damage. If the Save fails, the creature is nauseated from the pain until healing magic or first aid can be applied. If the save succeeds, the victim of the attack is sickened from the pain for 1d4 rounds.

Example: A knight with 40 total hitpoints takes a heavy hit by an ogreís club, dealing him 11 points of net damage. His Hipoints sink under the ĺ margin, and he suffers a Ė1 penalty to his rolls.

banthesun
2010-02-22, 08:59 PM
I personally like the massive damage thing from D20 Modern, I feel that fits well with the HP as combat readiness thing to.

Otodetu
2010-02-22, 09:12 PM
If you want a gritty setting, there's more fitting systems for that than D&D.

I'd say the problem with Myou's approach is that it requires numerous extra rolls (the fort saves). The problem with Mastikator's approach is that the negative effects do not impair spellcasters.

Overall an issue is that frontliners tend to get hurt more often than casters, so injury rules in D&D would tend to tip the balance in the favor of casters. Of course, the balance is plenty tipped like that already.

This. 3.5 is not gritty, it is rainbow land.

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-22, 09:16 PM
I'll have a nice, long list of reasons why you shouldn't do this sometime in the morning. Can't make long posts on a Wii.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-02-22, 10:36 PM
I would say honestly that if that's what you're going for, just DM fiat it. "Okay, the orc's axe smashed your greave and cut your leg bad, you now move at half speed," or "you just got smashed hard in the head, -4 to attacks because the floor is spinning hard under you." If your player is cool with it, then just wing it and do what seems right or would make the situation more dramatic. Of course, it should apply to opponents too unless they're skeletons or robots or something.

(My players fight a lot of skeletons and robots, because I'm a jerk).

EDIT: And just to be clear, I'm not recommending you do that every single time someone hits. I suggest assuming most hits in melee combat bounce off the character's armor and leave a few bruises. I might have my players take injuries, but only if they suffer critical hits or drop to <4 HP.

Myou
2010-02-23, 10:08 AM
Satyr had some cool injured rules, which I modified very slightly.


Damage Steps and Wounds
The more a character is injured the harder it gets for him to fight on. There are three different damage steps which brings penalties to all throws, checks, and attack rolls based upon the relation of total hitpoints to suffered damage.


75% of Hitpoints left (Hurt) -1, -5ft. Speed moved, 10% spell failure
50% of Hitpoints left (Wounded) -2, -10ft. Speed moved, 20% spell failure
25% of Hitpoints left (Mauled) -3, -15ft. Speed moved, 30% spell failure

The speed penalty isnít an actual penalty to speed. Itís a subtraction from the total distance moved per round (to a minimum of 5ft.) and it doesnít affect 5ft. adjustments. For example, if you take a single move and your speed is 30ft. and you are mauled, you can move a total of 15ft. that round. For a double move, it would be 45ft.

The spell failure is for all spells cast, period.

Whenever a creature suffers more than 50% of its total hit points, through a single hit, it must make a Fortitude save against DC = damage. If the Save fails, the creature is nauseated from the pain until healing magic or first aid can be applied. If the save succeeds, the victim of the attack is sickened from the pain for 1d4 rounds.

Example: A knight with 40 total hitpoints takes a heavy hit by an ogreís club, dealing him 11 points of net damage. His Hipoints sink under the ĺ margin, and he suffers a Ė1 penalty to his rolls.

I like how he does it, but that's more detail than I really want - it would slow things down.
The spell failure thing is an interesting take on it, but it seems like a far stiffer penalty than non-casters take - a 30% chance to do nothing each round, way too severe.


I'll have a nice, long list of reasons why you shouldn't do this sometime in the morning. Can't make long posts on a Wii.

Hopefully your morning is soon, so I can hear why you think it's a bad idea. ^^


I would say honestly that if that's what you're going for, just DM fiat it. "Okay, the orc's axe smashed your greave and cut your leg bad, you now move at half speed," or "you just got smashed hard in the head, -4 to attacks because the floor is spinning hard under you." If your player is cool with it, then just wing it and do what seems right or would make the situation more dramatic. Of course, it should apply to opponents too unless they're skeletons or robots or something.

(My players fight a lot of skeletons and robots, because I'm a jerk).

EDIT: And just to be clear, I'm not recommending you do that every single time someone hits. I suggest assuming most hits in melee combat bounce off the character's armor and leave a few bruises. I might have my players take injuries, but only if they suffer critical hits or drop to <4 HP.

Fiating injury is the last thing I want to do, even if I was careful to hand out such penalties evenly, it would feel too arbitrary and unfair to players.
What we both want is really just some graduation between "You're fine." and "You're dead."

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-23, 10:58 AM
OK, morning is here, no more Wii devouring my posts.


1: Action economy. One of the key things DMs need to remember is that a single enemy is going to get trashed by a party of 3 or more due to action advantage, which is why most people recommend multiple enemies. However, implementing an injury house rule means the party is at risk when there are more enemies. It becomes a double-edged sword. Either the PCs have the advantage every fight due to action advantage, or the sheer number of enemies causes the PCs to suffer the Injury penalties every encounter, which in turn could cause a TPK in what would otherwise have been a fair encounter.

2: NPCs rarely ever have to worry about healing up after an encounter. PCs don't have this luxury. If the party can't heal the penalties away after every encounter, they end up being nerfed for the next encounter. If they couldn't heal from the previous one, then odds are poor that they will be able to after the next one. It becomes a spiral of death that won't stop until either the party blows their remaining resources on healing abilities or they drop.

3: In-Combat healing is horridly underpowered until level 9 (and even then, Heal is as good as it gets). Implementing this type of rule means whoever is playing a caster with healing spells either wastes his actions healing people in combat or draws the ire of his party for casting spells that actually matter.

4: The people who are exposed to this type of rule the most are the people playing the noncasters. Casters, if played properly, can go their entire 20 level careers without being exposed to this thanks to the sheer number of defenses they have. Noncasters are all ready the weakest classes in the game, they do not need an additional risk just for existing.

5: HP is an abstraction. Con damage is more accurate to serious injury.

Those are the main reasons these rules were never included in the basic PHB.

lesser_minion
2010-02-23, 11:01 AM
Hitpoints don't represent anything tangible in the game world. They're luck/fate/chance at best.

The best way not to make sense is to think of them as being some kind of 'chance to avoid a hit'. It doesn't work. A hit is a hit. If I wasn't hit, how was I exposed to the poison/weird magical effect/disease on the blade?

All hitpoints do is turn injuries from meaningful ones into superficial ones. Attacks that deal more damage are harder to ignore in this way than being stabbed with a toothpick.

I'm afraid I don't really understand the mindset that a few badly-named spells carry more weight than basic common sense.


Imposing penalties on characters is not a great move - all it really means is that there is more information to track, and I don't think it's worth it.

If you do want to go ahead, cut everyone's hitpoints down a little and impose a larger range of different things that can happen after a character runs out. That way, if you have a serious injury, it actually gets represented by part of the system that's designed to cope with such things.

It also means that injuries come into play - which nets you the extra verisimilitude you wanted - without screwing up the game too much. If you run out of hitpoints, you lose. Simple, intuitive, and workable. Otherwise, you have a couple of scratches at best, and you can even let players walk hitpoint damage off.

Myou
2010-02-23, 12:25 PM
OK, morning is here, no more Wii devouring my posts.


1: Action economy. One of the key things DMs need to remember is that a single enemy is going to get trashed by a party of 3 or more due to action advantage, which is why most people recommend multiple enemies. However, implementing an injury house rule means the party is at risk when there are more enemies. It becomes a double-edged sword. Either the PCs have the advantage every fight due to action advantage, or the sheer number of enemies causes the PCs to suffer the Injury penalties every encounter, which in turn could cause a TPK in what would otherwise have been a fair encounter.

2: NPCs rarely ever have to worry about healing up after an encounter. PCs don't have this luxury. If the party can't heal the penalties away after every encounter, they end up being nerfed for the next encounter. If they couldn't heal from the previous one, then odds are poor that they will be able to after the next one. It becomes a spiral of death that won't stop until either the party blows their remaining resources on healing abilities or they drop.

3: In-Combat healing is horridly underpowered until level 9 (and even then, Heal is as good as it gets). Implementing this type of rule means whoever is playing a caster with healing spells either wastes his actions healing people in combat or draws the ire of his party for casting spells that actually matter.

4: The people who are exposed to this type of rule the most are the people playing the noncasters. Casters, if played properly, can go their entire 20 level careers without being exposed to this thanks to the sheer number of defenses they have. Noncasters are all ready the weakest classes in the game, they do not need an additional risk just for existing.

5: HP is an abstraction. Con damage is more accurate to serious injury.

Those are the main reasons these rules were never included in the basic PHB.

1. I don't really follow you here at all, more weaker enemies doesn't mean more damage, and weaker enemies suffer a penalty sooner anyway. I'm afraid you'll have to give a longer explanation. ^^:

2. PCs in my games heal after every encounter to begin with, it's just stupid to go into battle on half health whether you take a penalty or not. So I really don't see how it's any different.

3. Again, I really don't get this. You'd heal a pary member who was on -9 out of 100, so why wouldn't you heal one on +9 out of 100? I know healing in battle is subpar, but not when it stops someone dying.
In any case, I houserule that healing is double strength, and it's pretty popular in the games I've had - maybe it's totally different when healing is only normal strength.

4. I agree that melee characters will be affected by this more often, that's a problem.

5. That's not a pro or a con.

So far the disadvantages I'm concerned with are hurting melee characters and adding unwanted drag to gameplay.


Hitpoints don't represent anything tangible in the game world. They're luck/fate/chance at best.

The best way not to make sense is to think of them as being some kind of 'chance to avoid a hit'. It doesn't work. A hit is a hit. If I wasn't hit, how was I exposed to the poison/weird magical effect/disease on the blade?

All hitpoints do is turn injuries from meaningful ones into superficial ones. Attacks that deal more damage are harder to ignore in this way than being stabbed with a toothpick.

I'm afraid I don't really understand the mindset that a few badly-named spells carry more weight than basic common sense.


Imposing penalties on characters is not a great move - all it really means is that there is more information to track, and I don't think it's worth it.

If you do want to go ahead, cut everyone's hitpoints down a little and impose a larger range of different things that can happen after a character runs out. That way, if you have a serious injury, it actually gets represented by part of the system that's designed to cope with such things.

It also means that injuries come into play - which nets you the extra verisimilitude you wanted - without screwing up the game too much. If you run out of hitpoints, you lose. Simple, intuitive, and workable. Otherwise, you have a couple of scratches at best, and you can even let players walk hitpoint damage off.

I don't follow the part about walking off injury, but I like the idea of the ability to resist injury, it puts me in mind of manga, which isn't a bad thing. :3

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-23, 12:45 PM
1. I don't really follow you here at all, more weaker enemies doesn't mean more damage, and weaker enemies suffer a penalty sooner anyway. I'm afraid you'll have to give a longer explanation.

More enemies means more attacks. More attacks means more chances for a critical hit. More chances for a crit means more damage. More damage means more penalties. More enemies, therefore, are a bad idea because the players will be exposed to the system far more than they need to be.

Conversely, a single opponent will be exposed to all of the attacks a party of 4 can muster. Same thing, different side.


2. PCs in my games heal after every encounter to begin with, it's just stupid to go into battle on half health whether you take a penalty or not. So I really don't see how it's any different.

Then why bother implementing it? Optimizers can end encounters in 3-5 rounds, and take minimal damage as a result.


3. Again, I really don't get this. You'd heal a pary member who was on -9 out of 100, so why wouldn't you heal one on +9 out of 100? I know healing in battle is subpar, but not when it stops someone dying.
In any case, I houserule that healing is double strength, and it's pretty popular in the games I've had - maybe it's totally different when healing is only normal strength.

That's why the Heal spell is considered good: It puts them back in the game and removes the need to heal them for a few turns. Compare a 1st level Orc's damage to a Cure Light Wounds spell. Eventually, the CLW will lose to the Orc's damage output (barring critical hits and assuming infinite use of CLW)

The fact that you doubled the healing helps out, but 2d8+10 isn't worth your standard action at 12th level when enemies are hitting for 40+damage/round. You're better off casting something like Entangle to prevent the attacks outright than to heal after the fact.


5. That's not a pro or a con.



HP gets ridiculous. A 20th level Barbarian can easily get 200HP, but the average CR 20 has 300 or 400HP. Some even have upward of 500. But what do those 500 points represent? RAW, it isn't a physical injury when someone takes 2 points of damage off of their 200HP, it's more like they blocked most of it. An actual injury doesn't occur in DnD until someone either takes Con damage or is knocked unconscious by HP damage.


So far the disadvantages I'm concerned with are hurting melee characters and adding unwanted drag to gameplay.


If that's what you want to avoid, Injury house rules are not the way to go about it. That's all these house rules do.

Myou
2010-02-23, 01:05 PM
More enemies means more attacks. More attacks means more chances for a critical hit. More chances for a crit means more damage. More damage means more penalties. More enemies, therefore, are a bad idea because the players will be exposed to the system far more than they need to be.

Conversely, a single opponent will be exposed to all of the attacks a party of 4 can muster. Same thing, different side.

Hmmm, I suppose so, more enemie sare more likely to do a consitantly high level of damage, it seem like it doen't reall favour either side, just makes injury more likely.


Then why bother implementing it? Optimizers can end encounters in 3-5 rounds, and take minimal damage as a result.

Because HP just feel silly the way we have it.


That's why the Heal spell is considered good: It puts them back in the game and removes the need to heal them for a few turns. Compare a 1st level Orc's damage to a Cure Light Wounds spell. Eventually, the CLW will lose to the Orc's damage output (barring critical hits and assuming infinite use of CLW)

The fact that you doubled the healing helps out, but 2d8+10 isn't worth your standard action at 12th level when enemies are hitting for 40+damage/round. You're better off casting something like Entangle to prevent the attacks outright than to heal after the fact.

Uh, well casting a 2nd level spell seem a little subpar for 12th level, but I do agree that healing is really only worthwhile when you heal a large amount of HP at a time, so CLW at level 12 would be a waste.


HP gets ridiculous. A 20th level Barbarian can easily get 200HP, but the average CR 20 has 300 or 400HP. Some even have upward of 500. But what do those 500 points represent? RAW, it isn't a physical injury when someone takes 2 points of damage off of their 200HP, it's more like they blocked most of it. An actual injury doesn't occur in DnD until someone either takes Con damage or is knocked unconscious by HP damage.

If that's what you want to avoid, Injury house rules are not the way to go about it. That's all these house rules do.

After thinking it over I agree, you and the others are right, so we're going to try to redefine HP rather than add injury rules. My player and I are both happy with that. Thanks to everyone for the help!

Tyndmyr
2010-02-23, 01:57 PM
This is of course just an idea. I don't want grittyness, it just seems unfair that a monster on 1 HP is no different to one on 100 when it has its turn.

How is it unfair? The exact same thing happens to the players. Whatever you think of this system, it is definitely fair.


Mechanics wise, it's probably because escalating incompetence with injury turns the game into rocket tag.

Myou
2010-02-23, 01:58 PM
How is it unfair? The exact same thing happens to the players. Whatever you think of this system, it is definitely fair.


Mechanics wise, it's probably because escalating incompetence with injury turns the game into rocket tag.

Unfair was the wrong word.

Kurald Galain
2010-02-23, 02:01 PM
How is it unfair? The exact same thing happens to the players. Whatever you think of this system, it is definitely fair.
I would say that it's not: NPCs get into only one or two fights during the entire campaign, whereas PCs get into plenty. So the odds of getting injuried are much greater for PCs.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-23, 02:04 PM
I would say that it's not: NPCs get into only one or two fights during the entire campaign, whereas PCs get into plenty. So the odds of getting injuried are much greater for PCs.

Well, yes, an injury system would be unfair. The current hp system is pretty fair, though. Sure, it's a relatively abstract system, but that's the nature of the game.

You probably could add enough granularity to D&D to make injury tables, individual pieces of armor, etc all make sense, but it would require a rather large amount of work, and probably wouldn't actually add much to the game but bookkeeping.

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-23, 02:12 PM
Well, yes, an injury system would be unfair. The current hp system is pretty fair, though. Sure, it's a relatively abstract system, but that's the nature of the game.

You probably could add enough granularity to D&D to make injury tables, individual pieces of armor, etc all make sense, but it would require a rather large amount of work, and probably wouldn't actually add much to the game but bookkeeping.

And no one wants a 900 page splatbook where every piece of armor is stated out. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FATAL)

Myou
2010-02-23, 02:15 PM
And no one wants a 900 page splatbook where every piece of armor is stated out. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FATAL)

But should you write one, it will provide years of entertainment as people split their sides laughing at it.