[3.5/PF] Defense, Vitality & Wounds

[The Troubadour]

Hey there, guys! So, quick question: how well do the Defense, Vitality & Wounds (or Vitality & Vigor, if I'm not mistaken) rules work in D&D 3.5 / Pathfinder? I'd like to try 'em out in actual play, but I thought I'd ask for opinions first. :-)

[Hyde]

I played a (brief) adventure that used this system. It was... a thing?

It seemed to work fine.

[The Troubadour]

Really? Noone else tried the system - or at least analyzed it from a theoretical point of view? Anyone? Bueller? :-)

[Draz74]

Really? Noone else tried the system - or at least analyzed it from a theoretical point of view? Anyone? Bueller? :-)

I hadn't seen this thread until now.

The general consensus is that Vitality & Wounds rules are a good idea poorly implemented. They work pretty well at very low levels as long as Scorching Ray (and other weapon-like abilities that deal atypical amounts of base damage) don't come into play. At higher levels, they have all kinds of problems with crit-fishing, one-hit kills, and so on.

Class Defense bonuses don't have a huge effect on the game one way or the other. They hurt classes like Monk and Rogue that are supposed to be involved in melee, but don't have heavy armor proficiencies. They make AC a little more worthwhile to focus on in general.

The Armor-as-DR variant in UA that is often combined with Class Defense rules is utterly underpowered. Anyone with Power Attack can do more damage to someone who is using the variant than to someone who isn't using the variant. Armor becomes nearly worthless.

[Dsurion]

I made a thread asking the same thing a while ago and didn't get much response either. Most of the feedback was, "We used and loved them!" or "I hate it, it sucks," with relatively little actual information being given. Hopefully you'll get more information soon.

[The Troubadour]

The general consensus is that Vitality & Wounds rules are a good idea poorly implemented. They work pretty well at very low levels as long as Scorching Ray (and other weapon-like abilities that deal atypical amounts of base damage) don't come into play. At higher levels, they have all kinds of problems with crit-fishing, one-hit kills, and so on.

So would Pathfinder's revised variant - that on a crit you deal Vitality AND Wound damage, but Wound damage is equal to only the weapon's crit multiplier - work better? Hmmm... Probably not, since as soon as you lose all Vitality, you're back to taking something like 2d6+32 or something from a Power Attacking Fighter.
So, in theory, the Vitality/Wounds system could work, but only if the damage system was also revised?


Class Defense bonuses don't have a huge effect on the game one way or the other. They hurt classes like Monk and Rogue that are supposed to be involved in melee, but don't have heavy armor proficiencies.

Hmmm... I see.


The Armor-as-DR variant in UA that is often combined with Class Defense rules is utterly underpowered. Anyone with Power Attack can do more damage to someone who is using the variant than to someone who isn't using the variant. Armor becomes nearly worthless.

Then I'd guess Pathfinder's variant - where DR is equal to the armor's AC bonus, not half of it - wouldn't work any better?
So in theory, the only this variant would work is if the damage system was also revised?

[Draz74]

So would Pathfinder's revised variant - that on a crit you deal Vitality AND Wound damage, but Wound damage is equal to only the weapon's crit multiplier - work better? Hmmm... Probably not, since as soon as you lose all Vitality, you're back to taking something like 2d6+32 or something from a Power Attacking Fighter.
So, in theory, the Vitality/Wounds system could work, but only if the damage system was also revised?
Well, once someone loses all Vitality, they should be relatively easy to kill, so that's not a big problem.

The system you describe is definitely better for balance. My biggest problem with it is that NOBODY is easy to kill anymore. Even a commoner has quite a bit of resilience, now, even against a crit. But this is a simulation problem, not so much a balance problem.


Hmmm... I see.

Then I'd guess Pathfinder's variant - where DR is equal to the armor's AC bonus, not half of it - wouldn't work any better?
So in theory, the only this variant would work is if the damage system was also revised?

Ah, maybe the reason you're having trouble getting responses is because a lot of people, like me, aren't really familiar with Pathfinder beyond Saph's Guide to the Main Differences between 3.5e and (Core) Pathfinder.

Well, DR = full Armor Bonus is definitely stronger than the UA variant. And since Power Attack is different in PF, the conversion rate between to-hit and damage isn't quite so well-defined. Hmmm. I still suspect that Armor As DR is weaker than normal Armor to AC, but I can't prove it.

Again, my simulationist side objects to this way of doing things, because now a typical Level 1 Warrior with a dagger can't ever take down a foe in full plate, no matter how many times he's allowed to keep swinging at him.

[The Troubadour]

The system you describe is definitely better for balance. My biggest problem with it is that NOBODY is easy to kill anymore. Even a commoner has quite a bit of resilience, now, even against a crit.

Well, in theory, NPCs don't have Vitality regardless of their class or level, so they're really not that resilient. :-)



Again, my simulationist side objects to this way of doing things, because now a typical Level 1 Warrior with a dagger can't ever take down a foe in full plate, no matter how many times he's allowed to keep swinging at him.

Well, a critical hit should probably ignore armor DR altogether.