House rule for being wounded. Good idea or bad?

[Segial]

I've been pondering a house rule for a while for my D&D 3.5 group and I would like some feedback if it is a good idea. It always bothered me that in D&D a character that is at full hp fights just as well as one who is down to 1 hp. After all, pain and bloodloss should slow down someone seriously wounded. So my idea was that after a character loses like 2/3 of his hp, he becomes fratigued till he gets his hp back up. Same goes of course for npcs and monstern, unless they are immune to fratigue like undead for example. Is this a good idea? Would it work game-balance-wise? And what threshold would be good idea to set this to, half, 2/3, 1/4 hp?

[TiaC]

This can create "Death Spirals". If the side that is losing a fight is penalized, it acts to ensure that they will keep losing the fight. It's much harder to turn a fight around. This can lead to a situation that should be familiar to anyone who has played Monopoly, where despite the ultimate outcome being clear, combat drags on for a few more rounds.

[Arbane]

There's plenty of games rules like this work in, but most of them either aren't as combat-focussed as D&D, or have ways for characters to actively defend themselves.

Also, consider: is this going to penalize fighty-types for doing their jobs while having next-to-no impact on spellcasters?

How about doing it in reverse:
Now I'm Mad: When this character drops below half their maximum hit points, they gain +2 to attack and saves until their hitpoints are back above half.

[Pex]

Bad idea.

It hurts players more. Monsters are supposed to die anyway. It's irrelevant if it takes one round earlier because they're penalized for taking damage. For PCs it's the end of their world. A losing battle can become a TPK.

It hurts warriors more. They take the brunt of hits. Spellcasters will take damage occasionally, but warriors take more damage more often. It's why they have the hit points. Warriors become The Suck just doing their job.

Someone has to play a healbot because every hit point of damage becomes more devastating. Nothing wrong with a healbot and some players enjoy the style, but it shouldn't be a necessity. Healing is important in a generic game. It shouldn't be, ironically, a life or death matter.

[RoboEmperor]

I've been pondering a house rule for a while for my D&D 3.5 group and I would like some feedback if it is a good idea. It always bothered me that in D&D a character that is at full hp fights just as well as one who is down to 1 hp. After all, pain and bloodloss should slow down someone seriously wounded. So my idea was that after a character loses like 2/3 of his hp, he becomes fratigued till he gets his hp back up. Same goes of course for npcs and monstern, unless they are immune to fratigue like undead for example. Is this a good idea? Would it work game-balance-wise? And what threshold would be good idea to set this to, half, 2/3, 1/4 hp?

Generally house rules are a terrible idea. Noob DMs going "This is how it should work!" and just changing everything willy nilly to fit their tastes, be it "your weapon flies off when you roll a 1", "you need to converse with peers for an entire week to level up", or "trolls can be coup de grace without acid or fire because nothing in the world is immortal and everything can be killed" >.>

I'd honestly put your house rule on a level similar to the above. Mechanically it punishes frontliners, tanks, and mundanes while leaving spellcasters virtually untouched, giving everyone less incentive to play mundanes.

[Satinavian]

I think it is a good idea. Many RPGs i enjoy do something like that.


It just doesn't fit the playstyle D&D aims for. Wich is not necessarily a reason not to do it. If the kind of game you want it not exactly the kind of game D&D provides but near enough that another system would be too much hassle, houserules are the way to go.

Just keep in mind :

- This rule will enforce a mindset of not fighting to the death. Both player and adversary-wise. If you are uncomfortable with either running prisoner sessions or presenting prisoner dilemmata to players, don't do it.

- It will mess with encounter and reward structure. Easy fights get easier, harder fights get harder. Battles become more swingy. Because more people flee/retreat than usual less loot is given out. Because battles end sooner, less ressources like powers/slots/whatever are used per fight.



I also disagree with frontliners get hit harder and with death spirals means more TPKs.

While frontliners are supposed to work as tank and take most of the punishment, that only works, when the PCs manage to control the flow of battle. Every enemy will prefer to target the glass cannon first. Also depending on how it is implemented, tanks probably can take more damage before getting negative modifiers. It is not uncommon to couple those to total hitpoints, constitution or saves in any such systems.

A death spiral means it is harder to turn a battle. It also means it is easier to guess the outcome early and just retreat/give up. I would argue, those penalties mean less PC deaths, not more. Which kind of idiot fights on if he knows he will lose and die ?

[Crake]

There is actually a rule variant for this in unearthed arcana: Wound/Vitality points. Vitality are calculated the same as normal hp, but represent your character's ability to generally dodge out of the way, or avoid any legitimate blow, instead acting as "stamina" of sorts. Once you run out of vitality, you go into wounds, and taking any wound damage will fatigue you, as well as possibly stun you (note that in the normal system, this is instead when you would be going into negative hp, and be unconscious/bleeding out).

The big thing about the system though is that critical hits don't deal extra damage, they simply bypass vitality and go straight to wounds, making critical hits exceptionally dangerous in that system.

[Dancingdeath]

That's a terrible idea and not how the game mechanics are intended to be played out. And it ignore basic biology. The body has natural compensatory mechanisms that help stave off fatigue and the effects of pain to a large degree.

Now if you want to apply something like this after combat ends that is another story. Adrenaline wears off and fatigue and the effect of cumulative wounds slows a character down. I still wouldn't use it in my own games but everyone is different.

[Florian]

Game systems using "death spirals" simply are very different from purely hp-based ones.
Personally, I´ve got to say that what "hp" should represent, fighting spirit, morale, endurance, "heroic action", actually feels better using a "death spiral" system, as that actually underscore the danger of going into combat.
Playing a knight in Warhammer Fantasy or a bush in L5R can be intensely rewarding because of that, it can also have the averse effect that anyone wants to get the first shot and hit hardest, so over-abundance of Snipers in Shadowrun...

[Blymurkla]

Games in the D&D paradigm aren't especially concerned with simulating reality. If you 'fix' wounds, where will you stop? There'd be a never ending need for new house rules to get the game 'right'.

Burning Wheels/Mouse Guard/Torchbearer has the only mechanism for injuries I really like. In these games, a failed skill check or a lost conflict can result in you getting a condition. 'Injured' is the toughest condition you can get. It's hard to get rid of (something almost unheard of in D&D!) and gives you -1D6 every time you roll (the games uses dice pools, normally 3-6 dice large, so it's a significant drawback).

What I really like is that conditions are given after combat. You sort of check if you where injured. Not only is this actually also realistic (there's lots of evidence that people in accidents or fights carry on without knowing they've been injured), it avoids the spiral of death. Your options in the fight aren't taken away from you (which is really boring), but until you've healed your are hesitant to get into a new fight (and 'healing' isn't just saying »we rest for a minute/hour/day« like in D&D).

[Pleh]

Don't listen to the haters. There is no wrong way to play the game, there is only wrong ways to play with certain people.

As long as the rest of your group shares your interest in this rule, go for it. Just don't spring it on them or insist on using it if they decide they don't like it later.

I played a lot of Star Wars Saga edition and they used a Condition track. There was a lot of rules about it, but the basic idea was:

"If any single attack deals more damage than your damage threshold (fortitude), you move a step down the condition track."

Important to note they used Saving Defenses rather than Saving Throws (which pretty much the same thing if you automatically roll a 10 every time).

Then there were 6 steps. The first step is "normal" with no penalties, the second gives a -1 to basically all d20 rolls, third step is -2, fourth is -5, fifth is -10, and the last step drops you unconscious (unless you run out of hp at the same time, then you die).

Important to remember that this system also allowed players to spend Force Points to survive when normally dead and that several character options and monsters exploited the system. Porting it to 3.5, you'd need to think a bit creatively about which monsters would actively try to exploit the system.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Honestly, I think the main issue is that you picked Fatigue as a condition-- it really only affects martial types. I'd go with "-2 to all ability scores," or something similar; that way everyone is affected equally.

[Pex]

You can get so caught up into realism that you forget this is just a game. There's nothing inherently wrong with complexity, but it should be part of the fun not despite of it. Adding in penalties adds in more fiddly bits of mathematical calculations. This would become something else players have to keep track of and then do math in their head or on paper to account for fatigue penalties.

Players have it lucky. The player only has to worry about his own character. The DM has to do it for every monster and NPC. It becomes tedious. Then the DM must figure is it for every monster? What about golems, elementals, undead, plants, oozes? They could be immune since they don't suffer fatigue, but that rings of unfairness and makes them even more dangerous because they don't suffer penalties while PCs do. The players suffer, but the DM does not. Perhaps they aren't immune. The golem losing hit points is like chipping away at its body structure. It's not all there so movement might be affected. Same thing with undead and their bones and what passes for skin, but then there are the incorporeals. Are they still immune so again players suffer DM does not, unfair, or do they suffer because their whisps of smoke so to speak are getting cut away?

It's more work for the DM to figure out causing greater preparation time just because you wanted more realism.

[AnimeTheCat]

I have used a "death spiral" system in my games to great fun of the players and myself. Some quotes I have from them are "that battle was way more intense than the other ones" or "I'm surprised we made it out of there alive". In my experience, my players had fun with it and embraced it. I also didn't just have it happen and there was no way to balance it. I made it as an entire subsystem keyed off of BAB.

The subsystem worked by having 4 different levels of combat capability (CAT I) 76%-100%, (CAT II) 51%-75%, (CAT III) 26%-50%, (CAT IV) 1%-25%. Each different level, starting with no modifier, adds a cumulative -2 penalty to any and all dice rolls, to a maximum of -6 at the lowest tier. At 50% and lower, your movement speed was also cut in half (rounded up to the nearest 5 ft interval). The way that I balanced this was that you made a BAB check rolling d20+BAB. The DCs were increasingly difficult to succeed on, but for each one you successfully make the overall penalty is reduced by 2. The DCs were 10 (CAT II), 15 (CAT III), 25(CAT IV). The jump at the end was intended to show that you're reaching the very end of your fighting spirit and vitality and the ebb and flow of battle has worn down on you till nearly your breaking point.

Examples:
A first level fighter has a constitution of 16 giving him/her 13 HP. At the start of combat an orc throws a javelin and hits him/her for 6 damage. This reduces the fighter to 7 HP or ~54% of his/her HP total. This puts the fighter in CAT II. The fighter must succeed at a DC 10 BAB check (+2 modifier) or take a -2 penalty. If he/she succeeds in the check no penalty is taken. In the next round of combat, the fighter takes another hit from an opponent dealing another 6 damage dropping him/her to CAT IV. He/She must now make 2 BAB checks, each at a DC 15 and then DC 25. In this example, the fighter succeed at the first check and took no penalty, but failed the next two netting a -4 penalty to all rolls and 1/2 movement speed.

A 14th level Wizard with 84 HP (maximum for a 14th level wizard with 14 Con) is in combat and gets sneak attacked by a rogue for 49 damage. The wizard has been reduced to CAT III (84-49=35, 35/84=.416~42%) which means the wizard must make a DC 10 and 15 check (+7 modifier) or take -4 on all rolls if both are failed, only a -2 if one is failed and one is succeeded.

The point being that as fighters/barbarians/full BAB classes go up in levels, it becomes easier for them to succeed on these checks and that rate is slower for 3/4 BAB classes as they are typically NOT front line fighters and even slower for 1/2 BAB classes as they are never formally trained in front line combat tactics.

[RoboEmperor]

I have used a "death spiral" system in my games to great fun of the players and myself.

That is highly surprising. I had a DM who used a "on a roll of 1 your weapon flies off", and when the tank rolled a crucial 1, he had to eat an AoO to retrieve his weapon only to be charged and killed. He gave a giant finger to the DM because of this rule widens the mundane/caster disparity and punishes the most unpopular role, mundane tank, for no reason other than to satisfy the DM's sadism, and left the group permanently.

I left shortly after because the DM was clearly not the right fit for me. He was one of those types that never played high level and ended all his campaigns around level 8.

[TheYell]

With my pathetic rolls lately, this would kill me.

[AnimeTheCat]

That is highly surprising. I had a DM who used a "on a roll of 1 your weapon flies off", and when the tank rolled a crucial 1, he had to eat an AoO to retrieve his weapon only to be charged and killed. He gave a giant finger to the DM because of this rule widens the mundane/caster disparity and punishes the most unpopular role, mundane tank, for no reason other than to satisfy the DM's sadism, and left the group permanently.

I left shortly after because the DM was clearly not the right fit for me. He was one of those types that never played high level and ended all his campaigns around level 8.

Did you actually read how the subsystem worked? It's most impactful at low levels for everyone, but quickly becomes trivial from full BAB classes wheras for wizards/sorcerers and cloistered clerics it never becomes "easy" as they only ever get a max +10 bonus to the roll...

"On a roll of 1 your weapons flies off" isn't a death spiral, nor should it be a thing. A natural 1 is always a miss, a natural 20 is always a hit. That's all. If you can roll a 1 and succeed on the BAB check, you can't fail it. I'm sorry that you had that experience, I wouldn't likely enjoy playing with that DM either. I also didn't just step in and say "You all have to follow these rules now because I said so". I asked the players if they would be interested in trying it and they said it sounded like a fun way to increase the realism of the game (which is a big deal to the groups I tend to play with).


With my pathetic rolls lately, this would kill me.

Ultimately, D&D is a chance game, however a Full BAB class can never fail the first category at level 9.

EDIT:
I also tend to have the PCs necessitate smarter play. They won't always be able to kill what they're fighting. Sometimes running is the best option. Sometimes sneaking is. Sometimes guile is. This makes HP more precious and that was the intended purpose. It made combat more interesting because the front line combatants needed to play smarter. The barbarian had to choose wisely before he/she raged as that made him/her easier to hit. I ruled that rage allowed automatic success while the rage was ongoing but all checks had to be made once the rage ended.

[Elkad]

Generally house rules are a terrible idea. Noob DMs going "This is how it should work!" and just changing everything willy nilly to fit their tastes, be it "your weapon flies off when you roll a 1", "you need to converse with peers for an entire week to level up", or "trolls can be coup de grace without acid or fire because nothing in the world is immortal and everything can be killed"

That 2nd one (training time) isn't a noob DM, it's an old school DM who doesn't like change.

And it's probably more rational than leveling up mid-fight, which I've also seen.
"OK, 12 orcs and an ogre engage"
3 dead orcs later. "Yay, I level up and use my new spell slot to cast another glitterdust!"

[TorsteinTheRed]

There is actually a rule variant for this in unearthed arcana: Wound/Vitality points.

I'm currently using a modified for 3.5 version of AngryGM's Fighting Spirit rules, which are kind of like an expansion of Wound/Vitality.

http://theangrygm.com/fighting-spirit/

All PCs gain Fighting Spirit, representing their drive to fight, vitality, etc, and are the same as the default HP. All PCs also gain Hit Points, representing actual damage to their bodies. Unlike wounds, these are gained at 1st, 4th, 8th, etc, and are calculated using whatever hit die you gained that level.

When a character gets hurt, if they have ANY Fighting Spirit at all, they take the damage to their Fighting Spirit. No carry over into HP at all. When they're at 0 FS, they take a -2 penalty to attack rolls and Spell DCs.Once the PC is at 0 FS, further damage goes against their HP. Disabled, dying, etc, are all as usual.

This is where I departed at bit: Since HP are now representing actual damage, each hit can leave semi-/fully-permanent damage, anywhere from scars to missing limbs, depending on what dealt them damage, and how it was dealt. I also have HP not able to be healed by most Magic, so the PCs really don't want to take HP damage if they can help it.

We've found so far that it hasn't messed too badly with encounter balance. The PCs have gotten a nice buff for survivability (since enemies are generally not also using this), along with a good benchmark as to when they need to run(since they can actually still run away at 0 FS). I as the DM get the ability to leave scars, give a peg leg, have a massive bruiser blast a PC into a wall first turn without worrying about killing them unfairly, etc.

[RoboEmperor]

-snip-

I wasn't saying your system was bad, I was just surprised you had players who enjoyed the death spiral mechanic. I just mentioned my experience because in my experience anything that made the PCs weaker, especially the mundanes, resulted in rage every single time, and the scenario I mentioned was the closest thing I had to your subsystem.


That 2nd one (training time) isn't a noob DM, it's an old school DM who doesn't like change.

Training is one thing, needing to converse with peers is an entirely different level of ****. His words exactly, a barbarian living in the woods cannot level up. He's gotta meet other barbarians, and smoke pot around a fire for a week to level up.


And it's probably more rational than leveling up mid-fight, which I've also seen.
"OK, 12 orcs and an ogre engage"
3 dead orcs later. "Yay, I level up and use my new spell slot to cast another glitterdust!"

I view d&d levels as a gradient curve divided into steps. Ideally you'd get all the stuff you get on your next level piece by piece, proportional to your current XP (so like, if it's a 6hp increase, you get 2hp when you have 1/3xp to level up), but since this is too hard to do with pen and paper, d&d decided to just make it broad bigger steps instead of a million tiny little steps. Each step is a level instead of half a level or a quarter of a level, for simplicity and ease of gaming's sake.

"Background Activity" you're supposed to do while adventuring supports my view. You're supposed to be training everyday or experimenting with spells everyday. So when I hear a DM say "All the XP you accumulated during adventuring means nothing. You need to go find peers and converse with them to level up as a wizard", I'm thinking, then what's the point of adventuring? Why not sit on your master's lap and train with him until level 20? No, you're learning while you are killing creatures and receiving bashes to your skull with their natural slam attacks.

edit: FYI, if you level up mid-fight, you don't replenish your spell slots or gain new spells per day. You gotta rest for it. Anything you gotta rest to replenish is not replenished immediately on level up. So that new spell slot you just received is empty and expended. Same with newly gained 1/day class features.

[Barstro]

Don't listen to the haters.

Listen to them; they raise fine points. Just feel free to ignore them after taking everything into account.

I think it's a bad idea because it punishes those who are already beaten down. IMO, it's already difficult to come back from the weaker position. It also punishes the mundanes and front-liners more.

I have difficulty picturing a situation where this proposed house rule actually makes the encounter more fun or more fair. But I would love to be proven incorrect.

EDIT: I read AnimeTheCat's posts. I do not disagree that specific instances could be fun. But I also think that there are mechanics already inherent to the system that can do the same thing. In the end, it's still up to you and your table.

[martixy]

PF has the Wound Threshold variant (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/unchained-rules/wound-thresholds-optional-rules/) which is 1-1 portable to 3.5.

Me, I use a simplified variant whenever you are below 25% health you gain the "Bloodied" condition.
You get -2 to everything.

Basically the Sickened condition, plus a penalty to AC and CL. (The last one is important because it means casters lose access to their highest level spell slots.)

Design-wise, it isn't enough to trigger the dreaded death spiral, but plenty to have a significant effect, if not statistically, then on the psyches of the players. It also does a couple of things I wanted to have, such as making in-combat healing more of a consideration.

[King of Nowhere]

Don't listen to the haters. There is no wrong way to play the game, there is only wrong ways to play with certain people.

As long as the rest of your group shares your interest in this rule, go for it. Just don't spring it on them or insist on using it if they decide they don't like it later.


That's the most important thing about DMing. The purpose of the game is to have fun, and so whatever increases the fun for everyone is welcome. D&D is a flexible game, and can accomodate a lot of houseruling.
Also, I wouldn't worry too much about balancing. Doesn't everyone always complain how horribly unbalanced the game already is? Then you can't get much worse.


Honestly, I think the main issue is that you picked Fatigue as a condition-- it really only affects martial types. I'd go with "-2 to all ability scores," or something similar; that way everyone is affected equally.

Good point there. Keeping a clear mind also gets harder. On the down side, keeping track of bonus spell slots of spellcasters as their casting stat changes is a real pain.


You can get so caught up into realism that you forget this is just a game. There's nothing inherently wrong with complexity, but it should be part of the fun not despite of it. Adding in penalties adds in more fiddly bits of mathematical calculations. This would become something else players have to keep track of and then do math in their head or on paper to account for fatigue penalties.


That's actually an important point. It adds more calculation to the game, slowing it down. You should decide if it's worth it. I conssidered similar penalties for being low on hp, and I discarded them exactly for that reason.


That is highly surprising. I had a DM who used a "on a roll of 1 your weapon flies off", and when the tank rolled a crucial 1, he had to eat an AoO to retrieve his weapon only to be charged and killed. He gave a giant finger to the DM because of this rule widens the mundane/caster disparity and punishes the most unpopular role, mundane tank, for no reason other than to satisfy the DM's sadism, and left the group permanently.

I left shortly after because the DM was clearly not the right fit for me. He was one of those types that never played high level and ended all his campaigns around level 8.
That seems more like a case of everyone overreacting. I mean, you play with a houserule, then as a consequence of that houserule your character dies... in a game with resurrection, no less... and you insult the DM? I would not want to play with that guy. You play at a table, you agree with the houserules, or you don't play. Expressions like "satisfy the DM sadism" also seem very biased to me. Personally, I introduce like 90% of my houserules for one reason alone: to add flavor. It sounds fun, it sounds like it could make things interesting, I just happen to like it, I can try it. Isn't exploration one of the main purposes of roleplaying games? I also considered introducing a houserule like that, but I decided against it because even a clumsy swordsman won't lose his sword every 20 strikes. I considered then ruling a -2 to AC next round because your clumsy strike left you unbalanced, but it would be difficult to keep track, so I gave up on the idea.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, I think the houserule can make the game more involving. You don't just see your hp drop, you can feel your impending death. yes, it increases variability in fights and therefore increases the risk of casualties among the party. to which I say, what the hell, there are resurrection spells for a reason. If your players like a challenge, then they may like having an occasional fight go awry and becoming much more difficult all of a sudden.

[RoboEmperor]

That seems more like a case of everyone overreacting. I mean, you play with a houserule, then as a consequence of that houserule your character dies... in a game with resurrection, no less... and you insult the DM? I would not want to play with that guy. You play at a table, you agree with the houserules, or you don't play. Expressions like "satisfy the DM sadism" also seem very biased to me. Personally, I introduce like 90% of my houserules for one reason alone: to add flavor. It sounds fun, it sounds like it could make things interesting, I just happen to like it, I can try it. Isn't exploration one of the main purposes of roleplaying games? I also considered introducing a houserule like that, but I decided against it because even a clumsy swordsman won't lose his sword every 20 strikes. I considered then ruling a -2 to AC next round because your clumsy strike left you unbalanced, but it would be difficult to keep track, so I gave up on the idea.

He did not know the house rule existed when he joined, neither did I. He made that same argument that you did, that a level 20 fighter is just as clumsy as a level 1 fighter, and the DM said "So?" and then said "No" to any possible amendments. So yeah, it was a disgruntled player who had issues with the rule until it finally turned a victory into a character death. I could tell he wanted to leave the game the moment he heard the rule, but I guess he stuck around because he spent a lot of time building his character and didn't want to go on another DM hunt.

This rule is a red flag for me, so is "On a natural 20 of a saving throw, you block the spell entirely, even the halved/3d6/etc damage." It just shows the DM is possibly a scrub, who changes everything to what he thinks is right (arbitrary nerfs on the fly for anything he deems OP), is in it for the laughs rather than the quest, accomplishment of goals, or story, and is probably very inexperienced in the game in general, as in rarely did any higher level games, if any. I had 2 DMs who had the above 2 rules and both of them were noobs who thought blasters and healbots were mandatory d&d entities while all the experienced DMs stuck very closely to RAW or mixed PF and 3.5. The 2nd noob DM, after hearing me talk about that "drop on a 1" rule, immediately added it to his game, and surprise surprise, he got a **** ton of homebrew that was stupid, like Enlarge Person stacking, and returning harpoons dealing full damage a 2nd time when it returns. Not a 2nd damage roll, identical damage.

[Zanos]

I don't think there's anything wrong with house rules inherently, since 3.5 needs a lot of them in order to be played sanely. But I was never a big fan of taking stacking penalties from just being hit, since it doubles down on the value of doing damage and, as mentioned above, can cause death spirals where fights are really just a foregone conclusion.

Also, keep in mind what hit points actually are:

What Hit Points Represent
Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.

[King of Nowhere]

He did not know the house rule existed when he joined, neither did I. He made that same argument that you did, that a level 20 fighter is just as clumsy as a level 1 fighter, and the DM said "So?" and then said "No" to any possible amendments. So yeah, it was a disgruntled player who had issues with the rule until it finally turned a victory into a character death. I could tell he wanted to leave the game the moment he heard the rule, but I guess he stuck around because he spent a lot of time building his character and didn't want to go on another DM hunt.

This rule is a red flag for me, so is "On a natural 20 of a saving throw, you block the spell entirely, even the halved/3d6/etc damage." It just shows the DM is possibly a scrub, who changes everything to what he thinks is right (arbitrary nerfs on the fly for anything he deems OP), is in it for the laughs rather than the quest, accomplishment of goals, or story, and is probably very inexperienced in the game in general, as in rarely did any higher level games, if any. I had 2 DMs who had the above 2 rules and both of them were noobs who thought blasters and healbots were mandatory d&d entities while all the experienced DMs stuck very closely to RAW or mixed PF and 3.5. The 2nd noob DM, after hearing me talk about that "drop on a 1" rule, immediately added it to his game, and surprise surprise, he got a **** ton of homebrew that was stupid, like Enlarge Person stacking, and returning harpoons dealing full damage a 2nd time when it returns. Not a 2nd damage roll, identical damage.

I take it that you play among groups of people who don't know each other outside the gaming part. Inserting houserules in that context is much more difficult, as it requires them to be accepted by anyone, and it's harder to get a bunch of very different people to agree. I see how that context would place a much greater emphasis on rules as written, because it's something that can be agreed upon. I play among friends, and it's a totally different environment. My group appreciates my creativity, but I would never even dream of roleplaying a game in the conditions you describe. I would be a noob DM if I tried.

[Elkad]

Training is one thing, needing to converse with peers is an entirely different level of ****. His words exactly, a barbarian living in the woods cannot level up. He's gotta meet other barbarians, and smoke pot around a fire for a week to level up.
And it used to be "find a trainer", which was basically anyone higher level in the same class as you. Which amounts to the same thing.
Or you could spend 4(?) weeks instead of one and self-train.


edit: FYI, if you level up mid-fight, you don't replenish your spell slots or gain new spells per day. You gotta rest for it. Anything you gotta rest to replenish is not replenished immediately on level up. So that new spell slot you just received is empty and expended. Same with newly gained 1/day class features.

So what about the other things? New hitpoints immediately? How about maneuvers? Skill points? Additional sneak attack die? Spontaneous powers/spells known - even if you don't get the slots or power points until you rest? Feats?

I've got less problem with "train for a week" than I do with "level up immediately". Neither really fit a gradual progression, but a training break is better.
You've seen some new things in battle (sword moves, understanding of the Ways of the Force, whatever). Given some time to reflect/rehearse those things and put them into practice yourself, you level up.

[Necroticplague]

Just a quick question: why is it that percentage-based mechanics are used? It seems rather odd that tougher creatures can be so damaged as to be crippled when others are perfectly fine. It seems reasonable that things with more HP can just shrug off more injury without slowing down.

[Pleh]

I was never a big fan of taking stacking penalties from just being hit, since it doubles down on the value of doing damage and, as mentioned above, can cause death spirals where fights are really just a foregone conclusion.

Or, it could convince the party to change strategies.

The real problem with running away in most games is that neither the players nor DM anticipated a losing scenario beyond TPK, so that is the only one they prepare to accept.

A lot of tables could really benefit from having a retreat strategy or alternative win scenario, like dropping the chandelier to make an opening to escape.

Maybe other tables have had better luck with this. I've rarely seen it happen.

[Arbane]

Or, it could convince the party to change strategies.

The real problem with running away in most games is that neither the players nor DM anticipated a losing scenario beyond TPK, so that is the only one they prepare to accept.

A lot of tables could really benefit from having a retreat strategy or alternative win scenario, like dropping the chandelier to make an opening to escape.

Maybe other tables have had better luck with this. I've rarely seen it happen.

Another problem with that is that (in 3.5 at least,) anything you can't outfight, you probably can't outrun.

[Necroticplague]

Another problem with that is that (in 3.5 at least,) anything you can't outfight, you probably can't outrun.
And it's often not obvious on-sight what's how much of a challenge an enemy poses, so you often can't tell if this is above your level, or if it's just a swing of luck (that could easily swing back in your favor if you keep at it). And the AoO system means that running away from an enemy can open yourself up to more punishment, possibly lethally.

[Jay R]

It sounds like a bad idea to me, for reasons given above.

So try it anyway. Then come back and tell us what really happened. Did the monsters start fleeing when they hit that point? Did area effects suddenly become much worse for wizards?

The way to find out what would happen under this rule is to find out what happens under this rule.

[King of Nowhere]

I don't see how that would cause the monsters to escape, as the penalties associated with being low on hp also make it more difficult to flee. If nothing else, they are more likely to surrender. Which is also a likely outcome in other scenarios. In most encounters, when the players kill about half the enemies in a group, the rest of the group flees or surrenders, depending on what they think will give them the best chance of staying alive. A boss low on hit points and without any special trick to turn the fight will also try to escape or/and surrender. Very few people or animals fight to the death when they have another chance, especially when facing a foe who is clearly stronger than them.

[Arbane]

I don't see how that would cause the monsters to escape, as the penalties associated with being low on hp also make it more difficult to flee.

I completely missed that part, but you're right: in PF, at least, fatigued characters can't run.



If nothing else, they are more likely to surrender. Which is also a likely outcome in other scenarios. In most encounters, when the players kill about half the enemies in a group, the rest of the group flees or surrenders, depending on what they think will give them the best chance of staying alive. A boss low on hit points and without any special trick to turn the fight will also try to escape or/and surrender. Very few people or animals fight to the death when they have another chance, especially when facing a foe who is clearly stronger than them.

I remember back when Basic D&D (you know, the simplified introductory version of AD&D?) has Morale scores for all the monsters. And reaction rolls. So the kiddie version had enemies who had enough sense to run away or negotiate, whereas our "more sophisticated " 3.X doesn't have any of that, implying everything fights to the death. :smallamused:

[Jay R]

I don't see how that would cause the monsters to escape, as the penalties associated with being low on hp also make it more difficult to flee.

Yes, it's harder to run away when wounded. But when there are six PCs and ten ogres, the PCs are far likelier to pay attention to the eight healthy ogres who are attacking them than to the two wounded ogres who are fleeing.

[Zanos]

Or, it could convince the party to change strategies.

The real problem with running away in most games is that neither the players nor DM anticipated a losing scenario beyond TPK, so that is the only one they prepare to accept.

A lot of tables could really benefit from having a retreat strategy or alternative win scenario, like dropping the chandelier to make an opening to escape.

Maybe other tables have had better luck with this. I've rarely seen it happen.
Those things still work just fine. Having penalties for being on low health actually make that harder. PCs understand when they're getting whopped HP wise, and throwing penalties on them for it when they realize they can't win means that those things are less likely to succeed.

I noticed you mentioned Saga'd condition track earlier, which is a pretty terrible model. Every time I've played that the PCs rush abilities that let them buffer/ignore/recover condition track damage, because condition track killing is extremely effective against everything and extremely brutal.

[Pleh]

Those things still work just fine. Having penalties for being on low health actually make that harder. PCs understand when they're getting whopped HP wise, and throwing penalties on them for it when they realize they can't win means that those things are less likely to succeed.

I noticed you mentioned Saga'd condition track earlier, which is a pretty terrible model. Every time I've played that the PCs rush abilities that let them buffer/ignore/recover condition track damage, because condition track killing is extremely effective against everything and extremely brutal.

I'd say it depends on the OP level. My experience is that Condition damage doesn't come up frequently unless you are gunning for it. Most enemies and PCs run out of HP beforr they hit -5 on the condition track.

Again, DMs and players in my games weren't in a meta game arms race to deal the most condition damage.

[AnimeTheCat]

And it's often not obvious on-sight what's how much of a challenge an enemy poses, so you often can't tell if this is above your level, or if it's just a swing of luck (that could easily swing back in your favor if you keep at it). And the AoO system means that running away from an enemy can open yourself up to more punishment, possibly lethally.

A withdraw is a full round action that allows you to move double your speed away from any visible target without provoking AoOs. All you have to do to get to safety from a charge is go around a corner or put something between you and the bad guy(s)

[InvisibleBison]

A withdraw is a full round action that allows you to move double your speed away from any visible target without provoking AoOs. All you have to do to get to safety from a charge is go around a corner or put something between you and the bad guy(s)

Actually, when you withdraw you only fail to provoke an AoO when leaving the square you start out in. Leaving any other threatened square still provokes.

[Arbane]

Actually, when you withdraw you only fail to provoke an AoO when leaving the square you start out in. Leaving any other threatened square still provokes.

So, if you're up against anything with reach....

[Crake]

So, if you're up against anything with reach....

The withdraw action will still provoke, correct.

[BWR]

I remember back when Basic D&D (you know, the simplified introductory version of AD&D?) has Morale scores for all the monsters. And reaction rolls. So the kiddie version had enemies who had enough sense to run away or negotiate, whereas our "more sophisticated " 3.X doesn't have any of that, implying everything fights to the death. :smallamused:

I still use these in my PF games, because they are damn useful.

Regarding the OP, it's not how I would like to play my D&D. Yes there are games where such things exist. Some of them can even be pretty heavily combat focused (it's perfectly possible to run L5R that way, for instance, and they have pretty nasty penalties for injury), and if that's what you and your players want out of D&D, go for it. Give it a whirl and see how these ideas work in practice, then modify them.

[Eldariel]

I like the concept behind bloodied. I also like how it lets SoDs synergise with DPS and overall, makes cooperation and in-combat healing more useful. The splash damage to martials sucks, but c'est la vie; it doesn't meaningfully alter the caster/martial balance. It's minor anyways, and you can key stuff like berserker rage off it, and in general give martials complementary class features.

I like 3 categories: hurt, bloodied, near death. 30%/60%/90% damage taken. Effects are -1/2/3 to all rolls and 10/20/30% spellcasting failure (stacks additively). Gives the players a clearer base for visual information on enemy status misfight without stuff like Deathwatch.

[Zombimode]

I remember back when Basic D&D (you know, the simplified introductory version of AD&D?) has Morale scores for all the monsters. And reaction rolls. So the kiddie version had enemies who had enough sense to run away or negotiate, whereas our "more sophisticated " 3.X doesn't have any of that, implying everything fights to the death. :smallamused:

The absence of a morale score does in no way, shape or form imply that everything fights to the death.

[BWR]

The absence of a morale score does in no way, shape or form imply that everything fights to the death.

No, but it makes a lot of cases easier to handle., like how many enemies in a mob do you have to incapacitate before the rest break and run, or how injured a beast has to be before retreating. It's also nice to know beforehand how likely something is to stand and fight.

[Zombimode]

No, but it makes a lot of cases easier to handle., like how many enemies in a mob do you have to incapacitate before the rest break and run, or how injured a beast has to be before retreating. It's also nice to know beforehand how likely something is to stand and fight.

Oh, I agree. I would like to have a morale stat in 3.5

But the notion I've quoted is just ridiculous.

[Jay R]

The absence of a morale score does in no way, shape or form imply that everything fights to the death.

No. But in the hands of many DMs, it has that effect anyway.