Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Romulus LoneWolf 02-28-07, 09:18 PM	Just wondering if anyone has worked on optional rules for crippling and dismembering opponents in combat.. I was thinking of maybe combining the Sunder rules with the DMG's rules for "damage to specific areas" (in DMG p27) for it, provoking an attack of opportunity if trying to strike an opponent's limbs. The result would cause a -2 penalty to certain actions connected to that bodypart. A critical hit with this system would actually remove the targeted limb, causing a -4 or -6 penalty (undecided as of yet).
calronmoonflower 03-01-07, 12:19 AM	Unless you include a way to quickly reverse the penality, then in short order all the PCs wil be too crippled to do anything that requires a limb.
Greg K 03-01-07, 01:27 AM	You might want to check out The Book of Iron Might by Mike Mearls and published by Monte Cook. Some of the maneuvers allow you to inflict penalites (e.g., ability score or movement) or disable a physical attack. For sample maneuvers, go here (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_BOIM_webenhance)to the web enhancement. To see the elements (bonuses, penalties,etc.) that make up the maneuvers, go to the cheat sheet enhancment here (http://www.montecook.com/BOIM_Cheat_Sheet.html) You also might want to check out Torn Asunder by Bastion Press. It is a critical hit system by a former WOTC employee. It reworks other elements (e.g., healing) to work with the crit effects.
Romulus LoneWolf 03-01-07, 06:53 AM	Unless you include a way to quickly reverse the penality, then in short order all the PCs wil be too crippled to do anything that requires a limb. The Heal skill can be used to treat wounds from caltrop, spike growth or spike stones, for a Heal DC of 15. I think a similar DC for treating crippling wounds would be a simple solution.
phounix 03-01-07, 09:05 AM	Just wondering if anyone has worked on optional rules for crippling and dismembering opponents in combat.. No, but the following books offer detailed rules for crippling injuries: -Sword&Sorcery "Advanced Players" Guide pg 104-115. This even incorpareted the crippling injries of energy damage -Old Advanced Dungeon&Dragons "Players Option: Combat&Tactics" pg 101-115 -Old "Dragon Magazine nr 39" pg 34-35
Tectorman 03-02-07, 12:03 PM	Personally, I'd set up a system like so (I don't have Torn Asunder, by the way): a specific part of the body (such as those parts listed in the DMG "damage to specific areas" section) has the AC of the person its a part of, plus its own size modifier. Example, a human has AC 18 (10 + 4 armor + 2 shield + 2 deflection) or whatever. A human hand would be about as big as a Diminutive size creature, and so would have AC 22 (18 + 4 size ). An opponent wishing to attack that part would have to declare an attack on that part of the body. Attack roll comes up 17, he misses altogether. Attack roll of 21, he hits the guy but fails to deal any damage to the hand itself. Attack roll of 22, he deals damage to the guy and the hand. I would houserule that getting two limbs chopped off is definitely enough to warrent someone being considered dying (because, hilarious though it was, Monty Python and the Holy Grail's Black Knight should have died of blood loss by the third limb); thus, the hand has half the human's hp. When half of that damage is dealt to the hand (not just the human, but the hand, too) it takes the penalties as listed in the DMG "damage to specific areas" section. When all of that damage is dealt to the hand (remember, this is half the human's total hp), then it is severed, smashed to a pulp, or otherwise riddled with punctures and is useless and restorable only by [I]regeneration or like effects. Modify this scenario for other parts (for instance, eyes) as seen fit.
Ra-Tiel 03-02-07, 02:01 PM	Personally, I'd set up a system like so (I don't have Torn Asunder, by the way): a specific part of the body (such as those parts listed in the DMG "damage to specific areas" section) has the AC of the person its a part of, plus its own size modifier. [...] Any idea how to prevent the combat in the whole campaign becoming a "I strike for his head" fest? :thinks: Because this is what systems like this in the end always boil down to. Possible exceptions include paladins or "sophisticated" classes like bards or certain rogue and wizard archetypes.
Romulus LoneWolf 03-02-07, 03:45 PM	Any idea how to prevent the combat in the whole campaign becoming a "I strike for his head" fest? :thinks: Because this is what systems like this in the end always boil down to. Possible exceptions include paladins or "sophisticated" classes like bards or certain rogue and wizard archetypes. A simple solution could be to make limb hit location attacks provoke attacks of opportunity. So, sure, you could always aim for the head, but you'll always get an attack of opportunity in the process.
Ra-Tiel 03-02-07, 05:48 PM	A simple solution could be to make limb hit location attacks provoke attacks of opportunity. So, sure, you could always aim for the head, but you'll always get an attack of opportunity in the process. What good would that do regarding Fighter builds including feats like "Karmic Strike" and "Robilar's Gambit" and Ranged attackers, like spellcasters and archery builds?
Ltheb Liadon 03-02-07, 06:03 PM	I found an old Hackmaster critical wound table and converted it into a D20 Hit location table. Had to fiddle with how it worked, and the 'penalties' just became ability damage. (Or drain in the case of severed limbs or broken bones, which came with their own penalties) All it required was a d%, rolled as you attack, that determined where your character saw an opening and attacked. Anything that caused lethal damage rolled on the table (like fireball) if it allows a saving throw or has an attack roll and the subject(s) fail their saves and/or are hit. (Falling damage is rolled too) Its not quite as brutal as it sounds, but it has made the PCs think twice about doing rather rash actions. Ironically, none of my players have had the sense to get potions of lesser restoration, nor do they have a cleric or any kind of healer at all. Their tactics consist of: Step 1: Slug it out with foe. Step 2: Rest for a few months to heal all the broken bones, etc. Step 3: Profit.
StarFyre 03-02-07, 06:22 PM	I use the 2E Combat & Tactics, and Spells & Magic optional realistic critical hit system. THey work perfectly in 3E with no modifications. If a critical hit is found, via 3.XE rules, then go to those 2E books and complete the critical hit effects from there + the extra damage via 3.XE rules. Sanjay
Lina_Inverse 03-02-07, 06:25 PM	A critical hit with this system would actually remove the targeted limb, causing a -4 or -6 penalty (undecided as of yet). A fate worse than death. Regenerate is lvl7. Severing an arm is hence more severe an effect in D&D that killing someone outright.
The_Levitator 03-02-07, 07:07 PM	I used to use a crit chart too. But then I found it much simpler to just look at the amount of damage caused and be creative on the fly. Of course, we play in a low magic availability world with no instantaneous healing potions (spells are still instantaneous). My group has to occasionally rely on natural healing. When they were hiking through the mountains in search of a ruins, the barbarian in the group went from 26 HP down to I think like 2 in a tangle with a dire wolf. Healing naturally would still only take 8 days, so I said he had cracked some ribs. Now in our game (to balance out the fact that there are no Magic-Marts and unlimited access to healing potions) we go to -10-CON. This is a huge cushion from disabled to dead. I also allow a FORT save of DC10+the negative HP level to avoid falling unconscious. This helps buy the players some time to inform the party that they are bleeding to death, and it gives the party more time to stabilize that character. If a character goes to -HP but stabilizes, I can then give them more serious injuries, like fractured arms or internal injuries that take longer to heal. Characters only gain back -HP at half the rate of +HP. So if that same barbarian had been dropped to like -12HP, healing naturally would take about 25 days resting 8 hrs. a day. If they choose complete bedrest while negative, they can recover HP at the regular rate. Our group is pretty old school so they don't like a world where their characters are having 4-6 combats per day. I keep the resources kind of low, so even a single combat every day keeps them challenged. One thing I learned about grevious injuries is to use them judiciously, or else your party will start being too afraid to jump into combat for fear of losing an arm or being laid up in bed for a couple weeks. It takes a while to find what works best for your group. But I think the most important part is to work with your group in finding the best way to resolve combat and not thrust any new ideas onto them like they are guinea pigs. When we decided to go gritty and switch to an Armor As DR, Opposed Defense Roll, Class Defense Bonus, Facing Variant kind of game, we ran a bunch of mock combats to get a feel for the flavor of how these things worked together. A few tweaks here, a few there, and in a single session's time we came up with a highly descriptive combat system that the whole group liked. If you just start imposing the idea of grevious injuries on the group without any input, they may interpret it as a DM vs PC kind of thing. But if they get to help in the design of the combat system, they can't yell at you when they lose an arm. ;)
Romulus LoneWolf 03-04-07, 06:19 PM	Well, just found everything I was looking for in Malhavoc Press' "Book of Iron Might", and it's rules for customisable Combat Maneuvers...
Tectorman 03-05-07, 08:38 AM	Any idea how to prevent the combat in the whole campaign becoming a "I strike for his head" fest? :thinks: Because this is what systems like this in the end always boil down to. Possible exceptions include paladins or "sophisticated" classes like bards or certain rogue and wizard archetypes. Ah, right. Sorry, I forgot that. Yeah, I've got a solution for that: give the head the same number of hit points as the entire body (in other words, simply don't allow it as a target; alternatively, don't tell the player "no," just make the DC really high [example: "You want to strike at the head? Roll for it. You rolled a 29? Sorry, the DC was infinite billion. You fail."]). If you're using the DMG guide for specific damage to body parts (I do not have the DMG out right now) and if it says what the penalties are for a damaged head (no laughing), then those would still take place at half damage. Also, I've got an Unearthed Arcana flaw in another thread (page 12 in "New Flaws" in the Unearthed Arcana and house rules section) that is suspiciously not getting any feedback, so I ask you here, "What do you think?"
Ra-Tiel 03-05-07, 03:02 PM	Ah, right. Sorry, I forgot that. No problem, was just pointing out what looked to me like a "proud nail". Our group has tried something very similar when we still played Earthdawn. It boiled down to what I said: 3 out of 4 players (me being player 4 :banghead: ) decided to go for the easy kills and always attacked the head/neck. The main issue is: basically the party's dead meat when the DM tries this in a high-level combat. A wyrm dragon or balor just has enough attack bonus to take the penalty for attacking the head and then goes *instakill* on the party fighter. Yeah, I've got a solution for that: give the head the same number of hit points as the entire body (in other words, simply don't allow it as a target; alternatively, don't tell the player "no," just make the DC really high [example: "You want to strike at the head? Roll for it. You rolled a 29? Sorry, the DC was infinite billion. You fail."]). This may work, but I find it highly ineffective and quite an unelegant mechanic. You can attack any body parts but not the head? It's like "you can sunder weapons and shields but not armor". I just find it inconsistent and incoherent as a whole, that being the reason why I'm against it. I think the DM should keep the "what you can do the monster can do as well" threat around just enough, and if the players go over the top with targetted attacks he should let it come back at them, even if this means TPK. Another question arises: why implement a rule for such attacks at all when - in the end - it's again artificially restricted for the sake of "game balance"? Wouldn't it be better to go with the normal rules and allow for something extra? Whenever you score a critical hit you may decide to forgoe some of the damage to impose negative effects on your target. After confirming the critical hit choose one specific body part as detailed in the DMG page XY (sorry, can't check it right now :( ). For every instance you reduce your critical damage multiplier you inflict the given penalties. For example, Tordek confirms a critical hit against a troll with his battle axe. Normally he would inflict triple damage, but he decides to maim the troll's arm to hinder its attacks. Instead of dealing triple damage, Tordek decides to only deal double damage but now the troll suffers the (iirc) -2 penalties listed under arm injuries. If Tordex decided to deal normal damage, the troll would suffer 2 times the normal penalties, or -4. If you're using the DMG guide for specific damage to body parts (I do not have the DMG out right now) and if it says what the penalties are for a damaged head (no laughing), then those would still take place at half damage. I see. However, what would be the reason for the head having as much HPs as the rest of the body but "game balance"? Again, I'd rather modify the existing rules a bit (as detailed above) or scrap the idea alltogether before playing with inconsistent rules that require exceptions all over. But that's just personal preference, to each his own. :) Also, I've got an Unearthed Arcana flaw in another thread (page 12 in "New Flaws" in the Unearthed Arcana and house rules section) that is suspiciously not getting any feedback, so I ask you here, "What do you think?" Sorry, but my group's not playing with flaws, and although the basic idea seems interesting I find the actual implementation highly suspicious. Flaws are in my opinion just an additional element that lead to minmaxing and cherry-picking, although they were intended as defining elements of a character. The problem I see is that flaws of this kind rather fit into a point-buy based rules set, and less into the level-based d20 system. Therefore I haven't dealt with them and cannot comment on your custom flaw.
Tectorman 03-05-07, 03:39 PM	Well, I'm going with a football adage that I learned from my dad (no, I do not actually play football): "If you want your guy to catch something, either throw it at his head or his balls." This idea basically says that even though your head is only part of your body, it's most likely the one you'll protect above all others. It already has all the AC from the entire person and its own size modifier, but in order to add something extra to reflect this, I made the head (neck, shoulder, trunk/nonlimb area in general) have the same hp as the entire person. So, you can attack them (and I'd also make it provoke an attack of opportunity) in the head, neck, etc. But they will most likely protect that area more than anywhere else, so unless you've got a vorpal something or other, you won't break through. Also, I came up with this to answer the unspoken question in that section of the DMG: "So if I introduce this game mechanic with disabled body parts affecting skills and such, how do I declare the attack roll as different from any other? How much damage before my leg is so damaged that I'm forced to walk with a limp?" And so on. Adding this mechanic (in my opinion) is nothing more than an attempt to add some story to the standard hack, slash, rinse, and repeat. Less for roll-playing and more for role-playing. Basically, an excuse to have a character with a missing eye, or a limp that wasn't there before. By the by, I haven't hammered this out yet (did you notice?) Alternatively, the DM can roll this in secret so that the players don't know. He rolls a d20, assigns different body parts to different numbers, keeps track of how many hp each part has, and tell the PCs that the minotaur is no longer holding his handaxe because he simply can't form a tight enough grip any longer, or that Nena the ranger (played by Sammy) will now take a penalty on his Spot checks and so forth because the skeleton managed to slash his eye out. Everyone agrees to allow this mechanic into the game, but the players thereafter don't get any direct control over it. Thus, they can't aim at the head every time, and if they do manage to nonmagically vorpal the dragon, it's purely by luck.
The_Levitator 03-05-07, 05:33 PM	Every DM I've ever met (including myself) has tried to attach a precise combat mechanic to an abstract combat system at one point or another. I've never seen a system yet that is perfectly balanced and universally accepted as the best way to do it. Roleplaying is simulating reality in a fantastic sense. Sometimes too much reality can actually make it less fantastic. I've tried 3 different crit. systems and used to play Dragonquest which has a built-in crit system. They just always end up feeling clunky and limiting. Now, I just look at the amount of damage from the blow and describe it accordingly. My players give and receive critical shots all session long, but I just lost interest in the idea of using any kind of chart. It slowed the game down too much for my tastes and didn't really add anything. It also doesn't make any sense with a HP system in one sense. Say Fighter Bob has 80 HP. He takes a "critical" hit that blinds him in one eye. Sure, it's easy to penalize his Spot checks and the obvious, but does anyone penalize his HP? If he can't see and fight like he did before, how does he heal back up to 80HP? HP are supposed to represent an overall ability to resist, absorb, and minimize physical damage. If you have had 2 eyes your whole life, learned to fight with 2 eyes, and suddenly find yourself with only 1 eye, wouldn't that logically affect your ability resist, absorb and minimize physical damage, if not just from losing depth perception alone? Now take it a step further. Many people who suffer those kind of life changing injuries become very gunshy in combat. Are you going to now make fear saves or modified morale rolls for that character? Take it a step further. If he is right handed and he loses his right eye, wouldn't his combat suffer more than if he had lost his left eye? You can keep taking it further and further down the path to "realism", but the further you go, the less fantastic your world becomes. My players love the imagery of slicing an orc's arm off at the shoulder. And if the thing is at 3 HP when they do 20HP damage, that's exactly how I describe it as the orc falls into a pool of it's own blood. You can still have the vivid descriptions to make your players "feel" the intensity of the combat without a chart telling you what to say. It's a little more pressure on the DM's creativity, but still faster than checking multiple charts and adding multiple rolls. Don't get me wrong. We play a very modified version of 3.5 and are going for a gritty, "it's you, not your gear" kind of world. We use Opposed Defense Rolls, Armor as Dr., Class Defense Bonus, Clobbered Variants, etc. But when it comes to grevious injuries, I just haven't seen a good, solid way to integrate such a specific idea into a game designed around such an abstract damage concept. I also find charts to get repetitive, unless you have something as exhaustive as the Rolemaster crit charts. I just played in my first Rolemaster game and while I really liked the group as players, I don't think I could ever endure that combat process again. It was far too complex, took far too many rolls, used too many charts, and just plain took too much time for resolution for my tastes. The combat we had last night was only 5 rounds, and took an hour and a half. I was waiting 10-15 minutes between turns in a 6 person party. That combat would have taken 10 minutes total (and probably went 10-15 rounds) in our group. I'm not saying our version of 3.5 is better than their version of Rolemaster. Not by a long shot. But our version of 3.5 is better for me. The rest of the people at the table last night really seemed to be enjoying themselves. That's why there are so many systems, and variations within those systems. I guess I'm from the "try anything until it gums up the works" school of roleplaying. I'm constantly trying to improve my players' experiences. I have just decided that, for myself, I can't find a way to do it with crt. tables. If you can come up with something that your group likes, then nothing else stated in this thread matters much. :) The worst thing that can happen is that you try something and the group decides they don't like it. A lot of DM's get emotionally attached to their rules. I don't take that approach. I only get attached to the things that my players like. I can just as easily remove something as I can add it. Give it a shot and see what they think! :)
Dragonteuthis 03-06-07, 06:50 AM	A fate worse than death. Regenerate is lvl7. Severing an arm is hence more severe an effect in D&D that killing someone outright. Say what? Regenerate would cost 910 gold to pay someone to cast it at minimum level. The cheapest spell that brings someone back from the dead is Reincarnate, which costs 1,000 gold in material components, 280 gold for the spell itself, PLUS a lost level! How on EARTH do you figure that losing a limb is worse than death?
Tectorman 03-08-07, 01:51 PM	I see. However, what would be the reason for the head having as much HPs as the rest of the body but "game balance"? Again, I'd rather modify the existing rules a bit (as detailed above) or scrap the idea alltogether before playing with inconsistent rules that require exceptions all over. But that's just personal preference, to each his own. :) Sorry about the late post, but I remembered why I came up with that rule. (The following is a close paraphrase of the Multiheaded Creature template, since you can't directly quote from anything but the SRD. If any of this isn't original enough, then I shall be saddened and then move on. There could be tears.) A multiheaded creature, according to this template, must be hit by a vorpal weapon successfully the same number of times as it has heads before it can be killed. That is followed by a description of what seems to be a nonvorpal method of accomplishing the same thing. You are required to declare an attack on the neck (which has the same AC as the creature [I will comment on this in a second]) and deal damage equal to the creature's maximum hp total divided by it's original number of heads. Thus, for a one-headed creature, the target damage total is its total number of hit points divided by its total number of heads (1), which equals its total number of hp. Also, I would change this mechanic to where you have to hit the creature's AC plus the Size modifier of the neck (because it's easier to hit the broad side of the barn than it is to hit the window in the upper right corner of the broad side of the barn). I'm still working on this mechanic, though.
Ra-Tiel 03-08-07, 02:08 PM	Sorry about the late post, but I remembered why I came up with that rule. (The following is a close paraphrase of the Multiheaded Creature template, since you can't directly quote from anything but the SRD. If any of this isn't original enough, then I shall be saddened and then move on. There could be tears.) No problem. :) But don't cry. I couldn't stand it. :weep: :P A multiheaded creature, according to this template, must be hit by a vorpal weapon successfully the same number of times as it has heads before it can be killed. That is followed by a description of what seems to be a nonvorpal method of accomplishing the same thing. You are required to declare an attack on the neck (which has the same AC as the creature [I will comment on this in a second]) and deal damage equal to the creature's maximum hp total divided by it's original number of heads. Thus, for a one-headed creature, the target damage total is its total number of hit points divided by its total number of heads (1), which equals its total number of hp. Also, I would change this mechanic to where you have to hit the creature's AC plus the Size modifier of the neck (because it's easier to hit the broad side of the barn than it is to hit the window in the upper right corner of the broad side of the barn). I see, I see... a similar thing's going for the hydras: A hydra can be killed either by severing all its heads or by slaying its body. To sever a head, an opponent must make a successful sunder attempt with a slashing weapon. (The player should declare where the attack is aimed before making the attack roll.) Making a sunder attempt provokes an attack of opportunity unless the foe has the Improved Sunder feat. An opponent can strike at a hydra’s heads from any position in which he could strike at the hydra itself, because the hydra’s head writhe and whip about in combat. An opponent can ready an action to attempt to sunder a hydra’s head when the creature bites at him. Each of a hydra’s heads has hit points equal to the creature’s full normal hit point total, divided by its original number of heads. Losing a head deals damage to the body equal to half the head’s full normal hit points. A natural reflex seals the neck shut to prevent further blood loss. A hydra can no longer attack with a severed head but takes no other penalties. But I'm not so sure about allowing that against all characters, NPCs and monsters. :thinks: Also, if you already would have to deal the creature's full Hp in damage for a one-headed target to decapacitate it, why not just describe the killing blow that sends the victim to below -10 in a similar way? :confused: I'm still working on this mechanic, though. I guess it's pure personal preference. I for example just couldn't stand a hit-location/targetted-attack system with DnD, while I would have no problems accepting one in GURPS. Imho d20 is just too abstract to implement hitlocation or damage to specific body parts.