Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MortalPlague 10-03-04, 04:16 AM	For my upcoming campaign (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=315589), I wanted to do something with damage to make the effects more realistic. I wanted characters to actually be able to get a scar, or lose a limb, or break a bone. But I didn't want a system filled up with rules and exceptions and numbers, so I came up with this one. If a player takes 15 points ot damage or more from a certain type of damage (slashing, cold, etc), they face a critical injury. To avoid taking a critical injury, they must make a fortitude or reflex save (Not sure how to figure out the DC yet). If they fail the save, the character takes a critical injury. This varies from damage type to damage type, but here's a few common ones and the potential effect: Slashing - lose a limb Piercing - punctured organ Bludgeoning - broken bone Fire - Burn scars, melted skin Acid - Melted skin, scarring Cold - Frostbite, lost limbs Of course, this would make magical spells like fireball much more potent. It would also make critical hits far more deadly. However, to combat the damage, armor would factor in. The armor bonus of the armor would contribute to increase the number required to force a critical injury. So a character with a breastplate (+6) would need to be hit for 21 points of damage to force a critical injury. Shields count triple towards this number, representing their ability to selectively direct weaponry. Does this seem like a fair system?
Dead_Inside 10-03-04, 04:35 AM	Sounds cool, might test it out in my campaign. Why not have the fort save DC equal the amount of damage done. So 15 points of damage has a DC of 15 which should be fair for the players and it makes it so that someone isn't losing a limb every fight.
MortalPlague 10-03-04, 05:03 AM	I was thinking of maybe making it 10 + the amount of damage in excess of 15 (minus armor bonuses). That'd make it a little more possible to survive a fireball without taking serious scarring. Spells are my main worry with this rule, considering how damaging fireball and cone of cold could be... I suppose I could count them out of the rule, if need be...
Dead_Inside 10-03-04, 05:21 AM	Perhaps magical damage is different, then come up with some supporting flavour text. Or simply have physical damage as damage = dc - armor bonus and magical is 10 + number of points > 15 but with no armor bonus.
General Dorsey 10-03-04, 08:21 AM	You could say that spells that deal instantaneous damage are exempt, but those that deal damage over time are not. This means that fireball and cone of cold are not subject to scarring, but Melf's acid arrow is. This is pretty much the same rule they use for things catching on fire. It assumes that anything that only affects the target for an instantaneous amount of time can't affect it beyond that time.
MortalPlague 10-03-04, 06:15 PM	That's a good idea. Incidentally, I playtested the system a little last night, but it wound up being too cumbersome. It adds a good number of rolls to combat, and I'd rather test it in a smaller adventure than this new campaign. I think I'll use a more arbitrary system of bodily damage for this campaign.
Lina_Inverse 10-03-04, 09:15 PM	a CR20 creature does 20+ damege MINIUM,your going to have to fix up the sytem to acomadate scaleing damege.
DragonWatcher 10-03-04, 09:54 PM	The main problem that I see with the system as described is that it has a static number of damage that quickly becomes very unrealistic, which goes against the intent of the system to begin with (to provide realism). 15 points of damage will kill nearly any first level character, and will wipe out wizards and sorcerers up until 3rd or 4th level. Conversely, a 10th level fighter would barely notice 15 points of damage when you consider that they would average around 90+ HP at that time. This quickly becomes a question of how a player (or DM) perceives Hit Points. Do you think that HP are a measure of a character's ability to withstand damage, or are they representitive of a character's ability to avoid those really damaging strikes? If it were strictly the former, the coup-de-grace rule would not make any sense, as even if the hit doesn't kill the target, they must still make a Fort save or die instantly. If it is your wish to add this type of system to your combat, I would recommend using a percentage of a character's total HP as the basis for the critical wound. Yes, this would make it much more difficult to give a special wound to a higher level character, but this makes sense considering the experience and training that such a character would have in deflecting those kinds of blows. Alternately, you could just rule that on a threat, the attacker could choose between trying for a normal critical damage, or forgo all damage to do a wound. Then have a list of possible wound effects, each one should somehow modify the roll to confirm the crit. Should the modified crit succeed, then you have a special wound effect in place. Good luck, with whatever you decide.