Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Trombone4Hire 11-28-04, 04:28 PM	I like the vitality point variant, but characters with a large pool of vitality points have little to fear from damaging spells unless they either do massive damage or enough to bring take away all vitality points. To a higher level fighter skillfully weilded dinner fork is more threatening than a fireball spell, because the fork can do wound damage while the fireball cannot. Does anyone have a way around this problem? I was considering having any character attacking another with a damage-dealing spell roll a d20 to determine if a critical hit takes place. I'm envisioning the following table based on caster level: Level...Range 1-5......20 6-10....19-20 11-15...18-20 16-20...17-20 Or, alternatively, use the sum of caster level and spell level to determine range: Level...Range 2-8......20 9-15....19-20 16-22...18-20 23-29...17-20 You could also use Int, Wis, or Cha bonus to create another table. Any thoughts?
Gilbetron 11-28-04, 10:01 PM	How about: if you fail your save, then you take wound damage equal to the level of the caster, or, maybe wound damage equal to the number of dice of damage, or something like that. That way you have to be concerned in a serious way about spells.
Trombone4Hire 11-29-04, 02:45 PM	But many damage-dealing spells don't have a savings throw associated with them. And in a lot of cases, it could be much more likely that the spell would deal wound damage than a regular weapon critical (maybe 50% of the time compared to probably 5% or 10% of the time) which is horribly unbalanced. Also, if you go by caster level, a weaker spell would deal just as much damage as a stronger spell (a single magic missile or a fireball cast by a level 10 wizard), and if you went by dice of damage, you'd have a similar problem. Perhaps I should use my critical table idea, but in the event of a spell critical, regular vitality damage is done normally, but in addition the victim is dealt [spell level]+[caster's ability bonus] in damage, so in the earlier example, a magic missile might do 1+3=4 wound damage, while the fireball might do 3+3=6 wound damage, and the vitality damage would be much higher in the case of the fireball.
Apoptosis1 12-08-04, 05:25 PM	In my game i stole the critical charts from the old 2e combat and magic books and modified how crits work which could work for the wound/ vitality variant with some modification. If the spell has a save, failing the save by 5 or more causes a critical. Then wound damage would be say 1/5 or 1/3 or 1/2 of the spell damage. If the spell has no applicable save then it would be fort save and that would have to be failed by 5 or more U could adjust the numbers etc. just an idea
Thelon Fairblade 12-09-04, 11:06 AM	The "fix" I used was this: All damage-based spells inflict 1 Wound damage per SPELL LEVEL; multi-target spells (like Magic Missile) apply the Wound Damage just like the bonus damage from Spell Specialization or Sneak Attack. If the spell provides a saving throw, any save that beats the DC by 5 or more takes no Wound damage. And any saving throw result of "1" increases the Wound damage to CASTER LEVEL (capped by the spell's internal rules). If the spell provides no saving throw, it will always inflict only the base SPELL LEVEL damage, with no chance to eliminate or increase the effect. For example, Fireball does base 3 Wound damage to all victims. If the DC is 15, with a 7th level caster, anyone who rolls a 20 or better suffers no Wound damage; anyone who rolls a 1 suffers 7 wound damage. Fireball has an internal cap of caster level 10, so no one could take more than 10 wound damage from a save result of "1". For example, Magic Missile does 1 base Wound damage, to a single chosen target. There is no save, so that target always takes 1 and only 1 Wound Damage. For example, a successful save against Slay Living inflicts 2d8 damage.. and 5 Wound if they barely made the save. For example, Chain Lightning inflicts 6 Wound damage to the first target, and 3 Wound damage (half, per the spell) to all subsidary targets. For example, Cause Serious Wounds inflicts 3 Wound damage from a cleric, or 4 Wound damage form a druid.
Ranger REG 12-09-04, 07:09 PM	Personally, if a harmful spell prompt the defender to make a Fortitude saving throw and failed, damage should apply to Wound Point. All other failed saving throws should apply to VP if applicable. Yeah, it's overkill, which is why you should review magic spells and adjust wound damage appropriately. Trust me, there is more to that than just "plug-n-play" the VP/WP system into your D&D game.
Kainy 12-09-04, 10:47 PM	Perhaps the fact that damage dealing spells have to penetrate vitality first will make casters more balanced vs. fighters. You don't need to give casters every capability that a fighter has, because fighters already don't have a lot of the capabilities of casters.
Ranger REG 12-11-04, 03:20 AM	The VP/WP is applicable to fighters only?
Mind Rogue 12-11-04, 07:56 PM	the point of fireball and lightning bolt is not to kill things, but rather to soften them up for the melee types. These spells should not be threatening to kill anyone unless they have already been beaten down seriously. If you want to have a spell that has a chance of dealing wound point damage, create a new spell, rather than allowing a multitarget spell such as those listed above to burn off a creature's wound points. This variant is supposed to make spells like shocking grasp viable. It does not nerf the area spells (they work just like they always do), it just enhances the ray and touch spells. If you want a spell that is uber dangerous, you could try the one below. Firebolt Evocation [fire] Sor/Wiz 3 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 action Range: Medieum Effect: One Ray Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes A ray of burning hot fire leaps from the palm of your hand. A creature hit by your ranged touch attack takes 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (max 10d6). Since this spell requires an attack roll, it is possible to score a critical hit with it, and a critical hit is liable to be deadly do to the extrodinarily large amount of damage it deals to a the target. A fifth level caster will probably deal around 17 points of damage, which is more than most adventurer's constitution scores. It also has no saving throw. It makes up for these two advantages by requiring a ranged touch attack and by only affecting one opponent.
Ranger REG 12-12-04, 04:21 AM	What about a harmful spell like horrid wilting that directly attack the victim's body by evaporating bodily fluid? Such a spell called for the victim to make a Fortitude saving throw, and wound points represent the amount of damage the body itself can take before he begins to die.
Kainy 12-15-04, 09:38 PM	And being hit with a sword (or incinerated, or zapped, etc.) Doesn't directly affect the body? Just let sleeping dogs lie. Spells don't deal wound damage. Spells that deal damage vs. characters with lots of HP = barely fazed characters. I don't really see any change in this with the introduction of VP/WP.
Ranger REG 12-16-04, 08:08 PM	And being hit with a sword (or incinerated, or zapped, etc.) Doesn't directly affect the body? Unless you can impale the target with the sword. With disease and poison, they attack at a cellular level because they literally got under the skin. And if disease is brought about by a spell that forces a Fortitude saving throw and you fail that throw, then it attacks your innards.
Robbo 12-28-04, 09:40 AM	The way I am using / interpreting the Unearthed Arcana rules is as follows: VP represents combat ability, hence why a mage generally has less than a fighter. WP are the actual physical damage a person can take without dying. So a hit that deals VP damage isn't actually a hit at all, it is an "on-target strike" that has been deflected or blocked as represented by the reduction in VP. Then as a character rises in level, his attacking ability increases (increases in to hit adjustments) and also his defensive ability increases (increases in VP). Attacks that are not particularly effective can be easily parried or dodged without loss of VP, as happens when an attack "misses". (Trained fighters will not really miss their target in hand to hand combat very often, in reality the defender is dodging and blocking.) With this interpretation, it makes little sense to have a spell like fireball do damage to VP at all. Why should someone have their combat ability reduced without any physical impact? Surely energy spells should affect WP directly? The physical effect of a "real" fireball should surely affect a 20th level fighter pretty much the same way as a 1st level commoner, everything else being equal? I considered 2 possible approaches: (1) redefine the energy spells so that they do not magically create "real" effects such as fire or acid, but rather so that they create a magical effect that appears like an energy form such as fire or acid. Then you could argue that the spell results in a reduction of the target's "vitality" without actually causing physical harm (WP). (2) accept that energy spells in combination with VP/WP rules are actually much more dangerous to higher level characters than under vanilla rules, but modify the damage done to WP - I use 1WP = 3.5HP. In other words, I roll the damage the spell deals as normal, then calculate a WP equivalent by dividing by 3.5. This is nearly the same as other people here have suggested (1WP per die of damage) but it also allows for some random variation in damage dealt, and also accounts for spells that use d4 / d8 etc instead of d6. This potentially makes mages even more powerful than ever, but they are particularly vulnerable to hand to hand combat and missiles - especially as I rule that arrows automatically cause WP when they hit, unless the target wears armour (I use an armour as Damage Reduction variant where armour does not improve AC at all). In such a world, everyone would be aware of the potential of mages, and will generally treat them with extreme caution, but when in combat will focus on disrupting their spell casting. Magical protections would also be fairly common amongst those who could afford to have them made. Thoughts?
Mind Rogue 12-28-04, 05:50 PM	Howabout the fact that the flames last only an instant. No matter how hot the blazing fire is, it is still possible to jump through it without being substantially wounded (think waving your hand quickly through a candle flame). In a simmilar way, VP represents a character's ability to withstand the searing heat of a fireball, an electric bolt passing through non-vital areas from a lightning bolt, and so on and so forth. If done properly, these are actually things that people could get up and walk away from without too much difficulty. If done improperly (as for a commoner), you probably will not get back up.
Robbo 12-30-04, 10:04 AM	My problem with this is that if the effect is practically instantaneous then there is no time for an adventurer to react differently to the effect than the way a commoner would. Unless the adventurer has asbestos skin or various conceivable protections, he will surely be affected as badly (or not) as the commoner. I don't believe you can simultaneously have a fireball spell that melts metal and kills scores of commoners, yet an adventurer is able to just shrug it off with a reduction in Vitality Points. Imagine the scene after a fireball goes off - the adventurer is still standing without a physical mark, although the gold amulet around his neck has melted and he is surrounded by dead 20th level commoners who have been fried to a crisp. Now in D&D that is entirely possible if the adventurer had magical protections, but otherwise is just not believable. Personally I prefer to accept that adventurers are well trained and very lucky individuals with "fate" on their side, who are more likely to make saving throws or have means to disrupt the spell casting or protect themselves from it, than to pretend that they have somehow developed a "super-power" of absorbing more energy than normal people. I am completely happy to consider that an experienced adventurer may recognise that a fireball is being cast (Spellcraft check or just a hunch) and that would give him a little time to dive for cover, but I think that is partly what the saving throw is about. For example, I am happy to allow a player who believes that a devastating spell is coming his way to creatively try to find cover, by diving into a barrel of water, or behind a wall, etc, and that may provide some or complete protection. But if he is in melee and continues to fight, then he gets what is coming to him!