Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Durenden 11-09-05, 09:42 AM	I know there's been a ton of topics on using a Vitality & Wound point system in D&D, but I was unable to find any that really touched on this particular issue (any relevant links would be appreciated). I'm seriously thinking of adopting a Vitality/Wound Point system for my next campaign (along with Armor as DR), but one of my biggest peeves about it is how it robs weapons of their uniqueness by converting high critical multipliers. Is there any good way to preserve it? I know I could just have criticals apply to vitality with their multipliers, but I think that loses some of the V/W feel. Also, I was going to rule that DR only applies to wound points and is not bypassed on a crit. I had a couple ideas I'd like to get some opinions on... One was a damage bonus to crits for high multiplier weapons and no increased threat range. The problem is determining a suitable damage bonus and some weapons will probably be too good. Imagine a Large high strength creature critting with a greataxe and getting some sort of extra damage bonus with it; no chance of survival. Not to mention if said greataxe only crits on 20 and gets a small damage bonus, but a greatsword has a better crit range albeit no bonus, it'll still come out much better numerically compared to the axe. Another idea was only a natural 20 goes straight to wounds doing normal damage (crit range and multipliers are kept normal). All other criticals do the normal multiplier damage to vitality (like rolling an 18 or 19 with a scimitar). I'd probably also argue a natural 20 that fails the crit threat roll does the multiplier damage to vitality instead of a normal hit. Otherwise an axe or arrow will never get to use it's high multiplier since a 20 would go straight to wounds non-multiplied. I'd also have natural 20 confirmed crits bypass DR in this case since they'll hopefully be less common. I think this would have about the same balance for criticals that the normal system has, but a natural 20 will always either do multiplied damage to vitality or direct (non-multiplied) wound damage. It also makes things more complicated and I fear it will become a burden for my less experienced players. Another problem is think about someone down to say, 6 vitality. They take a multiplied critical hit to vitality from a greatsword doing lets say, 25 damage. That's still enough to drop a character in one hit when the remainder goes to wounds. I guess that's not all that different form someone taking a 6d6 fireball and it roasting them to a crisp. I suppose lower levels would be more dangerous too since they'll have less vitality to soak up the damage. Ugh, who would've thought messing with rules would be so tough! :rolleyes:
starfire311 11-09-05, 12:32 PM	One thing you could do if you wanted to keep weapons unique, regarding crits. Just have teh extra damge from the crit, beyond a 2x, go to vitality. Examples Long Sword crit 19+/x2 on a crit deals 1D8 to WP Battle Axe crit 20/x3 on a crit deals 1D8 to WP and 1D8 to VP Scythe Crit 20/x4 on a crit deals 2D4 to WP and 4D4 to VP +1 Flaming Battle Axe on a crit deals 1D8+1d6(fire)+1 WP and 1D8+1 VP +2 Flaming Burst Battle Axe on a crit deals 1D8+1D6(fire)+1D10(fire)+2 WP ad 1D8+1D10(fire)+2 WP +1 Acidic burst longsword on a crit deals 1D8+1d6(acid)+1D10(acid)+1 to WP +1 Flaming, holy, Acidic Burst Scythe on a cirt deals 2D4+1D6(fire)+2D6(holy)+1d6(acid)+1D10(a cid)+1 WP and 2D4+2D10(acid)+2 VP
Xeviat-DM 11-10-05, 12:00 PM	Starfire's idea is generally the first opinion of most people, but after doing some statistical analysis of the system, I think it's a knee jerk reaction. Doing it that way makes the high multiplier items much weaker, and I'll try to show that here. Remember, one point of wound damage makes you fatigued, and you have to save or be stunned (I dropped the stunned part). So taking any crit, even one from a str 10 dagger wielder for 1 point, sucks: that's the point of the system. The man with the Kukri will threat on 3 out of 20 attacks, and one could assume half of those will be crits at low levels due to ACs and to hits being close to even. So out of 20 attacks, I'll conservatively say that 1.5 of them will be crits. Then we have a man with a light pick, and you give it a 20x3 multiplier (all to wound). He's only going to threat on 1 roll out of 20, and with the half miss chance, he'll only really get 0.5 crits out of 20 attacks. But, his crit will deal x3 the amount of damage: 0.5x3=1.5. Statistically, they're even. Yes, a crit from a high multiplier has the chance to take someone down in one hit: it also has the chance to waist a ton of damage (using the standard rules, we had a barbarian with a scythe deal 136 damage to someone who only had 20 points left; the player felt good but the crit was entirely waisted). I also use a varient on the Fort save vs. Death rules in UA, so even lucky crits aren't a guarentied out for a character.
Durenden 11-10-05, 01:27 PM	Statistically it seems like having some weapons with multipliers may not be that bad afterall. I tend to forget just cause someone rolls a crit threat, it doesn't mean it necessarely will be a crit. How do you tend to use DR? I think I'd prefer it to only apply to wounds and not be bypassed on a crit. Makes more sense to me that way. I suppose it will lead to some unbeatable monsters if they don't have the proper weapons, but then they'll just have to find creative ways to escape. ;)
starfire311 11-11-05, 09:20 AM	Starfire's idea is generally the first opinion of most people, but after doing some statistical analysis of the system, I think it's a knee jerk reaction. Doing it that way makes the high multiplier items much weaker, and I'll try to show that here. I made no clamin that they would remain statistically the same, And I agree with you analysis, I just tried coming up with a workable solution that would allow him to keep his multipliers, and thus some variance to how weapons work. And the overkill from a critical is a corner case, just like the case in only needng a nat 20 to hit, makes the wider crit range weapons less useful. Under standard rules I call it a wash, and for all intents and purposes 19+/x2 = 20/x3 But under the rules I proposed 19+/x2 > 20/x3
starfire311 11-11-05, 09:21 AM	Statistically it seems like having some weapons with multipliers may not be that bad afterall. I tend to forget just cause someone rolls a crit threat, it doesn't mean it necessarely will be a crit. How do you tend to use DR? I think I'd prefer it to only apply to wounds and not be bypassed on a crit. Makes more sense to me that way. I suppose it will lead to some unbeatable monsters if they don't have the proper weapons, but then they'll just have to find creative ways to escape. ;) When using a VP/WP system I only apply DR to Wounds
Keoki 11-11-05, 09:34 AM	Here's how I do it. Let me know what you think. http://dndcounters.tripod.com/vitality.htm
Durenden 11-11-05, 01:44 PM	Starfire, do you allow criticals to bypass the DR? Keoki, that seems like a pretty viable way to handle it too. (I especially like the variant from Sean Reynolds site) Do you keep the increased threat ranges from weapons in addition to having multipliers to vitality damage?
Xeviat-DM 11-12-05, 12:20 AM	Keoki, I would advise trying out this equasion for determining fort saves when dying: first track negative wound points, and the save is 10 + 1/5 points of damage below 0. This is the PC buffer, to keep them from getting taken out by a single lucky crit. The reason I don't like the standard method from the alternate Death and Dying rules is because a really hard hitting attack on someone who had a lot of hp left that barely knocks someone to 0 is harder to resist than a more normal attack against someone who had 1 that knocks them to zero. It should be based on how wounded the person is. By the way, I don't know where you got the impression that poison was only administered upon dealing wound damage. Many poisons are contact poisons, others are injury: that makes me think that it might be an excelent way to balance poisons by making injury poisons cheeper but only work when wound damage is dealt. And I'd still like to explore methods of having sneak attacks deal wound damage.
Durenden 11-12-05, 12:11 PM	And I'd still like to explore methods of having sneak attacks deal wound damage. I talked this over with my players and we decided to do it like this... A sneak attack only deals damage directly to wounds when the target is denied it's Dex bonus and does the +1 damage per d6. A flanking sneak attack deals normal extra d6's to vitality. I'll be running an oriental adventure game and using the Complete Adventurer's Ninja so we also decided the ninja's sudden strike would always do wound damage. Sneak attack would stack with sudden strike, but only if the attack was against a flat-footed opponent. I'm allowing the Scout class, but it's skirmish damage only applies to vitality and can stack with a sneak attack for flanked opponents, but not flat-footed. Hopefully it'll work out okay.
Keoki 11-12-05, 12:41 PM	Keoki, that seems like a pretty viable way to handle it too. (I especially like the variant from Sean Reynolds site) Do you keep the increased threat ranges from weapons in addition to having multipliers to vitality damage? Have been, yeah. It's not good for new players, though, since you need to explain to them the virtues of doing lots of VP damage vs. less WP damage.
Keoki 11-12-05, 12:48 PM	By the way, I don't know where you got the impression that poison was only administered upon dealing wound damage. Many poisons are contact poisons, others are injury: that makes me think that it might be an excelent way to balance poisons by making injury poisons cheeper but only work when wound damage is dealt. Unearthed Arcana doesn't specify which type of damage is necessary for poisons to take effect. In this case, I defaulted to the Star Wars Revised Core Rulebook, from which the VP/WP rules were taken. They're not D&D rules, of course, but in the absence of such, there's nothing else to go on. In the Star Wars rules, a poison attack must do wound damage for the poison to work. I'm not justifying the rule at all, just explaining where I got it from.
Jerks 11-13-05, 11:29 AM	The Star Wars rules do indeed say that wounds have to be administered or injury poisons to work. I'd be hesitant before incorporating this into D&D. Vitality doesn't have to represent a near miss. It could just as easily represent turning a blow aside with an armored gaunlet thus bruising your hand, or an arrow shot that grazes across your skull leaving you bloodied but unbowed. In Star Wars descriptors it's usually better to describe any vitality hit as a near miss because it's hard to justify not being wounded when you take a glancing blow from a laser blast or lightsaber. Another thing that is radically different between the two systems is Damage Reduction. As written in Unearthed Arcana DR applies against all damage (wound and vitality), and is bypassed on a critical hit. In Star Wars it almost exactly opposite. DR protects vs. wounds and is MOST important to protect you from critical hits. DR is so ingrained in D&D that using a Star Wars system would lower the Challenge Rating on a lot of besties. I wouldn't advise using DR vs wounds only rule for anything other than armor perhaps. Barbarian DR/- and monster DR should be functional against all incoming damage.
Keoki 11-13-05, 01:25 PM	The Star Wars rules do indeed say that wounds have to be administered or injury poisons to work. I'd be hesitant before incorporating this into D&D. Vitality doesn't have to represent a near miss. It could just as easily represent turning a blow aside with an armored gaunlet thus bruising your hand, or an arrow shot that grazes across your skull leaving you bloodied but unbowed. In Star Wars descriptors it's usually better to describe any vitality hit as a near miss because it's hard to justify not being wounded when you take a glancing blow from a laser blast or lightsaber. Another thing that is radically different between the two systems is Damage Reduction. As written in Unearthed Arcana DR applies against all damage (wound and vitality), and is bypassed on a critical hit. In Star Wars it almost exactly opposite. DR protects vs. wounds and is MOST important to protect you from critical hits. DR is so ingrained in D&D that using a Star Wars system would lower the Challenge Rating on a lot of besties. I wouldn't advise using DR vs wounds only rule for anything other than armor perhaps. Barbarian DR/- and monster DR should be functional against all incoming damage. I agree, this would lessen the value of DR tremendously in D&D. I think it makes more sense - after all, you're generally going to try to dodge a blow whether you think it's going to hit your armor or not - but it throws off game balance. *Sigh* Maybe someday they'll get it right. :)
starfire311 11-14-05, 09:01 AM	Starfire, do you allow criticals to bypass the DR? Keoki, that seems like a pretty viable way to handle it too. (I especially like the variant from Sean Reynolds site) Do you keep the increased threat ranges from weapons in addition to having multipliers to vitality damage? Currently I am running A D20 future game that uses VP/WP and DR is not bypassed by criticals. I am chang this in the future for a different campaign, but I really try to avoid changing rules mid-game.