Crippling house rules: Help? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Crippling house rules: Help?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
abeox
Jan 19, 2009 8:39:40 A while back, my friends and I decided that it was getting a little ridiculous to see a character still fighting well and holding a monkey-gripped greatsword with his arm that had been brutally mangled by a red dragon's claw. Obviously his arm would be broken or severed, so we came up with a few rules to simulate such effects.

If a creature or character in the game gets hit for more than 20 damage by a melee or ranged attack, they suffer a crippling effect depending on where they were hit (we choose this by rolling a d12 body die). Also, with any slashing weapon, there is a 10% chance that whatever was hit is severed, in which case the penalty is decided differently. Here are the penalties for each body part for a hit, not a sever.

Head= -5 concentration
leg/foot= -50% movement
arm= -2 attack rolls
hand= -2 dex
chest= -5 fortitude saves

I'd like the opinion of other players on this concept. Feel free to suggest changes or revisions.

Thanks.
#2
half_dragon_infernal
Jan 19, 2009 8:46:20 The thing is, that hitpoints don't just mean you get hit by it. They can be narrow misses that shake his resolve, an attack that almost gets ya but his natural tenacity makes him dodge it, but wears him out. Thats what HP represents.
#3
drachasor
Jan 19, 2009 9:11:49 So wait...you WANT to be hit in the head?

Anyhow, HP is abstract like HDI said. It more represents your fighting spirit and your ability to turn near-hits into misses (in a sense, being a low HP means you are getting very tired, so a blow that you'd normally dodge will instead land). It can show scrapes and the like, but it isn't designed to represent traumatic injury.

Now, I suppose you could make rules for traumatic injury. Perhaps you could take a broken arm after a blow and gain your Level in temporary hit points (or something) when reduced to zero hit points. It would make healing a lot more annoying though.
#4
abeox
Jan 19, 2009 9:29:40 What if this started happening after a certain point, like 1/4 HP? Would that be reasonable?
#5
vaalingrade_ashland_02
Jan 19, 2009 9:44:26 If this works both ways, every weapon the characters have are better than vorpal.

If it doesn't it's massively unfair to the players.

I mean you can deal 20+ damage at fist level.
#6
Scottomir
Jan 19, 2009 10:57:55 Since at least 2nd Edition (and maybe earlier), the idea of hitting particular areas or doing crippling blows has been around. In 2E, there were Called Shots. In 3E, there were optional rules for limb wounds, exploding critical hits, and massive damage. I don't think it has ever worked well. Put simply, it adds an extra level of complication to a game mechanic not well suited for it. As other have pointed out, hit points are a cinematic conceit and not any kind of granular representation of reality. Hence, in 4E you really only have two specific hit points: at 50%, you show your first scrape that's visible but not debilitating ("bloodied"), and at 1 hp the next blow actually cuts you down (though not necessarily lethally). Outside of those two points, everything else is just being grazed, winded, whomped, smacked, cracked, etc.

To expand on the previous poster's observation, the likely result will be massively unfair to players. After all, they're much more likely to see this complex, granular, vicious stuff done to them than they are to do it meaningfully to the critters they're fighting.
#7
jetzine
Jan 19, 2009 14:10:24 Wait. I'm confused. So if I throw a fireball at somebody, and it deals them 3d6, what am I dealing 3d6 to? Their resolve? If I hit you with a sword, you bleed. If I engulf you in fire, your flesh chars. I hear what y'all are saying about HP as an abstract, and I'm willing to play by it, but you have to admit the logic is pretty shaky. The attacks that are dealing damage to the HP total are things that wound. Not things that wind you. To say that you're only cut down at HP 0 is to say that the swords that have been dealing you 1d6 for the past 10 rounds have not actually been cutting you. Whatever.
#8
celloshane
Jan 19, 2009 14:25:26 I would suggest that if you want rules involving damage to specific body parts, you should look at adapting rules from other systems that include Hit Locations. Runequest from Avalon Hill had a decent system for this if you can still find any of it. If not, you'll basically need a chart to randomly determine which body part is hit by an attack, and another chart to divide HP by hit location. These charts should probably vary for different body shapes (IE; Humanoid, Quadraped, Draconic, ect.)
Alternatively, you should look for rules that introduce a wound track system so that it's possible to determine which attacks deal actual physical damage and which attacks take away from HP in a more abstract fashion. Then you simply apply the rules mentioned in the OP, and voila.
#9
veritascitor
Jan 19, 2009 14:41:54
Wait. I'm confused. So if I throw a fireball at somebody, and it deals them 3d6, what am I dealing 3d6 to? Their resolve? If I hit you with a sword, you bleed. If I engulf you in fire, your flesh chars. I hear what y'all are saying about HP as an abstract, and I'm willing to play by it, but you have to admit the logic is pretty shaky. The attacks that are dealing damage to the HP total are things that wound. Not things that wind you. To say that you're only cut down at HP 0 is to say that the swords that have been dealing you 1d6 for the past 10 rounds have not actually been cutting you. Whatever.

Read the description of HP in PHB. HP simply represents your ability to keep fighting. This includes your resolve, your stamina, minor wounds, etc. Getting "hit" by a fireball means that you strain yourself to avoid actually being hurt. You ducki out of the way, cover yourself with your shield, etc, but the strain of it wears you down. Getting "hit" by a sword means that you're put on the defensive, as the attacker pummels you with blows, effectively wearing you down whether or not he actually draws blood.

When you get down to 0 HP, that means you were completely out of energy, or you make a fatal mistake, and that last hit was actually able to strike a real blow that threatens your life.

Thinking about it this way is also the only way that healing surges and second winds make any sort of sense. Did you think that a warlord yelling at you miraculously causes your wounds to close? And if you get down to 0, but you're healed, it turns out that that final blow wasn't actually that bad.

HP is VERY, VERY abstract. This has always been the case, and is explicitly spelled out in the 4E PHB.
#10
drachasor
Jan 19, 2009 14:42:56
Wait. I'm confused. So if I throw a fireball at somebody, and it deals them 3d6, what am I dealing 3d6 to? Their resolve? If I hit you with a sword, you bleed. If I engulf you in fire, your flesh chars. I hear what y'all are saying about HP as an abstract, and I'm willing to play by it, but you have to admit the logic is pretty shaky. The attacks that are dealing damage to the HP total are things that wound. Not things that wind you. To say that you're only cut down at HP 0 is to say that the swords that have been dealing you 1d6 for the past 10 rounds have not actually been cutting you. Whatever.

You hit them by the fireball being close enough to knock the wind out of them and the like. It does hurt their resolve, jumping out of the way, finding cover, whatever. Clearly the person doesn't actually get engulfed in any meaningful amount of flame (because that would kill someone). It's like an action hero surviving an explosion -- the blast is essentially avoided. It makes a lot more sense than charring their flesh with fire but it doesn't impede them in any way, or that people keep stabbing swords through your body but it "doesn't count."

To the OP, I suggest you use your idea as an option for players to fight on at 0 hp if you use it at all. They can take a certain penalty (perhaps rolled randomly) and gain some temporary hit points that let them keep fighting.
#11
luzeke
Jan 19, 2009 14:46:54 As celloshane suggested, take a look at other systems which have crippling mechanics.

I would specifically suggest taking a gander at Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2nd Edition. It has a very capable crippling/target area system. It's a d100 based system though, so some heavy modification would be necessary.
#12
Johnny_Vegas
Jan 19, 2009 15:06:07 This is the age old realism versus playability debate. Of course you can improve the rules in many areas to make D&D more of an accurate reflection of reality, but at the cost of speed of play and keeping the rules simple.

The correct answer is if you don't mind slowing down combat to roll on your critical hit table then by all means do so.

It is not as if WoTC couldn't think up these types of rules on their own, its a level of complexity they choose to leave out, and for good reason.

I mean, why not have more specific rules on armor, weapon durability, natural diseases, aging, certain weapons vs certain armor (rapier vs full plate anyone?) effectiveness (and yes I know the chart in 1st edition for this, hehe). When you just wake up you should be groggy, so why not a -1 to hit for the first 3 rounds after waking? Why not simulate your chance of catching food poison every time you eat at an inn?

This stuff is left out on purpose, but its your game, add it if you like.
#13
jetzine
Jan 20, 2009 8:54:12 I get it. In a way that's more realistic because a hit from a sword would most likely take you out.

So do crippling this way:

Have a wounded value, which is equal to one third of your hit point total. Whenever anybody deals you damage greater than or equal to your wounded value in one attack, that counts as you actually getting hit. Then roll for a location and effect accordingly.

If one third is too small a number, you can do it with your bloodied value. Or whatever number you deem appropriate. The idea is that you can take a few actual bleeding/burning/whatever hits before the 0 HP mark, but those hits are significant.
#14
jetzine
Jan 20, 2009 8:58:20
You hit them by the fireball being close enough to knock the wind out of them and the like. It does hurt their resolve, jumping out of the way, finding cover, whatever. Clearly the person doesn't actually get engulfed in any meaningful amount of flame (because that would kill someone). It's like an action hero surviving an explosion -- the blast is essentially avoided.

By this logic, a fireball or similar damaging effect would push someone out of the way, at least around the perimeter of the burst. If you're standing in the middle of a fireball, you're engulfed in flame. I guess unless you can somehow cover or shield against it?
#15
luzeke
Jan 20, 2009 9:42:33 I would say that a simpler solution is viable.

Instead of adding new numbers and stats, further complicating it, just add in some more options for different situations.

If a player drops an enemy to zero, give him a third option. He can kill him, knock him out or maim him, which just as knocking him out takes it out of commission but with the difference that the target is maimed and still conscious. He just can't fight anymore.

You could also widen the use for "Slaying the Target Outright" to be of use even without "Coup de Grace". An attack that does damage equal or higher than the targets bloodied value could result in the target being severely crippled and out of commission. (I'm not sure if "Slaying the Target Outright" is already applicable outside of Coup de Grace situations though)

That way you get a similar effect but without adding cumbersome charts and extra rolls.
#16
Scottomir
Jan 22, 2009 6:35:19 Probably the best rationale for hit points I ever encountered was from a friend playing in my campaign many years ago. He called them a "plot immunity" device. How important is the character to the plot that he's going to be relatively unharmed by the challenges faced? So your hit points reflect that kind of immunity...until they run out. At a certain point, as fans of literature know, even Boromir dies from wounds.

I wonder if fans of more "realism" in 4E might not just want to take advantage of the Bloodied trait. Right now, being Bloodied either means nothing special or else actually triggers some kind of bonus. Alternatively, you could say an attack that leaves you Bloodied results in a scar and some kind of debilitating wound (at least until you receive healing). Like, "when bloodied, roll 1d6. On 1-2, your arms are hurt and you suffer -2 on all melee and ranged weapon attacks; on 3-4, your legs are hurt and your speed is reduced by 1; on 5-6, your head is hurt and you become Dazed until you are no longer bloodied." Or something like that. Of course, this makes combat a lot riskier and potentially deadlier for player-characters.
#17
Neutronium_Dragon
Jan 22, 2009 8:30:21 The original idea also has a disconnect with the way 4E handles this sort of thing: If you want an attack that imposes a penalty, it should be a power, not a free rider on every attack.

A "leg/foot" hit as proposed above is already covered by a couple of fighter and ranger powers, for example.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 abeox Jan 19, 2009 8:39:40	A while back, my friends and I decided that it was getting a little ridiculous to see a character still fighting well and holding a monkey-gripped greatsword with his arm that had been brutally mangled by a red dragon's claw. Obviously his arm would be broken or severed, so we came up with a few rules to simulate such effects. If a creature or character in the game gets hit for more than 20 damage by a melee or ranged attack, they suffer a crippling effect depending on where they were hit (we choose this by rolling a d12 body die). Also, with any slashing weapon, there is a 10% chance that whatever was hit is severed, in which case the penalty is decided differently. Here are the penalties for each body part for a hit, not a sever. Head= -5 concentration leg/foot= -50% movement arm= -2 attack rolls hand= -2 dex chest= -5 fortitude saves I'd like the opinion of other players on this concept. Feel free to suggest changes or revisions. Thanks.
#2 half_dragon_infernal Jan 19, 2009 8:46:20	The thing is, that hitpoints don't just mean you get hit by it. They can be narrow misses that shake his resolve, an attack that almost gets ya but his natural tenacity makes him dodge it, but wears him out. Thats what HP represents.
#3 drachasor Jan 19, 2009 9:11:49	So wait...you WANT to be hit in the head? Anyhow, HP is abstract like HDI said. It more represents your fighting spirit and your ability to turn near-hits into misses (in a sense, being a low HP means you are getting very tired, so a blow that you'd normally dodge will instead land). It can show scrapes and the like, but it isn't designed to represent traumatic injury. Now, I suppose you could make rules for traumatic injury. Perhaps you could take a broken arm after a blow and gain your Level in temporary hit points (or something) when reduced to zero hit points. It would make healing a lot more annoying though.
#4 abeox Jan 19, 2009 9:29:40	What if this started happening after a certain point, like 1/4 HP? Would that be reasonable?
#5 vaalingrade_ashland_02 Jan 19, 2009 9:44:26	If this works both ways, every weapon the characters have are better than vorpal. If it doesn't it's massively unfair to the players. I mean you can deal 20+ damage at fist level.
#6 Scottomir Jan 19, 2009 10:57:55	Since at least 2nd Edition (and maybe earlier), the idea of hitting particular areas or doing crippling blows has been around. In 2E, there were Called Shots. In 3E, there were optional rules for limb wounds, exploding critical hits, and massive damage. I don't think it has ever worked well. Put simply, it adds an extra level of complication to a game mechanic not well suited for it. As other have pointed out, hit points are a cinematic conceit and not any kind of granular representation of reality. Hence, in 4E you really only have two specific hit points: at 50%, you show your first scrape that's visible but not debilitating ("bloodied"), and at 1 hp the next blow actually cuts you down (though not necessarily lethally). Outside of those two points, everything else is just being grazed, winded, whomped, smacked, cracked, etc. To expand on the previous poster's observation, the likely result will be massively unfair to players. After all, they're much more likely to see this complex, granular, vicious stuff done to them than they are to do it meaningfully to the critters they're fighting.
#7 jetzine Jan 19, 2009 14:10:24	Wait. I'm confused. So if I throw a fireball at somebody, and it deals them 3d6, what am I dealing 3d6 to? Their resolve? If I hit you with a sword, you bleed. If I engulf you in fire, your flesh chars. I hear what y'all are saying about HP as an abstract, and I'm willing to play by it, but you have to admit the logic is pretty shaky. The attacks that are dealing damage to the HP total are things that wound. Not things that wind you. To say that you're only cut down at HP 0 is to say that the swords that have been dealing you 1d6 for the past 10 rounds have not actually been cutting you. Whatever.
#8 celloshane Jan 19, 2009 14:25:26	I would suggest that if you want rules involving damage to specific body parts, you should look at adapting rules from other systems that include Hit Locations. Runequest from Avalon Hill had a decent system for this if you can still find any of it. If not, you'll basically need a chart to randomly determine which body part is hit by an attack, and another chart to divide HP by hit location. These charts should probably vary for different body shapes (IE; Humanoid, Quadraped, Draconic, ect.) Alternatively, you should look for rules that introduce a wound track system so that it's possible to determine which attacks deal actual physical damage and which attacks take away from HP in a more abstract fashion. Then you simply apply the rules mentioned in the OP, and voila.
#9 veritascitor Jan 19, 2009 14:41:54	Wait. I'm confused. So if I throw a fireball at somebody, and it deals them 3d6, what am I dealing 3d6 to? Their resolve? If I hit you with a sword, you bleed. If I engulf you in fire, your flesh chars. I hear what y'all are saying about HP as an abstract, and I'm willing to play by it, but you have to admit the logic is pretty shaky. The attacks that are dealing damage to the HP total are things that wound. Not things that wind you. To say that you're only cut down at HP 0 is to say that the swords that have been dealing you 1d6 for the past 10 rounds have not actually been cutting you. Whatever. Read the description of HP in PHB. HP simply represents your ability to keep fighting. This includes your resolve, your stamina, minor wounds, etc. Getting "hit" by a fireball means that you strain yourself to avoid actually being hurt. You ducki out of the way, cover yourself with your shield, etc, but the strain of it wears you down. Getting "hit" by a sword means that you're put on the defensive, as the attacker pummels you with blows, effectively wearing you down whether or not he actually draws blood. When you get down to 0 HP, that means you were completely out of energy, or you make a fatal mistake, and that last hit was actually able to strike a real blow that threatens your life. Thinking about it this way is also the only way that healing surges and second winds make any sort of sense. Did you think that a warlord yelling at you miraculously causes your wounds to close? And if you get down to 0, but you're healed, it turns out that that final blow wasn't actually that bad. HP is VERY, VERY abstract. This has always been the case, and is explicitly spelled out in the 4E PHB.
#10 drachasor Jan 19, 2009 14:42:56	Wait. I'm confused. So if I throw a fireball at somebody, and it deals them 3d6, what am I dealing 3d6 to? Their resolve? If I hit you with a sword, you bleed. If I engulf you in fire, your flesh chars. I hear what y'all are saying about HP as an abstract, and I'm willing to play by it, but you have to admit the logic is pretty shaky. The attacks that are dealing damage to the HP total are things that wound. Not things that wind you. To say that you're only cut down at HP 0 is to say that the swords that have been dealing you 1d6 for the past 10 rounds have not actually been cutting you. Whatever. You hit them by the fireball being close enough to knock the wind out of them and the like. It does hurt their resolve, jumping out of the way, finding cover, whatever. Clearly the person doesn't actually get engulfed in any meaningful amount of flame (because that would kill someone). It's like an action hero surviving an explosion -- the blast is essentially avoided. It makes a lot more sense than charring their flesh with fire but it doesn't impede them in any way, or that people keep stabbing swords through your body but it "doesn't count." To the OP, I suggest you use your idea as an option for players to fight on at 0 hp if you use it at all. They can take a certain penalty (perhaps rolled randomly) and gain some temporary hit points that let them keep fighting.
#11 luzeke Jan 19, 2009 14:46:54	As celloshane suggested, take a look at other systems which have crippling mechanics. I would specifically suggest taking a gander at Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2nd Edition. It has a very capable crippling/target area system. It's a d100 based system though, so some heavy modification would be necessary.
#12 Johnny_Vegas Jan 19, 2009 15:06:07	This is the age old realism versus playability debate. Of course you can improve the rules in many areas to make D&D more of an accurate reflection of reality, but at the cost of speed of play and keeping the rules simple. The correct answer is if you don't mind slowing down combat to roll on your critical hit table then by all means do so. It is not as if WoTC couldn't think up these types of rules on their own, its a level of complexity they choose to leave out, and for good reason. I mean, why not have more specific rules on armor, weapon durability, natural diseases, aging, certain weapons vs certain armor (rapier vs full plate anyone?) effectiveness (and yes I know the chart in 1st edition for this, hehe). When you just wake up you should be groggy, so why not a -1 to hit for the first 3 rounds after waking? Why not simulate your chance of catching food poison every time you eat at an inn? This stuff is left out on purpose, but its your game, add it if you like.
#13 jetzine Jan 20, 2009 8:54:12	I get it. In a way that's more realistic because a hit from a sword would most likely take you out. So do crippling this way: Have a wounded value, which is equal to one third of your hit point total. Whenever anybody deals you damage greater than or equal to your wounded value in one attack, that counts as you actually getting hit. Then roll for a location and effect accordingly. If one third is too small a number, you can do it with your bloodied value. Or whatever number you deem appropriate. The idea is that you can take a few actual bleeding/burning/whatever hits before the 0 HP mark, but those hits are significant.
#14 jetzine Jan 20, 2009 8:58:20	You hit them by the fireball being close enough to knock the wind out of them and the like. It does hurt their resolve, jumping out of the way, finding cover, whatever. Clearly the person doesn't actually get engulfed in any meaningful amount of flame (because that would kill someone). It's like an action hero surviving an explosion -- the blast is essentially avoided. By this logic, a fireball or similar damaging effect would push someone out of the way, at least around the perimeter of the burst. If you're standing in the middle of a fireball, you're engulfed in flame. I guess unless you can somehow cover or shield against it?
#15 luzeke Jan 20, 2009 9:42:33	I would say that a simpler solution is viable. Instead of adding new numbers and stats, further complicating it, just add in some more options for different situations. If a player drops an enemy to zero, give him a third option. He can kill him, knock him out or maim him, which just as knocking him out takes it out of commission but with the difference that the target is maimed and still conscious. He just can't fight anymore. You could also widen the use for "Slaying the Target Outright" to be of use even without "Coup de Grace". An attack that does damage equal or higher than the targets bloodied value could result in the target being severely crippled and out of commission. (I'm not sure if "Slaying the Target Outright" is already applicable outside of Coup de Grace situations though) That way you get a similar effect but without adding cumbersome charts and extra rolls.
#16 Scottomir Jan 22, 2009 6:35:19	Probably the best rationale for hit points I ever encountered was from a friend playing in my campaign many years ago. He called them a "plot immunity" device. How important is the character to the plot that he's going to be relatively unharmed by the challenges faced? So your hit points reflect that kind of immunity...until they run out. At a certain point, as fans of literature know, even Boromir dies from wounds. I wonder if fans of more "realism" in 4E might not just want to take advantage of the Bloodied trait. Right now, being Bloodied either means nothing special or else actually triggers some kind of bonus. Alternatively, you could say an attack that leaves you Bloodied results in a scar and some kind of debilitating wound (at least until you receive healing). Like, "when bloodied, roll 1d6. On 1-2, your arms are hurt and you suffer -2 on all melee and ranged weapon attacks; on 3-4, your legs are hurt and your speed is reduced by 1; on 5-6, your head is hurt and you become Dazed until you are no longer bloodied." Or something like that. Of course, this makes combat a lot riskier and potentially deadlier for player-characters.
#17 Neutronium_Dragon Jan 22, 2009 8:30:21	The original idea also has a disconnect with the way 4E handles this sort of thing: If you want an attack that imposes a penalty, it should be a power, not a free rider on every attack. A "leg/foot" hit as proposed above is already covered by a couple of fighter and ranger powers, for example.