That's all beside the point, however. Re-reading those books and then running an installment of our weekly game with my group sort of lit a creative fire in my brain. I kept watching opponents brought to six or seven HP left continue to attack, or a PC struck by a golem's enormous fists get back up and wade into the fray with no ill effect other than being a few hit points poorer than he was a round or two ago. It didn't make sense. In books and movies when a giant smashes you in the chest with his club you break some ribs. When you're slashed across the leg you start to bleed. When someone strikes an armored foe they use the tip of the blade to pierce that armor. When you fall from a 300-foot cliff you don't just take a few d6's of damage and get back up. (Okay, this last example no DM worth his salt would allow...but the core rules as written sure do.)
That all said, I started trying to find ways to make weapon damage more realistic without making it too realistic. (You know what I'm talking about, I'm sure; there are limits after all. No one wants to have their PC killed by a single well-aimed thrust.) The other big problem was trying to keep each type of damage balanced with every other. I didn't want to create a situation where one type was clearly preferable to any other, but I wanted to create definite distinctions between the three types of damage. Think about it; in any given session in which the PCs are fighting against creatures without damage reduction, how often does the type of damage their weapon deals ever really come into play in your games? In my experience it almost never comes up...but it should. Slicing someone's cheek with a shortsword and smashing a club into the side of their face are two very different things, yet they both do the same amount of damage.
That said, I sat down to develop a set of rules that my group continues to use. After almost two full months of using the new rules the entire party agrees that they add a gritty, visceral edge to combat. No longer does the party's fighter continue to hack at a single opponent until he's dead; now he fights either to cripple or wound, letting bleeding damage finish off those few opponents he doesn't Power Attack into the next century. Try these out and let me know what you think. It'll be worth your while.
Slashing
Any slashing attack with deals 5 or more points of damage to a target (after damage reduction) causes 1 point of bleeding damage per round thereafter. During any given round a character/creature may only receive 1 additional point of bleeding damage. Thus, if Tordek deals 15, 9, and 6 points of damage on three consecutive attacks within the same round his target will only receive 1 point of additional bleeding damage at the beginning of the next round. These wounds stack from round to round, so if Tordek then strikes for 10, 9, and 11 points of damage the next round his target will gain an additional 1 point of bleeding damage for a total of 2 points at the beginning of the next round. This damage will continue to be applied against the target until they bind their wounds or receive healing magic.
During periods of intense physical activity (such as combat) this damage is applied at the beginning of every round as stated above. If for some reason wounds are not bound or treated after combat is ended they continue to deal 1 point of damage each every minute. Obviously, creatures with no blood (such as constructs, oozes, and the undead) are immune to this effect.
Binding wounds caused by slashing damage is a full-round action which provokes attacks of opportunity against both the person doing the binding and the person being treated. Binding the wounds successfully requires a Heal check with a DC of 10. For every point over 10 which the person binding the wounds rolls an additional point of bleeding damage is negated. (ex: Rolling a 10 stops 1 point of damage, 11 stops 2, 12 stops 3, etc.) A person may bind their own wounds with a -2 circumstance penalty. Any Cure or Heal effect instantly stops all bleeding in addition to its normal effects. (Cure Minor Wounds is a perfect spell for controlling bleeding during combat when binding wounds would be difficult.)
Piercing
Piercing attacks are capable of effectively lowering the AC of a target. Piercing attacks made against a target with an armor or natural armor bonus automatically treat the target's AC as being 1 point lower. (This is effectively a bonus to hit.) An attacker wielding a piercing weapon may choose to take a circumstance penalty on his damage roll and add a bonus to his attack roll equal to the damage penalty. This bonus to hit may never exceed the total of the target's armor and natural armor modifiers. If the damage penalty taken would reduce the attack's damage to zero then no damage is dealt to the target, even on a successful strike. (This represents the armor dissipating the full force of the blow.)
For example, Lidda is facing off against a human fighter wearing a chain shirt (+3 armor bonus). Lidda is wielding a dagger and receives a +1 modifier to damage rolls due to a high strength score. On her attack Lidda decides to take a 2-point circumstance penalty on her damage roll and adds 3 points to her attack roll (+1 for piercing, +2 for her circumstance penalty). She hits! Normally, her damage would've been 1d4+1 but her circumstance penalty of 2 points reduces that to 1d4-1. She rolls a 4 on the d4, subtracts the penalty, and does 3 points of damage to her opponent.
Also, any piercing attack which deals 10 or more points of damage in a single blow (after damage reduction) causes a bleeding wound exactly like that caused by a slashing weapon.
Bludgeoning
Any time a character takes bludgeoning damage there is a chance that they will suffer broken bones in addition to any hit point damage. Broken bones deal 1d2 points of temporary Constitution damage and, depending on what bone is broken, can cause a number of other negative side effects. The chance that a bludgeoning attack will break a bone is equal to the damage dealt. Thus, an attack which deals 6 points of bludgeoning damage (after damage reduction) has a 6% chance of breaking a bone.
Critical hits have a greater chance of breaking a bone and thus multiply damage dealt by 3 to determine the percentage. A critical hit which deals 12 points of damage has a 36% chance of breaking one of the target's bones. To determine if a bone is broken by an attack, roll d%. Any result under the break chance of a given attack breaks a bone. There are charts in the DMG that list suggestions for penalties due to damage to a specific area and I recommend using them to determine what (if any) additional penalties a broken bone incurs upon the target.
A character may ignore any penalties from broken bones (except the constitution loss) for 1 round by passing a Fortitude save with a DC equal to 15+the number of broken bones they have. This saving throw is a free action. If this save is successful they may act normally for the duration of the round, but receive 1d3 points of non-lethal damage per broken bone at the end of their turn.
A given individual may not break more than one bone from bludgeoning damage in a single round. Creatures with no bones to break (like oozes, elementals, and constructs) are not subject to this rule.
After having playtested this rule extensively I'd like to recommend that you apply the rules as normal for a character up until they suffer five broken bones, after which remove the Constitution point loss but continue to apply all the other penalties from broken bones. I'm suggesting this because a lot of bones are going to be broken during a fight with giants or golems and a 5 to 10 point Constitution penalty plus lots of negative modifiers to combat rolls is a big enough disadvantage to work through. If you do, however, continue to use the rule as written don't be surprised if your PCs start to completely avoid fights with creatures with strong slam attacks which, while being very realistic, isn't usually much fun for the players. Alternatively, you could allow a character to make a reflex save with a DC equal to the break chance of the blow in order to avoid the broken bone (but not the hit point damage!).
Falling
Falls from a great height (and even a not-so-great height) can be horrifically hard on a body. In addition to regular hit point damage received from a fall, there is a percentage chance that one or more bones will be broken on impact. The percentage chance is equal to the total number of feet fallen in an uncontrolled manner minus 10. (Thus distance fallen while Feather Fall or a monk's Slow Fall ability are in effect do not count.) Reflex saves or other conditions that effectively lower the distance fallen for determining hit point damage also lower the reduce the distance fallen for calculating the chances of breaking a bone. Since a fall can cause more than a single broken bone, after each roll of the d%, subtract 20 from the total number of feet fallen. If the number is still greater than 0 reroll the d% using the new number to determine if another bone is broken. Continue this way until the number of feet fallen is reduced to 0 or less.
For Example, Devis falls 130 feet from the top of a cliff. He has no way to slow or control his fall, so he will use the full 130 feet to determine both hit point damage and the chance of breaking a bone. For hit point damage Devis will take 1d6 non-lethal and 12d6 lethal damage. He will have to roll d% above the following numbers to avoid breaking bones: 120, 100, 80, 60, 40, and 20. Before he even begins to roll the first two chances are 100% or greater so he automatically breaks two bones. After that he must make four more rolls to determine whether or not he broke any more.
Each broken bone deals 1d2 points of Constitution damage and may cause any number of additional negative side effects. Although falling damage is technically bludgeoning damage DO NOT apply the rules for bludgeoning damage to damage taken from a fall. They're lethal enough as is.
There you have it. I'd really appreciate any comments or suggestions you have.
-1628
Thank you. Juggernaut.As I understand them, hit points represent not only physical vitality, but the ability to avoid serious harm, developed through experience. The reason that a 10th level fighter has more hit points than a 1st level fighter is not that the 10th level fighter is that much larger or full of that much more "life." Rather, the 10th level fighter has learned, through experience, how to roll with blows so that what might have been a killing blow when he/she was younger becomes a glancing blow. To some extent, then, the loss of hit points represents the erosion of the character's ability to avoid harm, as well as the physical infliction of damage. Thus, equating 5 points of slashing damage with a bleeding wound (for instance) is not always accurate.
Also, I am not sure I like giving weapons additional damage and/or attack bonuses based on type. I suppose it's balanced, though, since it is applied to all weapons and not just certain types. I recognize that this is purely a matter of personal preference.
I am reluctant to make a counterproposal on the fly, especially in the face of a well thought-out and playtested proposal, but I'm going to do it anyway, because, as I said, I like the idea of expanded physical damage rules. However, as I suggested, I'd limit it to critical hits. Then, I think, I would have either a percentile chance of an extraordinary consequence, or make it the result of a failed Fortitude save. At that point, I might apply the kinds of rules listed above, although I'd also want to incorporate the possibility of not only broken bones but severed limbs as well. (That, I suppose, would only result from a slashing attack dealing at least a specified amount of damage; I'm really not sure how best to implement it, though.)
This is my personal houseruling of your houserules, do not take any of this offensive. You have done a great deed when you made this rule. Go extra damage!
Being a practicing MD, I know how much damage injuries can do to a person's capabilities, both in the short term and in the long term. No system can really do justice to the various forms of compensatory mechanisms the body has, so it's really up to you how you want to represent injury and what you would like to emphasize.
FYI, though:
Slashing attacks don't typically cause bleeding serious enough to threaten life or limb. The body's multiple redundant systems ensure that any superficial injury is compensated for almost instantly, allowing the person to survive more or less unharmed. Any slashing attack deep enough to cause serious bleeding is also likely to cause significant disability, being either a body cavity wound or a deep muscular slashing injury.
Piercing attacks are much more serious, and provided that they penetrate at all, are likely to cause serious harm anywhere near the chest or abdomen. A piercing limb wound is unlikely to cause any real harm, but could still hit vital structures or cause gangrene or tetanus.
Broken bones are horrendously painful. Anyone with a broken bone anywhere has a serious disadvantage going into a fight, especially if that bone is in any limb. Any broken bones in a leg makes that leg largely unusable, and ditto for the arms or hands.
Broken ribs means severe pain on breathing heavily, possible with breathing difficulties distinct from the pain. Overall, the only people fit for fighting with any broken bones at all are those who've broken pinkies or are already largely on the mend.
Hits on the limbs or body can produce contusions and bruises that might be just as painful as a true break, but these heal relatively quickly, without loss of much function.
No one will survive a 130 foot fall drop on a predictable basis. That's why you never see people entertaining a drop onto hard cement even as an alternative to fighting at a severe disadvantage. Most falls over 50 or 60 feet are extremely likely to cause fractures with a significant chance of outright death or severe disability afterwards. If you're going to make falling "realistic" at all, then a save after a predetermined height should be in order, but only against death. Any successful save should result in survival for the sake of simplicity and playability, and any failed result in sure death.
Cinematically, falling when done by heroes rarely results in death or any lasting disability, even when done from a horrendous height.
As I understand them, hit points represent not only physical vitality, but the ability to avoid serious harm, developed through experience. The reason that a 10th level fighter has more hit points than a 1st level fighter is not that the 10th level fighter is that much larger or full of that much more "life." Rather, the 10th level fighter has learned, through experience, how to roll with blows so that what might have been a killing blow when he/she was younger becomes a glancing blow. To some extent, then, the loss of hit points represents the erosion of the character's ability to avoid harm, as well as the physical infliction of damage. Thus, equating 5 points of slashing damage with a bleeding wound (for instance) is not always accurate
This idea is mentioned in one of the core rulebooks, but IMO makes no sense. If you say that ten points of damage leaves a first level fighter dying and a tenth level fighter barely scratched because the latter avoided most of the harm, why does it take the same amount of healing "points" from a cure spell to save the former as the later? ImC, I say that all the magic adventurers are exposed to causes a mutation (kind of like the Hollywood idea of nuclear radiation giving the victim super powers) in life force that makes them more durable. Of course, a more advanced life force requires more energy to heal, so healing magic heals the normal amount.
Anyway, back to the point of this thread, while I'm not qualified to argue with Roxlimn's assessment, I think these rules could potentially make combat far more interesting. However, I would eliminate the idea of the wielder of a piercing weapon deciding how much to modify their attack rolls, since it sounds like it would slow down the game too much (maybe make a feat that gives a static bonus to piercing attacks instead?). In addition, the bone-breaking mechanic seems too complicated; you should give some other benefit to bludgeoning attacks (a chance of stunning/dazing/disorienting opponents instead, for example) and make a more general system for damaging specific limbs (both called shots and random). Of course, this just some suggestion; overall your system seems good and haven't play tested it, so it make flow smoother than I imagine.
Originally posted by Mind of Darkness
quote:
If you say that ten points of damage leaves a first level fighter dying and a tenth level fighter barely scratched because the latter avoided most of the harm, why does it take the same amount of healing "points" from a cure spell to save the former as the latter? ImC, I say that all the magic adventurers are exposed to causes a mutation (kind of like the Hollywood idea of nuclear radiation giving the victim super powers) in life force that makes them more durable. Of course, a more advanced life force requires more energy to heal, so healing magic heals the normal amount.
The point about healing is interesting, but I suppose it can be chalked up to fatigue; after the physical exertion of combat, the character needs rest or healing in order to shake off the fatigue that slowed his/her reactions and hampered his/her ability to avoid physical injury.
The alternative (barring speculative innovations like MoD's mutation theory) is to do away with hit point increases. Every living being has a set number of hit points (a base amount plus Constitution bonus), and that's it; the only way they go up is if the being's Constitution bonus does. Then, instead of awarding more hit points at each level, give a dodge bonus to AC. This may more accurately reflect the theory behind hit point increases, but I'm not sure how it would affect gameplay. While it's an interesting idea, I'll stick with the rules as written.
No Damage=5/5hp
Lightly Wounded=4/5hp
Moderately Wounded=3/5hp
Badly Wounded=2/5hp
Critically Wounded=1/5hp
Dying=0/5hp
While not damaged you suffer no penalties, but for each successive damage rating you go down to you suffer a stacking penalty of -1 to skills, attacks and saves-as if you had suffered a negative level, characters also suffer a stacking penalty of %5 casting failure.
That being said I would like to offer up a weapon I believe to be considered as useful as the humble quarterstaff and knife. Escrima fighting sticks. A pair of short wooden sticks that when used properly, (in real life) allow for lightning fast attacks and a great defensive posture (great for disarming). I used them to assassinate a duke in a game by rolling a scroll around them, and then ripping the parchment off of the sticks to turn the duke into a mess before making an exit. No one takes you seriously if you carry around sticks, until they get hit. My Dm treated them as light exotic bludgeoning weapons with a 20 x2 crit and 1d6 dmg with a +2 bonus to disarm attempts and a +1 bonus to attacks when used with TWF (essentially only a -1 penalty to attack instead of -2). He took this away with the publication of the Exotic Weapon Master Prc in 'The Complete Warrior’, which provides a stunt providing the same bonus. Also, the escrima, being light weapons could be used in conjunction with weapon finesse, and could conceivably disguise them as a quarterstaff.
Now as to hand to hand combat, if you can't be disarmed, and your weapon travels with you, you're golden so to speak. There are a few problems though. I've never liked D&D monks, and before edition 3.5 I tick off my monk friends by using 'sunder' on their fists. Some people interpret that as 'bending' the rules, but I liked it, and my DM allowed it. Even if I didn't win the encounter, it gave the monk something to think about when he had to kick or headbutt me to death. Even now with high level monks being treated as adamantium weapons (the whole body is a weapon not just the fists) the 'sunder monk' tactic is still a worthy threat to any martial artist. If your goal is realism, you might want to consider this, and possibly the fact that a low level monk punching a guy in full plate might possibly hurt himself from time to time.
Just a few imperfect thoughts for those of you who like realism.