Forked Thread: Shaking it Off

[Raven Crowking]

Forked from: Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison


From my new OGC version (draft):


Shaking it Off

Not every lost hit point is caused by actual wounding. Minor injuries, exhaustion, etc., can be “shaken off” by spending five minutes of uninterrupted rest. This reflects not only getting one’s “second wind”, but also the affects of taking stock of actual damage (as opposed to how damage is perceived in combat) and binding injuries.

Player characters (and some NPCs, at the GM’s discretion) can “shake off” an amount of damage equal to ½ their hit die type multiplied by their level. Thus, a 1st level fighter (d10 hit die) can shake off 5 hit points of damage, and a 6th level wizard (d6 hit die) can shake off 18 hit points of damage. This damage must come from a single encounter or set of encounters – damage remaining after a character shakes off damage cannot subsequently be shaken off.

For example, a 3rd level fighter encounters a group of orcs and engages them in combat. He sustains 20 hit points of damage, 15 of which he shakes off. He thus has 5 hit points of damage remaining, which represent “real” injuries. He then encounters a single orc and dispatches it, taking 6 points of damage in the process. Although he can shake off up to 15 points of damage, and has taken 11 points of damage, only the 6 hit points taken from the orc can be shaken off. If he goes on and takes more damage before shaking it off, he can still include the 6 hit points taken from the single orc in the amount that can be shaken off, to a maximum of 15 points.

If a character is reduced to 0 hit points, but shaking off damage would result in a hit point total of 1 or higher, he is not killed. Instead, he is rendered unconscious. After five minutes have passed, he may make an Endurance save each minute (DC 15). When he succeeds, he has shaken off whatever damage he can, and is conscious once more.

 

[Scribble]

Interesting idea.

I think I preffer the idea of "lasting injuries" being moddled by the disease track though- triggered by being bloddied, or perhaps suffering a critical?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Interesting idea.

I think I preffer the idea of "lasting injuries" being moddled by the disease track though- triggered by being bloddied, or perhaps suffering a critical?

This is for an OGL construct, which I intend to produce and distribute for free. 4e is not OGL, and I have no interest in creating/publishing anything under the GSL.

However, my "best rules" version of the game (i.e., the game as I would like it) will be 100% OGC (barring the name and artwork), so feel free to modify and use this how you will (except to declare it closed content!).

RC

 

[GnomeWorks]

...make an Endurance save...

I'm not really sure what this means, then, if this is OGC.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not really sure what this means, then, if this is OGC.

D'oh!

Sorry, when I was working on my Doctor Who d20, I ended up renaming some things. Read that as "Fortitude save".


RC

 

[Protagonist]

I'm not really sure what this means, then, if this is OGC.

probably a reference to the endurance feat
(Feats :: d20srd.org)
that grants a bonus for similiar checks (forced march / holding your breathe tc.)

Edit: Or not...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Okay, from the origin thread, here was my comment on this approach:

My objection is that you're effectively down to half hit points or less. It still works only with magical healing. Or if you base your entire game system (including expected monster damage and stuff) around it, you end up with the "typical state" of a character not being the baseline state of the character. A similar phenomena too 3E buff spells - you cast long-term buffs that effectively represent your typical character state (with enhancement bonuses to ability scores, or magical bonuses to AC and attacks), but your baseline character is lower. I am not a fan of this approach. I prefer to have the baseline state of your character (that might contain magical - or in some case cybernetic - enhancements, but they are all permanent/always on) and only modify it for short-term tasks. The alternative less transparency and makes predictability harder (for example - should CRs be based on the baseline or on the augmented statistics?)
Obviously, your mileage will vary.

To expand a little on it on my "typical state" vs "base-line" state.

One thing I noticed comparing 4E and 3E was the way buff works. 3E has a lot of long-term buffs affecting primary statistics like attack, damage and AC/Saves. 4E only has nearly only short-term (one-round) effects.
With "long-term" buffs, I primarily associate spells with duration of 10 minutes/level or higher, as they last over multiple combats. But 3E also includes a lot of short-term buffs that still work as "standard modifier" over a single encounter.

Your base-line state is supposedly the state of the character before taking into account any non-permanent (timed, dispellable) effects. So it might include magical weapons (you're rarely disarmed), magical items, and in other games it might be cyberware, gene therapy or what-you-have.

Other effects create a "heightened" state of your character. They can end (dispelling, energy runs out, duration ends), but they affect you most of the time. But they are on a large enough amount of time that you'd probably write them down on your character sheet or an index card, similar to the base statistics.

Then there are "encounter" effects - the Bards Inspire Courage, a Mass Endurance spell and similar effects.
And then there are even shorter effects (they barely exist in 3E), spells like True Strike.

So, what this system alludes to is that you have a baseline state of your character, that is the character at full hit points. Then you have a "heightened" state (which is actually a weakened state ) where you have only the max hit points you can get by "shaking it off". This is assuming there are no Cure Light Wound Wands around to bring characters to full hit points again (at which point you probably don't need the entire subsystem, as the Wands take care of your hit points anyway after each encounter)

---

I don't like this "heightened" state. It looks to me as if I am forced to jump through some hoops to calculate my "real" baseline state. Why not cut the chase and make these "heightened" state the baseline in the first place, with no temporary state in-between?

Well, this was probably a little to elaborate for a small subsystem, and might go beyond the scope of this topic, but well, you asked.

---

Other objections I might have is that this system does not remove the dependency from magical healing (as you can't get to your top level). That wasn't your goal, but in the context of the discussion this was spawned from, it seems relevant.

Aside from these complaints, it should work fine in the context of 3E (and even better in a system like d20 Modern without access to a lot of healing).

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, what this system alludes to is that you have a baseline state of your character, that is the character at full hit points. Then you have a "heightened" state (which is actually a weakened state ) where you have only the max hit points you can get by "shaking it off".

Or, say, any state in which you have taken damage. The goal here is to decouple encounter hit points from total hit points, without completely decoupling them. It is most decidedly not to make characters emerge fresh as daisies from every fight.

Other objections I might have is that this system does not remove the dependency from magical healing (as you can't get to your top level). That wasn't your goal, but in the context of the discussion this was spawned from, it seems relevant.

Aside from these complaints, it should work fine in the context of 3E (and even better in a system like d20 Modern without access to a lot of healing).

Well, since I intend it to be part of an OGC free varient system, and since it is not my intent to make players take deadly wounds one minute and then be fresh the next, that sounds like your objections relate more to style than to the mechanic itself. Correct me if I'm wrong.

(And, yes, in this varient I do intend to pull back from the amount of healing available in, say, 3e.)


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, since I intend it to be part of an OGC free varient system, and since it is not my intent to make players take deadly wounds one minute and then be fresh the next, that sounds like your objections relate more to style than to the mechanic itself. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't have a problem per se with deadly wounds or lasting wounds.

It is a little about style, in the way about how this style muddles the design of the game.

You basically have two hit point values - fully healed and "partially recovered", and you will effectively switch from using the "full health" baseline in some encounters to the "partially recovered" baseline in others. I think that makes the system harder to balance, and both planning from the DM and the player side harder.

As a result, what you see as a strength - not decoupling wounds and hit points - I see as a weakness.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You basically have two hit point values - fully healed and "partially recovered", and you will effectively switch from using the "full health" baseline in some encounters to the "partially recovered" baseline in others. I think that makes the system harder to balance, and both planning from the DM and the player side harder.

As a result, what you see as a strength - not decoupling wounds and hit points - I see as a weakness.

Hmmm.

One of the design goals of my varient is to promote sandbox play. It is my express intent to flatten the CR curve. Within that context, I certainly don't have a problem with challenging players.

RC