Plausibility

As a long time DND and Rolemaster player, one of the aspects of DND that many Rolemaster players dislikes is the concept of "lack of plausibility" when it comes to damage in DND.

So, I created two house rules for my current DND campaign which forces players to think before going into combat. For example, if a combatant type PC rounds a corner and there are 3 opponents there with heavy crossbows, most mid or higher level players using core rules will attack those crossbowmen because the player basically knows that his hit points will protect him. In real life, 3 heavy crossbowmen will scare the crap out of almost anyone and the vast majority of even trained combatant types would not attack them with a melee weapon.

Rules:

1) If a character gets hit with an attack, he must make a DC 10 + damage taken Fort Save to not be "staggered" (i.e. -2 to all rolls). For each 5 points that the roll is missed by, the character is staggered for one round (i.e. rolling a 10 on a DC 16 roll results in 2 rounds of stagger). These rounds are cumulative (i.e. you can gain them from multiple attacks), but you only lose one round of stagger per round. If you get to 10 rounds of stagger, you fall unconscious regardless of your hit points. For every 5 points of curing that you get, you lose one round of stagger.

2) If a character is one third damaged (round closest), he is at -1 for all rolls. A character at two thirds damaged is at -2 for all rolls. At zero or fewer hit points (if you have a way to still be conscious below zero hit points), the character is at -3 for all rolls. Note: this rule makes spells like Aid a lot more worthwhile.


We have found in our game that players make more reasonable decisions with regard to combat when their combat effectiveness (to hit rolls, damage rolls, saves, skills like tumble and concentration) starts dropping as they get wounded. They no longer rely on their boatload of hit points to save them and a single attack on an unwounded character can easily change the course of a battle.

Anyway, just thought I'd share these house rules with people. Hope you find them useful.

This is similar to the way the Grim and Gritty Hitpoint System (By Kenneth S. Hood) deals with damage.

Not only do people in a GnG game have fewer HP (making them a lot more wary of other combatants), when you are at 75%, 50% or 25% of your total HP, you suffer a cumulative -2 penalty to all rolls until you are no longer wounded. (I go so far, IMC, as to apply this penalty to your AC. Makes getting the first hit in VERY important.)

Under the GnG system, if you suffer more than half of your current hitpoints in one attack, you suffer Wound Trauma, and can only take a partial action next round. (Staggered to a tee.)

There's an optional rule that replaces the Wound Trauma mechanic, but it slows things down a little.. (Might work in my group, though, with only 2 PC's..)

"Whenever you lose Hit Points, you must immediately perform a Forditude saving throw. If you fail this saving throw, you might become dazed or stunned by your injury. The DC of your Forditude save equals 10 + the damage you suffered. If you fail the saving throw you are dazed for one round. If you fail the save by 5 or more points, you are stunned for one round. If you fail by 10 or more points, you are stunned for 2d6 rounds."

Click to expand...

Brutal, but your idea reminded me of this.

- Kemrain the Unofficial Grim and Gritty Spokesbeing.

Might want to look into how mutants and masterminds does it. Instead of relying on Fort, they have a Damage Save. Depending on how much you fail or succeed upon it, you're either ok, taking a -1 cumulative to rolls, up to knocked out or dead. Instead of having a set hp amount, eventually those -1 penalties will catch up to you and boom, you're on your back.

Personally, I dislike this with a d20... a 3d6 I can see, but its kinda hard to picture a hero getting involved in danger when his ability to save vs damage ranges from 8-27. Lil too unpredictable for me.

For what is to me a less complicated version, just go with lowering the massive damage save to 10 damage, and Making the Fort Save DC 15. (Or DC 15+1 per point over 10, if you are feeling nasty about it.)

Henry said:

For what is to me a less complicated version, just go with lowering the massive damage save to 10 damage, and Making the Fort Save DC 15. (Or DC 15+1 per point over 10, if you are feeling nasty about it.)

Click to expand...

I'd much prefer not
1) Using a static DC for the fort save - in modern it's possible to get characters who are basically immune to the fort save for the damage threshold. In D&D it would be child's play to pull this off. Then people are just worrying about rolling a 1

2) Not using a static level (especially such a low one) for the threshold. You really don't want a significant amount of extra rolling in a game. Threshold=con is nice, because it means it's less likely for the high-con front line fighters to need to make the saves, speeding the game up.

3) Not having the result of a failed save be death or total disablement. Frankly it just sucks to have your character go down from a single lucky shot. Criticals are already pretty bad in this respect, and having every slightly-higher-than-average-damage attack get a 1/20 chance to kill you would be awful. It also doesn't encourage people to withdraw - you're either up and fighting, or you're down.

I'd prefer something with easy to calculate numbers and an increasing penalty as you get more injured.

How about "If you take 25% of your current hitpoints in a single hit, you take a -1 penalty (which stacks with all other penalties) to your attacks, saves and skill checks. A heal check (DC 15+total penalty) removes this."