Bloodied Penalty

[keterys]

I was trying to think on how much it would change the game to have Bloodied condition give a -2 to all defenses. It would certainly affect monsters more than PCs... which might actually be a feature... but any outright problems people see with the concept?

 

[keterys]

Oops, a little eerily similar to this other topic though there are some differences.

I also have been thinking about having almost all monsters have _something_ happen at bloodied... whether it's similar to how dragons work, or an adrenaline rush that alters their attack, exhaustion that stops them from shifting, or in one wacky example I had a Goblin Pyro that when bloodied gained ongoing 5 fire til it died, but it would give its enemies ongoing 5 fire by being near them.

Basically, making bloodied more serious in a game effect way, but not a way that slows the game down or penalizes players.

 

[BarkingDeathSquirrel]

I too would like bloodied to be more of a game effect than it currently is. My plan is to add +1/2 level (of the attacker) damage to attacks against bloodied foes. Makes being bloodied mean something beyond having access to (or being affected by) various powers/abilities, and helps speed up Solo grinds, to boot.

I think that having all monsters have some sort of special effect on Bloodied might be too much, though. Those types of effects seem better suited to Elites, Solos, and unique NPCs/monsters imho. It loses its special'ness if it happens too much.

 

[keterys]

Maybe - but it's a way to avoid boredom/grind if combat changes as creatures become bloodied. Skullcleaver is an easy example of a normal creature that changes in a notable fashion when bloodied. Gnolls and dragonborn are less glaring examples, as well.

Extra damage against bloodied works too... I was recently running an area in an adventure where you took double damage while bloodied, which made things a lot faster in bloodied, but was more extreme than I'd want for any normal area

 

[Alex319]

One problem with all these "penalties when bloodied" ideas is that they significantly nerf builds that require you to be bloodied to get certain bonuses, because then you ahve to accept the penalty to get the bonuses. (But as long as players know about this, they can simply avoid such builds.)

 

[chronoplasm]

Whenever one of my monsters is bloodied, I allow my players to make intimidation or diplomacy checks against it as a minor action. If the party scores a certain number of successes (8 for a solo, 5 for an elite, 3 for a normal enemy, or 1 for a minion) the monster may be convinced to surrender.
The monsters don't get any such advantage against the player characters.

 

[Garthanos]

Whenever one of my monsters is bloodied, I allow my players to make intimidation or diplomacy checks against it as a minor action. If the party scores a certain number of successes (8 for a solo, 5 for an elite, 3 for a normal enemy, or 1 for a minion) the monster may be convinced to surrender.
The monsters don't get any such advantage against the player characters.

But they might "try non mechanically" you the GM can have NPC's and monsters of more sentient nature try to offer terms and conditions or in some fashion show that they are aware of the halmark of bloodied too... and that not every battle has to be a death throes resolution could alter the tone of the game massively. KILL OR BE KILLED... is so icky.

 

[keterys]

One problem with all these "penalties when bloodied" ideas is that they significantly nerf builds that require you to be bloodied to get certain bonuses, because then you ahve to accept the penalty to get the bonuses. (But as long as players know about this, they can simply avoid such builds.)

Monsters are bloodied _far more_ than PCs, so in general it's a boost to players... can you give some examples of builds that are notably weakened by a temporary defense penalty while bloodied?

Like, I don't think it's of much impact to Dragonborn who get their bonus while bloodied, but also shouldn't really spend a long time staying bloodied. I'm not very familiar with other examples that are stronger?

Whenever one of my monsters is bloodied, I allow my players to make intimidation or diplomacy checks against it as a minor action. If the party scores a certain number of successes (8 for a solo, 5 for an elite, 3 for a normal enemy, or 1 for a minion) the monster may be convinced to surrender.

That's very interesting - I keep meaning to try to intimidate someone with one of my characters (I mean, huge +16 Intimidate at level 6, I at least have a reasonable chance), but the standard action requirement keeps stopping me from bothering.

 

[WyattSalazar]

I like the intimidate idea. It's a nice way to weave a skill challenge into a combat.

I've tried bloodied penalties in certain games, but I'm not sure of the utility of trying to make bloodied "mean more" except as a way to nerf encounters that are taking too long. I would rather just deal with those encounters on a case by case basis than issue something that could catch the PCs as well.

It is something I would try in a game meant to be harder than normal though.

 

[keterys]

except as a way to nerf encounters that are taking too long

That is one of the reasons I chose -2 defenses, to encourage combats to end more quickly, help address some of the perceived whiffing gap.

I totally respect that folks do or don't like the idea of a penalty for bloodied, though... I'm _really_ looking for any actual problems with a defense penalty. For example, it does make it more difficult for PCs to recover once things go really wrong... but PCs are typically well equipped to recover from being bloodied and it's a pretty minor penalty, so if the -2 is enough to push things into a TPK... but not allow them to kill/control the monsters better in redress... they probably should have fled or were otherwise screwed to start.