Wound-Vitality systems and death risk

[Plane Sailing]

Not in the Revised version, which is what we played. It clearly states you die at -10 WP (p. 159, SWd20R).

Oh, agreed. It was one of the bizarre (to me) changes they made in the revised version which made combat more deadly. I wasn't in favour of most of the changes they made in the revised edition IIRC. Once Saga edition came out I forgot all about the earlier editions though.

Cheers

 

[Lanefan]

I've never run a game using VP/WP, but the concept brings forth an interesting idea one could use them for. Maybe the danger of WP is not that certain things bypass VP, but that strikes that affect WP correspond to the cases where the character has actually taken a physical injury, whereas strikes that affect VP correspond to the character tiring out, etc.

We call them "body points" and "fatigue points" for pretty much exactly this reason.

Lanefan

 

[Remathilis]

So, in other words, throwing out "crits go straight to wound points" would have pretty much done away with the problem, yes?

It seems like almost all the objections to WP/VP are in fact objections to allowing 1 in 20 attacks to bypass VP. So what if we get rid of that? Restrict bypassing effects to the stuff that you actually want to bypass VP (which could be "nothing whatsoever," or could be things like falling damage, although honestly I'm not sure why falling damage gets singled out over being shot with arrows, stepped on by a wooly mammoth, or blasted with dragonfire). Then the system ought to work fine.

That was the great irony. Allow me to give a different SWd20.

A PC is fighting a creature with poisonous fangs (like a snake.) The snake attacks his defense (which is like his AC, but is based on his level/skill and dexterity) and hits, but doesn't crit. He then would take vitality damage (1d3) from the bite but it doesn't break the armor's DR (3). Next, he must make a fort save against the poison and fails, taking 2 points of strength damage...

Now, explain that scene to me in narrative form. You can't. The snake successfully bypassed the PCs dodging and weaving to just miss causing a serious wound, almost exhausting his stamina save for his blast vest absorbing most of the blow, but still poisoning him with its potent venom despite not actually causing him a point of damage to his body.

Yeah...

V/WP ends up doing two things: it basically nullifies the use of high-hp (since all it does it act as a buffer until that all-important crit takes out your real hp) or your just adding your con score to your HP and treating it like a giant hp kicker at first level.

 

[FireLance]

A PC is fighting a creature with poisonous fangs (like a snake.) The snake attacks his defense (which is like his AC, but is based on his level/skill and dexterity) and hits, but doesn't crit. He then would take vitality damage (1d3) from the bite but it doesn't break the armor's DR (3). Next, he must make a fort save against the poison and fails, taking 2 points of strength damage...

Now, explain that scene to me in narrative form. You can't. The snake successfully bypassed the PCs dodging and weaving to just miss causing a serious wound, almost exhausting his stamina save for his blast vest absorbing most of the blow, but still poisoning him with its potent venom despite not actually causing him a point of damage to his body.

Well, the usual narrative wiggle is that the snake scratched the PC slightly - not enough to deal hit point damage, but enough to get its poison into the PC's bloodstream.

Closely tied to this is the idea that the loss of even one hit point represents quite a serious wound for a normal man, and that small cuts, bruises, scratches and other minor injuries do not result in any hit point loss at all.

 

[FireLance]

Perhaps. But that is very contrary to the stance taken by the "Same as it ever was" brigade earlier. I agree that 4E hit points work like vitality points, while pre-4E hit points work like wound points, but I am not in the least bit shocked to not see those same people decrying the same now that it "serves the cause", so to speak.

Actually, looking at pre-4E hit points from the perspective of a VP/WP system, they mostly worked like VP (with only the loss of the last few hit points meant to actually represent serious physical injury), but they were recovered like WP (i.e. slowly in the absence of magical means). Of course, in games where said magical means of hit point recovery are prevalent, even this last WP-like aspect of pre-4E hit points would hardly ever be encountered.

 

[FireLance]

Are u sure for that??

Yes. Thanks for asking.

 

[Dausuul]

Actually, looking at pre-4E hit points from the perspective of a VP/WP system, they mostly worked like VP (with only the loss of the last few hit points meant to actually represent serious physical injury), but they were recovered like WP (i.e. slowly in the absence of magical means).

Then in what way did they work like VP? I'm talking mechanics here, not the in-game explanation for the mechanic--as I said above, I don't think the narrative explanation is relevant here.

Of course, in games where said magical means of hit point recovery are prevalent, even this last WP-like aspect of pre-4E hit points would hardly ever be encountered.

Neither VP nor WP recovers instantly mid-combat. Magical healing is its own beast.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Actually, looking at pre-4E hit points from the perspective of a VP/WP system, they mostly worked like VP (with only the loss of the last few hit points meant to actually represent serious physical injury), but they were recovered like WP (i.e. slowly in the absence of magical means). Of course, in games where said magical means of hit point recovery are prevalent, even this last WP-like aspect of pre-4E hit points would hardly ever be encountered.

Fair enough (assuming you mean "worked" in the narrative sense).

I'm just happy that, at last, it is possible to discuss how hit points have changed without hearing that they haven't!

 

[FireLance]

Then in what way did they work like VP?

Narratively.

I'm talking mechanics here, not the in-game explanation for the mechanic--as I said above, I don't think the narrative explanation is relevant here.

In case it wasn't clear from the context, I wasn't only talking about the mechanics.

 

[Dausuul]

Narratively.

In case it wasn't clear from the context, I wasn't only talking about the mechanics.

Then what does it have to do with the discussion? We were talking about whether VP/WP makes a game more lethal than standard hit points. It's purely a mechanical question.

(Also, I dispute the claim that the in-game explanation for hit points has ever been clear enough to make any kind of definitive statement about how they "work," narratively. In one respect, hit points have been the same from the start of D&D; the explanation for what they represent always involves a lot of handwaving and "Hey, look over there!")