A true20 like Damage Save System for 3.x

[ValhallaGH]

Size adds a DR bonus or penalty: medium size is +0 then +1, +2, +3, +4 for larger sizes and -1, -2, -3, -4 for smaller sizes.

Those look fine. They'd make big things too squishy for my tastes except...

Size also adds bonus wounds: medium size is +0 then +2, +4, +8, +16 for larger sizes and -2, -4, -8, -16 for smaller sizes.

You still have these. Again I'm not sure about the extra squishiness of the small and smaller creatures. A fine-sized barbarian starts the game with -8 wounds?

D&D is a super heroic game. the 1 always miss and 20 always succeed should always be in place.

I still say that a cockroach commoner shouldn't be able to kung-fu kick an adamantine vault off of its hinges.
Also, that guideline only applies to attack rolls and saving throws in standard d20. All other checks are completely numerical.

Something occurred to me about this too. Object should always "take a 10" on DR checks. Also for objects: size should modify how many wounds they have.

That would stop it. Though you've just introduced the ability to take 10 on a saving throw. :\ I guess you really can't win them all.

 

[Sadrik]

Those look fine. They'd make big things too squishy for my tastes except...

Well, my thought here is big creatures generally have a huge natural armor bonus. How much benefit should I give to them? I am very tempted to halve natural armor bonuses because of it too. A +30 natural armor bonus converts to a +30 bonus to saves vs damage. That means that characters would have to do >30 damage to be effective. A spell can do that pretty easy. But a melee guy...
Lets see A +3 holy great axe with a +8 strength mod.

Base 10
great axe +6
magic +3
holy +6
strength +12
for 37 damage

To damage a +30 DR creature the creature would have to roll a "6" or less. I guess that seems about right. No need to halve natural armor bonuses.

You still have these. Again I'm not sure about the extra squishiness of the small and smaller creatures. A fine-sized barbarian starts the game with -8 wounds?

Sure a fine (mouse sized) barbarian should have less wounds...

Right now I am in flux on how many wounds characters and creatures should get. But so far my best idea is: 1/2HD + BAB + 2 + size mod (minimum of 1). So a size-fine 4th level barbarian would have 4 wounds (because: 6HD + 4BAB + 2 - 8 = 4). Definatly not a lot of wounds but more than I suspected.

I still say that a cockroach commoner shouldn't be able to kung-fu kick an adamantine vault off of its hinges.
Also, that guideline only applies to attack rolls and saving throws in standard d20. All other checks are completely numerical.
That would stop it. Though you've just introduced the ability to take 10 on a saving throw. :\ I guess you really can't win them all.

I think the possibility of amazing things happening should be there. Of course the DM should be able to say no in certain situations.

Objects always "taking a 10" makes sense anyway.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Note that True20 reduces natural armor bonuses by 1/2 to help with that issue. So that +30 becomes a +15, which is far more managable.

Fine is the smallest size (-16 wounds by your chart), therefore a fine-sized barbarian 4 would have (6 + 4 + 3 + 2 - 16 =) -1 wounds, which rounds to a minimum of 1. He'd have to be level 7 before he'd have any more wounds than that.

And yes, objects always taking 10 on DR saves makes a great deal of sense. Even if it does break two or three rules of the game. (Hooray for rule 0! Hooray!)

 

[Sadrik]

Fine is the smallest size (-16 wounds by your chart), therefore a fine-sized barbarian 4 would have (6 + 4 + 3 + 2 - 16 =) -1 wounds, which rounds to a minimum of 1. He'd have to be level 7 before he'd have any more wounds than that.

If you think an ant sized barbarian or any class should have more than 1 wound we are on a different page. I suppose a 20th level barbarian cockroach specializing in kung-fu kicks would have more than 1 (6+2+20-16=12) but I see those all the time you know.

For some reason it feels like I wont have to lower the natural armor bonuses.

Here is a difference that I am unsure about.
What if you have a holy, flaming, shock battle ax. It does 26 damage without strength. How do the different damage types work. What if the creature is immune to fire? Or what if it is not evil? I guess the simple answer is to remove the +3 from fire or the +6 vs evil.

but how does that interact with fire resistance 10...

The other magics this change affects are:
healing spells

 

[ValhallaGH]

IWhat if you have a holy, flaming, shock battle ax. It does 26 damage without strength. How do the different damage types work. What if the creature is immune to fire? Or what if it is not evil? I guess the simple answer is to remove the +3 from fire or the +6 vs evil.

Since that's also how you would handle it when running normal D&D, I don't see the issue.

but how does that interact with fire resistance 10...

How big a damage bonus is a d10? +5 you say?
"Fire Resistance: This creature has a +X on DR Saves against fire damage and all attacks that deal fire damage." Where X = DC bonus that could achieve that maximum damage.

Among other things, this gets people to stop using the flaming ability while beating upon a red dragon; unless they like the dragon to have an even better chance of ignoring the attack.

The other magics this change affects are:
healing spells

Healing spells grant Recovery checks, with bonuses related to how much HP they would restore. On a non-dying character, they restore a number of wounds, again related to how much HP they would restore. (3d8+6 => +18 wounds)

Suddenly Cure Serious Wounds becomes good at curing Serious Wounds.

 

[Sadrik]

What about these...
Energy Resistance: Half it and ignore up to that much damage from that damage type.
Damage Reduction: Half it and ignore up to that much damage unless they have the correct damage type.
Hardness: Add it as an natural armor bonus

Healing spells grant Recovery checks, with bonuses related to how much HP they would restore. On a non-dying character, they restore a number of wounds, again related to how much HP they would restore. (3d8+6 => +18 wounds)

Suddenly Cure Serious Wounds becomes good at curing Serious Wounds.

Cure minor wounds: heals 1 stun
Cure light wounds: heals 2 wounds and stun
Cure moderate wounds: heals 4 wounds and stun
Cure serious wounds: heals 6 wounds and stun
Cure critical wounds: heals 8 wounds and stun
Heal: Heals all wounds and stun

Inflicts would do the opposite but save for half.

 

[Sadrik]

Back to the size thing:
Should a BB be more easy to damage than a cannon ball? Simply by virtue of size?
Should a small tree be easier to cut than a large tree simply because of size?

The bigger things should definitely have more wounds...

Oh yeah and I updated the first post

 

[ValhallaGH]

Ignoring damage is extremely powerful in this variant. -4 damage is still a chance that your foe will roll a natural 1 and fail the DC 6 DR save.
Now, if you're okay with that power then go ahead. I'm just trying to make sure that you're fully aware.


How did you arrive at those numbers for the cure spells?


BBs are difficult to damage due to their small size and round shape (they have a high-ish AC, and being rolly, are not considered inanimate despite their 0 dexterity). The materials of a BB are similar enough to those of a cannon ball that once you actually inflict some damage on it, it will resist that damage equally well (hardness). The size will again become a factor in how much damage the two objects can absorb before they completely fail (wounds); the cannon ball will be tougher but that might not matter if the PCs can actually wail upon it.

So relating the wounds of a object to its size seems reasonable. Which is, I presume, the question behind your questions.

 

[Sadrik]

Ignoring damage is extremely powerful in this variant. -4 damage is still a chance that your foe will roll a natural 1 and fail the DC 6 DR save.
Now, if you're okay with that power then go ahead. I'm just trying to make sure that you're fully aware.

I agree, but it is less clunky than the opposite. Making the energy resistance a bonus to your save.

An example: if you have ER (fire) 10 in regular d&d in this variant you ignore 5 points of fire damage. So, a flaming weapon does 3 fire damage and that is ignored. But a flame burst great axe on a crit does +2d10 fire or in this system +10 fire damage. The first 5 is ignored and they would take only +5 fire damage.

How did you arrive at those numbers for the cure spells?

Well, I fabricated them off of the rough estimate of percentages that the real spells do in regular d&d. For instance characters will have 4-7 wounds at first level- and get 10, 15, or 20 more over the course of 20 levels. 2,4 6, and 8 just seemed to have the right proportionality. I think they should also remove the disabled and unconscious conditions if they bring a character back to positive wounds. -That should be added in.

So relating the wounds of a object to its size seems reasonable. Which is, I presume, the question behind your questions.

Yes it was. I think I'll remove the size related DR bonus bit.

What do you think about removing the disabled and unconscious conditions on a failed save of 15 or more? Of course, still have those conditions when they reach 0 stun or wounds.

 

[ValhallaGH]

I just thought of a question. How does Power Attack work? Will you change it at all or leave it the same?