Germ of an idea for a new damage model.

[Water Bob]

I've got this idea that's been rolling around in the old noggin for about a week or so. It's not fleshed out at all--it's just a starting point. But, if developed, it might turn into a pretty good idea.

You know there are different hit point models out there, yes? There's the Vitality/Health point type systems where some of a character's hit points are devoted to his Life's Blood while a bigger portion is considered something else that isn't the character's Life's Blood.

My idea, if developed, could be an alternative to the Vitality system without changing the standard d20 (D&D) hit point system by one iota.



My thought is: What if a weapon delivered nonlethal and lethal damage instead of just lethal damage? Some portion of the damage delivered is considered nonlethal, while the rest is considered lethal damage.

This would not effect the power level of the game as the same amount of damage would still be delivered to victims. It's just that some damage would heal faster than other damage.

For example....

Let's say you take a longsword and swing it. Your damage is 1d8 + STR mod. If half the weapon's damage were considered nonlethal damage, then the lethal damage would be the other half + STR mod.

If you threw 5 points of damage, and you have STR 16, then you would inflict 2 points of nonlethal damage and 3 + 3 = 6 points of lethal damage.

The damage to the character is the same as in the vanilla game. Normally, a target with 20 hit points would take 5 points of damage, reducing his total to 12 points. He goes unconscious at -1 HP.

With this system, he takes 6 points of damage, reducing hit points to 14, but he goes unconscious at 1 HP instead of -1 HP. The distance to the unconscious point remains the same in either system.

The benefit of the system, though, is that some of the character's damage heals a lot faster than the wound damage.





What I was thinking was to adjust a weapon's percentage of nonlethal damage it delivers based on the weapon's type and the type of armor it is pitted against.

For example, slashing weapons are not good weapons to use against plate armor, thus any slashing weapon used against a foe in plate would deliver 75% nonlethal damage and 25% lethal damage.

Using the same longsword damage above, the longsword strike would do 4 points of nonlethal damage and 1 + 3 = 4 points of lethal damage.

The character's bonus damage from his STR can always be considered lethal damage.

Piercing weapons are better weapons to use against plate armor, thus a spear would do 25% nonlethal damage and 75% lethal damage.

Throwing 1d6 for the spear's damage, we get a 5. STR 16. Thus, nonlethal damage would be 1 point of damage while the thrust would deliver 7 points of lethal damage (4 + 3 = 7) against the foe in plate.





What I like about this idea is threefold: First, magical healing is not needed as often because characters can recover from nonlethal damage quite quickly (when compared to lethal damage).

Second, the system does not change the damage model one iota, nor does it change the power level of a standard d20 game.

Thirdly, it will give players a reason to pick weapons that they normally would not. As it stands, weapon selection in D&D is a matter of picking the weapon, allowed by the character class, that will do the most damage (and a decision about one or two handed must be made, as well). With this system, a fighter might actually want to use a one handed spear and shield instead of a longsword.





I think there should be three base percentages used for weapons: 25%, 50%, and 75%.

The work would be in deciding how the three weapon types (blunt, pierce, and slash) would compare agains the 8 or 9 different types of standard armor.

For example, blunt weapons might be 50% against chain but 25% against soft leather and 75% against hard leather.



Nifty idea?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Some portion of the damage delivered is considered nonlethal, while the rest is considered lethal damage.

Yep, nice idea- HERO uses it. Unless otherwise specified, any attack in HERO can potentially deliver a mix of lethal and nonlethal damage.

 

[AeroDm]

It is definitely a neat idea and also neat that it can overlay relatively simply over the existing system. I'm not yet sure, though, that it seems worth it. You pitched the benefit as "some characters heal faster," which might be neat, but I know that I now need to compare 3 weapon types against armor types and then do division and then add bonuses to the results of that division and then subtract those results from hit points and track two sets of hit points.

It is a simple and clever change, but it has a big impact on how the game is actually played. I'd need to hear more about the benefits before deciding if it was a good idea.

 

[Water Bob]

Yep, nice idea- HERO uses it. Unless otherwise specified, any attack in HERO can potentially deliver a mix of lethal and nonlethal damage.

Interesting. I've never played, or even looked at, the HERO rules.

I got the idea while writing in another thread about nonlethal damage.

...but I know that I now need to compare 3 weapon types against armor types and then do division and then add bonuses to the results of that division and then subtract those results from hit points and track two sets of hit points.

Keeping track of lethal and nonlethal damage is not a problem. I do it a lot in my current game, and I just use two columns. The lethal damage column goes down as the nonlethal column goes up.

The three weapon types vs. armor type is an idea I've always loved in the AD&D 2E game (and, to a certain extent, also in the 1E AD&D game). Those versions of D&D did it with modifiers to the attack throw. I like the differing damage types better.

But, if you don't want that granularity with weapon choice (I mean, the spear is one of the most used weapons in human history yet D&D characters hardly use it--this rule could give players a reason to want to pick it), then just set the nonlethal portion of damage once per weapon (not vs. armor type).

That way, a weapon like a longsword might do 50% lethal damage while a spear might do 75% lethal damage.

(Thus, the spear does 1d6 vs. the Longsword's 1d8, but the spear does more lethal damage because it's a piercing weapon.)

As I said. It's a "germ" of an idea. There are many ways to tweak it.





EDIT: In AD&D 2E, a blunt weapon usually had a positive modifier against most common types of armor while the slashing weapon usually had a penalty on the attack. But, slashing weapons usually did more damage. Thus, the fighter had a choice of a blunt weapon that did less damage but hit more often or a slashing weapon that did more damage but was less likely to hit.

I've always liked that "choice" in that edition of the game. Fighters didn't automatically go with longswrods when they could.

An idea would be to say something like: All piercing weapons do 25% nonlethal damage. All bludgeoning weapons do 50% nonlethal damage. And all slashing weapons do 75% nonlethal damage.

This way, the 3.5E character has the same basic choice in weapons as the 2E character did.





2nd EDIT: Again, it's only a germ of an idea. Another way to tweak the idea is to base the damage on the attack throw. An attack that barely hits does 75% nonlethal damage. An attack 5 points over the target number (AC of the foe) does 50% nonlethal damage. And, an attack throw that does 10+ points over the target does 25% nonlethal damage. Criticals always do 100% lethal damage.

Just a third thought on how to implement this idea.

 

[AeroDm]

I appreciate the "germ" aspect of ideas and don't want to trounce on anything. The 'germ' phase is my favorite phase. What I want to know is where you are headed; what is the payoff for tracking and dividing all these new things? I'm more than willing to do a little math if the payoff is worthy.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, in HERO, it does pretty much what he's talking about. Plus there are interesting nuances.

You can have someone who has a very high STUN who can take all kinds of pummeling or other non-lethal damage and recover quickly...but if he only has a low Body score, a could of good shots can hospitalize him pretty quickly.

The flipside- someone who is low STUN and high Body is someone who seems frail, perhaps, but can recover from seemingly lethal wounds.

HERO goes further- you can recover STUN at ridiculous rates, should yo so choose, resulting in a character who is seemingly made of rubber. And of course, you can do likewise for Body with Regeneration.

 

[Water Bob]

What I want to know is where you are headed; what is the payoff for tracking and dividing all these new things?

1. Making 1st level more easily surviveable.

2. Combat retains its flavor but is a tad less deadly. PCs survive to fight another day.

3. Total Hit Points heal faster because some of the damage is nonlethal.

4. Give characters (and players) strong choices between weapons.

5. Make some ignored weapons, like the spear, more attractive as a choice.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Some portion of the damage delivered is considered nonlethal, while the rest is considered lethal damage.

Cortex system games do something similar. I've also implemented this type of rule for CoC d20, using vitality and wound points (it's important that the lethal damage actually means something if you're going to start splitting damage types).

 

[the Jester]

Sounds like a great way to really slow down combat without much appreciable payoff to me.

 

[xigbar]

It sounds like the difference between bruises and cuts to me. A deep cut can bleed you to death, but a big bruise will be ignorable after a while. If you took the idea logically, it should nerf all bludgeoning weapons.