is a MDS needed with VP/WP?

[kenobi65]

Well IIRC, the SW system is slightly different still. Every weapon in SW has a threat range of 20.

Not true. Lightsabers, bigger guns (e.g., blaster rifles), and I think some vibro weapons have a threat range of 19-20.

Still, except for some feat-driven effects, I've not seen a crit range bigger than that in SW. And nothing in SW multiplies the damage on a crit.

 

[wingsandsword]

Hey, I found thist thread and remembered to ask for something I've been looking for,
know where I could get information about the VP/WP system in the web?

Well, the link was given further up in the thread, but here it is again: https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20040206a&page=3 A complete reprint of the WP/VP rules as presented in Unearthed Arcana.

The Revised Core Rules of Star Wars makes on big change to this, in that instead of having to make a Fort save or die when you hit 0 WP, you instead die at -10 wound and being at 0 WP is analgous to being at 0 HP, and negative wounds are treated much like negative HP (bleeding out, stabilization ect). The main reason for this change was that since you could survive anything that did HP damage with just a DC 15 Fortitude save and just be disabled, this lead to players being hit by turbolasers, proton torpedoes, being in exploding buildings (including being right at the door of the Endor bunker that the Rebels blew up in RotJ when it goes up in one campaign I was in). The GM could just say "you die", but this actually puts some rules to it and means that PCs with high fort saves still can die quickly to a hail of weapons fire.

 

[LostSoul]

If you are using WP, characters tend to laugh off VP damage unless they are having encounters in rapid succession. They can take a short breather and recover.

I'm thinking about introducing a rule where you can't heal VP naturally if you have any WP damage. I doubt it would come up that often, but it might make a difference.

 

[GlassJaw]

I'm thinking about introducing a rule where you can't heal VP naturally if you have any WP damage. I doubt it would come up that often, but it might make a difference.

Hmm, I like this rule. Makes not taking WP damage even more important.

I like the fatigue rule in SW as well. Any WP damage you take, you get a -2 penalty on Str and Dex. I was thinking of taking it one step further and increase the penalty if your WP get down to a certain point: something like -4 Str and Dex at 6 WP and -6 at 3. That would emulate increasingly severe physical wounds.

I was also thinking of having any attack that reduces WP reduces VP as well. If you take a physical wound, that should reduce your ability to resist further damage.

Just some ideas.

 

[Khorod]

Wound Damage stopping VP healing means any crit messes you up real bad... its not a bad thought.

I think it doesn't make too much sense. As it stands, Fatigue sets in because of the wound damage. Now, if you think it makes sense to block natural healing while fatigued, I'd have no argument with that, and it would include your thought.

That's very definitely a question of how gritty you want things. I'm just working on enforcing basic fatigue as a general proposition where I think it should come up, I don't see a reason to also add more pain by blocking healing.

 

[GlassJaw]

I don't see a reason to also add more pain by blocking healing.

Well it depends on what your definition of VP's is. I don't look at VP as physical damage at all. I look at VP's are your ability to resist, absorb, or deflect potentially lethal physical damage or to just be plain lucky. Regaining VP's isn't really "healing" IMO - more like "refreshing" your VP's.

If you are at the point where you have taken a serious physical wound (have taken WP damage), I don't think you should be able to resist further attacks. Your luck and stamina has run out. Until you stop bleeding all over the place, you aren't going to have much luck resisting further attacks.

This is also why I think any attack that deals WP should reduce your VP as well.

Again, it depends on how gritty you want it to be.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

If you are at the point where you have taken a serious physical wound (have taken WP damage), I don't think you should be able to resist further attacks. Your luck and stamina has run out. Until you stop bleeding all over the place, you aren't going to have much luck resisting further attacks.

Gritty is good. As a middle ground, perhaps counting the WP damage as temporary con damage for purposes of VP calculation? A fighter 8 has 48 VPs+24 from a 16 Con, total 72 VPs. He takes a crit that does 10 points of WP damage, leaving him with a 6 Con for purposes of VP calculations -- his max VPs are now 48 base + -16 from a 6 Con, for 32 total. As his wounds heal, his max VPs will increase accordingly. He's still capable of fighting, but his staying power is severely compromised, and he's a lot more vulnerable.

I'm all for gritty, but I like the players to enjoy the game, too. Gimping them too much either means someone has to hang back the rest of the session, or the whole party decides to retreat until they are healed.

 

[GlassJaw]

perhaps counting the WP damage as temporary con damage for purposes of VP calculation?

I understand where you're going, and it's a good idea, but my first impression is that it might be a bit too mcuh calculation on the fly. While tweaking the rules, I always try to stay cognizant of speed of play (that's why I don't like hit location charts).

Gimping them too much either means someone has to hang back the rest of the session, or the whole party decides to retreat until they are healed.

You raise a good point and I can see where that might happen. It's definitely a balancing act. I'll have to think about this.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I understand where you're going, and it's a good idea, but my first impression is that it might be a bit too mcuh calculation on the fly. While tweaking the rules, I always try to stay cognizant of speed of play (that's why I don't like hit location charts).

For that reason, I was thinking it wouldn't reduce the number of VPs instantly, just reduce the max so it could be calculated after the battle. Think of it as the warrior realizing how badly he was hurt after the adrenaline wore off, or something.

 

[GlassJaw]

I was thinking it wouldn't reduce the number of VPs instantly, just reduce the max so it could be calculated after the battle.

Ahh, gotcha. Again, very cool idea although I think there would be some weird math on occasion.

Using the example you used above, the fighter would still have a lot more VP's left than his newly calculated "max". Technically, an attack that deals WP won't deal VP. So that fighter would still have 72 VP. The new "max" based on his adjusted Con won't really affect him at all. It will come into play if he takes further VP damage. He'll have to heal his WP damage first before any of his VP will come back.

It becomes slightly more viable if you rule that an attack that deals WP damage also reduces VP (which I like). Even with that you will still have circumstances where the adjusted VP max is lower than the current number of VP. Maybe that's ok though.

I do agree with you though that if you can't recover VP if you have WP damage, as soon as a player takes WP damage, they are going to be in serious trouble. And they won't be recovering anytime soon.