Long-Term Injury Fun?

[hong]

Celebrim, pls stop pretending to be a hero kthx.

 

[Celebrim]

Celebrim, pls stop pretending to be a hero kthx.

Hong, please stop pretending you are a wit, kthx.

 

[hong]

Hong, please stop pretending you are a wit, kthx.

Come, come, you can pretend to be a hero better than that.

 

[AllisterH]

I would like to point out that any house rule about persistent condition should NOT be based on the party being "good".

D&D has a long history of allowing evil or at the least NEUTRAL PCs.

 

[ruleslawyer]

One of the first (if not the first) topics covered in the 1e DMG is Disease. Something that can be caught at random or as the result of a combat (with Giant Rats of all things) that could take days, weeks or months to heal. And, IIRC, sometimes the damage one takes from certain diseases can be permanent.

Besides that, all sorts of monsters throughout D&D's history inflicted (sometimes permanent) ability score drain and level drain. Some of that stuff wouldn't heal back without a Wish spell or some other crazily high-powered spell.

The fact is that D&D has always had some sort of core model way of handling long-term, even debilitating, injuries to a PC as the result of combat.

That is an excellent point. I should have said (since this is relevant to the "new for 4e"! discourse) that (A)D&D has not had a core model way of handling long-term/debilitating injuries that is related to the hit point mechanic.

(Incidentally, I'm not entirely sure that 4e will eliminate long-term conditions like disease, et cetera entirely. [I never liked level drain, so good riddance.] If in fact rules for such things are not in core, I will introduce them.)

But, and this is my opinion, it's never had a good way of doing it.

Word.

"Persistent conditions" are a perfectly decent means of modeling long-term injury, IMO. Relating them to the hit point mechanic is not really how I would want to go (or how I would have wanted to go in an earlier edition; after all, the only "persistent condition" related to hp damage in earlier editions is *dead* per 3e's massive damage rules), but I can see why that might make sense.

"Injury candy" is definitely my favorite thus far. Were I interested in bringing the mechanic into the game in a "grittier" fashion, I'd probably just use the following:

Any time you are bloodied in combat, regardless of whether you later recover, roll a Fortitude save (DC 15). If you fail, you suffer a long-term injury. If you roll a 1, you suffer a debilitating injury.

A long-term injury imposes a -2 penalty to all attacks, defenses, checks, and saves until you recover. At the end of each week, make another Fortitude save. You receive a +5 bonus on the save if you are receiving long-term care, and you suffer a -5 penalty on the save if you engage in strenuous activity over the same time period. If you succeed in the save, you are healed. If you fail the save, you must wait another week. If you roll a 1, you must wait a month before being allowed to roll a save again.

A long-term injury may be removed at any time via the use of healing magic or a successful Treat Injury check (DC 25, -5 per week following injury).

A debilitating injury is identical to a long-term injury, except that it imposes a -5 penalty to all attacks, defenses, checks, and saves, and you must wait one month between rolling saves to recover. (Rolling a 1 on a save to recover extends this time to years.)

A debilitating injury may be removed by the application of healing magic or a successful Treat Injury check (DC 30, -5 per month following injury).

If you adventure while under the effects of a long-term injury, you receive double the action points for achieving a milestone. If you adventure while under the effects of a debilitating injury, you receive 2 free action points plus double the action points for achieving a milestone.

My only problem with this rule (or with the injury candy rule) is that it's not likely to come up much. Anyone with a long-term injury is going to seek out a healer ASAP to get it fixed, healing surges or no. Really, the only time you're going to use this is if you don't have a cleric around, which goes a bit too far in the direction of making a cleric (or paladin) needed again.

 

[Cadfan]

If we aren't actually tackling serious questions, creating worthwhile stories, learning history, math, cartography and anything else we can, improving social skills otherwise latent in typical nerds, and otherwise being productive, then we are greatly overindulging a childish pasttime and need to find something else to do with ourselves. Knitting. Jogging. Board games. Anything.

I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know; so I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know.

I know that I am overindulging in a childish pastime.

 

[Celebrim]

I know that I am overindulging in a childish pastime.

Whereas, I don't know whether I'm overindulging in a childish pastime, but don't think that I know.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

In order for both to be valid, Fitz, the view that HP don't represent injury has to answer this:

"If not injury, what was healing -- that's an actual game-rules term -- in the days or weeks a hero had to wait, in the absence of healing magic, for his HPs to return?"

The "no injury" folks cannot answer this ... several have simply admitted as much. (Bafflingly, without it shaking their certainty in the least.) But that question must be adequately answered in order to discount long-term injury from the definition of pre-4E HPs, especially in light of the rules quotes specifically talking about HPs reflecting physical damage.

You know I appreciate your open-mindedness on this ... so can you answer that question?

Sure, easily, and I thought I already had.

Injury has ALWAYS been an aspect of HP. (Hence the term "healing" almost always, even incorrectly at times, used to describe an increase in HP.) As has fatigue. It's just that none of the injuries prevent characters from acting normally, (by which I mean climbing mountains, running, marching, etc) which implies that the injuries are minor. However, the players know (and I'm sure the characters can "feel" it also) that getting into an actual fight in this less-than-perfect condition can mean risking death.

So they sleep it off. This rest restores extreme fatigue and fully closes minor wounds, bruises, and repairs strained muscles. It's not that they couldn't adventure, it's that they feel much better (more ready to take on the world) after a few days rest. Not to mention regain morale about doing it all again. The pychological aspect of HP. (This is how Warlords "heal") .

The saying "time heals all wounds" is not just talking about actual wounds either.

At any rate, they are ready to go again at full HP.

The only thing 4E did (to this model) is say that the adventurers are heroic enough to continue on while they're still sore and are competent enough to be able to defend themselves to the best of their abilities while minor cuts are bandaged, and bruises are still purple, rather than waiting until they're all gone.

To those of us that have always played this way, it provides realism rather than detracting from it. No longer can your character run a marathon but can't risk stumbling without fear of death. (Well this can occur while low in HP and out of surges, but it truly implies fatigue (out of surges) and fresh injury (bloodied) that would suggest it's not a good idea.) Get a good rest, the fatigue goes away and get the injury bandaged up (triggering a healing surge) and you're ready for anything.

I hope that helps.

Fitz

PS: Both camps have their extremists who are BOTH wrong. HP has ALWAYS implied a certain ammount of injury, despite what some say, but the injury has never been modeled as anything that really bothers the character in any significant way, despite what the other side suggests.

 

[smathis]

I would like to point out that any house rule about persistent condition should NOT be based on the party being "good".

D&D has a long history of allowing evil or at the least NEUTRAL PCs.

Seconded. With 4e, most characters will be "Unaligned".

 

[Celebrim]

The only thing 4E did (to this model) is say that the adventurers are heroic enough to continue on

Whereas, not heroic enough to continue on even though it means a greater risk of death?

...and are competent enough to be able to defend themselves to the best of their abilities while minor cuts are bandaged, and bruises are still purple, rather than waiting until they're all gone.

And this is a change how?

To those of us that have always played this way, it provides realism rather than detracting from it.

Wait a minute. I've always played this way and it doesn't provide greater realism for me.

No longer can your character run a marathon but can't risk stumbling without fear of death.

Right. Now when injured he can still run a marathon AND he's not at greater risk of death. This feels more realistic because? Wouldn't more realistic actually be, "He's at greater risk of death AND he can't run a marathon either."? I mean, I'm not at all suggesting that more realistic makes for a better game, but on the other hand neither am I suggesting that something that is less realistic is actually more.

I hope that helps.

Not really. Why don't we just agree that you don't want to play a more realistic game? I'm fine with that.

PS: Both camps have their extremists who are BOTH wrong. HP has ALWAYS implied a certain ammount of injury, despite what some say, but the injury has never been modeled as anything that really bothers the character in any significant way, despite what the other side suggests.

Just for the record, when has anyone ever claimed in one of these threads that hit point damage in D&D bothered a character in any significant way (at least above the point of 'dying')?