Long-Term Injury Fun?

[smathis]

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.

Yup. Cadfan already pointed out that long-term injury rules become unnecessary in a game were magical healing is readily available. That's why I've tried to stick to the premise of long-term injury rules in a Low/No Magic game.

That's about the only setting where I could see them being applicable (with the exception of a No-Divine Casters campaign).

 

[mhensley]

One easy way to handle this without adding any new rules is purely with dm narrative. For example, the pc's spend several days on an adventure and go through many combats where although they may have lost a lot of hit points, they suffer no ill effects from them. Now that the adventure is over, the aches and pains of the last few days catch up with them and they'll need to rest for a few weeks in town before they're ready to hit the road again. After deducting some expenses from the party for their lodgings, the dm brings them up to date with any news that they have heard while they were resting and now they're good to go.

Another way this can be done without disrupting play too much is to sideline a pc whose player couldn't make the session through the reason of injury. A wound from the previous week's game has become infected and the feverish pc needs to be taken to a healer. Or perhaps that ankle he twisted after falling in that pit trap has become swollen and he can no longer walk. He'll need to lay up somewhere safe for a while (until the player comes back).

 

[Kobu]

That sounds interesting. The cards would make a great visual cue, as well as allow the Players to tailor the injury to their circumstances.

Are you concerned that players may start taking multiple -1s? What about the effect of the penalties? If a character has a +9 to attack then a -3 move is far more debilitating than a -3 attack.

Multiple -1s may be a bit hard to track. I specifically mentioned cards because I think that makes it a lot easier to remember. It's not much of a burden in a game like Arkham Horror even when you have a dozen or so cards sitting in front of you with various modifiers. I imagine the deck would be 60 cards of ten types, so six of each of injury. Drawing randomly, you've still got a good chance of getting a serious second or crippling third wound before getting five or so -1s of differing types.

I would not try to balance the injuries against each other. A -3 move is also going to matter more for certain classes and situations. Some of the draws would really suck at times compared to others and that would just be the way it goes.

Take a -3 to saves. In some cases the injury will be healed before it matters at all. In others, the character could be facing challenges that cause multiple saves a round. That could be awful and mean a character fails saves left and right.

Remember that attacks and defenses scale. it doesn't matter if you have a +15 attack or a +5 attack - against comparable foes a -3 will always hurt. It's still a good idea to limit the penalty. I think the outmost should be -5, but even that will make a character so ineffectual that's probably not really "fun" to have such a penalty for long...

That's why I would allow one injury to be healed each long rest. The crippling -5 would be reduced to -3, then -1 the next rest period. Other groups I know would like longer term problems and might require longer rests or serious medical attention.

Getting to a -5 would take some work and would probably not come up too often. When it does come up, it could provide some good RP experience. A party might need to sling someone over someone's back and carry them, or at least tend for someone seriously injured. That can't happen with the rules as they currently are. At 1 HP, a character is fit as a fiddle no matter how much he just got beaten on.

I like the idea too of rewarding playing on with an injury. XP seems the easiest way to go. For each -1 a party had, they could get a 1/4 level appropriate bonus. -3 would be half, and a -5 would be as though they were fighting a whole extra monster of their level. I'd tweak this once I knew exactly how XP works.

I might try to write this up for DDI once I have some testing under my belt. I'd love to spring it on my 3.5 group, but we're wrapping things up now. I used a variant vitality/wounds system, but healing magic makes it pretty flimsy and not very satisfying. I think I like this much better and I'd love to see how it runs.

 

[smathis]

I might try to write this up for DDI once I have some testing under my belt. I'd love to spring it on my 3.5 group, but we're wrapping things up now. I used a variant vitality/wounds system, but healing magic makes it pretty flimsy and not very satisfying. I think I like this much better and I'd love to see how it runs.

I'd be interested in hearing more about your results.

If you're open to unsolicited suggestions, may I recommend...

1) Make the cards all different types of wounds of varying degrees. Make the lesser degrees more prominent than the higher degrees.

2) Have players draw from the deck at random rather than choose their injuries.

As a general rule, you could have players draw an Injury Card to automatically stabilize when they're in negative hit points. Players could also draw an Injury Card to reduce the damage taken by 1/2.

And, as opposed to just penalties, you could add in conditions to the Injury Deck. Things like "Captured" or "Left for Dead". Things that could be complications or story developments, as opposed to straight up penalties.

Each card could also carry an XP bonus on it to balance out a -3 to movement against a -1 to attack/defense.

Due to the random nature of the draw, this would keep the cards fresh and prevent players from always picking the weaker options. The stabilization or half-off damage rules gives players an incentive to draw a card but doesn't force the option on them.

As a final note, I'd avoid anything that's like "You lose an arm", "Your favorite weapon is stolen" or "You wake up naked" for all the myriad of reasons already addressed in this thread.

Beyond those adjustments, I like the cards idea. PM me if you'd like to explore any of the options I've suggested.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Wow. I feel drastically misunderstood. Was my explanation really that bad, or do you just like to argue?

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

They don't have to risk death because they are not in danger, not because they are not heroic enough.

And this is a change how?

That's entirely my point, it's not a big change.

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

You've always played that the injuries caused are mostly superficial, and you don't think that it's realistic that the characters can fight to the best of their abilities with only a single nights rest? I'm afraid I don't understand you.

Right. Now when injured he can still run a marathon AND he's not at greater risk of death. This feels more realistic because?

Because if he's well enough to run the marathon he shouldn't die from a skinned knee? By which I mean, if he can perform all manor of non-combat strenuous activity withoud dificulty, why should combat be any harder for him?

Wouldn't more realistic actually be, "He's at greater risk of death AND he can't run a marathon either."?

Did I suggest that that wasn't true? Sure it is, but that's not how D&D has ever been designed. The general reason being people like to be able to do things, not NOT be able to do them.

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 had to read that a few times to figure out what you meant, but if I follow you then I agree completely. However, I don't think that recovering from minor injuries in a single night is at all unrealistic. The question is entirely degree. If you think the goblin has torn your guts out and you were bleeding on the floor holding them in, then YES, it's silly to think you'd be okay by tomorrow. But it's also silly to think you could climb the mountain afterward to get back to camp.

However if the goblin simply jammed his spear into your armour, giving you a good nasty bruise, or a minor puncture, and you've bound it up, and you've climbed the mountain back to camp and had a nice meal and slept in a good bedroll for the night, why wouldn't you be okay in the morning?

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

Because it's not true and I'm not fine with it. Is there a reason you want to provoke me?

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')?

Maybe they haven't, but the insistance that the wound needs to take days, weeks, or months to heal, and that it is 'unrealistic' for it to be otherwise, suggests to many of us a wound that ought to do something other than make it so you die the next time you are hit. Or conversely, if it's not bad enough to effect your performance in any other way, it's perfectly realistic for it to heal up by morning.

Why is that hard to understand?

I'm not telling YOU that your way is unrealistic, I'm simply trying to explain why my way isn't either, with a slight change in point of view.

Anyway, I'm done! Thanks for the debate.

Fitz

 

[Celebrim]

Wow. I feel drastically misunderstood. Was my explanation really that bad, or do you just like to argue?

I just like to argue. Though, I do think your second explanation was better.

They don't have to risk death because they are not in danger, not because they are not heroic enough.

This is somewhat off topic, so I'm going to leave it alone.

That's entirely my point, it's not a big change.

The original sentense was composed with an introduction that implied to me that these were the changes between 4E and prior editions. If this isn't a big change, then there must have been some changes you left off your list.

You've always played that the injuries caused are mostly superficial, and you don't think that it's realistic that the characters can fight to the best of their abilities with only a single nights rest? I'm afraid I don't understand you.

Feeling is mutual. No, I don't think it realistic that mostly superficial injuries are made better by a single night's rest. If anything, mostly superficial injuries usually worse after a nights rest because the adrenalyn and other short term resources you body uses to keep you going have worn off. Sprains are almost always worse the next day. Pulled or overexerted muscles tend to hurt worse after the second nights rest. A strained thumb might be perfectly good after a week, but won't be better after a nights rest. Cuts and bruises tend to take days to heal. And so forth. It might be useful in game terms for injuries to go away after one nights rest, but it isn't more realistic.

It's more realistic that it takes a couple of nights to fully recover, with occassional serious injuries taking longer.

Because if he's well enough to run the marathon he shouldn't die from a skinned knee? By which I mean, if he can perform all manor of non-combat strenuous activity withoud dificulty, why should combat be any harder for him?

Hit points aren't realistic to begin with. The notion that you can fall 30' safely, but then certainly die if you fell 30' again is unrealistic regardless of what sort of healing subsystem we have. The notion that wounds - even minor and non-life threatening ones - rarely cause degridation of your abilities is not realistic regardless of what healing subsystem we have. So the only way that 4e healing subsystem is more realistic is if wounds represent no physical injury at all - not even superficial ones. And that is itself not realistic, even for 'heroes'. Moreover, its something that will get conceptually broken all the time, as witness the Goblin Picador. That is to say, even if supposedly none of your hitpoints represent the ability to withstand wounds, mechanically damage will be treated as some level of wounds over and over again in the rules.

Did I suggest that that wasn't true? Sure it is, but that's not how D&D has ever been designed. The general reason being people like to be able to do things, not NOT be able to do them.

Whether D&D has ever been realistic or not isn't the point. The point is that it doesn't become more realistic in 4E. In fact, the mere fact that lots of people are having thier suspension of disbelief blown out of the water indicates that it probably isn't. Moreover, I'm not sure I knew any DM that described hit point loss of a high level character as injuries consistant with what would kill a low level character many times over. The whole, 'Isn't it great that D&D is finally admitting that hit points don't represent phsyical damage" is a total strawman, and a partial deception. Noone had to believe that Barbarians could withstand being ran through with a sword 30 times in order to have thier suspension of disbelief blown by 4E's changes in the healing subsystem.

However, I don't think that recovering from minor injuries in a single night is at all unrealistic.

That's fine. I do.

The question is entirely degree. If you think the goblin has torn your guts out and you were bleeding on the floor holding them in, then YES, it's silly to think you'd be okay by tomorrow. But it's also silly to think you could climb the mountain afterward to get back to camp.

Yes, that's true. But the fact that D&D has always been silly one way to avoid (totally realistic) death spirals, doesn't in and of itself justify sillyness elsewhere.

However if the goblin simply jammed his spear into your armour, giving you a good nasty bruise, or a minor puncture, and you've bound it up, and you've climbed the mountain back to camp and had a nice meal and slept in a good bedroll for the night, why wouldn't you be okay in the morning?

Because you wouldn't. You'd still have a hole in you. Small one, but it would be there, and likely sore in a way that it wasn't when it was bleeding, new, and you were filled with endorphins. Plus you'd be wearied from your harrowing fight and long climb up the mountain. One short rest wouldn't do it for you.

 

[FireLance]

I like the idea. Not sure if I'd use it myself, because I'm quite happy with the 4E setup as it stands, but I could see a place for it if you wanted long-term wounds. However, daze doesn't really work. If you're dazed, you basically can't do anything, which means you can't even go on the quest assigned to you (bar funky stuff like adventuring in the subconscious or something).

If 4e daze is like daze in the new DDM rules, you can do stuff. You grant combat advantage to all opponents and can't flank or take immediate actions, but you can still act on your turn.

 

[Pale Jackal]

The way I see it, if 4e is glitched, "so was 3E" is not a particular argument for adopting 4e.

What I would really like to be talking about is a thoughtful discussion of game mechanics for achieving certain within game goals.

I do think the 4E HP model works better for me and I think it has its design merits, but I'd never use "it's more believable/realistic/whatever" as a selling point for 4E.

And I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[Pbartender]

I've got a long way to go, before I've read all the replies to this thread, but I wanted to post before I forgot.

I'll second that. Why focus on the sucky part of being hurt, when you could focus on the awesome?

Simple variant: If you are reduced to negative hit points, you gain the right to wear a bloody rag around your head like a badass bandanna for the next week. Instead of grumbling about annoying penalties, you'll be getting free beers at the inn.

See? Focus on the positive.

That's awfully close to what I'm planning. Here goes:

First, for my campaign, we go under the assumption that to a large degree, hit points reflect your character's ability to keep fighting his best in combat, and not necessarily his actual wounds. Also, that means a character with full hit points isn't necessarily physically healed... he's just in his best fighting trim.

So.

Hits taken between Max HP and Bloodied are generally considered insignificant. It accounts for exertion to avoid serious damage, and minor cits, scrapes and bruises. They have no real lasting effect at all.

Any hit that results in total hit points less than Bloodied, but more than 0, would be considered a "wound", for lack of a better term. These are injuries that are by no means life threatening by themselves and do not appreciably impair fighting ability, but will leave a long-lasting physical mark, once healed. For every such hit, players simply make a tally mark on their character sheet. A modest Heal check allows a player to erase one of these "wounds". If left unattended, after a few days, these marks become superficial scars that have no mechanical penalty or benefit other than allowing the player-character to look tough... Effectively these are the "criss-crossing spiderweb of tiny scars that denote a veteran warrior" that you always read about in descriptions of fictional fantasy heroes like Conan the Barbarian.

A hit that sends a character to 0 or less hit points would be considered a "mortal wound". these are wounds that are considered life threatening, hence requiring saving throws to survive. This time, the player describes his character's hideous wound, and writes it down on his sheet, "A Northern Barbarian sunk his battleaxe halfway through Sir Harvey's leg at the battle of Camford, causing him to fall." If the character survives, a difficult Heal check can remove the mortal wound. Without a heal check, in a few weeks the mortal wound turns into a distinctive battle scar -- a missing ear, a crooked nose, a hideously burned face, a limp, a raspy voice -- which is added to the character's description. Again, aside from bragging rights, recognition, and a good tale to tell the locals in the taverns, they have no real mechanical benefit or penalty.


Now... Back to the rest of the thread.

 

[Celebrim]

I do think the 4E HP model works better for me and I think it has its design merits, but I'd never use "it's more believable/realistic/whatever" as a selling point for 4E.

Exactly. I'm not trying to say 4E is a bad game.

It's just not the game for me.