Permanent injury idea

[darkbard]

Haven't tested this out yet, so I figured I'd run it by the discerning eyes of 'board members for feedback. I've been looking for a way to simulate lasting injuries in the game without adding unreasonable penalties (the expense of resources for healing, etc. is enough) or complexity. So I've come up with the following (I should mention that I use two variant rules in my game: Monte Cook's death & dying rules (characters aren't unconscious at -1 hp but at -1 minus any Con bonus; characters die at minus Con score), and Action Points (spending one enables a character to automatically stabilize when unconscious):

When characters drop more than halfway below the difference between first falling unconscious and death, they have a permanent injury. This injury is represented by the aquisition of a Flaw (variant rule from Unearthed Arcana) that best represents the nature of the injury. (Of course, the addition of a flaw is offset by the concomitant aquisition of a feat. This enables the injury to have lasting repercussions in the game without unduly penalizing characters for dice rolls.)

Ex. Torq, Ranger with Con 14 and 10 hp would be unconscious at -3 and dead at -14. If any injury drops him below -8 hp and he survives, he would aquire a flaw (and feat) that represents the nature of the injury.

Opinions? Feedback?

 

[darkbard]

That good an idea, huh?

 

[Aegir]

So, almost dying grants you a feat on top of a flaw? Wow, where do I sign up for this near death experience?

I'm not sure this would work, largely because it almost makes near-death scenarios something you WANT to happen. If thats what you're shooting for, go for it.

 

[darkbard]

I'm not convinced about the concept yet either (despite having come up with it), but I will say that though in theory any character can take a flaw at any time, and thus receive a "free feat," no one in my experience has yet done so. So if there's no perceived advantage of doing so without the experience of dying, I expect it doesn't suddenly make "flaw for feat" more attractive.

And i think JUST attaching a flaw to such characters penalizes them in ways the nature of the game doesn't support.

But like I said, I'm not convinced either, so I'd love to hear additional feedback.

 

[irdeggman]

So is there a limit to the number of "flaws" you can take via this method?

I mean it is conceivable that characters could frequently fall into this near death range and then gain a flaw and bonus feat to compensate.

 

[Aegir]

It really depends on your group, and on the DM. I know I've had loads of players inquire abut a game I'm running and one of the first things out of their mouth is, "Are you allowing flaws?" Most take something that'd be of no hindrance to the PC they're designing, then take what amounts to a free feat.

Now, if you use those flaws against them, and make it fairly obvious that a flaw does not just mean a free feat, then they suddenly become true flaws.

 

[darkbard]

Well, as I said I haven't really thought this out all the way through. But since the "threshold" for when this would come into play is actually pretty high (as characters can automatically stabilize by spending an action point, and instead of reaching the threshold at -5 (halfway), the number is more likely to be -7 or -8 (the characters have good Con scores playing into the alternate Death & Dying rules)) I wouldn't expect this to happen all the time.

And I certainly wouldn't allow cherry-picking of flaws that really aren't flaws because they are unlikely to come into play. The flaw would be dictated by the nature of the injury in some way (though, to be honest, as I was conceiving this idea while drifting off to sleep recently I seem to have confused a few traits in with the list of flaws).

But from the (appreciated!) nature of the responses so far, maybe this idea isn't particularly good. Which one might expect from composing it half-awake....