Sustaining Damage Imposes Penalties on D20 Rolls

[Alex]

Our DM is considering implementing a rule that imposes a penalty of -1 to -4 on attack rolls, saving throws, and skill checks depending on the amount of damage a PC/NPC has sustained.

99% - 76% of total hps = -1 penalty to d20 rolls
75% - 51% of total hps = -2 penalty to d20 rolls
50% - 26% of total hps = -3 penalty to d20 rolls
25% - 0% of total hps = -4 penalty to d20 rolls

The DM is trying to make the game more realistic by imposing these penalties. My main concerns are 1) if the rule is balanced across character classes and 2) how this rule will affect the pace of the campaign. Your thoughts?

Alex

 

[Fauxargent]

And would the gain of temporary hit points give bonuses? +1 at 101-125%

It would seem to be more unnecessary book-keeping especially with hp going up and down through Bear's Endurance spells or Barbarian Rages etc.

 

[reanjr]

Our DM is considering implementing a rule that imposes a penalty of -1 to -4 on attack rolls, saving throws, and skill checks depending on the amount of damage a PC/NPC has sustained.

99% - 76% of total hps = -1 penalty to d20 rolls
75% - 51% of total hps = -2 penalty to d20 rolls
50% - 26% of total hps = -3 penalty to d20 rolls
25% - 0% of total hps = -4 penalty to d20 rolls

The DM is trying to make the game more realistic by imposing these penalties. My main concerns are 1) if the rule is balanced across character classes and 2) how this rule will affect the pace of the campaign. Your thoughts?

Alex

I think applying a -2 at 50% and a -4 at 25% would be simpler. Half then half is just a little easier and -2 penalties are a little more intuitive with the system (d20 seems to be really fond of -2/+2 modifiers).

I don't think it would adversely affect balance too much. There is, though, the fact that arcane spellcasters do not use a d20 nearly as often as the rest of the classes, so that might be food for thought.

More rules always slows down the game, but this one I think would be relatively low impact, especially if you 50%, 25% since characters, though healing tend to stick to the top half of the HP total.

 

[Aaron2]

The DM is trying to make the game more realistic by imposing these penalties. My main concerns are 1) if the rule is balanced across character classes and 2) how this rule will affect the pace of the campaign. Your thoughts?

I can see two logistics downsides. First, all the characters will insist on being healed up max after every single encounter (who wants a -1 to everything). So, even if they still have 100 hps left they'll be wasting game time with CLWs. Secondly, you'll need to keep careful track of all monster HPs and penalty breakpoints. Suddenly, a wimpy spell that does 1 point of damage to a bunch of monsters also causes a -1 penalty!


Aaron

 

[Terwox]

Cost-benefit analysis for me:
The cost: slows down gameplay.
The benefit: makes people who are injured less combat ready. (although losing hps doesn't necessarily reflect that, but let's say losing hps does reflect losing combat ability blabhalhbahalha etc)

slowing down the gameplay is not worth the payoff, in my opinion.
You might want to make this a poll.

 

[Darren Ravenshaw]

As the others have said its more book work(which can be a big thing or not).

I like reanjr's suggestion as its easier to work with. It also won't cause problems like a character with full hit points that total less than 100 being slapped for 1 point of subdual damage and suddenly becoming less skilled.

As for spellcasters how about requiring them to make Concentration checks to cast spells in combat or other stressful situations.

 

[reanjr]

As the others have said its more book work(which can be a big thing or not).

I like reanjr's suggestion as its easier to work with. It also won't cause problems like a character with full hit points that total less than 100 being slapped for 1 point of subdual damage and suddenly becoming less skilled.

As for spellcasters how about requiring them to make Concentration checks to cast spells in combat or other stressful situations.

That might work pretty well for casters, where they would require a Concentration check at 50% or 25% HP (assuming you take my other suggestion). The DC would be higher at 25%. I can't figure out an appropriate DC, though. It's gotta be easy, but not so much that a maxed Concentration skill will make the roll pointless.

Concentration Max is Level + 3, while Spell Leve Max is (Level + 1)/2.

Those two don't sync up well, without coming up with something weird. It's a D20 issue and it's hard to fix.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Concentration Max is Level + 3, while Spell Leve Max is (Level + 1)/2.

Those two don't sync up well, without coming up with something weird. It's a D20 issue and it's hard to fix.

These aren't hard to synch at all -- just set the DC at X + 2 * spell level, and the difficulty of casting the highest-level spell scales with ranks perfectly.

DC 5 + 2 * spell level is almost impossible to fail for those with max ranks, and DC 10 + 2 * spell level gives a higher chance.

 

[Impeesa]

Rolemaster uses very similar penalties, at (the percentile equivalent of) -0/-2/-4/-6. Makes being near death a noticeable penalty, but not crippling. That would also mean you don't start taking a -1 the moment someone nicks you with a stray sling bullet.

--Impeesa--

 

[Geoff Watson]

One problem, is that 'death spiral' effects aren't particularly realistic, so his suggested reasoning is flawed.

Any other reason for it?

Geoff.