True Critical damage

[StAlda]

Thank you all for your comments!

@PScrewhead: Taking away healing surges definitely weakens the character, but to me it doesn't have the "feel" of a nagging wound.

@Frostmarrow & BendBars/LiftGates: A vulnerability 5 from a critical seems to me to be very overpowering the critical hit system. After a critical hit all hits after that are 5 more points, I see that adding up very quickly.

I was originally thinking of just having a "minus" modifier to your MAX HP, but I'm leaning more towards the suggestion that it lowers you MAX HP (which then affects your bloodied & healing surge numbers)

Everyone is going to have their own invisible line of where the amount of bookkeeping is too much. So we must all work that out.

For me, I think it is going to be this:

** I HAVE MOVED WHAT WAS HERE TO THE 1ST POST **

I don't like the idea that after a hard fight the charcters can quickly heal back up with no lasting effects other than missing some Daily powers and a healing surge or two. I understand you only have so many healing surges, but having a few less than max is generally not going to have a tactical effect on the next combat situation.

I am by no means closing the book on this, I would still welcome and appreciate any comments/suggestions anyone has to offer!

 

[Exen Trik]

A few thoughts:

First of all, I really don't think having a common universal negative condition that can only be healed by a certain power of a certain class is good game design, it brings back the necessity of always having a cleric that we finally got rid of. Make it something that can be dealt with with healing surges, extended rest, skill checks or at least a ritual

Second, while having a different max hit point total to keep track of may not be a tolerable amount of added book keeping, constantly recalculating your healing surge value puts it right over the top. At the very least surges should be based on ones unreduced hit point maximum.

Third, having reduced max hit points doesn't add quite the right flavor of being badly wounded. Instead of being in pain or hindered in some way, you just can take less of a beating before needing healing which in total isn't much reduced, even if you lower healing surge values along with max hp.

Lastly, adding an extra negative effect onto a critical hit increase it's power disproportionately, making higher critical weapons that much stronger with no trade off. A consistent effect that happens only on a natural 20, is a special property of certain monsters/weapons/powers, or something that happens only on a critical hit but has an effective relative to the damage dealt are better approaches mechanically.


What I would suggest as an alternative to what you have now (or to the vulnerability option) is to have a Wounded status that only effects healing surges. There's a number of options for using this staus:

Takes effect either in place of extra damage when a 20 is rolled, or in addition to it as a special property of certain monsters attacks. Some attacks might impose the condition outright.

Negate, halve, or reduce by some amount the hit points of next healing surge the target receives the benefit of. Multiple critical hits increase either the number of surges affected or the strength of the effect. Anything added from a power such as the +1d6 from healing word would be unaffected by any form of reduction.

Halve or reduce by some amount your healing surge value for the remainder of the encounter. Multiple critical hits can increase this value.

As above, but the effect lasts until more difficult conditions are met, such as needing a heal check/saving throw/ritual during a short or extended rest, or even involve the disease rules. The severity can also be based on how many critical hits are received.

There can be special cleric powers that address the Wounded status specifically, if you like. Healing word might simply have the option of removing or reducing the wounded status in place of the +1d6 healing, for example. For something more grim and gritty, a more difficult option is recommended.

Applying the Wounded status to monsters is possible, but probably not useful. If your enemies have a habit of running away and healing up it could work, otherwise it would probably need to be a different mechanic altogether.

 

[Syrsuro]

A few thoughts:

First of all, I really don't think having a common universal negative condition that can only be healed by a certain power of a certain class is good game design, it brings back the necessity of always having a cleric that we finally got rid of. Make it something that can be dealt with with healing surges, extended rest, skill checks or at least a ritual

Although I personally don't feel a need for this rule, I just wanted to point out that the above is not necessarily true.

That is the difference between a house rule and an official rule.

When speaking of an official rule, you are absolutely correct.

But when speaking of a house rule, this is not necessarily correct, and is arguably wrong.

Official rules have to consider every possible combinations of classes and races and have gone in the direction of allowing the players to not feel restricted in their choices. And they did this by making sure that all functions are shared across multiple races and classes.

But House Rules do not. House rules only have to work for the group that is using them. Which means that as long as you have a cleric in your group, it not only is OK to make a cleric essential, it actually becomes desirable to have their be things that only the cleric can do - because that gives that player an opportunity to shine. (There is the risk of making the players feel 'trapped' if they later choose to stop playing a cleric - or whatever class you have made essential. But that can be dealt with when it arises, especially if you are clear with your players why you are instituting those house rules and that you are willing to revise them if the group composition later changes).

In my own case, I am looking for rules (like this, but probably not this) that do exactly that. I am looking for ways to make Rogues essential because we have a rogue and it gives her a way to excel. I am looking for ways to make Rangers essential because we have a ranger and it gives him a chance to excel, etc. (We actually do not have a Cleric, getting by with a Paladin and a Warlord, but I still don't know if I would go this particular route. But that is just me. In principle it would seem to be exactly the kind of rule I am looking for. But as it happens, I'm just not running quite that gritty a setting.)

Carl

 

[Exen Trik]

Although I personally don't feel a need for this rule, I just wanted to point out that the above is not necessarily true.

Fair enough. My point was it's restrictive and sorta heavy handed, depending how that status would work. But if the kind of game you want is one where the cleric is necessary to restore grievous wounds, well then it works fine at that.

Didn't mean to seem dismissive of that angle, I just wasn't really considering it. Sorry!

 

[StAlda]

Fair enough. My point was it's restrictive and sorta heavy handed, depending how that status would work. But if the kind of game you want is one where the cleric is necessary to restore grievous wounds, well then it works fine at that.

Didn't mean to seem dismissive of that angle, I just wasn't really considering it. Sorry!

Speaking of needing a Cleric, that is a point that I missing in the above post. Critical Hit points would heal normally x number of hit points a day (what that number might be I don't know - probably 1d6). I am completely behind you when it comes to not NEEDING any one class. This was just something that was in my head that never made it into the post.

And yes, we are in the house rules section and that is all I'm going for. I would like to make combat a little more than a nice workout followed by a massage and some time in the sauna if events permit. Which I feel healing surges kinda do to combat (from strictly a hit point point of view).

The other thing I am considering is (as was discussed in a different thread) that criticals don't happen on a natural 20, they are just guaranteed hits. Criticals happen when you exceed the AC by 10 (10 for now that is), if you get crits on a 19 then exceed AC by 9 and so on.

This is the only houserule (at least major) I plan on instituting, which is why I guess I see it less obtrusive than others. Having said that, in the end, with all of the input I am receiving here, and once all of the ramifications are discussed I may even find it not worthwhile.

As always, I appreciate the dialogue.

 

[Verdande]

That's certainly an interesting idea, and I like the fact that it's harder to heal, giving criticals a bit of a sting, but not quite being lethal.

I'm not sure if that's the right way to go, but it's certainly something to consider- have critical hits gotten too soft?

 

[Syrsuro]

This is the only houserule (at least major) I plan on instituting, which is why I guess I see it less obtrusive than others. Having said that, in the end, with all of the input I am receiving here, and once all of the ramifications are discussed I may even find it not worthwhile.

If you see this as 'unobtrusive' you may be underestimating its effect (and my goal is not to talk you out of it, just to point out the ramifications of the change). Since I don't know what kind of game you are aiming for, I don't know if it will work for you or not in the end.

If I were to institute a house rule with regards to criticals it would be to go in a different direction than you are. But as noted, I am not running as 'gritty' a game as it sounds like you are.

I am not personally a big fan of criticals. Or rather, I am fine with the PCs crit'ing the creatures, but I'm not a big fan of the creatures crit'ing
the PCs. I don't like luck killing my PCs. I have no objection to killing them through (my) good or (their) bad play. I have no objection to killing them because the creatures wore them down. But I don't like taking a character from not even bloodied to dead because one or more hits during a round were criticals. It feels 'cheap'. At ;east they aren't as swingy as the old 4.x crits were.

With this in mind, if I were to houserule a critical it would be to reduce the damage that it inflicts on the players during combat in exchange for effects that persist out of combat. Something along the lines of the nagging injury rules discussed above. And recovery would probably require ritual healing (as opposed to combat healing or surges) and/or true bed rest (not just camping out in the field).

Simple application of a healing spell or healing skill would not be sufficient because that would, imho, not provide sufficent difficulty to justify the added complexity.


But I just don't see myself going that way in the current campaign. But its something to keep in mind for the future.


This all gets back to a concept I've argued on other forums in the past: If you add complexity but that complexity does not provide challenge, the added complexity serves no purpose from a gamist perspective (it may or may not be worthwhile from a simulationist perspective, I'm just not interested in adding complexity for simulationist gains). My most common example of this concept is rations. If food is plentiful and cheap (compared to the PCs cash level), worrying about making sure the players always have food and drink is pointless because the added complexity adds nothing to the game's challenge. But if the situation is such that a requirement for food/drink is as challenge (desert travel, poverty, etc.), then the added complexity becomes worthwhile as it adds to the game. The value of the added complexity is dependant upon the challenge it adds.

In this case, if it is too simple to overcome whatever critical effect you have added (i.e. takes nothing more than an encounter power or healing surge once the melee is over) then there is little challenge and thus little benefit from the added complexity. This is why the OPs idea of a cleric daily power to cure is actually superior (imho) to the suggestion by a later poster that any power with the healing keyword can overcome it. The latter makes the challenge negligible and thus makes the gain negligible and thus the complexity unjustified. (However, the daily power idea is flawed in another way, see #3 below)



The reasons I don't like the various suggestions so far are:

1) Critical Wounds slow healing in combat: Getting a critical is already a huge benefit. It is, imho, the swingiest part of 4E combat and I don't see any reason to make the deadliness of criticals during the current combat any greater. For this reason, I don't like any critical effect that either makes some damage unhealable during the combat or reduces the effectiveness of healing surges. PScrewhead's suggestion that the maximum number of healing surges be reduced without reducing the number of healing surges available in the combat would be better from this perspective. One option: Reduce the immediate damage done by a critical to compensate for the difficulty in healing the wounds. For example, a critical hit does no extra damage but reduces the maximum healing surges by one till healed.

2) Critical Wounds harm PCs disproportionatly: I generally don't like penalties that disproportionatly affect the PCs. An effect that persists after the melee is over is irrelevant when applied to the creatures. This is part of the 'focus on creature abilities that are relevant to the combat and ignore the rest'. If the creature kills the PCs, there isn't anyone to care if he has a nagging wound and if the PCs kill the creature, he's dead. Thus this is really a blatant 'lets make combat more deadly for the PCs' rule. And this is aggravated by the fact that each individual PC will be crit'ed many times (often multiple times per day) while most NPCs will never be crit'ed (The PCs are involved in many fights with many opponents, the creatures are only ever involved in one relevant fight). No real solution to this one, but it is the reason I wouldn't seek to make them more frequent.

3) The party will accumulate Critical Wounds faster than they can heal them: Because of the above, critical already happen to the PCs often (when considered in terms of criticals per day). Statistically, every single character involved in melee will probably get hit by a critical on nearly every single day of adventuring (unless you are letting them rest fully after only one or two encounters). Never mind what happens if you increase the frequency as the OP suggested. If you can only remove one critical per day (as in the OPs suggestion) the party will quickly find themselves unable to function as everyone will be criticalled in short order, many of them multiple times (assuming you allow critical damage to stack). Unless your goal is to force your party to rest and recover dailies after every combat, either a) the effects of the critical must be ignorable (which brings us back to challenge versus complexity) or b) they have to be able to 'heal' multiple critical effects per turn. One Option: Allowing a ritual to heal the wounds. This forces the party to choose between spending resources and time to heal the wound, or pushing on and ignoring the effects till they can get some true bed rest. It puts the control in their hand while leaving them able to cure as many criticals per day as they need to.

In conclusion, and imho: If you are going for a gritty ('realistic') game, you suffer the effects of that gritty universe (fewer encounters per day), because it isn't 'realistic' to rip through multiple challenging fights in a single day because 'realistically' people just don't recover from injuries that quickly. Instead, you need to design your game so that the party takes on one or two significant fights per day and then retreats to their lair to lick their wounds and prepare for their next foray.

If that is the goal, then this is a way to bring about that style of play. But if you are still expecting your players to handle multiple encounters per day you will run into difficulties.

At least, that is how I see it. YMMV.

Carl

 

[Yoann]

Hi,

Another solution, maybe easier to keep track of, would be to replace additional damage dealt by criticals by damage to the armor: on a critical hit, your armor is damaged and offers 1 less AC bonus point. A natural roll of 20 which doesn't pass the target's defense would still be an automatic hit.
Two options there, depending on how deadly you want critical hits to be: you could either limit this damage (to 1 point, to [enhancement bonus] points, etc.) or decide that when an armor reaches 0 AC bonus, it is destroyed.

It feels logical, and coherent with abstract HP (an unusually successful attack action may dent your armor but still only graze you); has both immediate, noticeable but not overwhelming effects, and long term effects (provided you design a ritual and/or skill challenge to repair damaged armors); affects equally PCs and NPCs; and doesn't mess with the abstract HP system which is a distinctive and probably thought-through feature of this edition.

Another advantage is that although it would not be as destructive as the actual rule, players would still feel challenged when their stylish +5 Shiny Platemail becomes a worn out +4 Tattered Armor (I know some who would even regret the deadlier official rule )

Lastly, far-sighted players would be able to somewhat tone down the effects of critical hits by carrying replacement armor. The added weight and logistics would probably not be worthwhile, but it would give players some control over what is otherwise sheer blind luck, which could be nice.



However, this would be a problem when dealing with an unarmored character. I can think of three solutions to this, but none of these fully satisfactory:

1) You could choose to ignore crits on such characters. However, that would imbalance the challenge level, because some enemies (creatures without armor) would be comparatively strengthened, as in their case the disappeance of additional damage would be without any trade-off. Worse yet, it would slightly imbalance character classes, as the absence of armor proficiency for the wizard would be less of a con [FONT=&quot]—[/FONT]though it would be a problem anyway with any house rule lowering the effect of critical hits.
All in all, it would probably be the option I'd choose if I had to alter critical hits.

2) You could decide that unarmored creatures suffer additional damage as per the official rule. That would *highly* imbalance the game, as unarmored creatures would become comparatively much weaker. And it would make almost mandatory the armor proficiency feats for the wizard.

3) You could choose to apply the penalty to natural armor. Although this solution is far less realistic, it would be more balanced than the others.


As I said, none of these are fully satisfactory, but I think it would help give long-lasting importance to critical hits.It could even help players remember the situation in which the critical hit took place and integrate it in the game ("See that hole in my breastplate, mister? Well, it's your darn 'little kobold problem' which did it, so I think you owe us a little bonus").

Hope that helps.

 

[StAlda]

I have consolidated all the changes due to suggestions and comments into the first post.
I do believe crits should be a little more rare and if you are fighting other NPCs they will/can be affected by lowered MAX HP, especially if they a ongoing opponent.

Maybe after a crit, the target suffers a -2 on the ability/skill checks until the end of the encounter. This would show the "nagging" part of the wound. Just tossing it out there.


Again thank you for the *healthy* debate.