True Damage: An Alternative?

[Giltonio_Santos]

I was thinking about this today. Back in the 90s, oWoD used to separate nonlethal from lethal damage, just like D&D, but it also had a category called aggravated damage, which happened to be what could kill a vampire or werewolf, and was also somehow very difficult to heal or even soak during a combat scene. I believe D&D could benefit from a mechanic like that: I’ll call it “true damage”, for the sake of this suggestion.

The advantages:

Differently from vitality/wound points, you should only have to track one resource. Your character has hit points, which fully replenish after an extended rest, with the exception of the damage taken as true damage, in which case you should only be able to heal a small amount each day (or more, with the help of magic).

The module associated is pretty simple. Don’t like it? Just ignore every entry on the game that describes something as true damage (which only happens to be two words, easy to include on sourcebooks and adventures, for example). Also, if you believe that the current natural healing on D&D is just too easy, you can say all HP damage is true damage, and you’re good to go.

The disadvantages:

You should have to pay attention on your character sheet to assign damage as normal damage or true damage, but you should already be doing that with nonlethal. I’m posting here because, to be honest, I could not think of any real disadvantage in this method of tracking damage and the healing needs of characters.

What would cause true damage?

I’d suggest the following, as food for thought:

- Fang and claws from supernatural creatures (such as demons, devils and lycanthropes)
- +2 or better magic weapons
- Fire
- Falling from heights greater than 10 feet.
- Anything else the DM wants to include.

Any thoughts about that?

Cheers,

 

[Blood & Bones]

Eh. I don't think I would use it. I know this is beginning to sound clique, but this is something that might work well as a module, not as core.

 

[Ahnehnois]

3e has vile damage, which sort of serves a similar, if more limited role (in that it only applues to evil supernatural damage, not falls or fire). It can only be healed in consecrated areas. Vile damage is fun.

The disadvantage or limitation of the proposal here is that I have a tough time seeing why some of these sources of damage are different than others. Fire is bad, sure, but acid and cold burn too. Falling is nasty, but getting hit with a giant's club is also bone-crunchingly painful. So while I'm all for D&D doing more with its health system and differentiating types of damage, I don't think the source of the damage is that important.

 

[Loonook]

I was thinking about this today. Back in the 90s, oWoD used to separate nonlethal from lethal damage, just like D&D, but it also had a category called aggravated damage, which happened to be what could kill a vampire or werewolf, and was also somehow very difficult to heal or even soak during a combat scene. I believe D&D could benefit from a mechanic like that: I’ll call it “true damage”, for the sake of this suggestion.

The advantages:

Differently from vitality/wound points, you should only have to track one resource. Your character has hit points, which fully replenish after an extended rest, with the exception of the damage taken as true damage, in which case you should only be able to heal a small amount each day (or more, with the help of magic).

The module associated is pretty simple. Don’t like it? Just ignore every entry on the game that describes something as true damage (which only happens to be two words, easy to include on sourcebooks and adventures, for example). Also, if you believe that the current natural healing on D&D is just too easy, you can say all HP damage is true damage, and you’re good to go.

The disadvantages:

You should have to pay attention on your character sheet to assign damage as normal damage or true damage, but you should already be doing that with nonlethal. I’m posting here because, to be honest, I could not think of any real disadvantage in this method of tracking damage and the healing needs of characters.

What would cause true damage?

I’d suggest the following, as food for thought:

- Fang and claws from supernatural creatures (such as demons, devils and lycanthropes)
- +2 or better magic weapons
- Fire
- Falling from heights greater than 10 feet.
- Anything else the DM wants to include.

Any thoughts about that?

Cheers,

Why?

The claws of a supernatural creature harm you arbitrarily more? And you have developed a DR against magic weapons, non-fire elemental damage... And falling?

This isn't really a module even. It's just a strange set of rules even more arbitrary than our current system .

No thanks.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Fifth Element]

It could work, representing damage of a type that should take some time to heal. Not sure I'd use it, hit points are so abstract I'm not sure I could justify the additional bookkeeping. But an interesting idea.

 

[Stalker0]

I think the key with such a system is it only applies to damage that represents truely unavoidable pain.

For example, understanding that getting hit with a giant's club is actually getting grazed because of expert training works. However, its hard to argue that you could do the same falling 100 feet.

Basically I would apply it only in cases where you have no way to avoid the attack.

1) Damage taken while helpless.
2) Falling damage

 

[RangerWickett]

Eh, if you're going to do this, just go for a Wound Point/Hit Point system.

You have WP equal to your Con score.

You get HP from your class.

If you're attacked while helpless, damage goes to WP. Otherwise it has to go through HP first.

HP can recover with a day's rest. WP recover more slowly (maybe, like, 1 point per day).

Bigger creatures get more WP, and heal a bit faster.

 

[jadrax]

Honestly, I have always though that things like Fire and Falling are better modelled with Con Ability damage. But I don't expect that to be core.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think the key with such a system is it only applies to damage that represents truely unavoidable pain.

For example, understanding that getting hit with a giant's club is actually getting grazed because of expert training works. However, its hard to argue that you could do the same falling 100 feet.

Basically I would apply it only in cases where you have no way to avoid the attack.

1) Damage taken while helpless.
2) Falling damage

Alright, let's say that in some cases, a hit from a giant's club is a glancing blow or the character bruises himself hitting the ground after being nicked and diving away. The point is that in this system, it is impossible for a giant's club to ever deal 'true' damage. What, he never lands a solid blow? That doesn't make sense. On at least some weapon hits that I can imagine, damage is 'unavoidable'. How are those attacks to be handled?

Eh, if you're going to do this, just go for a Wound Point/Hit Point system.

Pretty much.

Honestly, I have always though that things like Fire and Falling are better modelled with Con Ability damage. But I don't expect that to be core.

The problem with that is that Con affects so many things. Reducing a character's overall hiit point total or reducing his Con save are not necessarily reasonable outcomes of being burned (although the point could be argued), which is why in a vp/wp system, wp are equal to Con, but are tracked separately. If Con worked differently, this might work better.

However, I would sure like to see a world where Con (and the other ability scores for that matter) were damaged routinely as a part of combat. It's worth noting, however, that there is no ability damage of any type that I saw in the playtest document, an unfortunate omission.

 

[Eldomir]

Eh, if you're going to do this, just go for a Wound Point/Hit Point system.

You have WP equal to your Con score.

You get HP from your class.

If you're attacked while helpless, damage goes to WP. Otherwise it has to go through HP first.

HP can recover with a day's rest. WP recover more slowly (maybe, like, 1 point per day).

Bigger creatures get more WP, and heal a bit faster.

You know, I really like this idea, and I feel stupid now for not having thought of it before (I've been trying to come up with an alternative to "long rest = heal all hp" for a couple of days now).

Level 1 Wizard with Con 8, bam: 8 + 1d4 hps, but the 8 hp "kicker" represents real wounds and will only increase if Con does (which won't be often, I hope). The same wizard at level 4 isn't physically tougher, but can take more punishment for skill and whatever else, 8 + 4d4 hps. It's neat.

Not only does it answer the question of what part of hps has to do with skill, luck and stuff and what fraction represents actual wounds, it also allows for a differentiation between more subtle and more overt healing.

For example, using this I could see myself accepting things like a Warlord or similar uttering a battle-cry that raises the spirits of the party: you get 1d6 hps back... but not those under your Con, because those are "true wounds". They can only be healed through long rest or magic (and I'm not even sure the second would be as necessary anymore).

It would define a new "bloodied", not at half hps, but rather at the point where you're left with just your Con.

And this might be a terrible idea, but it might also define a new type of damage, unavoidable by skill/luck/whatever, that directly affects those Con hps as real wounds, disregarding any additional hps. But that might be way too harsh and is just an afterthought.

I don't know, but the more I think about it, the more I like it, thanks for sharing it