True Damage: An Alternative?

[Mallus]

I prefer D&D unrealistic and abstract, so a sack of plain old ablative HP are fine. I don't want anything that increases the default amount of bookkeeping.

Also, arbitrary classifications like "only a +2 weapon or better or a fall of 10+ ft." does "true damage" is, well, arbitrary and kinda pointless. It lends neither realism nor increased genre fidelity. It's just quirky and game-y. I mean, if a strong person punches you enough they'll do true damage, let alone if they're armed.

 

[eamon]

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?

Sure he lands a solid blow: whenever the creature can't deflect or absorb more hits. For a first level PC or a commoner, that'll be almost immediately, because 1 hitdie is very little. A higher level PC with more training can take a little more: it's going to take a few solid strike againsts the fighter with his d12 hitdie, or just one vs. the wizard with his d4 hitdie.

Really, this is no different from normal hitpoints: Why don't the first several inflict real damage? Why is that sword cut healing overnight? Because hitpoints don't represent wounds, they represent the ability to avoid them (at least, that't the interpretation I think jives best with the mechanics). The first real swordcut is the one bringing you to 0 hitpoints, which (reasonably enough) instantly drops you and causes you to slowly die by bleeding out.

All a wounds system introduces is a bit of a broader margin between the "just mildly battered, nothing a nights sleep won't cure" state and the "festering stomach wound that incapaciates you and will likely kill you if left untreated" state.

The reason you want hitpoints as-is not to represent real wounds is that a real wound is generally crippling, and having it depend on just a single die-roll---the attack roll---makes combat so lethal it must be short or you'll be losing PC's every session. And even then, an unlucky initiative roll will inevitably mean a high likelihood of a crippling wound. Therefore, exciting combat with any amount of give and take necessarily implies that a single attack roll cannot by itself cause serious wounds to make the game playable.

 

[F700]

While I'm well aware HP have always been an abstraction, not once in 30 years of D&D has my various groups not described hits as actual damaging hits. I'll always subscribe to the John McClane school of hp theory and not once has it ever bothered me or anyone I know to think of the fighter walking out of a fight covered in blood, hacked to pieces, arrows and spears sticking out of him. It's mildly amusing.

D&D should never be taken so seriously that such an irrelevant detail matters. Whether you describe damage as the abstracted potential for a hit, or a concrete hacking into of the torso, the hp total decreases all the same.

 

[the Jester]

No thanks. Your assumption is flawed in that there is no nonlethal damage post-3e, at least not yet; and the amount of extra tracking required far outweighs any added benefit IMHO.

Again, the way to solve the problem of overnight healing rates is with a dial.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Sure he lands a solid blow: whenever the creature can't deflect or absorb more hits. For a first level PC or a commoner, that'll be almost immediately, because 1 hitdie is very little. A higher level PC with more training can take a little more: it's going to take a few solid strike againsts the fighter with his d12 hitdie, or just one vs. the wizard with his d4 hitdie.

Really, this is no different from normal hitpoints: Why don't the first several inflict real damage? Why is that sword cut healing overnight? Because hitpoints don't represent wounds, they represent the ability to avoid them (at least, that't the interpretation I think jives best with the mechanics). The first real swordcut is the one bringing you to 0 hitpoints, which (reasonably enough) instantly drops you and causes you to slowly die by bleeding out.

You're kind of missing the point here. The OP was about a system for making certain types of damage heal slower, and normal combat damage was essentially excluded. What hit points mean and the lethality of combat are separate issues. This is what I was getting at:

Also, arbitrary classifications like "only a +2 weapon or better or a fall of 10+ ft." does "true damage" is, well, arbitrary and kinda pointless. It lends neither realism nor increased genre fidelity. It's just quirky and game-y. I mean, if a strong person punches you enough they'll do true damage, let alone if they're armed.

***

All a wounds system introduces is a bit of a broader margin between the "just mildly battered, nothing a nights sleep won't cure" state and the "festering stomach wound that incapaciates you and will likely kill you if left untreated" state.

That's not all it introduces. Wound damage allows you to give penalties to conscious characters with wound damage without making every single hit disabling or tracking things like hit location. Wound damage also allows for different effects to deal more or less serious damage, creating a more diverse set of combat rules.

The reason you want hitpoints as-is not to represent real wounds is that a real wound is generally crippling, and having it depend on just a single die-roll---the attack roll---makes combat so lethal it must be short or you'll be losing PC's every session. And even then, an unlucky initiative roll will inevitably mean a high likelihood of a crippling wound.

Okay. So getting turned to stone by a medusa in one roll is okay but getting skewered by a spear is not? Or would you say that both of those are equally problematic in your opinion?

Therefore, exciting combat with any amount of give and take necessarily implies that a single attack roll cannot by itself cause serious wounds to make the game playable.

Exciting combat does not mean long combat, nor does it mean fair combat, nor does it mean everyone has to roll dice in a combat. In fact, I would say that it is hard to have an exciting combat when you know that inflicting serious harm is not a possibility for one or both combatants. I would much rather skip the grind and get to the important part of the battle-deciding who lives and who dies-as quickly as possible.

***

I prefer D&D unrealistic and abstract, so a sack of plain old ablative HP are fine. I don't want anything that increases the default amount of bookkeeping.

Are you against subdual/nonlethal damage, ability damage, condition tracking, marking, and other bookkeeping-intensive combat mechanics like that? Not that I don't agree with your fundamental point-complexity is bad. But I think that a game that already supports multiple forms of harm could stand to use them much better.

 

[Minigiant]

With a few friends, we invented a multiple hit point system that replicates different damage types. If functioned much like Mass Effect's health system.

There are

Health points (Actually meat and flesh. Regenerates slow.)

Magic Health points (Magic flesh and supernatural scales. Regenerates fast)

Armor points (Must be repaired)

Stamina points (Your ability to dodge and parry. All returns in a short rest.)

Barrier points (Magical force, necrotic power sources, and ki shields. Requires spell to be casted to appear or heal.)

So a heavy armor fighter would have 10 HP, 10 AP, and 10 SP whereas a mage with magic armor and shield casted would have 4HP, 20BP, and 4 SP.

Giants are all Health.
Wereforlk are all Magic Health.
Golems are all Armor.
Elementals are all barrier.
Undead are half armor and half barrier.


But MAN was it complicated... so we scraped it.

 

[Stalker0]

On at least some weapon hits that I can imagine, damage is 'unavoidable'. How are those attacks to be handled?

You could also say that any damage taken beneath 0 hp is true damage.

So in your example, I'm at 10 hp, and get hit for 15 hp by the giant. That blow I wasn't able to fully avoid, and it crushed me at -5. When I heal I have 5 true damage, so even a full heal won't get me to maximum fighting shape.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You could also say that any damage taken beneath 0 hp is true damage.

So in your example, I'm at 10 hp, and get hit for 15 hp by the giant. That blow I wasn't able to fully avoid, and it crushed me at -5. When I heal I have 5 true damage, so even a full heal won't get me to maximum fighting shape.

You could say something like that, and it does make a little more sense than the original idea as presented.

 

[eamon]

You're kind of missing the point here. The OP was about a system for making certain types of damage heal slower, and normal combat damage was essentially excluded. What hit points mean and the lethality of combat are separate issues.

I see the point. But your argument that its odd that a blow can't deal "true" damage" is just business as usual: I'm saying it's not a basis on which to distinguish a plain hitpoint system from one that explicitly differentiates between wounding and nonwounding points.

Okay. So getting turned to stone by a medusa in one roll is okay but getting skewered by a spear is not? Or would you say that both of those are equally problematic in your opinion?

The skewering by a spear is more problematic simply because its much more common. Also, it's fairly easy to imagine blocking or deflecting a spear to a less lethal spot might still hurt (i.e. combat by grinding down resources), whereas it's not so clear what those resources would be vs. a medusa's glare. In the playtest, it's simply completely avoidable, which is reasonable enough. I think the save-or-dies are best handled on a case by case basis. The occasional save or lose is probably fine; just not most combats.

Exciting combat does not mean long combat, nor does it mean fair combat, nor does it mean everyone has to roll dice in a combat. In fact, I would say that it is hard to have an exciting combat when you know that inflicting serious harm is not a possibility for one or both combatants. I would much rather skip the grind and get to the important part of the battle-deciding who lives and who dies-as quickly as possible.

Sure, sure, I'm not trying to advocate for grind (god forbid). But if the DM says the party encounters and Orc band and rolls behind his screen and informs them 2 of their members are dead isn't exciting either. Some choices by the PC's must matter, so that means a certain minimum length, and that means plain attacks can't be save-or-die.

 

[Mort]

If I was going to do something like that, it would be on a pretty limited basis and likely would be a bit opposite to what the OP suggests: Namely I'd introduce some damage that could not be easily healed by magical healing.

In most D&D campaigns, saying something "can only be healed by magic" is barely a limitation at all as magic is utterly pervasive (In a campaign other than DarkSun, Midnight, or a homebrew saying you can only heal by magic is like saying you can only heal on a day that ends in "Y".)

Now a type of damage that could only be healed by "mundane" means (and assuming you had limited the ability to do a long rest, or limited the "long rest" mechanic) that would be nasty.

Wouldn't use it as "core" though, just as a nasty consequence to something encountered in a particular adventure.