Community

 
Jump Menu:
Post Reply
Page 5 of 29  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 29 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Warlord As Specialty? Discuss:
9 months ago  ::  Sep 29, 2012 - 7:30PM #41
rampant
Date Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Posts: 8,103
I'd be fine with some commander specialties or whatnot, I just don't think they should replace a warlord anymore than mystic and necromancer replace the wizard.
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 months ago  ::  Sep 29, 2012 - 7:56PM #42
QuestorTelloc
Date Joined: Sep 18, 2009
Posts: 196

Sep 29, 2012 -- 6:40PM, Admiral-JCJF wrote:

Sep 28, 2012 -- 9:38PM, QuestorTelloc wrote:


Would a specialty work for everything Warlords need to do? Sure. Remember, these get 4 feats, minimum (1,3,6,9). 1) Buff allies; 2) Demoralize foes; 3)Ally positioning; 4)some other leadership thing.
 




I totally reject the idea that Warlord should ONLY be a Speciality.

But welcome the concept of a Speciality which can be added to other classes to make leader options beyond the "standard" Warlord.

While SOME elements of the Warlord CAN be "fluffed" as orders in combat, others can be pre-prepared plans, training for other party members, coded handsigns and a variety of other potential "signals" which allow the exploitation of opportunities which would be missed without the tactical nous and leadership of a Warlord.

But several elements which I believe are essential to a Warlord concept, including:

Accuracy Enhancement
Damage Enhancement
Granted Mobility
Granted Attacks
Full HP Restoration

Are likely too "powerful" for feats and will thus make a Warlord class necessary.

In any case, barring a change of plans (which has not been indicated) and a decision to deliberately anger 4th Edition fans (many of whom are very attached to Warlord as a class) we WILL have a Warlord class.

But having "martial leader" style Specialities AS WELL is a great idea!                   




If you look further down the list, you'll see I already conceded that a fully-realized Warlord is too much to be a Specialty. However, I also believe it sidles up a little too closely with other classes. Yes, it's more than an agressive bard, a fighty cleric, or a bossy fighter, but the fact that it can be referred to that way- in relation to so many other classes- tells me that it might not quite be enough for its own, full, Core Class. Prestige Class Warlord, on the other hand, has a LOT of appeal to me.

"Our idea of rules modules has a wide range of scope; sometimes, our rules modules might just be small tweaks and variant rules, while other times they could be large-scale changes and entirely new subsystems. We want people to make the game their own, and that means provided a whole array of possibilities based on what you, the players, tell us that you want." -D&DNext Q&A Blog, 8/29/12, Answer #3.
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 months ago  ::  Sep 29, 2012 - 8:06PM #43
rampant
Date Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Posts: 8,103
Bard is a singy sorcerer, a magic rogue

Fighter is a godless paladin, an unskilled rogue, a clumsy ranger, a calm berserker

Ranger is a stealthy fighter, an aggressive rogue, a spell less druid

Berserker is an angry fighter, a self buffing paladin, a loud ranger

A wizard is a bookish sorceror, a frumpy bard, a cautious warlock


Any of the classes can be described in such a manner, that doesn't make it true.

The warlord has more right to be it's own class than any of the others outside the basic four, and in fact should probably replace the bard as the unofficial fifth basic class. The warlord's approach to things is as fundamentally different from the fighter's or the cleric's as the rogue's is to the wizard's.
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 months ago  ::  Sep 29, 2012 - 8:13PM #44
malisteen
Date Joined: Feb 12, 2004
Posts: 3,033

Sep 29, 2012 -- 7:30PM, rampant wrote:

I'd be fine with some commander specialties or whatnot, I just don't think they should replace a warlord anymore than mystic and necromancer replace the wizard.




This is where I am.

Although, that said, I don't feel the necromancer specialty on a wizard replaces even my desire for a necromancer.  I'm sorry, maybe I was just spoiled by 3.5, but while I like that a wizard can take some necromancery options and spells, it just doesn't cut it for me as an honest to Nerul necromancer.

Necromancy: Friendship is Magic

Spoiler: Show
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 months ago  ::  Sep 29, 2012 - 8:41PM #45
BhaelFire
Date Joined: Jul 2, 2012
Posts: 703

Sep 29, 2012 -- 8:06PM, rampant wrote:

Any of the classes can be described in such a manner, that doesn't make it true.


Exactly. Not sure what that has to do with superficial classes like the Warlord, though.


Sep 29, 2012 -- 5:10PM, malisteen wrote:

The warlord directs his party in battle.


Ok. Cool. How is that different from what the fighter or cleric does, again?

D&D Next - Basic and Expert Editions Show

I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.

Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.



Here's a mockup of the Basic Set I created.



(CLICK HERE TO VIEW LARGER IMAGE)
  


Basic Set


This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).

The Basic boxed set contains:


Quick Start Rules
A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms.

Player's Handbook
(Softcover, 125 pages)
Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level.

Dungeon Master's Guide

(Softcover, 125 pages)
Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.

Monster Manual
(Softcover, 100 pages)
Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D. 

Introductory Adventure
(Keep on the Borderlands)
An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.

Also includes: 

Character Sheets
Reference Sheets
Set of Dice




Expert Set


A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:


Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.)
Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.)
Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)




Expansions


These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.) 


Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book)
Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book)
Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book)
The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)












A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage Show

A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points


In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...


What are hit points?
The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.


So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then?
It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.


But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target?
Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.


Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact?
Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.


If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent?
Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.


Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack?
It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.


What about poison and other types of non-combat damage?
Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.


If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages?
Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.

What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points?
If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.


Why are monsters killed immediately and not players?
Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.


What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage?
If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).


Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded?
See below.
 


Damage and Dying


Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.


  1. Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly. 

  2. Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.

  3. If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.

  4. Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.



Unharmed: 1 hp or more
Wounded: 0 hp or less
Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level)
Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)


Wounded
When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.


Incapacitated
Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).

If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.


If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.

Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.


Dead
Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.

Quick Reply
Cancel
9 months ago  ::  Sep 29, 2012 - 8:50PM #46
Garthanos
Date Joined: Jan 15, 2009
Posts: 18,547
Gangstab isnt a word ... but I like it.

Improvisation in 4e: Improv. Attacks(by wrecan) - Fave 4E Improvisations

The Non-combatant Adventurer

Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness

Dynamic Reflavoring : The Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage
Creative Character Collection - Featuring:The Faerie Master - Snow White - Joxer - Ironman - Elric - Bloodwright

By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one

"You have to explicitly give non-casters permission to do awesome, where as with magic it is just assumed they can." -Garthanos

Quick Reply
Cancel
9 months ago  ::  Sep 29, 2012 - 8:57PM #47
rampant
Date Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Posts: 8,103
The fighter doesn't direct anything but himself, assuming he's lucky, the cleric gets directed.

The warlord actually directs the party, he gives them off turn actions and sets up co-ordinated attacks.

Can you set up a cleric-fighter pincer without a warlord? yes.

Will it be as effective? no, and it will take longer without the warlord to speed things along.

The cleric heals and sometimes buffs another party member, when he isn't macing people, he's a mostly reactive force designed to keep the party going longer.

The warlord is proactive he galvanizes the party the shorten the lives of the other guys, his powers don't come from a god, or a sword, but from his team and his ability to make them fight their best. The cleric fighter and warlord all monitor the flow of battle, but the warlord has the unique responsibility to grab that flow and tie into knots favorable to his team. 

What part of action granting, enabling, and tactical direction is superficial?

What makes him any more just a fighter with a command specialty then a ranger is just a fighter with a nature specialty?
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 months ago  ::  Sep 29, 2012 - 9:14PM #48
malisteen
Date Joined: Feb 12, 2004
Posts: 3,033
Or a rogue more than a light armored fighter with a sneaky skills background, or a wizard more than a cleric who chooses not to wear armor or memorize healing spells?
Necromancy: Friendship is Magic

Spoiler: Show
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 months ago  ::  Sep 29, 2012 - 9:56PM #49
Lesp
Date Joined: May 5, 2009
Posts: 2,411

Sep 29, 2012 -- 8:41PM, BhaelFire wrote:

Sep 29, 2012 -- 8:06PM, rampant wrote:

Any of the classes can be described in such a manner, that doesn't make it true.


Exactly. Not sure what that has to do with superficial classes like the Warlord, though.


It's precisely because it's not a superficial class - in the sense that it has meaningfully different capabilities than other classes - that warlord makes for a good class. Ranger is a supremely superficial class - objectively, it deserves to be the poster child for sort of thing - but has enough history in the game that I expect to see it carried forward. The loss of the warlord would actually mean something, though.

It's actually beyond trivial to demonstrate this is the case; if you attempt to put together a ranger in 3.5 without using the ranger class, you can basically recreate it almost perfectly despite the fact that the game had no particular incentives to try to make that possible, since the concept was already represented by a core class; if you attempt to put together a warlord in 3.5 (without using its predecessor, the Marshal), it's difficult to get anywhere remotely close.

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.

Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Quick Reply
Cancel
9 months ago  ::  Sep 29, 2012 - 10:04PM #50
BhaelFire
Date Joined: Jul 2, 2012
Posts: 703

Sep 29, 2012 -- 9:56PM, Lesp wrote:

It's actually beyond trivial to demonstrate this is the case


Color me trivial.

D&D Next - Basic and Expert Editions Show

I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.

Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.



Here's a mockup of the Basic Set I created.



(CLICK HERE TO VIEW LARGER IMAGE)
  


Basic Set


This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).

The Basic boxed set contains:


Quick Start Rules
A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms.

Player's Handbook
(Softcover, 125 pages)
Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level.

Dungeon Master's Guide

(Softcover, 125 pages)
Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.

Monster Manual
(Softcover, 100 pages)
Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D. 

Introductory Adventure
(Keep on the Borderlands)
An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.

Also includes: 

Character Sheets
Reference Sheets
Set of Dice




Expert Set


A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:


Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.)
Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.)
Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)




Expansions


These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.) 


Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book)
Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book)
Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book)
The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)












A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage Show

A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points


In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...


What are hit points?
The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.


So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then?
It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.


But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target?
Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.


Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact?
Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.


If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent?
Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.


Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack?
It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.


What about poison and other types of non-combat damage?
Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.


If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages?
Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.

What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points?
If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.


Why are monsters killed immediately and not players?
Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.


What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage?
If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).


Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded?
See below.
 


Damage and Dying


Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.


  1. Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly. 

  2. Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.

  3. If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.

  4. Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.



Unharmed: 1 hp or more
Wounded: 0 hp or less
Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level)
Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)


Wounded
When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.


Incapacitated
Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).

If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.


If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.

Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.


Dead
Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 29  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 29 Next
Jump Menu:
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing