--- Justin Bacon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I, on the other hand, feel that lowering the massive damage threshold is a > more elegant way of incorporating a more lethal edge to the game. And if you > want characters to recover HP faster, then just reduce the amount of time > necessary to heal.
The current massive damage scheme has such a high threshold in fantasy d20 that it is effectively 'not in play' except at extreme character levels, and even then the save is typically failed only one a roll of 1 (the auto-fail on 1 mechanic). So by lowering the threshold, you are effectively adding a rule that was previously not even considered before 15th or so level, and sometimes not even then. Arguing that 'it's in the book already' is semantics only. > >Oh, it's rather clear that Mr. Bacon doesn't think W&V is worth using, for > >what ever reason. He's certainly entitled to, since it obviously is a > >matter of taste and opinion, both of which are pointless to debate over. > > Not particularly true. It is a fact that the Wound/Vitality system requires > more bookkeeping. It is also a fact that the Wound/Vitality system > represents unnecessary complexity. If you like unnecessary complexity and > bookkeeping in your games, then the Wound/Vitality system is definitely what > you want. If you don't, then there are better ways of accomplishing what the > Wound/Vitality supposedly accomplishes. Well, that's not argumentative, is it... Note that there is no subdual damage in a VP/WP system; the VP are effectively subdual damage capacity. They even heal the same way. So you are removing a layer of rules complexity by removing a separate tally of subdual damage. Note also that normal damage deducts from current HP while subdual damage accrues. While in 3E/SRD a lot of effort was made to make the system consistent (you always want to roll high, for example), this 'two different mechanics for the same thing' betrays that concept totally. If there is one thing I've seen consistently throw off newbie gamers, it is subdual damage accruing; it's simply incongruous. > [...] Here you've added a whole new layer of rules in order to > determine whether falling damage should be applied to VP or WP. So yes, we add WP, but it is another pool of points that gets reduced as you take damage, not 'backwards'. And they tie together nicely. Almost never do you 'specify' what type of damage an attack deals. It deals VP unless it is a critical or you have no VP left. > By contrast, lowering the massive damage threshold covers all possible > situations like this with a single rule (which already exists in D&D!). You > don't have to special case the rules to death by defining each and every > type of damage as either Vitality or Wound. Hardly. It just forces you to make additional saving throws for everything. If one thing slows down a game, it is making saving throws every time someone sneezes. Most of the time (but admittedly not always) a save would be required, it is a critical hit (needed to pass the threshold). In these cases, you simply go to WP anyway. So basically you'd rather have to choose between deducting hit points, accruing subdual damage and sometimes/sometimes not making saving throws when you get hit. Why three mechanics for the same thing. Instead, simply subtract, with a couple simple cases that bypass the VP pool. On top of this, the whole concept of a bottomless pool of HP for high level characters is too abstract; it detracts from most players' suspension of disbelief, whether new or experienced. What attacks actually draw blood, as it were? As far as a pure HP system is concerned, only the one that kills the character, or at least drops him or her below 0 HP. In VP/WP, you know when your character is leaking on the floor... -Mike __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
