Exceeding the Wound/Strain Threshold

[HappyDaze 10,108]

The +50 (effectively Vicious 5) works fine then for planetary scale weaponry.

 

I still intend on tracking Wounds no matter how high they may go above the WT. It's simple enough to do so and prevents the oddity of tough guys taking longer to heal from the same injuries because the weedy little guy hit his cap earlier.

[mouthymerc 4,483]

 

Just because it occurs infrequently doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed by solid rules since the outcome can certainly be significant.

 

Why? Honestly if you get hit with that much damage, you either live or die. Personally I try not to kill my players so I try to err on the side of living, but I could just a easily RA Salvatore it and kill your @$$ in a massive explosion of damage if it seemed appropriate (appropriate is relative here). Having said that, if you live, you heal. Either by the rules or by the narrative, it doesn't matter. I don't really think it matters that one person is going to recover faster than the other and I really don't see the need for "solid" rules for something so minor.

[HappyDaze 10,108]

 

 

Just because it occurs infrequently doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed by solid rules since the outcome can certainly be significant.

 

Why? Honestly if you get hit with that much damage, you either live or die. Personally I try not to kill my players so I try to err on the side of living, but I could just a easily RA Salvatore it and kill your @$$ in a massive explosion of damage if it seemed appropriate (appropriate is relative here). Having said that, if you live, you heal. Either by the rules or by the narrative, it doesn't matter. I don't really think it matters that one person is going to recover faster than the other and I really don't see the need for "solid" rules for something so minor.

 

Not everyone considers GM Fiat to be the best answer to such things. Those that do are always free to ignore rules in any event, so having the rules wouldn't slow them down either. Thus, having the rules is a win-win solution.

[mouthymerc 4,483]

 

Not everyone considers GM Fiat to be the best answer to such things. Those that do are always free to ignore rules in any event, so having the rules wouldn't slow them down either. Thus, having the rules is a win-win solution.

 

 

Not everyone is worried about outlying situations like this either. This isn't d20, the game doesn't need rules for every little thing. Why should FFG waste energy "ruling" every little thing? They have better things to do. Leave stuff like this GM's to rule themselves.

[HappyDaze 10,108]

 

 

Not everyone considers GM Fiat to be the best answer to such things. Those that do are always free to ignore rules in any event, so having the rules wouldn't slow them down either. Thus, having the rules is a win-win solution.

 

 

Not everyone is worried about outlying situations like this either. This isn't d20, the game doesn't need rules for every little thing. Why should FFG waste energy "ruling" every little thing? They have better things to do. Leave stuff like this GM's to rule themselves.

 

Then we simply disagree on what constitutes an outlying situation. Characters get injured. Characters sometimes get injured severely. I feel that the current rules are shortsighted in how they handle Wounds that exceed the WT. You favor GM fiat for such and I consider that a sign of poor game design  since I don't favor GM fiat for something that decides whether a character lives or dies. If you use fiat for something that significant, you might as well use it for every action that's less significant.

Edited December 29, 2013 by HappyDaze

[whafrog 10,384]

Then we simply disagree on what constitutes an outlying situation. Characters get injured. Characters sometimes get injured severely. I feel that the current rules are shortsighted in how they handle Wounds that exceed the WT. You favor GM fiat for such and I consider that a sign of poor game design since I don't favor GM fiat for something that decides whether a character lives or dies. If you use fiat for something that significant, you might as well use it for every action that's less significant.

I'd use the opposite logic: you use fiat for something that significant because you want to be able to intervene to prevent a story from going completely off the rails. You don't need fiat for less consequential events because you don't need to intervene.

One of the things I love about this game is the lack of a death-clock. I've always hated the mechanistic determinism in other games. If someone got hit by a TIE (...which would be the equivalent of sicing a red dragon on a group of level 4 fighters in D&D...I'm not sure I'd go there without a specific purpose...) I'd just work it out with the player. Do they want their character to survive this? I'd make it clear that if they do want their character to survive, it's going to take a lot of effort and time, and they'll probably lose something, at least one limb and probably two. If they got themselves into this mess by being too cocky or refusing to run despite numerous hints, I'd be more severe. If I got them into this mess because of poor judgement, I'd probably have to invent a "cavalry to the rescue" and find a way to mitigate some of the damage.

Edited December 29, 2013 by whafrog

[mouthymerc 4,483]

You favor GM fiat for such and I consider that a sign of poor game design  since I don't favor GM fiat for something that decides whether a character lives or dies. If you use fiat for something that significant, you might as well use it for every action that's less significant.

 

I think the rules as they are allow for the type of games FFG want. I don't think they need to quantify them more for much the same reasons the whafrog said. Deaths or near-deaths should be meaningful and not the roll of a die. This is a co-operative game where players are trying to recreate or create their fantasy. Everything does not need a rule.

Edited December 29, 2013 by mouthymerc

[polyheadronman 171]

.02:

 

As an observation, there is a sentence I will paraphrase from the 4E PH or DMG that says that when a monster brings down an enemy (incapacitated), that they stop bothering with that enemy.  Especially if there is a remaining group of enemies (threats) to deal with.  

 

Most of the time, your parties' conflicts shouldn't involve adversaries boot stomping fallen threats.  They should have other things to deal with, like the remaining PCs seeking wrathful vengeance on said enemy so they can get their comrade out of harms way.

 

If an AT-ST steps on your PC, they're dead.  I don't think you need a mechanic for that, it seems pretty straight forward.  

 

As far as other extreme damage situations, why not use crit hits?  For every multiple of WT add a crit.  That way, the fellow who gets caught by a TIE shot has a simple way of tracking what should be an incredibly severe wound without doing much math.  

 

In the above example, a TIE hits a guy for 70 dmg. reduce by soak, subtract current wounds to equal WT, then divide remainder by WT to = number of crit hits taken.  OK, maybe a little math.

 

You could figure out each crit individually at that point, or just add +10 per crits taken to a d100 roll and do it once.  That would keep the story moving.  However, rolling each crit would really create some wincing around the table, and might be a good laugh.

[HappyDaze 10,108]

_{Despite that passage, I've know PCs to put extra damage into a fallen foe "just to be sure" and it's not hard to believe that they may encounter foes that fight the same way. When stimpacks can bring a downed enemy back into the fight in moments, it's worth making sure that downed opponents stay downed.}

[Darth Hideous 10]

I have to agree with HappyDaze the wound/healing rules should be reconsidered by the game designers. It does not make any sense that a tougher PC/NPC/Creature would lie unconscious longer than a less tough one. A hutt crime lord would fx lay unconscious for 60 days after taking a serious beating (with no critical injuries). That dosent make any sense for me. I know that his minions would give him some treatment, but I don’t like the rule never the less.

 

I really hope that the game designers will come up with an errata on this subject. Because I really think they have made a really good game, but this rule (so far) is a thorn in my eye.

[progressions 2,181]

Surely a tougher character has taken more wounds than a less tough character, so those greater wounds might take longer to heal, right?

 

If 20 wounds takes longer to heal than 15 wounds, then shouldn't a character who's got 40 wounds with a threshold of 20 take longer to recover than a character who's got 30 wounds with a threshold of 15?

[HappyDaze 10,108]

Surely a tougher character has taken more wounds than a less tough character, so those greater wounds might take longer to heal, right?

 

If 20 wounds takes longer to heal than 15 wounds, then shouldn't a character who's got 40 wounds with a threshold of 20 take longer to recover than a character who's got 30 wounds with a threshold of 15?

Not when the tougher character is only taking more Wounds because the weaker character is being shielded by an artificial limit. There should be no reason that the WT 15 character shouldn't be healing from 40 Wounds too if that's what the attacks inflict.

[Darth Hideous 10]

Surely a tougher character has taken more wounds than a less tough character, so those greater wounds might take longer to heal, right?

 

If 20 wounds takes longer to heal than 15 wounds, then shouldn't a character who's got 40 wounds with a threshold of 20 take longer to recover than a character who's got 30 wounds with a threshold of 15?

 

 

I don’t see it that way. If a tough guy loses 100 % of his HP he is unconscious, the same way a weak guy would do if he loses 100 % of his HP. So If they both would lose 100 % HP and are KO’ed they should wake up around the same time (if I were a betting man I would put my money on the tough boxer or football player to recover faster than the average rpg player (like myself). But I can accept it if they have the same recovering time).

 

When we talk about critical injuries then I agree. The more critical wounds you have, the more time you have to stay in bed. And a tough person (on average) would be able to survive more critical injuries, and therefore would have a long recovering time, while the weak person will recover forever six feet under.        

 

I hope my arguments makes sense.  

[progressions 2,181]

Sure, the argument makes sense, but it's an abstracted narrative system so I'm fine with the rules as written.

[whafrog 10,384]

Sure, the argument makes sense, but it's an abstracted narrative system so I'm fine with the rules as written.

 

Exactly.  If you want the tougher character to recover faster you just say so.  Besides, Wounds or HP, they're both kind of ridiculous abstractions already.  I mean, if someone sliced my bicep with a sword, it would leave my arm useless, but I wouldn't die.  How many Wounds does that represent?  And all Wounds are pooled into a total, if my biceps, triceps, and achilles tendons were severed, I would be useless, but not near death.  Yet somehow we all accept the Wound abstraction, but get funny about it when we hit that zero mark.

 

Basically, the game doesn't need more specific abstractions on top of an already abstract system of damage.  If you're playing around with the nuances of how much damage something can take below zero, then you're playing inside the abstraction, not outside where you can tell a good and meaningful story.

[2P51 33,446]

I think when it comes to recovery time a 'tougher' character is generally going to heal criticals more reliably so they would heal more quickly on balance than a less robust player.  If one really needed this fact represented a quick house rule stating something like can only recover to 1 wound until all criticals are healed, that would essentially tilt the scale in favor of the beefier player for quicker overall recovery times.  If you really wanted that to be in game. 

[Darth Hideous 10]

We can all make our own house rules I get that. But that doesn’t change that fact that I feel a great disturbance in the force when I think about this rule J.

 

The ones I play with (and myself) just like it better when the rules work “from start” and we doesn’t have to invent our own house rules. I just hope the designers will have a look on the damage/healing rules again – and come up with a better design.

 

Until then I think the house rule will be: after 24 hours you regain consciousness with 1 wound no matter what.  

[kaosoe 7,573]

Does it state in RAW that you continue to track wounds suffered once they exceed your wound threshold? I cannot remember reading that.

[JonahHex 259]

I LOVE the rules on healing in this game. 24 hours to heal all but 1 wound seems tremendously generous to me; just as in Star Wars stories, your players should be genuinely worried about getting injured... but to each their own.

Edited January 13, 2014 by JonahHex

[JonahHex 259]

Does it state in RAW that you continue to track wounds suffered once they exceed your wound threshold? I cannot remember reading that.

Yep. You keep tracking wounds above your threshold to a maximum of up to double your threshold, at which point you stop tracking wounds and it all comes under the purview of the GM. 

Edited January 13, 2014 by JonahHex

[mouthymerc 4,483]

I LOVE the rules on healing in this game. 24 hours to heal all but 1 wound seems tremendously generous to me; just as in Star Wars stories, your players should be genuinely worried about getting injured... but to each their own.

Uhm what? How do you heal all but one wound in 24 hrs?

[2P51 33,446]

We can all make our own house rules I get that. But that doesn’t change that fact that I feel a great disturbance in the force when I think about this rule J.

 

The ones I play with (and myself) just like it better when the rules work “from start” and we doesn’t have to invent our own house rules. I just hope the designers will have a look on the damage/healing rules again – and come up with a better design.

 

Until then I think the house rule will be: after 24 hours you regain consciousness with 1 wound no matter what.  

I don't think they really need to.  Criticals are the real issue and depending on the critical one is suffering from that may impede a character's ability to perform at all, wounds or no wounds.  In that regard a tougher character does have the advantage under the system currently.

[Darth Hideous 10]

I LOVE the rules on healing in this game. 24 hours to heal all but 1 wound seems tremendously generous to me; just as in Star Wars stories, your players should be genuinely worried about getting injured... but to each their own.

 

It wasn’t what I meant. If a players has 16 wounds and he takes for example 30 damage. He will wake up after 24 hours with 15 damage (or is it 16 damage I can’t remember?). He will only be one damage from being unconscious again.

 

But enough of debating this rule for my part. I only hope FFG can see this my way – haha! Then you guys can make you own house rules.

[mouthymerc 4,483]

 

I LOVE the rules on healing in this game. 24 hours to heal all but 1 wound seems tremendously generous to me; just as in Star Wars stories, your players should be genuinely worried about getting injured... but to each their own.

Uhm what? How do you heal all but one wound in 24 hrs?

 

Nvm. Misread that.

[HappyDaze 10,108]

I think when it comes to recovery time a 'tougher' character is generally going to heal criticals more reliably so they would heal more quickly on balance than a less robust player.  If one really needed this fact represented a quick house rule stating something like can only recover to 1 wound until all criticals are healed, that would essentially tilt the scale in favor of the beefier player for quicker overall recovery times.  If you really wanted that to be in game. 

The best house rule is to simply remove the (2WT) limit. Now everyone heals from what they actually suffer and there is no artificial ceiling in place that favors those with a lower WT.