Damage and Recovery confusion

[Dodonna]

I purchased the True 20 hardcopy at Gen Con, having heard great things about the Blue Rose system. While I like what I've read so far, I am thoroughly confused by the Damage and Recovery section.

I note that the Blue Rose character sheet has check boxes for Dazed and Wounded, but True 20 does not. The rules say:

"If a target suffers a result that is already checked off, check off the next highest result, so if a target is already Wounded and suffers another Wounded result, check off the Disabled box."

That implies the presence of a Wounded check box. (I note that the similar text under Non-lethal Damage skips Dazed and goes directly to Staggered.) Is this an omission? If not, does that mean that it's possible to have multiple Dazed/Wounded conditions? Does each impose an additional -1 Toughness penalty, or is that just Bruised/Hurt? Does each require a separate Recovery check?

Also--and this may simply be a matter of running out of room on the page--the Condition Summary entry on Wounded makes no reference to the -2 penalty on all checks mentioned on the previous page.

Could someone please clarify this? Thanks!

[Ludanto]

Hmm... That's odd. I won't know until I get my updated PDF, but it sounds like a typo (the missing check-boxes, that is).

Hey, since you have the book, could you let us in on how it handles backgrounds? Thanks.

[Grim Luck]

The character sheet should definitely have a wounded condition box.

As a part of MSN groups, I have an excel character generator that produces a better character sheet than comes with the core book, assuming that the print version provided at GENCON is similar to what has already been provided.

If you have a Microsoft Passport Login, please see the attached URL to download the excel character generator for free.

http://groups.msn.com/True20UnofficialCharacterGenerator/documents.msnw?&pps=k

[timemrick]

I have the original PDF (before the additions/corrections made for the GenCon print edition). In that edition, the Dazed and Wounded boxes do appear on both p. 75 (in the combat section) and p. 95 (character sheet). If they're missing from the new version, that's an error.

As in Blue Rose, only Bruised and Hurt should have blanks instead of boxes; those are the only two conditions that can accumulated more than one check each.

[Dodonna]

Not only are the Dazed/Wounded boxes missing from the character sheet, but also from the sample Damage Track on pg. 77 of the hardcopy. (I don't have the .pdf, but I gather from the fact that all of the page references are a couple of pages off, the two versions don't have the same page numbers.)

Furthermore, pg. 77 also says:

Wounded characters are shaken, suffering a -2 penalty on all checks, including attack rolls and Fortitude, Reflex and Will saving throws. This persists until all wounded conditions are eliminated.

This also suggested to me that it was possible to have multiple tics under Wounded, though I suppose it could be referring to Lethal Damage conditions instead.

So, to summarize, one can have any number of Bruised/Hurt tics on the character sheet (each conferring -1 Toughness), but only one each of Dazed/Wounded (each conferring an additional -1 Toughness, to a maximum of -1)?

As for the Backgrounds, there's only about a page and a half in the hardcopy. One column length discusses the basics, including ability adjustments, bonus feats and skills, and favored feats. The rest gives some sample backgrounds, all standard D&D races, including Half-Elf and Half-Orc.

Ability adjustments should only increase or decrease by 1, and each should be offset by an appropriate increase/decrease in another ability.

Backgrounds grant either a single bonus feat of the player's choosing, or two culture-specific, fixed feats. (These must be general feats, or feats favored by that background.)

Bonus skills are handled similarly, though the rules give the Narrator the option to grant an additional fixed feat instead of bonus skills.

Each background has two favored feats which come from the expert, martial or supernatural lists. (Supernatural feats count as two choices here.) These are not required to be taken by a character, but are considered available to all members of that background.

[Grim Luck]

Hmmm.

That's dissapointing. I had hoped that the print version (and the subsequent pdf update) would not have such errors.

I hope this is a rare instance of a few mistakes present in the update. The True20 pdf I purchased had several mistakes, but I was not overly concerned as we were promised updates as they were printed.

Now, however, I am somewhat concerned. The ideas presented in True20 are quality ideas. I fear that a failure to effectively communicate those ideas due to errors such as these may damage sales.

[skywalker]

This also suggested to me that it was possible to have multiple tics under Wounded, though I suppose it could be referring to Lethal Damage conditions instead.

So, to summarize, one can have any number of Bruised/Hurt tics on the character sheet (each conferring -1 Toughness), but only one each of Dazed/Wounded (each conferring an additional -1 Toughness, to a maximum of -1)?

Your summary is correct. However, I think the other references arise from an initial thought that some large creatures may have multiple Wounded conditions (similar to that in WEG's D6). This was not carried through in True 20 and I agree the comments are confusing.

[Nomad4life]

This is... Disturbing.

[Ki Ryn]

Page 77 of the hard copy says a Wounded character "suffers a -2 penalty on all check"

My guess is that they meant "exept Toughness checks" since being wounded already give you a -1 on those.

Then again, maybe you are supposed to be at -3 total? That is what is written, but they also spell out 'including Fort, Ref, Wll' and don't mention Toughness. Anyway, says once thing but then implies another.

[Hellequin]

So ... whats the conclusion? One or many bruised/hurt 'boxes'?

Another question: Im still just reading the True20 system but this toughness check is already disturbing (is this word correct?) me. The problem is: its a too difficult check so it makes very easy to die in one or two attacks. And worst: the damage track only have two 'injuried' boxes so its easy to die in a bad roll of a toughness check. So, dont you think that the system is a little too 'deadly'?

Hum, my english is terrible today, sorry.

[The Shadow]

In my book, Hellequin, that's not a bug, it's a feature. :) Combat IS more deadly in True20. Without Conviction, you stand a real chance of getting hosed. Therefore people will avoid it more. Like they should.

Still, it's perhaps not as bad as it sounds. M&M uses much the same system, and it plays just fine.

[skywalker]

Another question: Im still just reading the True20 system but this toughness check is already disturbing (is this word correct?) me.

True 20 looks deadly but is actually less deadly than it looks, certainly when compared to D&D at low levels.

So where does this perception of deadliness come from? The difference is that in True 20 every blow has a chance of taking you down. In d20 you have a grace period followed by an inevitable death.

Remember to factor in Conviction also. Not only does this allow for instant recovery (which is easy - Con DC10), but also rerolls with a minimum of 10 (this averages at a result of around 15). Assuming damage and toughness are equal, a hit will only disable you around 25% of the time. and this is completely negated by Conviction.

In True 20, you are generally more robust than in D&D and the players have a lot more say as to when their PCs go down from injury with Conviction. I find this to be much better than D&D inevitable clock ticking down and attrition.