No really, how does damage work?

This forum has been locked to further posting but will be maintained here as an archive. Please visit http://true20.com for the True20 and Blue Rose forums.

Moderator: Super Moderators

Postby FickleGM » Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:55 pm

wulf wrote:
FickleGM wrote:Actually, from what Steve has put forth on this thread, the following is how I see the True20 wound track:
<snip>

Agreed. The only problem is the sentence "...if a target is already wounded and suffers another wounded result, check off the disabled box." That would have to be an error for your (and my) interpretation to be correct, a holdover from earlier versions of the rules. We need official confirmation on that.

Wulf


I agree, and also am basing my interpretation on what Steve has said in this thread. It appears that the sentence in question is in error.
User avatar
FickleGM
Supporting Cast
Supporting Cast
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:53 am

Postby skywalker » Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:14 pm

FickleGM wrote:Actually, from what Steve has put forth on this thread, the following is how I see the True20 wound track:


Agreed too. Warbringer, after Steve Kenson's comments and the changes to the character sheet and text, it seems that you can suffer multiple wounded conditions. If so, then the automatic upgrading to Disabled seems to not make sense and the logic of Hurts seems to apply. However, the current text suggests both may be true.
[b]Playing:[/b] Lure of the Expanse (Rogue Trader)
[b]Running:[/b] Unbridled Blade (Atlantis: The Second Age)
[b]Planning:[/b] None
skywalker
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:28 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Postby Tim Gray » Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:18 pm

I agree with FickleGM's summary of the revised situation.

Basically, as we've said before, this section of the text needs revising to establish the concepts clearly and get the system into a reader's head. One of the problems it needs to address is that the whole thing looks big and complicated in the book, whereas the GM cheat sheets in the other thread manage to make it actually look usable.
Tim Gray
Dabbler
Dabbler
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 5:47 pm

Postby Warbringer » Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:30 am

With the excpetionof SKs three word reply, the text is extremly clear as to the original intent of wounds.

Now, if that has changed, ala the three word response, I can understand the confusion, on my part mostly I guess.

However, I must be missing a "new" character sheet, because my conditions are still single check books.

IK'm in two minds whether I like this chance. It's simple bookkeeping, makes heroes tougher, makes tough monsters much tougher. The mutli wounds also lends it self to not having only one attack, but multiple attacks, ala d20.

A masterswordsman may not have the brute strength to bring down a tough foe, but rather does so with a death by a thousand cuts.

This is a significant change... I need to crawl back under my rock and think about this.

Good, very good, thread
Warbringer
Dabbler
Dabbler
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 9:05 am

Postby FickleGM » Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:55 am

As far as the character sheet, I only have the revised PDF, not the original. The character sheet that is in this PDF (as well as the wound track in the section detailing damage) does not have a check box for Wounded or Dazed. Instead, it is an empty space like for Hurt and Bruised, which implies visually that multiple Wounded/Dazed conditions are possible.

As far as the verbiage goes, once again I only have the revised PDF. The verbiage that you have quoted does indeed make it clear that only one Wounded condition is possible...until you turn the page and read the descriptions of Wounded on the following two pages. One description states something to the effect of the -2 penalty remaining until ALL wounded conditions are eliminated. The next description states that the character receives a -1 penalty to toughness saves for EACH wounded condition.

Also, you are correct that we are reading a lot into Steve's short response.

As far as personal opinion goes, I am in favor of my interpretation for the following reasons:

First, the "death by a thousand cuts" example that you gave. This makes for longer "major" battles (the Minion Rule already does enough to shorten "minor" battles).

Second, it helps PC survival by slowing the "death spiral" (once again, the Minion Rule takes care of the fodder).

Third, this is what I believe the intent was supposed to be. What I mean by that is that I believe the text regarding taking a second Wound and becoming Disabled was in error and will be fixed for the next revision (print or pdf).

Now, why an official comment has not been made yet leads to the following theories :wink: :

a) Steve is not able to actively monitor the boards at this time

b) Steve is too busy currently and this is not a priority yet

c) Steve is waiting to see what the popular opinion is and will adjust the verbiage to meet fan expectations :D
User avatar
FickleGM
Supporting Cast
Supporting Cast
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:53 am

Postby poltah » Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:57 am

What's the minion rule?
poltah
Bystander
Bystander
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:58 am

Postby FickleGM » Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:23 am

poltah wrote:What's the minion rule?


That is the rule that states that any fodder/mook/goon (basically a non-essential NPC) that does not succeed on his Toughness Save is effectively out of the battle (they are dead, although the Narrator can rule that they are merely unconscious if he/she so chooses). This allows PCs to be heroic and fell foes left and right (until a major NPC faces them).

I am farely cavalier with this rule and minor NPCs fall with a Hurt/Bruise and above, moderate NPCs fall with Wounded/Dazed and above, while major NPCs use the full wound track just like the PCs.

This rule works well to speed up combats.

I do not have my PDF at work with me, so if I am incorrectly naming it the "Minion Rule", I apologize. I believe the term minion is used, but I will not swear to it.
User avatar
FickleGM
Supporting Cast
Supporting Cast
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:53 am

Postby skywalker » Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:53 am

FickleGM wrote:Now, why an official comment has not been made yet leads to the following theories :wink: :

a) Steve is not able to actively monitor the boards at this time

b) Steve is too busy currently and this is not a priority yet

c) Steve is waiting to see what the popular opinion is and will adjust the verbiage to meet fan expectations :D


As said, I have sent him an email direct but he has yet to respond. With M&M 2e in the loop I imagine that is keeping him busy. I hope we hear something soon.
[b]Playing:[/b] Lure of the Expanse (Rogue Trader)
[b]Running:[/b] Unbridled Blade (Atlantis: The Second Age)
[b]Planning:[/b] None
skywalker
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:28 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Postby FickleGM » Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:17 am

skywalker wrote:As said, I have sent him an email direct but he has yet to respond. With M&M 2e in the loop I imagine that is keeping him busy. I hope we hear something soon.


My theories were meant more for humor (theory c to be exact) than for actual prognostication, but thanks for clearing that up. I guess that my comments could be misleading... :)
User avatar
FickleGM
Supporting Cast
Supporting Cast
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:53 am

Postby skywalker » Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:25 am

FickleGM wrote:My theories were meant more for humor (theory c to be exact) than for actual prognostication, but thanks for clearing that up. I guess that my comments could be misleading... :)


No stress, I took it as humourous. I just hope we hear something soon.
[b]Playing:[/b] Lure of the Expanse (Rogue Trader)
[b]Running:[/b] Unbridled Blade (Atlantis: The Second Age)
[b]Planning:[/b] None
skywalker
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:28 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Postby Warbringer » Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:41 am

OK, back from my rock.

I'd always assumed that the lack of check box was a printing oversight :)

OK, so here's my between the lines interpretation that syncs everything up.

A hero/minion can take any number of wounds, each time taking a -1 penalty to any further toughness tests. However, when the hero/minion becomes Disabled the box is checked any further wounds result in a worsened damage status, namely, the hero/mininon becomes Dying.

OK, so what do we do about cure checks. Does a succesful check remove 1 or all wounds, and wound penalities?[/i]
Warbringer
Dabbler
Dabbler
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 9:05 am

Postby FickleGM » Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:31 pm

Warbringer wrote:OK, back from my rock.

I'd always assumed that the lack of check box was a printing oversight :)


It appears that the FAQ/Errata that I read on another thread (or website, I forget) also thought that it was an oversight.



Warbringer wrote:OK, so here's my between the lines interpretation that syncs everything up.

A hero/minion can take any number of wounds, each time taking a -1 penalty to any further toughness tests. However, when the hero/minion becomes Disabled the box is checked any further wounds result in a worsened damage status, namely, the hero/mininon becomes Dying.


That is doable, however, I will run it so that a character can continue to receive Wounded conditions even after beind disabled (the -1 per wound will eventually catch up to you). It gives that extra survivability that I am after.

I also do not allow minions to become wounded without dropping (unless they are important, they either get Hurt or Wounded as their drop point).



Warbringer wrote:OK, so what do we do about cure checks. Does a succesful check remove 1 or all wounds, and wound penalities?[/i]


I play it as a successful check only removes one Wounded condition.
User avatar
FickleGM
Supporting Cast
Supporting Cast
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:53 am

Postby Tim Gray » Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:18 pm

Warbringer wrote:With the excpetionof SKs three word reply, the text is extremly clear as to the original intent of wounds.

I'm afraid that's not true in the current version or the previous one.


And minions can't take wounds. If they can, they're not minions.
Tim Gray
Dabbler
Dabbler
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 5:47 pm

Postby timemrick » Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:19 pm

FickleGM wrote:It appears that the FAQ/Errata that I read on another thread (or website, I forget) also thought that it was an oversight.

Would that be my page? All of my "Errata & Notes" pages are strictly unofficial, and if an author clarifies a point after I post my initial draft, I'll gladly rewrite those sections as needed. (But just as often, GR cribs from me for large chunks of their official errata. :yar:)

BTW, the official errata list(which merely lists changes between the 1st & 2nd versions) doesn't mention the deleted boxes. FWIW, it also doesn't mention the two new pages on Backgrounds.
User avatar
timemrick
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1204
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Lexington, KY

Postby FickleGM » Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:34 am

timemrick wrote:Would that be my page? All of my "Errata & Notes" pages are strictly unofficial, and if an author clarifies a point after I post my initial draft, I'll gladly rewrite those sections as needed. (But just as often, GR cribs from me for large chunks of their official errata. :yar:)

BTW, the official errata list(which merely lists changes between the 1st & 2nd versions) doesn't mention the deleted boxes. FWIW, it also doesn't mention the two new pages on Backgrounds.


Ah, that's where I saw it. Thank you, I had forgotten.
User avatar
FickleGM
Supporting Cast
Supporting Cast
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:53 am

Postby Warbringer » Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:26 am

I'm afraid that's not true in the current version or the previous one.


I no longer have my original pdfd, so I'll take your word for it. We interpreted that Wounded had a check box, thus while you could have multiple wounds, as soon as you took another hit while wounded you went to disabled. Sure, you now have -2 (second wound), but given the penalities of disabled, didn't really matter.

So now is wounded still a check box, ie another failed toughness test after wounded and you are truely on your way to being dead? Or, no check box and escalation doesn't start unit disabled?

And minions can't take wounds. If they can, they're not minions


My bad, "Narrtor characters", not minions
Last edited by Warbringer on Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Warbringer
Dabbler
Dabbler
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 9:05 am

Postby Warbringer » Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:28 am

I also do not allow minions to become wounded without dropping (unless they are important, they either get Hurt or Wounded as their drop point).


We allow a mininion 1 hurt result before death. If Hurt, hang around, if wounded or higher, they flee if they can. After that, toast.
[/quote]
Warbringer
Dabbler
Dabbler
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 9:05 am

Postby FickleGM » Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:36 am

Here is what I posted on the EN World forum:

FickleGM wrote:General - True20 - Wound level clarification (for Steve Kensen)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve, I have avoided doing this so far, but I am going to breach forum etiquette (I think) a bit and ask a favor regarding a thread from the Green Ronin True20 forum. I noticed you post here recently and figured that your answer may be of use to those here who are interested in True20.

Could you clarify a question that was brought up on the Green Ronin True20 forums (you sort of did already, but more clarification appeared to be needed)?

Anyway, this is a question regarding damage in True20. I will just explain the way that I have interpreted the rules and will allow you to confirm this:

- A character who takes a Hurt also takes a Bruised, but not vice-versa (-1 to future Toughness checks, Bruised only applies to non-lethal damage).

- A character can take multiple Hurt and Bruised without succumbing to the next wound level (the Toughness penalty is cumulative).

- A character who takes a Wounded also takes a Dazed, but not vice-versa (-1 to future Toughness checks, Dazed only applies to non-lethal damage).

- A Wounded condition also inflicts a -2 penalty to all rolls except for Toughness until all Wounded conditions are eliminated.

- A Dazed condition also leaves a character Stunned for one round.

- A character can take multiple Wounded and Dazed without succumbing to the next wound level (the Toughness penalty is cumulative, but not the -2 penalty and the stunned happens for each Dazed condition - and by extension each Wounded condition).

- A character who is Wounded or Dazed does not become Hurt or Bruised (unless already injured at those levels, but does not gain additional Hurt or Bruised conditions).

- A character who is Disabled also becomes Staggered, but not vice-versa.

- A character who is Disabled or Staggered does not become Wounded, Dazed, Hurt or Bruised (unless already injured at those levels, but does not gain additional injuries at those levels).

- A character cannot take a second occurance of the Disabled or Staggered injury levels, but instead automatically take the next level of injury (Unconscious for Staggered and Dying + Unconscious for Disabled).

- Successful recovery checks only remove one occurance of the highest injury level (lethal first, then non-lethal).


Thank you for your time.


...and here is Steve's reply:

Mr. Kenson wrote:Looks to me like you have an entirely correct analysis of how it works.


I hope that this helps anyone who was still looking for clarification.
User avatar
FickleGM
Supporting Cast
Supporting Cast
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:53 am

Postby Tim Gray » Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:12 am

That's cool.

So why didn't they say so? ;P
Tim Gray
Dabbler
Dabbler
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 5:47 pm

Postby Hellequin » Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:20 am

Hey, stop! I think I have missed something right here! Let´s see your list:

A character can take multiple Wounded and Dazed without succumbing to the next wound level (the Toughness penalty is cumulative, but not the -2 penalty and the stunned happens for each Dazed condition - and by extension each Wounded condition)

But let´s look in my book: "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." And now, what I do?
Os assassinos estão livres, nós não estamos.
Legião Urbana
User avatar
Hellequin
Bystander
Bystander
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 8:44 pm
Location: Brasil

Postby Tim Gray » Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:29 am

Hellequin wrote:Hey, stop! I think I have missed something right here! Let´s see your list:

A character can take multiple Wounded and Dazed without succumbing to the next wound level (the Toughness penalty is cumulative, but not the -2 penalty and the stunned happens for each Dazed condition - and by extension each Wounded condition)

But let´s look in my book: "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." And now, what I do?

Well, that's kind of what started the discussion! The most recent revision of the PDF removes the checkboxes from Wounded and Dazed on the damage tracks, and has slightly altered text that gives more weight to multiple Wounded conditions without removing the contradictions entirely.

In other words, you can look at specific bits of text and find a statement that disagrees with it, but this is the way Steve and Green Ronin want us to interpret it. Do also check that you have the up-to-date PDF.
Tim Gray
Dabbler
Dabbler
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 5:47 pm

Postby Hellequin » Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:34 am

Thanks! I´ve printed the first version and I didn´t check it out in the new. My bad.
Os assassinos estão livres, nós não estamos.
Legião Urbana
User avatar
Hellequin
Bystander
Bystander
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 8:44 pm
Location: Brasil

Postby FickleGM » Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:58 am

That quote ("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.") is still in the book and is why the subsequent text on the next two pages (regarding multiple Wounded conditions) appeared to contradict it.

This is why I had Steve verify my understanding. So, this quote appears to be incorrect and hopefully will be corrected for the print version.
User avatar
FickleGM
Supporting Cast
Supporting Cast
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:53 am

Postby Warbringer » Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:44 am

A character cannot take a second occurance of the Disabled or Staggered injury levels, but instead automatically take the next level of injury (Unconscious for Staggered and Dying + Unconscious for Disabled).


What if the character takes a wound? Is it the next stage, or just a wound?

These changes, all be it only in interpretation, certainly make the game less deadly
Warbringer
Dabbler
Dabbler
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 9:05 am

Postby FickleGM » Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:09 am

Warbringer wrote:
A character cannot take a second occurance of the Disabled or Staggered injury levels, but instead automatically take the next level of injury (Unconscious for Staggered and Dying + Unconscious for Disabled).


What if the character takes a wound? Is it the next stage, or just a wound?

These changes, all be it only in interpretation, certainly make the game less deadly


That would just be another Wounded (with the accompanying Dazed). Nothing more, nothing less...
User avatar
FickleGM
Supporting Cast
Supporting Cast
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:53 am

PreviousNext

Return to True20 Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests