I know there was a thread that discussed this but I cannot find it.
Anyway I was thinking about the rationale behind healer modifiers on the Mortal Wounds table. It’s just not jiving for me. Higher levels of Healer do not modify the roll because it’s more like you are ‘rolling the body over’ to see what happened. Ok fair enough…but if that’s true why does healer modify it at all? More importantly why do you cast a potentially precious spell on what, if there are enough bad modifiers, is obviously a dead body (possibly even just a smear)?
I’m sort of misliking some parts of the way Mortal Wounds work myself.
My biggest issue is this:
+4 Cure Serious Wounds
+2 Healing
+2 Immediate treatment
+3 CON
11 Sum
The max penalty you can get for negative hp is -6, and you always roll at least 1: so the minimum result is 6. Ergo, a CON +3 character will always survive at least a turn if given solid treatment on the next round. There’s zero chance for them to have been decapitated or whatnot.
My second biggest issue is that I cannot describe the blow that took someone down properly until “the body has been turned over”.
My third biggest issue is that the penalties for negative hps capping at -5 feels wrong.
I’m contemplating rejiggering the rules so that it is rolled immediately when someone hits 0hp or less, without treatment bonuses. If that says immediate death, then immediate death it is. Treatment modifiers to be applied when treatment is given – possibly improving or worsening the results.
Not sure yet, though. Will play RAW for a while yet.
Demoss,
This isn’t an “official” response, but:
There have been situations where I have made characters just “dead” without allowing them a chance for a Mortal Wounds check. I haven’t done with this with a PC yet, but a henchmen took 22 damage and had like 4 hit points. I described him as literally being sliced in half (from a Stone Golem with a massive two-handed sword). No mortal wounds check possible.
I would say if you wanted to implement a house rule that states if the -HP is greater than twice the character’s total HP (or whatever), then they just die or take a huge penalty to the check.
Also, I never roll Mortal Wounds checks on death from non-damaging stuff. So, poison and whatnot just kills you dead. No mortal wounds checks.
As for describing stuff, I have been known to “fudge” the d6 result to line up more with my description of the events or the type of monster attack. I don’t lie about it to my players. I just say, “Eh, this other result makes more sense.” And, they’re usually on board with it.
Most of the time though, I say, “The flying anteater with feathers is stuck to you, sucking your blood…” Mortal Wounds. Missing eye. “Ah, looks like it was sucking on your face and sucked your eye right out of the socket…”
So, there’s room for after the fact description.
Hope this helps.
Mike
Anyway I was thinking about the rationale behind healer modifiers on the Mortal Wounds table. It’s just not jiving for me.
APM: Well, I can’t really argue about personal taste. I will say that the abstract nature of the Mortal Wounds table is inevitable given the abstract nature of ACKS hit points. Very little of what narratively happens in an ACKS battle is inherent in the mechanics. Consider - who would you narrate as more physically hurt, a fighter reduced from 20hp to 5hp, or a mage reduced from 4hp to 2hp? The answer is not inherent in the rules. Which blow would you describe as more vicious, a blow that reduced a fighter from 60hp to 40hp, or a blow that reduced a fighter from 6hp to 0hp? Again, not mechanically inherent. When you describe a successful saving throw v. Paralysis against a ghoul’s attack, do you narrate that the ghoul actually didn’t scratch the character, or that it did scratch him but he was too strong-willed to be paralyzed? Again, not mechanically inherent. Likewise, what happens in the healing table is abstract and it’s going to be up to the Judge to interpret and narrate in a sensical way in each instance.
Higher levels of Healer do not modify the roll because it’s more like you are ‘rolling the body over’ to see what happened. Ok fair enough…but if that’s true why does healer modify it at all? More importantly why do you cast a potentially precious spell on what, if there are enough bad modifiers, is obviously a dead body (possibly even just a smear)?
APM: Healer modifies the roll because, in most cases, from most wounds, the victim isn’t dead. The healer knows to immediately staunch the blood flow with a tourniquet, or give mouth-to-mouth, or not break the spine as you roll him over, etc.
APM: Likewise, curing spells work benefit because, in most cases, a curing spell would help a victim who’s not dead yet. Yes, in edge cases where the character is at some huge negative of hit points it’s harder to justify, but it’s certainly explicable.
APM: As an example, if a cleric cast cure serious wounds on what the roll revealed was an obviously dead body, I’d narrate it something like as follows: “You rush over to your friend. He can’t be gone. You make your prayers to the gods over and over, but they’re not working. Your friend isn’t responding. Clarity suddenly grips you as you realize you’re just holding a torso. There’s no limbs, and the blood is soaking you everywhere, and already things are growing cold. Your chanting is futile. Has always been futile. He’s gone.” You see scenes like that all the time in fiction/war movies/etc.
The max penalty you can get for negative hp is -6, and you always roll at least 1: so the minimum result is 6. Ergo, a CON +3 character will always survive at least a turn if given solid treatment on the next round. There’s zero chance for them to have been decapitated or whatnot.
APM: You must have a higher taste for lethality than me! 
(Next time my players say I’m bloody-minded I’m showing them your post). ACKS definitely would give good odds to a very tough (18 Con) character treated within 15 seconds by a high-level cleric using the best available cure spell… That’s a best-case scenario, though. The actual chances of this situation occurring in play are low. It’s fairly hard to heal someone in the next round, as if they are incapacitated they are often surrounded by enemies. And the cleric has to be stationary for one round to cast the spell. It often takes “Saving Private Ryan” heroics to get an incapacitated friend out of danger to a cleric.
My second biggest issue is that I cannot describe the blow that took someone down properly until “the body has been turned over”.
APM: That’s true. On the other hand, there can be a very enjoyable tension that’s created by offering a colorful but vague description (“the sword plunges into Marcus…there’s a splatter of gore, he screams and drops”), knowing the big reveal coming later. But this is really a matter of taste. Also, I might add, that you can always provide a gory death scene, and if the player turns out to be alive later, they usually don’t complain!
My third biggest issue is that the penalties for negative hps capping at -5 feels wrong.
APM: Easily enough changed by making the penalty higher. It will increase lethality, of course, but that seems to be what you are after. By design the system has less lethality than you’d like, I think. In playtest we actually revised it to create exactly the effect you dislike (e.g. more positive bonuses), because the original system was too deadly.
I’m contemplating rejiggering the rules so that it is rolled immediately when someone hits 0hp or less, without treatment bonuses. If that says immediate death, then immediate death it is. Treatment modifiers to be applied when treatment is given – possibly improving or worsening the results.
APM: Sure. That would give it a feel similar to Warhammer Fantasy, which is very fun. If you go this route, I’d probably dispense with “treatment modifiers” altogether. Instead offer a flat bonus based on level: +0 1-3, +1 4-6, +2 7-9, +3 10-12, +4 13-14. If you do test this out, please post a play report to let us know how it plays.
I’m used to run a 1st ed. WFRP game, which might go towards explaining my tastes.
I noticed most of the things I listed before the first session I ran, but decided that they didn’t really matter. However, when a henchman went down with -1hp while the characters were retreating, the first thing they did was ask how it looked – is he obviously dead or not, etc? Did they decapitate him, or did he just collapse?
It really irked me that I had to choose between (1) saying “you can’t tell” (2) making something up and taking that as fiat (3) stopping to explain the Shrödinger’s Corpse effect. In the end I did 1 & 2…
I’d like to be able to in the future say “He falls down, with blood spurting from his mouth. …if he’s not dead yet, he will be soon.” (Ie. effect being something along the lines of dying in 1d6 rounds unless treated.) Or describing something as an outright decapitation. Or someone falling to the ground after a hit to the head with no obvious wounds.
(Also, there are times when Mortal Wounds for enemies can matter as well – so not being able to describe graphically describe opponents falls is suboptimal.)
I’ll play with RAW a session or two yet, though. This is a niggle, not a priority.
Here’s my provisional house rule for this: https://rpgist.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/critical-wounds/
Untested as of yet. Next game next Sunday.
I am interested to hear hw your house rule works out in practice
TPK by DM’s House rule is always the best way to die
There should be a Geek Merit Badge for that, actually.
Or maybe I should just prepare a short fanfare I can sound from my phone, and hand out “Achievement Unlocked!” cards.
That looks like a promising system. Please let us know how it works out!