Forums of the Megaverse®

Well I had a character fall into a coma and then come out of it. But I had him roll on the optional coma chart and he lost a point of IQ. That put him at the minimum IQ for his OCC, Wizard. If this happens again and he drops below, then what? I'm thinking he just can't cast spells anymore. Thoughts?

-Vek
"Dame goes for any other ability score and OCC requirement."

Depends on how harsh you want to be. Personally, I'd give a percentage chance of spell failure with every cast to reflect the brain damage, with the chance of failure increasing with each subsequent loss of IQ. There's greater story potential there (for a player willing to capitalize on it) than there is from having spellcasting denied entirely.
I'd set the percentage chance somewhere between 10 (being nice) and 25 (being gritty) for each point of IQ the character loses moving forward.

Edit: spell failure means the action(s) and PPE are spent, but there is no spell effect. Or, there could be a chance of backfire, if you want to go that route.

First point to acknowledge, there is no canon text that covers this. Thus everything would be HRs.

Smartness would be required to learn how to cast magic. And what he already knew how to cast would stay the same. But he wouldn't be able to just gain 'level up' spells since those are dependent on the char learning from just exp. The char would need to make a concerted effort to ether 1) research new spells if the char wanted new magic (see NB:TtGD &/or PF:MoM1 for spell creations rules.) Or 2) they would have to make a concerted effort to try to regain their lost mental capacity. (See Rifter ¿19? the Go Mental Article).

Another thing that might happen is that they might start miscasting spells. (see the spell scroll conversion failure table for effect ideas for this.) Nope, I have not clue how to do the dice rolls for just cover a lowered IQ. Otherwise each time any mage casts a spell they would have to roll under their Principles of magic skill. (NB:TtGD)

Another thing that might happen is that they acquire a magic limitation (NB:TtGD and R ¿27?)...as an effect of the char trying to work around the loss of mental capacity. Or maybe instead of loosing the IQ point.

Thats all options I can think of right now.

I like Drew's idea too.

I'd be inclined to have nothing specific happen... it's harder to learn something, than to keep doing it once you've learned, so I would not have the loss of IQ affect his class.

Mark Hall wrote:I'd be inclined to have nothing specific happen... it's harder to learn something, than to keep doing it once you've learned, so I would not have the loss of IQ affect his class.

This goes back to my opening statement that it depends on how harsh you want to be.
The rest of my suggestion was working under the assumption that a negative impact was desired.
Really it depends on the composition of the players and the style of the game. Personally, I like the occasional negative consequence as I feel it can add dramatic tension and offer great RP opportunities. However, I tend to avoid the strict and harsh penalties because I still want the game/character to be fun. I'd rather present an inconvenience or hardship that must be overcome, not cripple someone and expect them to just deal with it.
When I first started gaming, those challenges were not something I wanted. I wanted to be a shining hero who faced opposition in the form of villains and monsters, not personal defects. When I was later introduced to V:tM, I initially balked at the idea of playing a character with Derangements (either intentionally, or as a result of in game consequences), but over time came to see such personal struggles as a boon to RP. Later, I discovered Palladium and was excited to see Insanities built into the game, with cool options like the Crazy Hero iij n HU2, and the Crazy OCC in Rifts. While I still play plenty of well adjusted characters, I have had great fun playing deranged Vampires and insane Palladium characters. It has challenged me in positive ways and made me a better gamer.
So, if the GM would rather take Mark's approach, that is perfectly reasonable. If, however, a negative consequence is deemed more appropriate, I think Drew and I have both presented enough ideas to stimulate creativity in the GM and player. It's all about doing what is best for your game and group.

As there are no bonuses to spell casting for high IQ in canon, i'd be inclined to have no negatives, except on maybe learning new spells.

Otherwise maybe make the spells cost a little more isp (1 or 2 per level of the spell)
or the spells take a little longer to cast say reduce casting to 3 spells per 2 rounds instead of 4 per 2 rounds or every 3rd half round spell to cast takes a full round instead.
or
an xp negative, takes more xp for the wizard to go up levels.

I go all out and they lose the ability to use their class skills. I went through a similar situation with a mind mage recently. I described it having a fractured skull that was healing slightly out of line and causing constant pain from pressure on the brain. He wasn't actually suddenly dumber, but couldn't concentrate enough to use his abilities without losing his grip on coping with the pain.

However, while I use those "permanent" injury charts when being knocked into a coma, I use those as the reason for psychic surgery to exist. In my games, natural or magical healing won't cure these, but someone that can perform psychic surgery can go in, set things back in the position they should be in, and remove the condition entirely. Well, until the next injury anyway. I like to believe this also gives a good reason for soothing touch to exist, which reduces the penalties of an injury for a time when you don't have access to the surgery.

I still run 1E, or at least my mangled version of it, and I gave psychic surgery to healers. Just seemed to me to be something they should be able to do, and with the way I run injuries, the class is much more important for keeping characters in good shape.

Mark Hall wrote:I'd be inclined to have nothing specific happen... it's harder to learn something, than to keep doing it once you've learned, so I would not have the loss of IQ affect his class.

I agree with Mark. The rest of you guys are well harsh! My take is that the attribute requirements are necessary to learn the class, not to retain it. I wouldn't have a soldier suddenly unable to use a sword properly because their PS drops to 9, when a vagabond with a PS of 5 can fight without any problems. Same with any attribute requirements. The hard part was learning the trade; as one advances, it becomes like second nature and doesn't require the same level of effort.

That's why i'd likely go with a small xp negative, because especially with wizard it's still a learning process, and an xp negative would show that it just takes this guy a little longer to learn the next level of wizard as he isn't as smart and has to work a little harder for it than his peers.

And i'd do the same if he was a soldier, yes a vagabond can fight, but especially the way 2nd ed hth works the thing that differentiates a soldier from a vagabond is his skill set, not his actual skill at fighting, so if he wasn't quite strong enough, or enduring enough he has to work that little bit harder to accomplish what his stronger peers do, and in the army if you don't pass the physical side of things due to wounds you tend to be retired.

Well, here's where I'm coming from. The loss of IQ is due to brain damage. That's serious. My uncle had brain damage due to a greande in Vietnam and he was not the same person upon his return as he was when he left. I realize that brain damage can vary in severity but it sounds pretty severe. I think it's too severe to have no consequences. Also, with the ease of coming out of a coma due to magic or psionic healing, there is very little negative to being damaged so much that you're in a coma. Essentially, you get whacked, stabbed, burned, drowned, or whatever to the point that you're amost dead. Then someone lays hands on you and voila, you're fine. It's difficult to give PC's psychological issues because they are generally loathe to play those. Then you're reminding the character of the insanity and telling them how to play the character. It isn't what I want to do. So, the optional charts seemed like a good middle ground.

Once the brain damage is rolled, and the IQ is down below the threshold I think there needs to be some consequence. The character is not the same as before and can't do the things he could before. One of the hardest learning experiences in the game is learning to case spells. Judging by the requirement for the OCC, you need a certain level in order to be a wizard. If you had it and then lost it, then you lost the cognitive capacity to do the job. You could lose the memory of the spell or of casting the spell. Or, you could not be able to learn any more. Or the spells don't work right. I don't know just yet, but I think there must be some issue.

What about other stats and OCCs that require that ability? For example, longbowman and PP, or Men at Arms with a Strength requirement? I'm guessing that if someone went below a 12 str they could no longer use a tower shield. I figure if the physical abilities limit capacity so should the mental.

-Vek
"Or, the PC could stop having his wizard engage in hand to hand combat."

I haven't run into a physical stat running too low yet. I would lean towards giving someone that lost strength a limitation to only be able to use lighter armors and small shields. Perhaps even ban 2 handed weapons over a certain weight, or give them a penalty when used. P.P. is a tough one, especially with the longbowman since strength certainly plays into the use of that particular weapon as well. Maybe lessen the max range and increase the difficulty of hitting anything over short range to reflect the loss of coordination.

If this made some weapon proficiencies useless, I would probably allow an immediate switch to a similar skill that could be used with current limitations. Possibly a skill level or so behind the level of the original (like going from large to small shields).

Edit: I agree on the insanity thing. In my current long running game, there has been one death (and resurrection). Since it was in a fight with an Alu and a bunch of summoned wolves, I gave the character a phobia of wolves, and a bit of nervousness around wolfen/coyles (but nothing that keeps her from interacting with them, especially if they have met before). I would think that would be a reasonable and easy to remember facet of the character instead of "random insanity".

I think the problem with all these penalties for going below your O.C.C. attribute requirements is that the attributes do not have an effect on any of the individual skills or abilities. That's why I gave the example of the soldier with a PS of 9 - a character such as a vagabond with no attribute requirements and a PS of 5 can use weapons or engage in hand to hand combat without penalty, so why should a soldier be unable to do those things properly when their PS is higher? An even better example is the mercenary - they only need a PS of 7, but can do anything the soldier can do - in some cases even better. So why penalise the soldier with a PS of 9 if a merc with a PS of 7 can do just fine?

Does a longbow require a PS of 10 to use? I don't think so. You need a PS of 10 to select the longbowman OCC, but anyone can pick up and fire a longbow even if they don't have the WP. Yes, it would certainly make sense for a longbow to have a strength requirement, but I don't know of a rule in Palladium Fantasy that states it. If somebody wanted to introduce one, that would be a house rule.

Same with the loss of IQ due to "brain damage". The penalty for suffering brain damage due to being comatose it to lose IQ points. That's it. If you want to introduce additional penalties as a house rule, then that is up to you, but by the book nothing else happens, so just leave it at that. In my opinion there's no need to attempt to replicate the realism of brain damage in the game. Whatever type of brain damage it is that Palladium rules you suffer, its the type that causes you to drop 2 IQ points with no other symptoms. Phew!

There's no need to create limitations on what weapons a character can use if their PS drops unless you have already introduced them for characters who already have a low PS. What's the difference?

Basically, most attributes in Palladium have very little affect on character and gameplay. I don't like it, but that's how the rules are written. If you want to create lots of new rules in your game to make attributes more relevant, then go right ahead - it would probably be an improvement. Then the effect of losing attribute points would be more significant and be simple to monitor. If you have not introduced attribute-related house rules, then trying to make them matter just for the coma-related minuses I think is a mistake.

If the question is should a character be unable to use their OCC abilities or skills if their attributes drop below requirements my answer is no. The rules as written (or not!) leave it at that.
If the question is do you think that it would be cool to introduce a load of new house rules making attributes more important (including acquired attribute penalties) and governing exactly what items can be used by characters of certain strengths then my answer is sure, if you like the idea then go right ahead!

In 1E, the soldier gains their extra attacks per melee one level sooner than the mercenary does through their hand to hand training. They have a +1 to damage advantage over the mercenary over the course of their career. They have a +1 parry/dodge advantage over the mercenary over the course of their career. They also have a better crit chance at 18-20 over the mercenary at 19-20. They also have a slightly larger selection of weapon proficiencies with paired weapons only costing one skill instead of 2 for the mercenary. The only thing the mercenary has (eventually) that the soldier doesn't is a kick attack, which is only really useful if you are being forced to fight with your hands tied behind your back or something. No, the soldier is superior to the mercenary (at least in 1E, which is what I use) in almost every way, and if it meant keeping the perks of the hand to hand training, bearing some penalties might be very well worth it.

The gameplay advantage of the mercenary is that you are picking up your fighting skills from whatever you see and whoever you happen to meet. You have the freedom to go anywhere any time you wish unless you are currently under some sort of contract with someone. The soldier will have a structured training regimen, and will be under the employ of someone that will be making sure that training is provided, and will expect them to be doing as they have been ordered. I have no idea how other people run these things, but I don't look at that as fluff. If a soldier is not employed with the ability to get superior training to the mercenary, then they will end up becoming a mercenary as their occupation.

I don't see this as making a bunch of house rules. The rules for injuries may be labeled optional, but they are provided in the book. These are not house rules. The minimum stat requirements for a class are in the book. These are not house rules. We may disagree on whether OCC descriptions are rules or not. It seems to me that the only real definite disagreement is whether those stat requirements mean anything after character generation. I see them as the minimum required to properly fulfill the tasks of that occupation.

If those stat requirements mean nothing after character generation, then injuries are totally meaningless unless it is reducing an exceptional stat, which would then possibly reduce bonuses. If injuries mean nothing, then (in my opinion) there is absolutely no reason to have abilities like soothing touch and psychic surgery, because they have no reason to ever be used. But, if someone is using the optional injury rules, then the injuries have to be meaningful, right?

I'm not sure how much of this comes down to how we each view the characters. Are the characters the focus of the game universe? Are they superior to every other mortal in the world other than specific ones the GM creates to challenge them? That is definitely how D&D or Pathfinder treat player characters. Characters getting knocked unconscious isn't something to dread, but just a part of the normal adventuring life, and a simple AoE heal will wake up that unconscious PC. All they need to do is grab their fallen weapon and get back into the fight! Personally, I don't particularly like that style of play, and so I don't run my games that way. I want my players to have a feeling of dread as their hit points drop, and I want them to truly examine the world around them and see if there are ways to deal with a problem without the use of force. Using the rules of the game, I have made injuries meaningful. As I explained earlier, there is also a way to recover from them.

So you don't like this style of play? Great. Don't run your games this way. I will continue to do so (as long as I and my players enjoy this sort of thing), and Vek can make whatever choices fit the style of game Vek (and players) are going for.

I must admit, I presumed that the original poster was discussing second edition. I figure that unless it is otherwise mentioned, it can be assumed we are talking about the current issue of the game. I may be wrong. So none of my comments are related to anything in first edition. Check out second edition merc and soldier for reference.

I didn't say that attribute requirements or penalties for injury are house rules. I only said that to make the penalties impact the character more would require some house rules. As the rules don't say anything about losing your OCC abilities if you drop below requirements, I don't think you do. Before you say it, I know that it is a poor argument to say "it doesn't say you do, so that must mean you don't", but in this case I think it is logical - it is much too significant a penalty to not be able to use any skills or abilities of your class if you drop below requirements. Any decision to limit some abilities but allow others, raise XP requirements or any other ideas are all valid ways of applying additional injury penalties to your game, but they are house rules. That's not a bad thing - house rule to your heart's content!

It seems to me that injuries are totally meaningless unless you have an exceptional attribute or it concerns an attribute that effects something like how much you can carry or how fast you can run. That is one of the most annoying things about Palladium's rules - that some attributes have little effect on gameplay. This doesn't only factor into injuries, but throughout the game - once your character has been rolled up, an IQ of 5 is no different than an IQ of 15 (there are probably a few exceptions to this hidden somewhere, so don't quote me, but you get the idea!). I don't like it, but that's the way it is. I think your style of gameplay, as you put it, is better, but palladium rules apparently don't!

Father Goose wrote:It's all about doing what is best for your game and group.

This cannot be said enough. Know your players. Personally, I have had players pitch a fit when things became too difficult for their characters. They want to have fun, so know when the fun is waning due to making the game too difficult for the players.

For PF1 I might have the char loose a spell per day or forget how to cast a spell. This might be instead of loosing IQ.

Was just looking at something unconnected to this, but I found the following that might be of interest. One of the bio-wizard parasites in Splynn Dimensional Market dramatically reduces the host's I.Q. when it is removed. It goes on to say "If the I.Q. attribute drops below the host's O.C.C. requirements, it takes him twice as long to increase in level of experience."
Something to think about for those who do want to impose penalties as a result of I.Q. loss in PFRPG.