RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
It's still DC 15, and now it requires a single attack that does 50 hp minimum and at least half of a target's total hit points. If this rule is worth keeping at all, the DC should scale somehow. A DC 15 fort save isn't very difficult to make, especially at the high levels where massive damage is likely to come up.
Since hp vary so much by class and level, I'd suggest that if the attack does half of total hp, then the save is DC 15, if the attack does 75% of total hp, the save is DC 20, and if the attack does 90% or more of total hp, the save is DC 25.
I'd also be okay with simply removing the rule entirely since it actually causes a death so rarely, I don't think it would be missed (and then it would free up a bit of space for something more worthwhile).
Well, it seems signifigant for low-HP, Poor Fort Save classes/creatures.
If a character/creature will auto-pass the save anyways (+14 Fort Save or higher), then you DON'T need to roll it currently. "Removing it completely" is one option, but I DON'T think this should become MORE involved than it is currently. And it DOES have relevance vs. "Squishy" classes/ types.
I'm happy with it as-is.
The massive damage rule stinks. No one wants to roll a die hoping to not roll a 1 every time a monster hits you. Please remove it
Honestly the only time we use/remember the roll is for falling damage, its that last gasp at realism for falling several hundred feat
|
I agree this rule should just go. No one wants to die because they roll a 1. And even if their Fort save is +14 or higher they still have to roll because a roll of 1 always fails.
My idea of Pathfinder RPG is a game for heroes to be and do heroic things. Death should be heroic, not a bad die roll cause the GM got lucky.
It's still DC 15, and now it requires a single attack that does 50 hp minimum and at least half of a target's total hit points. If this rule is worth keeping at all, the DC should scale somehow. A DC 15 fort save isn't very difficult to make, especially at the high levels where massive damage is likely to come up.
Since hp vary so much by class and level, I'd suggest that if the attack does half of total hp, then the save is DC 15, if the attack does 75% of total hp, the save is DC 20, and if the attack does 90% or more of total hp, the save is DC 25.
I'd also be okay with simply removing the rule entirely since it actually causes a death so rarely, I don't think it would be missed (and then it would free up a bit of space for something more worthwhile).
Have never used this rule, can't recall a DM having used this rule. I beleive this was a carry over from 2nd editions few nods to realism. Please ditch it. It is just one more extra roll, and is one more way for evil dms to kill pcs off.
Not that there is anything wrong with that!
Director of Game Design
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an evil GM, you would think that I would be for this rule, but to be honest, it is not one that I use.
That said, it is a current 3.5 rule so I am hesitant to kill it without reason. Does this rule serve any valuable purpose? Are there any other reason it should go?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
What rule? *Looks around* Nope, don't know what your talking about here.
Seriously though, even when we remember it we just ignore it. This rule makes sense, until you stop and realize that if you fail then you die. Its just a wiz/sorc slaying rule anyway. No Fighter or divine type will fail it after a few levels (barring 1's)
|
I think the save vs massive damage is a good rule, because it adds suspense and fear at higher levels. Otherwise we go back to the halycon AD&D days of 12th level characters leaping off cliffs, knowing they cannot die.
That being said, the DC 15 check is a bit simplistic -- it turns into a game of who can roll a 1. I believe the best solution is to scale the DC, 15 + 2 per 10 points above your massive damage threshhold. That makes it a bit scary (and it's OGL, having been in Unearthed Arcana).
As well, they don't spell out the massive damage threshhold changing due to creature size -- that should appear in the rules, I should think.
As an evil GM, you would think that I would be for this rule, but to be honest, it is not one that I use.
That said, it is a current 3.5 rule so I am hesitant to kill it without reason. Does this rule serve any valuable purpose? Are there any other reason it should go?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
When I was younger, I loved rules like this, but honestly, after seeing it in play, and after reading Skip Williams interesting editorial on this in Kobold Quarterly, and very specifically after seeing a monk drop dead from massive damage from an elder black pudding when he still had quite a few hit points left . . . I'm not sure its really needed.
It complicated the session as well, as I had to figure out how "dead" he was from the point of view of the Breath of Life spell . . . would he be at -con? I ruled that he got his hit points back from 0 instead of -con just because it seemed like a double penalty to kill him while he still had hit points and dock him an extra 14 hit points on top of it.
|
|
As an evil GM, you would think that I would be for this rule, but to be honest, it is not one that I use.
That said, it is a current 3.5 rule so I am hesitant to kill it without reason. Does this rule serve any valuable purpose? Are there any other reason it should go?
I am sure it has value, to a few people. If you want to run that uber tough campaign, it is defenitely a valuable asset. But who wants to be that GM that looks Bob in the eye and tells him that Florina his 4th level Gnome Sorceress just failed her fort save?
|
|
Does this rule serve any valuable purpose? Are there any other reason it should go?
You could instead tie it to specific events that, in the real world, either kill you outright or cause massive physical damage. Things like falling, avalanches, lava, etc. As a DM, I hate that higher level monsters can normally deal single-hit damage that has the potential to be save-or-die. I also hate the mid-level Fighter that calls out for "massive damage save!" every time he does 50+ damage.
I say give it a specific case rewrite or get rid of it altogether.
-Skeld
If you plan on including a few optional rules, you could just make it "optional."
|
|
Who wants to be the GM that looks into the eyes of the player of a 19th level dwarven fighter who just rolled a 1 and say "you're dead from a black pudding."
OK I would and laughing all the while... BUT I find it the most unsatisfying way possible to kill a PC.
The ONLY time we ever used it was in a PC vs PC fight. Cleric hit the Rogue for just over 50 points with a melee weapon. Rogue drops dead. One shot, one kill. Rogue had LOTS more HP. (we were about level 18 when this happened).
But in essence it does not even simulate reality. Anyone on the boards have Hit Points? Some of you are military types. Can you take a half dozen shots or so from an AK and just roll with the attacks and dodge and just get flesh wounds?
This rule serves no real useful role. It should go. Almost everyone ignores it.
IF it HAS to stay at all, then it must scale in some way. I would not just have it scalable DC but instead a scalable threshold. 50 points damage DC 15 for low levels; 75 points DC 20 for mid; and 100 points DC 25 for high levels.
|
|
Does this rule serve any valuable purpose? Are there any other reason it should go?You could instead tie it to specific events that, in the real world, either kill you outright or cause massive physical damage. Things like falling, avalanches, lava, etc. As a DM, I hate that higher level monsters can normally deal single-hit damage that has the potential to be save-or-die. I also hate the mid-level Fighter that calls out for "massive damage save!" every time he does 50+ damage.
I say give it a specific case rewrite or get rid of it altogether.
-Skeld
HOLY CRAP!
How many times have I forgotten to do that!
see, it should just go...
As an evil GM, you would think that I would be for this rule, but to be honest, it is not one that I use.
That said, it is a current 3.5 rule so I am hesitant to kill it without reason. Does this rule serve any valuable purpose? Are there any other reason it should go?
This is the rule we've often talked about it and rarely used. The situations in which any single attack consistently deals more than 50 points of damage is limited almost solely to the realm of maximized spells. When you add in the fact that when you finally reach levels where a critical hit would be dealing over 50 points of damage, 50hp is almost never half of the target's hitpoints.
It doesn't help that the number scales for the creature's size.
My thought: Make it a variant. Give it a sidebar and let those who want to reward freak critical hits and maximized fireballs even more use it.
My thought: Make it a variant. Give it a sidebar and let those who want to reward freak critical hits and maximized fireballs even more use it.
Yes... I like this idea too.
|
As an evil GM, you would think that I would be for this rule, but to be honest, it is not one that I use.
That said, it is a current 3.5 rule so I am hesitant to kill it without reason. Does this rule serve any valuable purpose? Are there any other reason it should go?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
There are several reasons to abandon this rule:
- Firstly, it punishes because of poor luck more so than poor play.
- Secondly, hit points are just an abstraction anyway. The only damage that is critical is the damage that either knocks you unconscious or to or below -10. If this happens, then you can describe the damage as "massive".
- Thirdly, there are so many inconsistencies in regards to the restoring and depletion of hit points. Massive damage rules are just a band aid that does not work that well and doesn't really fix the whole hit point thing anyway.
- Fourthly, it is a complication to the game that truly is not needed.
If a PC gets hit for enough damage that it kills them, then that is massive damage, not an enemy or PC "luckily" scoring over 50hp of damage.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
|
|
- Firstly, it punishes because of poor luck more so than poor play.
While I can see the merits of your other arguments, I just don't buy this one. Smart players minimize their chances of meeting big-arse monsters head on, and prepare to fight them to their advantage. Good play isn't just walking into a situation and soaking up the damage.
Yes, an unlucky shot can take someone out. But in my experience, the one time this happened in our 17 level campaign, he was resurrected, no issues.
In just under 20 years of playing DnD (not that many, relatively, to others playing here, I realize!), never used massive damage rules. In playing 3.5, never used this rule, have not seen it used, and I play in, usually, two campaigns a week.
It makes no difference if it's there or not, to me. I just never intend to use it even if it is.
It would be nice if that space was devoted to something more useful, though. :)
If Light/2H modifers were added back in (I presume it's just overlooked and not modified from 3.5)
it could state "Light/2H weapons have +/-4 to CMB both attempting a Disarm and Resisting one."
or if Maneuver AC is adopted "+/-4 to Disarm Attacks and to Maneuver AC vs. Disarm Attempts."
Off with its head! The rule, that is.
Where the rule gets even more unnecessary is when every Maximized Fireball potentially becomes save-or-die. Remember, spells can cause massive damage, too.
Also, the rule becomes counterproductive in the case of failing against, say, Disintegrate, taking a whole bunch of damage, but managing to live, and... promptly dropping dead from the second Fort save, courtesy of massive damage.
It also penalizes two-weapon fighters, as with massive damage in the picture, a smaller number of higher-damage attacks is superior to a larger number of smaller-damage attacks.
And then there's the DM side of the table. It really stinks to create an intricate encounter, only to roll 1 against massive damage and bring the session to a screeching halt.
Unless you're already ignoring the rule.
-Matt
DM: "The mob of players attacks, possible crit, crit confirmed... it's a colossal mob, that's normally 4d10 damage, so I get 8d10 damage... 54 damage, how many HP you got Massive Damage Rule?"
MDR: "Um, my max is 100."
DM: "Roll your fort save."
MDR: "Uh no, a 3! DRATS MY CONSTRUCT STATUS!"
DM" "I now pronounce you dead, GET OUT OF MY GAME!"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
hehe got to have fun with this one.
I think that this rule does kill some of the fun of the game. Criticals become even crazier because once you hit mid-level, any critical is a 1/20 chance of an instant kill. It just doesnt feel right to kill (no pun intended) death effect spells and keep this rule in, get rid of it.
If you really want to keep it, then my suggestion is this. Completely revamp it. Make it *really* hard to pull off, and *really* deadly when it does happen.
I have used it a few times, it happened on critical hits and one time from a fall.
It added tension and suspense to the game.
And I don't get the argument of "I don't want to die because I rolled a 1 on a die". Recently a character in a campaign of mine died because I rolled a critical hit with a bow. What's the difference ?
D&D is by far the game the less realistic than any other RPG I know, is it that troublesome to have a rule like that ?
With raise dead with almost no penalty now (negative levels you can get rid off with restoration, the game is less lethal than ever. You can't lose your character. D&D characters are now immortal.
Well it seems that PRPG is going to take another route I don't like.
As an evil GM, you would think that I would be for this rule, but to be honest, it is not one that I use.
That said, it is a current 3.5 rule so I am hesitant to kill it without reason. Does this rule serve any valuable purpose? Are there any other reason it should go?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I have usually removed this rule from my game in recent campaigns. I don't see it serves any good purpose. Also, in very high-level games it is not at all unusual to take 50 damage from hits or spells all the time, and having a 5% flat chance of dying each time seems excessive and unnecessary to me.
I vote for official removal of this rule.
You know, the 'Lone Wolf RPG' from Mongoose Publishing has a 'scalable' rule for the DC of the massive damage; so, if we want to keep Massive Damage, we can change the 'Flat 15' to something like '15 +1 for every 5 points above the massive threshold' or something like that.
(I see that this was already proposed by quest-master, BTW...)
Otherwise, in an high-level game, it would only be called a 'Do-Not-Roll-1-Save' anyway...
You know, the 'Lone Wolf RPG' from Mongoose Publishing has a 'scalable' rule for the DC of the massive damage; so, if we want to keep Massive Damage, we can change the 'Flat 15' to something like '15 +1 for every 5 points above the massive threshold' or something like that.
(I see that this was already proposed by quest-master, BTW...)
Otherwise, in an high-level game, it would only be called a 'Do-Not-Roll-1-Save' anyway...
I like the "scalable" DC.
As an evil GM, you would think that I would be for this rule, but to be honest, it is not one that I use.
That said, it is a current 3.5 rule so I am hesitant to kill it without reason. Does this rule serve any valuable purpose? Are there any other reason it should go?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I do not use this rule when I DM mainly because I have had a character die via it when it was introduced in 2nd Ed. As my character would have (only just) survivied the hit point damage it seemed quite a vindictive way to kill the character - one minute you breathe a sigh of relief that the damage didn't get you only to then have to roll a save or die. Is it really fair to pick on the character who just took a load of damage?
As Pathfinder Beta has mostly changed the save or die spells, keeping this rule would seem to go against current design philosophy.
Combat encounters should be designed to be 'scary' enough without the spectre of having to make an arbitary save or die roll for your already heavily damage character looming over you.
Please, keep the rule. As I use it a lot in High-Level combat to Speed up the game.
I cannot see how having a rule that may kill allready damaged characters off by the whim of a die roll will speed up play.
Do you mean that you only use it against the monsters the PCs are fighting?
And I don't get the argument of "I don't want to die because I rolled a 1 on a die". Recently a character in a campaign of mine died because I rolled a critical hit with a bow. What's the difference ?
The difference is that if you are hit by a critical but lucky enough to actually survive the damage but it is over the threshold you then have to make a save or die anyway. It is if the DM isn't happy his damage wasn't enough and so wants to take another swipe at you.
Aren't the vagaries of damage rolling enough to threaten characters without having to make those who have just survived the hit point damage having to make a save or loose their characters?
The difference is that if you are hit by a critical but lucky enough to actually survive the damage but it is over the threshold you then have to make a save or die anyway. It is if the DM isn't happy his damage wasn't enough and so wants to take another swipe at you.
Aren't the vagaries of damage rolling enough to threaten characters without having to make those who have just survived the hit point damage having to make a save or loose their characters?
Sorry I don't see it that way. If the DM isn't satisfied with the damage, he can always fudge the roll. If he wants to kill players, it's very easy (but he might end DMing alone). And if the rule is applied to PCs, it is applied to monsters too. I have a player who scored a critical on a bone devil which ended at more than 50HP. I rolled the massive damage save, and it was too low. Imagine the joy of the player when I told him that he had killed the devil with one blow.
And it's not save or lose your character. He will be raised from the dead very easily, especially at high levels.
I'm not certain whether or not this rule should stay or go. On one hand it adds some realism, because hit points are abstract. This represents the fact that, yes if you're enemy actually gets a good hit on you it should kill even a high-level character. On the other hand realism really shouldn't take priority over gameplay. Getting killed in one shot is probably not a very fun thing to go through, though that may not always be true. I say make it an optional rule and consider the variants from UA.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/massaveDamageThresholdsAndRes ults.htm
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
It also seems odd to keep the rule after changing the save or die spells and effects to do hit point damage instead of a single saving throw and you're dead.
At the very least the massive damage rule should drop you to -1 hp if you fail, as someone earlier suggested.
|
|
As an evil GM, you would think that I would be for this rule, but to be honest, it is not one that I use.
That said, it is a current 3.5 rule so I am hesitant to kill it without reason. Does this rule serve any valuable purpose? Are there any other reason it should go?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
actually while i don't use it that oftern i preferred it when it was 25 hps in a single blow, but i agree DC higher than 15 would penalize wizards and rogues, but in general its almost unecesary for combat classes like the fighter or paladin...
i know it has its criteria since system shock from 2nd Ed and maybe older...
so i am not sure if it should go... but right now its pretty unecesary and maybe it should go
actually in sunday game a player was reading that rule and todl me "if they had done me that same % of damage in high leveles i would be as much as death"
other way to use it would be if a single blow does as much as 75% of the character's health then they need to make a System shock (fortitude roll) or fall dying (-1) instead of instantaneusly dead
any thoughs?
And it's not save or lose your character. He will be raised from the dead very easily, especially at high levels.
True - though I think that raising is too easy - but that is on a different thread :)
My character was raised - but in those days you lost a con point :(
None the less it is still not much fun as a player to have your character suddenly killed despite surviving the damage. Looking at the rest of this thread I seem to be the only 'victim' of this rule - anyone else who has had a character die due to it care to chip in?
At the very least the massive damage rule should drop you to -1 hp if you fail, as someone earlier suggested.
If it is to be kept in I would rather this version which does allow for saving the hapless character.
A reasonable compromise :)
|
|
At the very least the massive damage rule should drop you to -1 hp if you fail, as someone earlier suggested.If it is to be kept in I would rather this version which does allow for saving the hapless character.
A reasonable compromise :)
inteersting, i am not the only one (yes i amalzy and don't read the full thread, need to work)
i agree -1 is ok with me that way they are oput fo the fight but able to be saved, but this must jump the Die Hard and other classes and racesabilities to fight to -10 or it just lacks the point of no killing them outright
As an evil GM, you would think that I would be for this rule, but to be honest, it is not one that I use.
That said, it is a current 3.5 rule so I am hesitant to kill it without reason. Does this rule serve any valuable purpose? Are there any other reason it should go?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Well, I would be hesitant to remove the rule too. I would much rather get rid of auto-fail of saving throws when rolling a 1 (and not just because of this rule, but also variou save or suck effects). Plus, instead of death, failing the saving throw should bring a character to 'disabled' status at 0 hit points.
True - though I think that raising is too easy - but that is on a different thread :)
My character was raised - but in those days you lost a con point :(
None the less it is still not much fun as a player to have your character suddenly killed despite surviving the damage. Looking at the rest of this thread I seem to be the only 'victim' of this rule - anyone else who has had a character die due to it care to chip in?
Yes in those days it was even bitter. Loss of 1 point con, not automatically success in raise dead, limited number of ressurections... :)
I don't think it's fun to have your character killed, but that's need to be part of the game, or you will not have any thrills in playing it.
In all my campaigns, I don't remenber a character dying from massive damage, but the rule came into play quite a few times. It happened two times in an adventure to a soulknife (lot of HPs, but a poor fortitude save). He had to roll a lot higher than 1 (don't remember exactly) and he survived both.
I remember it happening one time to a monster (the bone devil I was talking about).
I like some of the variant massive damage from UA, because 50 points is not going to happen often, except at high levels. At lower levels, you will die from the HP loss anyway.
I didn't see the change in PRPG that it needs also to be at least half the max HP of the target. I have a barbarian with 190HPs, he will not suffer often from massive damage if I use this PRPG rule...
Most RPG games are more reallistic and more lethal. I don't want that in D&D, but I still want some suspense and the possibility of death. It's too easy to ignore danger because you have all your HPs and can have them restored very easily. And it's certainly not interesting at least for me.
|
I like the rule, I wouldn't scale the DC as I like higher level characters worrying about it less. But I do want it to only apply to non-magic damage, spells already have their saves involved, making this a rule for the martial classes instead and helps bring parity, but I don't like the idea of getting rid of it.
As a side note, I never even played in older editions of the game, but I houserule in the loss of 1 con point when you die. I took it back in 3.5 because level loss I learned WAS enough of a blow as eventually a sorcerous who just couldn't learn good tactics wound up several levels below the rest of the party before finally retiring the character. but now that level loss is so easy to get rid of, I'll be bringing back the 1 con rule.
Maybe I am an evil DM, but I want death to mean something. oh and the high level spell ressurection brings them back with no penalty. so it is possible to get the revolving door still at really high levels. My players don't tend to complain though and that's with me using the Massive damage rules and harsh death penalties. I also use 20-20-20= insta kill, 1-1-1= insta death (I.e. if you roll three in a row) as I use fumbles and crits decks.
At the very least the massive damage rule should drop you to -1 hp if you fail, as someone earlier suggested.If it is to be kept in I would rather this version which does allow for saving the hapless character.
A reasonable compromise :)
What about -1D10 as a rule in UA ?
With this rule, you don't know how much time you have to save your fellow.Personnally I like it.
i would prefer not a roll of 10 would basicaaly kill the characteras much as a -9What about -1D10 as a rule in UA ?
With this rule, you don't know how much time you have to save your fellow.
Personnally I like it.
With this you have 90% being dying on failing your save instead of actual death. Isn't it an improvement ?
Also in PRPG you die at -10 or -CON if it's better for you. A character with at least 11 CON, will not die on a result of 10 on this D10.