RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
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.
If it's an issue, and you want to use this variant, you could always use -1d8.
I use this rule. I like this rule. It rarely comes up, at least so far. I imagine it might come up more as my party goes up in level. It's happened only once so far, when the barbarian was hit by Slay Living, and the party is 8th-9th level.
Anyone know why this became cannon? Back in 3.0 it was optional. Maybe we should put this rule in a cannon and fire it back to optional land.
LOL! Good one.
While I wouldn't do away with the rule, I'd save it exclusively for falls, raging infernos, and similar hazards where the occasional muchkin might want to defy all commonsense under the pretense of "I have enough HP, I'll be fine".
|
|
Anyone know why this became cannon? Back in 3.0 it was optional. Maybe we should put this rule in a cannon and fire it back to optional land.LOL! Good one.
While I wouldn't do away with the rule, I'd save it exclusively for falls, raging infernos, and similar hazards where the occasional muchkin might want to defy all commonsense under the pretense of "I have enough HP, I'll be fine".
ohh i would love to see die that munchkin!
i agree leave the rule alone, just mark it as optional, still i will push them down to -1 not dead
in a ragin inferno that is one more round of "life" in massive damage... well you canbe saved if needed by
|
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.
Well, 4E removed a lot of "non-heroic" things, and I wouldn't want PF to follow suit. We have used 'Massive Damage' rolls every now and then, and the *only* time I can remember anyone dying of it was a monster (and it was a lucky crit, by the way).
I'm definitely voting that it should remain, because it adds a bit more realism and danger to combats, and yet comes up very rarely. I'm far, *FAR* more concerned with the other 'Save-or-Die'-mechanics in the game -- such as a bunch of spells (Disintegrate et al.) and certain class abilities (e.g. a 20th level NPC bard could kill one 20th level non-spellcaster PC per round).
|
I like the idea of something like Massive Damage, but I'm not a fan of Save or Die effects, and it's really doubtful I'd use Massive Damage as it's currently written.
What if the penalty for failing the Fort save is gaining the Dazed condition (effectively taking you out of combat for a round), with the minimum damage threshold equal to your CON score?
The "minimum 50" damage to trigger the Massive Damage save seems kind of arbitrary, and having to make this save for taking damage greater than your CON score (as well as equal to at least half your total HP) means you'd start rolling these saves at lower levels, for a much less Save or Die effect. Your companions could either protect you long enough to clear the ringing from your ears, or try to grab you and drag you away, without having to also worry about who can heal you in the middle of combat (assuming you even have healing with you).
If I just got tagged for half my hit point total in damage, I'd sure rather be running away (or at least fighting back) than standing around waiting to get hit again by whoever just hit me that hard. Though if Dazed isn't penalty enough you could instead become Stunned by failing the save. That would make you a lot easier to hit on the next round (assuming you didn't have friends there to either haul you off or keep the bad guys away), which would be that much closer to the original Massive Damage intent as I'm sure you'd be an even bigger target on Bad Guy's next turn.
Optionally, you could also allow a feat like Endurance to increase the minimum damage to twice your CON score, so you'd have a way to increase the threshold for triggering a Massive Damage save for individual characters, and most likely the combat types.
I will admit that I use the rule. More often or not, it comes up when a PC pulls of a spectacular critical or spell. It gives the PCs a chance to pull of a "quick" kill.
Nonetheless, I think it is a good optional rule. It is especially useful, if tied to massive environmental damage effects.
|
|
I like the idea of something like Massive Damage, but I'm not a fan of Save or Die effects, and it's really doubtful I'd use Massive Damage as it's currently written.
After some further thought, I'm planning to try this for Massive Damage in my game:
When you take an amount of damage from a Critical Hit that equals or exceeds your Massive Damage threshold, immediately roll a DC 15 Fortitude save. If you fail this Fortitude save, you gain the Dazed condition for 1 round. If you fail this Fortitude save by five or more, you instead gain the Stunned condition for 1 round.
Your Massive Damage threshold is equal to your Constitution score plus half your full hit point total.
If you have the Endurance feat, you gain a +4 to this Fortitude save.
If you have the Diehard feat, your Massive Damage threshold is equal to twice your Constitution score plus half your full hit point total.
Tying it to a Critical Hit means you won't be rolling Massive Damage saves all the time. Making the Massive Damage threshold equal to CON plus half HP bumps it up a bit, but cleans up the language for the rule (and also means you'll roll these less often).
This could also double as one version of a "Headshot" mechanic - make a critical hit against your enemy, dealing damage at or above his Massive Damage threshold, and he's possibly Dazed (or even Stunned) long enough for you and/or your companions to have another whack at him.
|
|
I'd be okay if massive damage saves that were failed reduced someone to -1 hit points and dying. The main idea is one shot can take someone down -- it doesn't have to be death, necessarily (although I would run it that way).
I'd also be okay with the massive damage save being an optional rule. I understand it's not for everyone's game. Right now, I just find the DC 15 save a bit simplistic.
|
|
I'd also be okay with the massive damage save being an optional rule. I understand it's not for everyone's game. Right now, I just find the DC 15 save a bit simplistic.What about DC 10 + attacker's BAB?
Ugh. That only assumes you take damage from an opponent. And why should it be easier to save vs a rogue's 50 hp of damage than a fighter's?
How about DC 10 + 1 per 10 points of damage taken?
It was mentioned above. Why not scrap it for attacks and spells and maybe replace it with a "Death by common sense" rule, it would apply to things like falling damage, submerged in lava, that sort of thing. So falling and lava damage of 50 points or greater triggers the check, and the DC is 10 plus the amount by which the damage exceeds 50 points?
Again the only time a use the rule is for the "common sense" scenarios.
|
I have had my dwarf barbarian die to this at level 12. (With 150ish HP to spare, and at the beginning of a raid, so we had to fall back and try again a few days later.) Now the druid memorizes a spell so there can be a do-over if this happens again.
Don't roll a one is a basic law of the adventurous lifestyle...
Well the new massive damage rules in beta are that it's half your HP in damage min 50 damage, if you had 150 left to spare you were either using 3.5 rules, or you were hit for 150 damage in a single blow. if the former well the new rules already prevent that, if the latter, I'm sorry 150 hp in a single blow is such a large blow I agree with the save.
I never remember this rule anyway. The players or monster takes their damage and the game continues.
Kill this rule.
Besides, High-level play is the only time this rule really would see play, and it plays slowly enough as it is.
I like this rule and use it in all my games. It's come out quite a few times, and no one I've played with has ever felt like the game was cheapened by it.
On a side note- I also agree that I don't want to see PF go the way of 4th Ed and remove all traits that have been labeled "unheroic" just because players are afraid of seeing character death.
Back to why I like this rule though; I have found it does two things.
1) Increases fighter/warrior player morale to know that they have the potential to inflict a save or die roll on a monster or enemy, particularly because they never run out of "fighting potential" while a spellcaster has finite spells per day.
2) It has made for the most memorable bragging rights when a particularly tough and terrifying encounter has been won by the "lucky blow". The tales get told over and over again with laughter, and when players are having fun, I am having fun.
3) It keeps the PC's on their toes realizing that they can always suffer death, regardless of how high level play changes the tactical dynamics of the game. Without that tension, my players would not enjoy the game nearly as much. There needs to be a sense of risk, even in the most favorable and casual of violent encounters.
|
Anyone know why this became cannon? Back in 3.0 it was optional. Maybe we should put this rule in a cannon and fire it back to optional land.LOL! Good one.
While I wouldn't do away with the rule, I'd save it exclusively for falls, raging infernos, and similar hazards where the occasional muchkin might want to defy all commonsense under the pretense of "I have enough HP, I'll be fine".
Thanks. Ah, this does make me nostalgic for the old 1st Ed/boxed set campaign where my high level fighter (35th level?) was wished into orbit by an evil wizard, took reentry burn damage, falling damage, your-impact-made-a-crater damage, got up, dusted himself off, stared down the evil wizard, and said "Is that all you have?"
The wizard immediately surrendered.
Ah, the crazy days of ludicrously high level play...
**Continues stroll down memory lane**
Back to your regularly scheduled topic...
I don't feel this rule adds any more drama to the game than using "and then they all died" as the conclusion to a story. The drama of combat lies in the tracking of resources, whether they're hit points, spells or whatever. Tossing in an arbitrary death check just seems like a killjoy, especially for a barbarian or fighter whose job is to suck up huge amounts of damage.
Some other points
• At epic levels, massive damage saves are made more frequently. Combat does not need any more die rolls.
• At low levels, a massive hit against a monster can ruin the drama of an encounter. Sure, it might feel awesome to take out Strahd in one hit after months of harassment, but is that a fulfilling final fight? Was it worth the weeks of preparation? Probably not.
• At epic levels, many monsters are immune to massive damage. All deities with a divine rank of 1 or higher are similarly immune. At this point, massive damage becomes a PC-only threat, making it seem that much more arbitrary.
Some suggestions:
• Make Massive damage optional again. Those who want it can keep it.
• Introduce a feat in the Toughness tree that gives a +4 bonus to saves vs. massive damage, and negates the auto-fail on a 1. Make this a fighter feat and give it to Barbarians as a bonus feat later on.
I house-ruled massive damage to be 1 point of Con damage, no save; and the massive damage threshold to be 2xHD + Con. This makes it both relevant at low levels, and not painfully stupid at high levels. A little more bookkeeping though, and I never played it out past level 12 or so.
|
|
The rule does have one useful effect for scenario writers; it justifies NPCs dying for plot-related reasons.
Otherwise, the mission briefing breaks down into "What do you mean, the Duke was killed by one shot? Who shot him? A storm giant siege crew, with a Huge ballista?"
That shot would still have to do 50+ damage. It would probably be easier to have the duke being killed by a critical hit and/or a poisoned arrow. And not everyone needs hundreds of hit points. Even if the dunke was a 10th level aristocrat, with a constitution of 10 his hit points would be about 45.
|
|
That shot would still have to do 50+ damage. It would probably be easier to have the duke being killed by a critical hit and/or a poisoned arrow. And not everyone needs hundreds of hit points. Even if the duke was a 10th level aristocrat, with a constitution of 10 his hit points would be about 45.
That is true.
But when an NPC has been established as an able, medium to high level character (via their class abilities), who worked their way through the ranks, it's difficult to retcon them as a feeble aristocrat who bought their position.An arrow can easily deal over 50hp, if it's loosed by a favoured ranger, from a mighty Str-adjusted bane bow.
Most players are aware they are playing a game, and are willing to go along with a plot-driven twist, as long as it doesn't totally fly in the face of the rules in use. As long as the possibility exists to one-shot a PC or NPC, regardless of how rare that may be, they can live with the assumption that the archer rolled a 20, and the target rolled a 1. The more genre-savvy among them may go "Riiigghht...", and give you a knowing wink, but still follow the 'adventure this way' sign with their integrity intact.
Whereas, if you totally remove the possibility, then the players know they've been railroaded, which leaves a bad taste for many.