Just to point out, the rules for Massive Damage have been changed in Beta PFRPG:
Page 141:
"Massive Damage: If you ever sustain a single attack that deals an amount of damage equal to half your total hit points (minimum 50 points of damage) or more and it doesn’t kill you outright, you must make a DC 15 Fortitude save."So, basically a 103 hp Fighter who sustains 50 hp of damage laughs and walks away (now, if he takes 51 or more hp, this could be a problem again, but still...)
Hm... also means that level one wizard that took a 10 con and just got 3 points of damage now has to make a DC 15 fortitude save...
Hm... also means that level one wizard that took a 10 con and just got 3 points of damage now has to make a DC 15 fortitude save...
No, since the 'minimum 50 points of damage' still applies, in this case.
Basically, if your character has less than 102 maximum hp, everything is like it was in 3.x .
If your character has more maximum hp, you apply the 'half maximum value'.
This is much better (IMHO) than the optional rule of 3.x which used different Massive Threshold values based on the size of the creature. Now, if you are (let's say) a Barbarian with 195 hp you have a Massive Threshold of 97 hp of damage - regardless you are a Huge Barbarian, a Medium Barbarian, or a Tiny Barbarian; previously, in 3.x, a Tiny Barbarian with 195 hp had a Massive Threshold of 50 (standard rules) or 30 (alternative rules), while an Ogre Barbarian with 70 hp had a Massive Threshold of 50 (standard rules) or 60 (alternative rules).
|
The rules never restrict the cure spells. If it's HP damage, they can heal it.
The rules never restrict bed rest, either. If it's HP damage, bed rest can heal it. So with your interpretation, and your cinematic description of damage, a week in bed can cure having your arm ripped off and your internal organs ruptured.
Hm... also means that level one wizard that took a 10 con and just got 3 points of damage now has to make a DC 15 fortitude save...
No, since the 'minimum 50 points of damage' still applies, in this case.
Basically, if your character has less than 102 maximum hp, everything is like it was in 3.x .
If your character has more maximum hp, you apply the 'half maximum value'.
This is much better (IMHO) than the optional rule of 3.x which used different Massive Threshold values based on the size of the creature. Now, if you are (let's say) a Barbarian with 195 hp you have a Massive Threshold of 97 hp of damage - regardless you are a Huge Barbarian, a Medium Barbarian, or a Tiny Barbarian; previously, in 3.x, a Tiny Barbarian with 195 hp had a Massive Threshold of 50 (standard rules) or 30 (alternative rules), while an Ogre Barbarian with 70 hp had a Massive Threshold of 50 (standard rules) or 60 (alternative rules).
*Facepalm* yeah I noted that when I got to work this morning, I blame sleep deprivation.
|
We don't get to add mechanical effects to spells just because we want them to have them; spells do what they say on the tin, and nothing else.
Option one; as above, in which case not only do spells not 'heal ripped out teeth' unless specifically stated to do so, but *attacks* don't knock out teeth (or otherwise remove limbs or damage organs) unless specifically stated to do so *in their rules* (such as a vorpal sword).
Option two; the DM likes the idea of more flavorfull combat, and teeth getting knocked out, ears bitten off and fingers broken are relatively common, in which case, *he's added something to the game, already* and, unless he wants his player's characters to look like the women from the end of Death Becomes Her, held together with duct tape and spirit gum, he should also allow spells lower level than Regenerate to restore the stuff he's arbitrarily chopping off of the heroes.
IMO. Fair is fair, after all. If the DM taketh away (body parts), the DM should also giveth (lower level body-part-restoration magics). Unless he's playing Call of Cthulhu or Paranoia, in an unbalanced world where the PCs can never win, only hope to lose in a fun, memorable and / or spectacular manner. :)
"Last week I was Frodo of the Nine-Fingers. Then I got in a bar-fight, so they called me Three-Teeth. Then there was the critical arrow hit, and it was One-Eye. Then I stepped in that bear-trap, and it was Stumpy Hobblesalong. Then the black dragon breathed acid on me, and instead of a nickname, people just scream when they see me and yell, 'Kill it with fire!'"
|
|
Option one; as above, in which case not only do spells not 'heal ripped out teeth' unless specifically stated to do so, but *attacks* don't knock out teeth (or otherwise remove limbs or damage organs) unless specifically stated to do so *in their rules* (such as a vorpal sword).
Also known as the RAW option.
Option two; the DM likes the idea of more flavorful combat, [...], in which case, *he's added something to the game, already* and, [...] he should also allow spells lower level than Regenerate to restore the stuff he's arbitrarily chopping off of the heroes.
Which are house rules - an awesome and cool part of the hobby, but not universally applicable as advice.
On a side (but related) note, there is at least one monster in the 3.5 Monster Manual that causes you to permanently lose HP. The wound never heals. It can be cured with a Neutralize Poison (4th level) spell.
This monster appears in a level 1 dungeon in a particular Adventure Path.
My poor little paladin took the brunt of the damage from this monster, and lost a bunch of HP while he was still level 1.
Now I'm level 3 and I still have not healed those HP, because the highest level cleric in the area is level 3 or 4 (not sure which, but he has no spells above 2nd level).
There has been no time, and our duty has prevented us from making a long trip to nearby larger cities where I might get access to the spell, so I have to go on living with a wound that never heals.
And I'm 3rd level, but I have barely more HP than a 2nd level paladin should have.
I'm forever getting battered into unconsciousness by routine monsters as the DM keeps clobbering me and then is surprised when I go down. I think he keeps forgetting my permanent HP loss (if he remembered it, I would probably still get clobbered into unconsciousness, but he wouldn't be surprised when it happens).
Yeah, this is me grumbling a bit. What kind of sadistic adventure writer puts this kind of monster in this kind of setting? At least throw a scroll of Neutralize Poison into a treasure hoard somewhere nearby.
Sheesh!
|
|
On a side (but related) note, there is at least one monster in the 3.5 Monster Manual that causes you to permanently lose HP. The wound never heals. It can be cured with a Neutralize Poison (4th level) spell.
[...]
My poor little paladin took the brunt of the damage from this monster, and lost a bunch of HP while he was still level 1.
Please, please, please tell me you're totally playing up the Fisher King symbolism here.
Can you put what campaign/adventure that is found in spoiler text? I wonder if the DM missed something.
As requested:
I have asked the DM if we simply missed a cure somewhere, and he has said no, but I suppose maybe we did and he didn't want to give us a metagamey clue to go back and search again - which means it would be bad form if there is a cure and soemone posts it here.
I have asked him if he plans on sneaking a cure into some treasure hoard down the road a ways, or am I going to have this festering wound until the cleric in our party can cast 7th level spells, and said Pathfinder gave us enough extra HP that missing a few won't be that big a deal.
Which is probably true, but it still stings to be wimpy and have no way to fix it, especially when some fighters can heal from having their guts ripped out, spleen incinerated, and arms lopped off, with just 4 days of bed rest, yet I can't get my HP back even with magical healing.
Please, please, please tell me you're totally playing up the Fisher King symbolism here.On a side (but related) note, there is at least one monster in the 3.5 Monster Manual that causes you to permanently lose HP. The wound never heals. It can be cured with a Neutralize Poison (4th level) spell.
[...]
My poor little paladin took the brunt of the damage from this monster, and lost a bunch of HP while he was still level 1.
I guess I don't get the reference.
My poor little paladin took the brunt of the damage from this monster, and lost a bunch of HP while he was still level 1.
Umm, I don't want to DM for your DM, but...
|
Can you put what campaign/adventure that is found in spoiler text? I wonder if the DM missed something.As requested:
** spoiler omitted **
I have asked the DM if we simply missed a cure somewhere, and he has said no, but I suppose maybe we did and he didn't want to give us a metagamey clue to go back and search again - which means it would be bad form if there is a cure and soemone posts it here.
I have asked him if he plans on sneaking a cure into some treasure hoard down the road a ways, or am I going to have this festering wound until the cleric in our party can cast 7th level spells, and said Pathfinder gave us enough extra HP that missing a few won't be that big a deal.
Which is probably true, but it still stings to be wimpy and have no way to fix it, especially when some fighters can heal from having their guts ripped out, spleen incinerated, and arms lopped off, with just 4 days of bed rest, yet I can't get my HP back even with magical healing.
So just get that cast on you, then heal the damage with a 'cure light wounds' or something. Granted, the poison is still 'there', but assuming you killed the vargouille that gave it to you, it no longer matters.
Sounds like your DM just missed that ability, or didn't want to tell you? If he was going to tell you how to completely cure it, I would think there'd be no reason for him to keep the 'other' way to get rid of it away from you.
Here's the relevant text from the d20srd, if you're curious.
Injury, Fortitude DC 12 or be unable to heal the vargouille’s bite damage naturally or magically. A neutralize poison or heal spell removes the effect, while delay poison allows magical healing. The save DC is Constitution-based and includes a +1 racial bonus.
Just to point out, the rules for Massive Damage have been changed in Beta PFRPG:
Didn't see that. It sure is better than before. Still, I'll keep ignoring massive damage.
Ahh, thanks for the tip.
However, even though I as a player recognized the monster and knew its name and general abilities, that would be metagaming.
I didn't know, until now, that a delay poison would do me any good days after the fight. I've always assumed Slow Poison is either used immediately (within the first minute after being poisoned) or it won't do much good.
Evidently, in this case, that isn't true.
But no character in the group made any knowledge checks to know what we were fighting. And nobody knew how to treat that wound. The DM told us Neutralize Poison, so currently, that's all our characters know, and my paladin still believes that, by the time we gained two levels and our cleric gained access to Slow Poison, that it was way too late for it to do any good.
Now, if only the AP writer had included something about the town's priest having previously treated other villagers/farm animals with these wounds, and he knows the solution. But, we've been to him and he couldn't help.
So, I'll plod on with my festering wound for another 4 levels.
But thanks for the info.
With regards to the massive damage rule, how would things change the equation if it’s a percentage of the characters health loss instead of the 50+point loss (as the PFRPG RAW quote just posted above)?
Massive damage in beta IS a percentage of the character's health. If you lose at least half your total HP in one blow, it's massive damage.
But there's also a minimum of 50 points of damage. So if you only have 8 HP, 5 hp won't be massive damage.
Basically, it's the same as before as long as you have no more than 100 HP (well, 101, to be precise). After that, it scales with your total HP.
Yeah, I think Pathfinder improved the whole idea with the 50% thing, but it's still way too gamist for me.
In the case of a very high level party, a fighter with 200 HP and a wizard with 100 HP, they both get hit with 100 HP worth of dragon breath and the wizard saves but the fighter doesn't. Now you have a wizard taking 50 HP and having to roll a Fort save or die, and he probably needs to roll at least a 6 or higher to survive, while you have a fighter who took twice as much damage who needs to roll a 1 or higher to survive.
Which is kind of weird.
And I don't see the need to add save-or-die effects to normal standard damage, even if it is a lot of damage.
Level 20 groups take damages high enough to trigger the Massive Damage rule every fight (or nearly every fight). Sooner or later those natural 1s start turning up, and poof, there goes another party member while he still has half his HP left.
It's bad enough at super high levels trying to find ways to survive the incredibly frequent save-or-die magic. But to add incredibly frequent save-or-die melee attacks just pushes party surviveability out the window.
Besides, why is it that at lower levels, even well into the mid-teens, ordinary damage must exceed your HP to kill you (bedause nobody fights things that can do 50 HP damage in one hit when they're only 10th or 12th level), but when you get into really high levels, ordinary damage can kill you with only doing half your HP?
I think the rule was added to keep players from doing silly things, like jumping off of cliffs for example. Certainly the proponents of the rule, across many website forums, seem to frequently cite such silliness as their reason for liking the rule,
Seems to me there might be a better way to handle silly player actions than an arbitrary rule that causes one or more PCs to indescriminately die, with HP left on their sheet, every 2 or 3 combats.
|
|
Yeah, I think Pathfinder improved the whole idea with the 50% thing, but it's still way too gamist for me.
In the case of a very high level party, a fighter with 200 HP and a wizard with 100 HP, they both get hit with 100 HP worth of dragon breath and the wizard saves but the fighter doesn't. Now you have a wizard taking 50 HP and having to roll a Fort save or die, and he probably needs to roll at least a 6 or higher to survive, while you have a fighter who took twice as much damage who needs to roll a 1 or higher to survive.
It makes sense to me that the more frail Wizard with the lower Fortitude save can't handle as much damage at once, nor does he have as good a chance to save. Why not compare their odds on being dominated too?
Level 20 groups take damages high enough to trigger the Massive Damage rule every fight (or nearly every fight). Sooner or later those natural 1s start turning up, and poof, there goes another party member while he still has half his HP left.It's bad enough at super high levels trying to find ways to survive the incredibly frequent save-or-die magic. But to add incredibly frequent save-or-die melee attacks just pushes party surviveability out the window.
Like you point out, high levels are filled with save-or-die already. Everyone just has a way to cause them. The wizards with their spells, the fighters with causing massive damage. It's just a part of the way D&D 3.5 works. To remove the save-or-die stuff is to change the game in a big way.
As follow up question, what happens if the 50% loss of health in one blow rule is implemented, but without a minimum of damage needed?
No one makes it to third level. DC 15 save or die effects when some characters have only +1 or so to their fort save means that those hard hits will kill frequently.
As follow up question, what happens if the 50% loss of health in one blow rule is implemented, but without a minimum of damage needed?No one makes it to third level.No one, KaeYoss? Hyperbole is the worst thing ever.
Prehaps but mages, rogues, bards will die often at levels 1-3. Dwarven fighters with great fort feat will make it about half the time. Still I don't like them odds.
I never used the rules for massive damage, thought taking that kind of a hit was bad enough for the player. I didn't see the need to pile on a save or die to add insult to injury.
No one makes it to third level.No one, KaeYoss? Hyperbole is the worst thing ever.I know. I've been told a trillion times.
I'll continue to do it, though! And there's nothing you can do.
And it's true, or near enough to make no difference. If anyone still doubts, I'll set up a game.
In the case of a very high level party, a fighter with 200 HP and a wizard with 100 HP, they both get hit with 100 HP worth of dragon breath and the wizard saves but the fighter doesn't. Now you have a wizard taking 50 HP and having to roll a Fort save or die, and he probably needs to roll at least a 6 or higher to survive, while you have a fighter who took twice as much damage who needs to roll a 1 or higher to survive.It makes sense to me that the more frail Wizard with the lower Fortitude save can't handle as much damage at once, nor does he have as good a chance to save. Why not compare their odds on being dominated too?
In my quote, I made it pretty clear that the mage did not take "as much damage at once" - he only took half the damage that the fighter took, yet still had 5x the chance to die.
In fact, the mage has fewer HP than the fighter to represent the fact that he is more likely to die from taking "as much damage" as a fighter.
Do we really need extra mechanisms to measure out instant death when we already have HP, and the balance of HP already favors the tough guys?
As for their chance of being dominated, that fighter can always get a lavender and green Ioun Stone, a Mantel of Resistance, or best yet, a simple first level Protection from Evil spell. Or domination could be dispelled after the fact with magic available to any first level caster (Protection from Evil) or 5th level caster (Dispel Magic). And removing a domination effect has no adverse side effects like losing levels or losing CON or forgetting spells.
Massive damage, on the other hand, cannot be prevented, resisted, or avoided, nor can it be reversed with anything other than a spell that raises/resurrects the dead, with all the usual consequences and/or expenses.
Like you point out, high levels are filled with save-or-die already. Everyone just has a way to cause them. The wizards with their spells, the fighters with causing massive damage. It's just a part of the way D&D 3.5 works. To remove the save-or-die stuff is to change the game in a big way.
Level 20 groups take damages high enough to trigger the Massive Damage rule every fight (or nearly every fight). Sooner or later those natural 1s start turning up, and poof, there goes another party member while he still has half his HP left.It's bad enough at super high levels trying to find ways to survive the incredibly frequent save-or-die magic. But to add incredibly frequent save-or-die melee attacks just pushes party surviveability out the window.
In my DMing experience, at very high levels, the PCs face domination type effects in some fights, maybe one fight out of 5 or 6 at most. They face dragon breath in a few fights, maybe 1 out of 10 (or less). They face Vorpal weapons in something like 1 out of 30 fights, give or take.
But they face massive damage, of some kind, in every fight.
So massive damage is more prevalent, harder to avoid, harder to fix, and not remotely balanced as to who is must vulnerable to it.
It's the single most deadly player killer in the high-level game, claiming the lives of more heroes than even the deadly Tarrasque.
And, since we already have HP to decide when we have taken enough damage to live or die, the extra mechinic seeme arbitrary, redundant, and useless.
Have fewer combats?
an arbitrary rule that causes one or more PCs to indescriminately die, with HP left on their sheet, every 2 or 3 combats.
Maybe, but combats are inevitable.
That's what D&D is. Pathfinder too.
Look at your class abilities. HP, BAB, Saves, weapon proficiencies, weapon and armor training, rage, favored enemy, sneak attack, flurry of blows, smite evil, inspire courage, channel energy, etc., etc., etc.
Look at the spells. For every roleplaying fluff spell, like Mend or Light or Locate Object, there are a dozen combat spells.
Heck, the cleric is all about shepharding the flock, converting the masses, leading the masses down the one true path of righeousness, etc.
But, every 9th level cleric spell is a combat spell. Every 8th level cleric spell except Discern Location is a combat spell. 7th level has only 4 non-combat spells (Control Weather, Ethereal Jaunt, Refuge, and Scrying-Greater) though arguably, Ethereal Jaunt probably has more combat applicability than otherwise.
The weapons and armor lists and descriptions take up more pages than the rest of the equipment section combined.
The combat rules take up more pages than the roleplaying rules.
All in all, most of the rulebook covers combat stuff.
And let's not even talk about the Monster Manual or upcoming Bestiary - not much non-combat applicability in there at all (your DM might choose to encounter a friendly troll for a roleplaying non-combat encounter, but the stat block and special abilities and info in the book is not geared toward that at all - it's almost entirely written for the combat stuff).
Having fewer combats is all well and good, but eventually you will most likely have combats. It's what your character class is designed to do, and it's what the rulebooks are designed to do.
It's inevitable.
So while you may choose to "Have fewer combats", that just means there will be more roleplaying between rolling those Massive Damage saving throws, but eventually those natural 1s will still catch up and kill people.
|
|
Massive damage, on the other hand, cannot be prevented, resisted, or avoided, nor can it be reversed with anything other than a spell that raises/resurrects the dead, with all the usual consequences and/or expenses.
To be fair, it definitely could (be resisted/prevented/etc.). Bear's Endurance, False Life, Great Fortitude, or any other spells/feats/magic items that increase hit points, Constitution, or Fort save.
At high levels, it's quite often that PCs really are getting pretty god-like. Deaths are less common, and even if they happen, they can be reversed. Wizards and Clerics dominate the playing field.
I've run a fair number of campaigns that got into high level, and I feel it's safe to say that the number of deaths that's happened from massive damage consist of less than 5% of the total deaths we get. The vast majority are at levels 5 or lower.
I'm not trying to say it's a perfect system, though Pathfinder definitely helps it. However, I think you've overestimating the risk it poses. At higher levels, the things to really worry about are the casters. If a tank that can dish out that much damage gets close to a wizard (the likes of which could be flying, invisible, behind a wall of force, with mirror images, etc.) then something else has already gone wrong. :)
And doing 50+ damage in one hit isn't always as easy as it sounds. Even the Tarrasque only does 4d8+17 with his bite, or an average of 35 damage.
No one makes it to third level. DC 15 save or die effects when some characters have only +1 or so to their fort save means that those hard hits will kill frequently.
As follow up question, what happens if the 50% loss of health in one blow rule is implemented, but without a minimum of damage needed?
I'm glad you said this, Kaeyoss, because I was about to.
We have HP to tell us whether we live or die. Tough guys have more HP than weak guys.
A secondary mechanic to kill us when we still have positive HP left is uneccesary.
Further, if this secondary mechanic is so unbalanced as to use Fort Saves, then certain classes will be better able to survive this mechanic than others, but at low levels, when even the fighters don't have high Fort Saves yet, it will be, at best, merely a slower death for them and a faster death for everyone else.
And, at 1st level, any matrial or exotic weapon worth using is fully capable of doing 50% of the damage of any 1st level PC. Any magic missile that rolls well, or any burning hands, or any typical damage of most damage-oriented monsters can do 50% of the damage of most 1st level player characters.
Which means these saves would be rolled very frequently, with nobody having much better than a 50% chance to survive each time.
To put some math on that:
Assumption 1: 13 combats to reach 2nd level (that's a group of 4 PCs earning 400 XP per CR1 fight, getting 100 XP each and needing 1300 XP to reach level 2).
Assumption 2: Just once in each combat (on average), your PC gets hit hard enoough to trigger the massive damage rule.
Assumption 3: You're a dwarven fighter with a 16 CON (Fort save +5).
Assumptoin 4: No bonus HP, so you have 13 HP at level 1.
This means you would have a 0.0421% chance to survive to 2nd level. Or in other words, if you rolled up 2,373 first level fighters, only 1 of those fighters would make it to level 2.
Sure, sure, maybe some of those fights you wouldn't get hit for 7 or more HP. But maybe in other fights, you might survive one such hit, then get a Cure Light Wounds or Channel Energy from your cleric, then get hit again for another 7+ HP in that same fight. So the average of one hit per fight seems at least possible, if not entirely reasonable.
I don't know if it would be a viable game system to assume that only 1 PC out of every 2,373 will reach 2nd level.
That's worse than Traveler, though at least in Pathfinder, there is no way to die while still rolling up your character, so at least it beats Traveler in that regard.
Such a deadly rule sure would add great value to the Toughness and Great Fortitude feats.
A human fighter who takes Toughness, Toughness, and Iron Will at first level would have 21 HP (assuming a 16 CON) and a For Save of +7. Now he would need to receive a hit of 11 HP or more to trigger the massive damage rules. Not many CR 1 encounters can do this without rolling a crit.
Still, those orc with their d12 greataxes and their STR bonuses might pull off an 11 HP hit once every few battles. And other critters might get a lucky crit once in a while (is that why they call them critters?)
So maybe only 5 hits that do 11 or more HP in a single hit.
Given those assumptions, if you roll up a human fighter and take those precious, precious feats, you will have an 11.6029% chance of surviving to level 2. That means, statistically, you will only have to roll up 9 fighters to get one of them to make it.
Not bad odds.
:)
To be fair, it definitely could (be resisted/prevented/etc.). Bear's Endurance, False Life, Great Fortitude, or any other spells/feats/magic items that increase hit points, Constitution, or Fort save.
No, now you're not being fair.
I deliberately didn't list Iron Will or cloaks of Resistance or Mind Blank as ways for fighters to make their Will saves against dominance - that's a level playing field. Anything that increases saves works on both sides of that debate, so I left them out. I only went with things that directly prevent domination.
Nothing you listed directly prevents massive damage.
Wizards and Clerics dominate the playing field.
Sure they do. And at those levels, they can dish out spells every round that invoke Massive Damage rules. Add in metamagic feats, and rods of empower and/or maximize, and a wizard's first 10 spells in a battle could all, every one of them, invoke the Massive Damage rules.
If the fight lasts that long, even the tougest dwarven fighter in the world, with a Fort Save of +25, will still only have a 50/50 chance of surviving that fight, even if his cleric is dropping full Heals on him every round.
Even the Tarrasque only does 4d8+17 with his bite, or an average of 35 damage.
Sadly, this is too true.
The 3.x Tarrasque is a dumbed down, nerfed version of his former 2.0 glory. It's really just a T-Rex in a foam rubber Tarrasque suit. When 3.x decided to give characters more HP, and let their HP progressin go all the way to level 20, then give them more CON along the way, high-end characters have triple the HP of their 2.0 counterparts, but the Tarrasque HP and damage output remained more in line with its 2.0 counterpart, making it mere target practice for a decent high-level group.
Somewhere in the 3.x books it talks about making your own monsters, and the kind of damage output expected at each CR. The Tarrasque does't even keep up with these simple guidelines.
Truly a pity.
If you're ever a player in one of my games, and I'm in a suffieciently whimsical mood to whip out a Tarrasque, please remember my grognard roots and don't metagame your 3.x Tarrasque knowledge into a false sense of security, for you'll fing my Tarrasque has grown up a bit.
And doing 50+ damage in one hit isn't always as easy as it sounds. Even the Tarrasque only does 4d8+17 with his bite, or an average of 35 damage.
That would be my point - I've run up through epic to about 31st level. Massive damage saves were common, but not *that* common until well towards the end. If the threshold had been 50% of hitpoints? nearly never. [ though there was that maximized delayed blast fireball that the cleric botched his save on - 90 points (res: 30). Didn't kill him, but did melt his +5, keen, vorpal longsword... :) ]
|
|
I think there may be some misinterpretation with the massive damage rules.
If you ever sustain a single attack that deals...
Emphasis mine.
Casting a spell is not an attack. In both versions, under the Combat section, there is an entire Section devoted to 'Attacks'. This is on page 134 of the Pathfinder Beta, or here in the d20srd.
Note that in both instances, "Attack" is an entirely separate section from "cast a spell". Under Attack, only melee, ranged, unarmed, etc. types of attacks are covered.
In any case, 'casting a spell' does not constitute an 'attack'.
Yes, I know, you are still 'attacking someone' with a spell. D&D 3.5 (and PRPG as a result) however, base a lot of their rules solely on the words used. If a player is nauseated from an attack, it doesn't just mean he's green in the face and throwing up, he suffers listed mechanical penalties.
Similarly, the massive damage rules are referencing a single attack, not a spell. It's quite obvious that even at early levels, spells can do a disgusting amount of damage, and provoke these massive damage rules often.
Now, I understand that I may be entirely wrong with this. We've been going with this assumption in our games for a while, and I'm sure that there could be other wording in the game that was phrased the same and worked the opposite way. For example, if something said "x happens whenever you are attacked by someone", I would lump spells in with that, as the word is more descriptive. If it said "x happens whenever you use a single attack", I might look at it differently.
I will look on the old WotC boards for an official response from them. Until then, it's something to think about. :) I will say now, I am probably wrong. So don't take this *too* seriously. ;)
EDIT: So that was fast, but yeah, I'm wrong. Though the FAQ does tend to lean towards the favor of an unofficial ruling that some spells just do not apply. Harm, in the example.
The harm spell deals 10 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level) and cannot take a target’s hit points to less than 1. If the target creature makes a successful saving throw, the damage is reduced by half, but the spell still cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1. What happens when the spell deals 50 points of damage or more to the target (as it might to any creature that has 51 hit points or more)? Does the death from massive damage rule apply? What if I have 110 hit points and an 11th-level caster casts harm on me? I’ll take 109 points of damage from the spell if I fail my save, or 55 points if I make my save, right? In either case, I’ll have to make a DC 15 Fortitude save to avoid death from massive damage, right? If my hired lackey, who has 49 hit points, receives the same spell, he’ll take either 48 points of damage or 24 points. In either case, he’s not subject to death from massive damage. Is this correct?Technically, that’s right. If you take 50 points of damage (or more) all at once, you’re subject to the death from massive damage rule (see page 145 in the PH). It makes no difference what the source of that damage is.
In the case of the harm spell, the death from massive damage rule creates a situation that’s arguably absurd, because once you have 51 hit points or more, you suddenly become susceptible to instant death from the spell when lesser beings (with fewer hit points) do not. If the situation really bothers you, you might try one of the following house rules:
No Instant Death from Harm Spells: The death from massive damage rule doesn’t apply to damage inflicted from a harm spell.
Expended Instant Death from Harm Spells: Whenever you fail your save against a harm spell, you must make a DC 15 Fortitude save or die, no matter how much damage the spell actually deals to you. If your save against a harm spell succeeds, you still have to make a DC 15 Fortitude save or die if the spell deals at least 50 points of damage to you.
The first unofficial rule should prove easier to remember and use, and it matches the intent behind the harm spell better than the second rule. The second rule, however, provides a better fit with the death from massive damage rule.
So at least with Harm a clarification was reached. But with everything else, spells still can cause massive damage. That saddens me a bit, but I still don't think it will come up *that* often. A 10th level Fireball, after all, only does an average of 35 damage.
A human fighter who takes Toughness, Toughness, and Iron Will at first level would have 21 HP (assuming a 16 CON) and a For Save of +7. Now he would need to receive a hit of 11 HP or more to trigger the massive damage rules. Not many CR 1 encounters can do this without rolling a crit.
Um... Pathfinder Fighter can't take Toughness multiple times...
... I'm sorry, I'm confused. Are we discussing Pathfinder RPG? Or 3.5 rules? Or a straight 50% rule alone? Or a cruel hybrid with a 50% rule and a 50 damage *cap* on what is needed to trigger instead of a floor?
I can see some of your points, if you're still talking about the proposed 50%, no minimum rule - I'm with Kaeyoss, death to everybody with that. But 50% at level 20 would almost never get triggered on fighters with ~200 hitpoints.
Could you clarify what you're arguing against? I think we may all be on the same side of things here.
A human fighter who takes Toughness, Toughness, and Iron Will at first level would have 21 HP (assuming a 16 CON) and a For Save of +7. Now he would need to receive a hit of 11 HP or more to trigger the massive damage rules. Not many CR 1 encounters can do this without rolling a crit.Um... Pathfinder Fighter can't take Toughness multiple times...
... I'm sorry, I'm confused. Are we discussing Pathfinder RPG? Or 3.5 rules? Or a straight 50% rule alone? Or a cruel hybrid with a 50% rule and a 50 damage *cap* on what is needed to trigger instead of a floor?
I can see some of your points, if you're still talking about the proposed 50%, no minimum rule - I'm with Kaeyoss, death to everybody with that. But 50% at level 20 would almost never get triggered on fighters with ~200 hitpoints.
Could you clarify what you're arguing against? I think we may all be on the same side of things here.
Why can't someone take Toughness more than once? I seem to have missed that restriction.
As to what I'm arguing against, I initially didn't realize that Pathfinder had hadded the 50% additin to the Massive Damage rule, then I admitted that Pathfinder has made the mechanic a little better.
But IMO it's still an unnecessary and arbitrary mechanic that undermines the HP mechanic and makes high level combat too deadly, adding a save-or-die roll to many attacks that otherwise would simply deal HP damage.
IMO all we need is the HP system. It already balances the tough vs. the weak. It already gives us a numerical value that represents our ability to avoid damage and to sustain damage and to survive the damage we sustain.
I don't think we gain anything by supplanting an arbirtrary mechanic that does the same thing in a different way, complete with an imbalanced and too-frequent save-or-death mechanism that stacks with the other ways we can die from taking damage.
Unnecessary - even though Pathfinder made it less deadly than 3.x.
Gotcha, thanks Blake!
Oh, as for Toughness, it now scales, giving +3 hp, +1 per HD (with no special language for allowing it to be taken multiple times).
Why can't someone take Toughness more than once? I seem to have missed that restriction.
My understanding is that unless a feat states it can be taken more than once you can only take it once. Toughness no longer has the exception clause so it's reduced to "once only" status.
For example you can't take Acrobatic multiple times, but you can spell focus under special conditions (only once for each school of magic) as it states such.
|
|
Why can't someone take Toughness more than once? I seem to have missed that restriction.
My understanding is that unless a feat states it can be taken more than once you can only take it once. Toughness no longer has the exception clause so it's reduced to "once only" status.
For example you can't take Acrobatic multiple times, but you can spell focus under special conditions (only once for each school of magic) as it states such.
This is correct. If a feat can be taken multiple times, it will say so. For example, the feat "Extra Rage" says "You can gain Extra Rage multiple times. Its effects stack."
In 3.5, Toughness had similar text. In the Pathfinder Beta, it is gone. This is likely having to do with the fact that Toughness, in PRPG, is a much better feat than it ever was in 3.5. In fact, it is a combination of two feats from 3.5 (Toughness from Core, and Improved Toughness from Complete Warrior).
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
Why can't someone take Toughness more than once? I seem to have missed that restriction.
My understanding is that unless a feat states it can be taken more than once you can only take it once. Toughness no longer has the exception clause so it's reduced to "once only" status.
For example you can't take Acrobatic multiple times, but you can spell focus under special conditions (only once for each school of magic) as it states such.
This is correct. If a feat can be taken multiple times, it will say so. For example, the feat "Extra Rage" says "You can gain Extra Rage multiple times. Its effects stack."
In 3.5, Toughness had similar text. In the Pathfinder Beta, it is gone. This is likely having to do with the fact that Toughness, in PRPG, is a much better feat than it ever was in 3.5. In fact, it is a combination of two feats from 3.5 (Toughness from Core, and Improved Toughness from Complete Warrior).
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
It is one freaking good feat now. I can't come up with many good reasons not to take it for most of my guys.
It is one freaking good feat now. I can't come up with many good reasons not to take it for most of my guys.
It does indeed make the list for many characters. Sometimes because there aren't that many decent feats for that character, and sometimes because the extra HP really help.
It does indeed make the list for many characters. Sometimes because there aren't that many decent feats for that character, and sometimes because the extra HP really help.
It is one freaking good feat now. I can't come up with many good reasons not to take it for most of my guys.
To me it's one of those grab early feats, it makes the lower levels much easier, like getting weapon focus or weapon finesse. Some of my casters will opt for combat casting, skill focus (spellcraft) or both instead but if I can get toughness I do.
Is it just me or do all half-elven spell casters end up with skill focus (spell craft) as kind of a poor man's combat casting.