The massive damage (optional) rule... How many of you use it?
I used to (because I liked the idea), but sort of revised my opinion about it in the last game. It seems that now, at level nine, enemies are generating huge hits that go over the 50 hit point mark...
My fighter PC was hit twice in the same night and had to roll two times for the massive damage effect (save or die). He succedded both rolls, but as the PCs continue to go up levels, the enemies will too, and so will their damage. So, in my opinion, it's just a matter of time before one of my PCs fails that roll and dies on the spot.
Like I said, I like the idea of killing a big creature in just one blow, but if this sort of thing is due to happen on every hit (specialy later), it'll get old real soon.
Any thought on this?
Ultradan
The PRD lists the Massive Damage rule as when you suffer damage of at least half your total hit points, instead of just 50. 50 was from 3.5.
That should help mitigate the many sudden deaths.
This makes things dangerous at 1st level, of course.
This is not true.
Massive Damage (Optional Rule): 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. If this saving throw fails, you die regardless of your current hit points. If you take half your total hit points or more in damage from multiple attacks, no one of which dealt more than half your total hit points (minimum 50), the massive damage rule does not apply.
The PRD says half your total HP minium 50, so you can not die from the massive damage rule until you have 50 HP - your con score +1 (since you have to normally survive the attack). For example, if you have a con score of 13, you have to have 38 max HP in order to be affected by massive damage. With 38 max, if you were to take 50 damage you would be at -12 hp, unconscious but not dead yet.
However since the save DC is a static 15, it becomes easier and easier to save the higher level you are.
The PRD lists the Massive Damage rule as when you suffer damage of at least half your total hit points, instead of just 50. 50 was from 3.5.
That should help mitigate the many sudden deaths.
This makes things dangerous at 1st level, of course.
This is not true.
Massive Damage (Optional Rule): 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. If this saving throw fails, you die regardless of your current hit points. If you take half your total hit points or more in damage from multiple attacks, no one of which dealt more than half your total hit points (minimum 50), the massive damage rule does not apply.The PRD says half your total HP minium 50, so you can not die from the massive damage rule until you have 50 HP - your con score +1 (since you have to normally survive the attack). For example, if you have a con score of 13, you have to have 38 max HP in order to be affected by massive damage. With 38 max, if you were to take 50 damage you would be at -12 hp, unconscious but not dead yet.
However since the save DC is a static 15, it becomes easier and easier to save the higher level you are.
This actually hurts Fighters, Rangers, and Barbarians more than anyone else. Which is just mean.
The PRD lists the Massive Damage rule as when you suffer damage of at least half your total hit points, instead of just 50. 50 was from 3.5.
That should help mitigate the many sudden deaths.
This makes things dangerous at 1st level, of course.
Taking 50 points of damage in a single hit at first level is usually considered quite bad. :-P
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
In my actual home campaign (a 3.5 variant, for the record),
We are all pretty happy with the result. Rather than representing only the lack of structural integrity even a mighty creature might experience given 75 points of damage in one blow, it represents a more general "system shock". And it provides another opportunity for me to (a) suck Action Points from PCs and (b) drop combattants unconscious but not dead.
I don't use it either. I have been thinking about modifying it so that you take a negative penalty that increases if you take to many MD hits before being healed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am toying with the idea of having massive damage inflict damage to a random ability score. The effect can be overcome by magic fairly easily outside of combat, but can represent a major injury during combat.
|
I use it but modified. I don't remember the formula I came up with off hand, but essentually, you do not die. It does scale up with both level and Con, and if you fail it, you instanly drop to -1 and stable. The kicker is, you can not be healed by any means, for at least 1 full round.
Instead, you may be out of a fight, but you are not dead. additionally, I treat it more like nonlethal damage, so you actually regain HP easier, because your not actually taking a bunch of wounds for dropping, you just exceeded your physical and mental limits and your body sort of shut down in shock.
Completely outlawed in my games. We have enough Save-or-Die effects in the game, I have no interest in having normal attack rolls threaten one every time they spike over 50. I am not a fan of 'You rolled a 1 and don't get to play anymore.'
That's a bit my point of view about it now. At the level my PCs are (9th going on 10th), I assume that eventually, every hit (or at least every critical) will be over 50 damage... So it's only a matter of time before they all die of the massive damage rule.
I told my players "Hey, I can tell you all right now how your PCs will die!"... They all then agreed to ban that rule.
Ultradan
Making that rule optional was one of the best things Pathfinder did. Good riddance and if we see you again near our gaming table, we'll shoot you.
The rule, of course, not any of you guys.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
(It's always been optional. Since 3rd Edition.)
I am not a fan of 'You rolled a 1 and don't get to play anymore.'
You don't let people roll up new characters?
Seriously, taking over half total hit points in one blow ought to worry someone. Suggesting that its fatal at least 5% of the time doesn't strike me as outrageous.
And fighters at my table like the idea that, every once in a while, they can make monsters roll a saving throw, too. (More often with the Vital Strike feat chain.)
The Massive Damage rule is just not heroic to me, and even when it was not optional, I still did not use it when I DMed. Can you imagine if this rule were applied to the epic fantasy books and movies out there? How many times could Conan have died under this rule? If I were to use this rule at all, I would modify it so that a failed save would result in unconsciousness rather than death. That would make it more like what you see or read elsewhere.
The massive damage (optional) rule... How many of you use it?
I used to (because I liked the idea), but sort of revised my opinion about it in the last game. It seems that now, at level nine, enemies are generating huge hits that go over the 50 hit point mark...
My fighter PC was hit twice in the same night and had to roll two times for the massive damage effect (save or die). He succedded both rolls, but as the PCs continue to go up levels, the enemies will too, and so will their damage. So, in my opinion, it's just a matter of time before one of my PCs fails that roll and dies on the spot.
Like I said, I like the idea of killing a big creature in just one blow, but if this sort of thing is due to happen on every hit (specialy later), it'll get old real soon.
Any thought on this?
Ultradan
Never liked it, never used it, for just those reasons.
I think it was designed to simulate damage from the environment, like falling off a cliff. In an absolute hit-point system, a hardy 10th level fighter (good CON, +CON item, extra HP for favored class) can jump off a 1000' cliff and not only reasonably expect to survive (20d6 falling damage cap, max 120 damage, average 70), but has a good chance to still be in fighting shape. It'll hurt, but he'll get back up and dust himself off afterward.
In trading blows with monsters, that 50-point/half-max threshold is more and more common as you go up in levels, and the DC 15 save is less and less threatening, so that it becomes less interesting to have to roll.
If you must have it, save it for environmental effects, and leave the combat damage out of it.
If you must have it, save it for environmental effects, and leave the combat damage out of it.
Excellent idea Chris!! Thanks!
Ultradan
(It's always been optional. Since 3rd Edition.)
There were some variants for it, but the rule itself was core in 3.5.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/injuryandDeath.htm#massiveDamage
I love the rule myself it makes sense. If you take 50% of your hitpoints or more in a single blow that should be able to kill you.
A 10th level barbarian with a 16 con getting 75% HP per die would have 120 hitpoints, that takes 60+ damage, but if he rages he now has 140hp so 70+ damage to need to roll.
You have to remember it is from 1 effect, not in 1 round.
that 70+ damage that required the barbarian to have to roll a 1-2 to die would have killed the party mage with a 12 con having 50hps.
The same barbarian at 20th level now with a con around 20 and raged for a 28 getting 75% HP would have 360 HP, which would required 180 points of damage from a single attack to require him to have only a 5% chance of dying.
180 points to the parties mage or rogue would kill them with no save.
I run The Cheese Grinder and we get over the 50% 1/2 HP quiet often but the deaths from it are very rare about 5% of the time.
|
A lot of people arguing against it still haven't seemed to wrap their head around the idea that it's not 50 HP, it half your HP in a single blow or 50 HP whichever is greater. At the point creatures are dealing 50 hp regularly you usually have more than 100hp. Honestly I can see their arguments in the 3.5 setting, but I do think it's entirely reasonable that if you are taking more than half your health in a single blow that you have to save against shock.
|
Honestly I can see their arguments in the 3.5 setting, but I do think it's entirely reasonable that if you are taking more than half your health in a single blow that you have to save against shock.
'That mighty swing that clipped my hair frightened me so bad I must save against death!'
If hitpoints were'nt abstract you'd be right.
I just don't find adding another save or die to the game appealing.
Ok this may upset some, but hey it should be said.
If you do not like save or die there is a version of "DND" that took save or die completly out of the system.
A massive damage system is just more slaps in the face to melee character.
A massive damage system is just more slaps in the face to melee character.
"What you talking about Willis?"
The non-fighter types with lower hit points will have to make the massive damage save more often then the fighter types.
The fighter types have good fort save, so only 5% chance of death more then likely.
The non-fighter types usually have bad fort saves so could be a higher chance of death.
The non-fighter types with lower hit points will have to make the massive damage save more often then the fighter types.
Sure, if they are trying to shank the dragon with a knife.
A 10th level barbarian with a 16 con getting 75% HP per die would have 120 hitpoints, that takes 60+ damage, but if he rages he now has 140hp so 70+ damage to need to roll.
But the DC is 15. If he rages, he also has a 20 CON. If he has a +2 Resistance item or effect, he's got a +14 to his save. That means he fails on a 1.
So in my opinion the chance to fail is so remote that it's really not worth worrying about it, so it doesn't add any value to the game. And on those few incidences when it fails, it just feels cheap.
'That mighty swing that clipped my hair frightened me so bad I must save against death!'
If hitpoints were'nt abstract you'd be right.
I just don't find adding another save or die to the game appealing.
Yes it's true, hit points are an abstraction. That doesn't mean that they only represent the ability to avoid getting killed right up until the final blow. It means that they represent whatever they need to represent at that time. An attack that removes 50% or more of your maximum HP, of at least 50 points, is more than a really close shave.
So a level 10 Barbarian with 100 HP taking half his HP in a single blow is far more likely to have taken a fatal wound than a level 10 Wizard with 60 HP? Or even a level 10 Barbarian with 90 HP?
A massive damage system is just more slaps in the face to melee character.Really? I consider it an opportunity for a melee fighter to be able to effect the kind of save-or-die conditions in opponents that her arcane comrades so routinely cast.
And then they get crit by an Ogre and roll a 1. And what's more, the Mages are even MORE LIKELY to cast save or die spells with this system in place because they have more high damage, single output abilities.
So a level 10 Barbarian with 100 HP taking half his HP in a single blow is far more likely to have taken a fatal wound than a level 10 Wizard with 60 HP? Or even a level 10 Barbarian with 90 HP?
Uhm, no? In all three cases it's the minimum of 50 HP that has to be dealt to trigger this rule. In the first case this represents 50% of his hit points. The 2nd example it's still 50 HP but this time is 83% of the character's hit points. The 3rd example the potentially killing blow is 56% of the character's hit points.
However that hit is described, it is a vicious hit and (if this rule is employed) has a chance of killing the character outright. How is your first example far more likely of succumbing to this blow?
So a level 10 Barbarian with 100 HP taking half his HP in a single blow is far more likely to have taken a fatal wound than a level 10 Wizard with 60 HP? Or even a level 10 Barbarian with 90 HP?Uhm, no? In all three cases it's the minimum of 50 HP that has to be dealt to trigger this rule. In the first case this represents 50% of his hit points. The 2nd example it's still 50 HP but this time is 83% of the character's hit points. The 3rd example the potentially killing blow is 56% of the character's hit points.
However that hit is described, it is a vicious hit and (if this rule is employed) has a chance of killing the character outright. How is your first example far more likely of succumbing to this blow?
To expand further a 10th lvl barbarian as a base fort save of +7 while the wizard has a +3 That is a 4 point difference. The wizard is actually 20% more likely to fail the save then the barbarian.
(It's always been optional. Since 3rd Edition.)
Nope. It's an official standard 3.5e rule. It was no more optional than favoured class rules.
I am not a fan of 'You rolled a 1 and don't get to play anymore.'You don't let people roll up new characters?
I know I don't. There is no rolling involved in character creation in my games.
But that's beside the point: When your character dies, you can of course get him raised, or you can have a new character. But when? If you're lucky, sometimes later the same game session. But if you're in the middle of nowhere, the cleric doesn't have the necessary ingredients (or power) to perform a resurrection, and you can't just take a leisurely walk to a temple to get a raise or the tavern to get a new adventurer, you might be out of the picture for some time.
And having such a flat rule that says "with every attack for more than 50 damage, you must make such a roll or DIE" means that sooner or later, you'll be making lots such rolls, and statistics will really get you with that "one natural 1 every twenty rolls".
Sure, by the time 50 points of damage become commonplace, you might have teleport and the like, but you're not always in the position to teleport back and forth like a commuting adventurer.
Seriously, taking over half total hit points in one blow ought to worry someone. Suggesting that its fatal at least 5% of the time doesn't strike me as outrageous.
The rule is not "over half total hit points". It's "50 points of damage or more". On low-levels, that sure is way more than you even have, but the higher you get, the less significant that blow is.
EDIT: Missed the PF change (the one beyond making it optional - I never liked the rule, so when I read that it has become optional, I didn't read on with much interest)
But this 50 pt rule was craptastic.
And fighters at my table like the idea that, every once in a while, they can make monsters roll a saving throw, too. (More often with the Vital Strike feat chain.)
Those at my table just use stuff like blinding critical for this :P
I have to say: You don't need a massive damage rule to make 50% hits scary. They have that "one more of these and I'm out! And the guy is just starting with his attack routine" thing going for them.
Ok this may upset some, but hey it should be said.
If you do not like save or die there is a version of "DND" that took save or die completly out of the system.
You mean Pathfinder, right? There are still some save-or-die effects in there, but they're a lot less common, are usually pretty high-level, or have other limits.
Or are you suggesting that those who don't like this one aspect of the rules should go play a completely different game, one that has probably more things that are wrong than this one?
Nah, of course not, that would be nonsensical flame bait, and you wouldn't do that! :)