|
This is something that's bothered me since 3.5 and I think I mentioned it during the playtest but nothing happened. But with the introduction of the Garrote I think its time to bring up.
Suffocation
A character who has no air to breathe can hold her breath for 2 rounds per point of Constitution. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check in order to continue holding her breath. The check must be repeated each round, with the DC increasing by +1 for each previous success.When the character fails one of these Constitution checks, she begins to suffocate. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hit points). In the following round, she drops to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she suffocates.
Slow Suffocation: A Medium character can breathe easily for 6 hours in a sealed chamber measuring 10 feet on a side. After that time, the character takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage every 15 minutes. Each additional Medium character or significant fire source (a torch, for example) proportionally reduces the time the air will last. Once rendered unconscious through the accumulation of nonlethal damage, the character begins to take lethal damage at the same rate. Small characters consume half as much air as Medium characters.
A person with no air to breath can hold their breath for 2 rounds per point of constitution. Let me make this clear an average human has a con of 10, meaning that he can hold his breath 20 rounds. Each round is 6 seconds meaning that any person who needs to hold their breath can do so for 2 minutes. WTF, this makes no sense and isn't even fun from a game rules perspective as it makes the use of things like a garrote useless. Let me explain why. You garrote a person successfully, they now have 20 rounds to attempt to escape the grapple.
I could understand if there were non-houserule rules to explain cutting off air supply because there is no chance to catch their breath. meaning they are immediately forced to make suffocation checks. Right now the Garrote is useless, as is a choke hold, as are suffocation rules in general unless you set up situations of longer than two minutes to suffocate someone.
|
The military uses the rule of 3's: a person can survive 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, and 3 weeks without food. Yeah, it's greatly generalized and there's all kinds of examples one could probably point to that break the rule. But it's good enough as a rule of thumb.
Also, a garrote doesn't just keep a person from breathing. It also cuts off the blood flow to the brain which is a bad thing and worth a special exception IMO.
-Skeld
|
|
In my games, I've houseruled that holding your breath is 1 round per point of constitution, and things like garrote and choke holds cut off air supply making it impossible to hold your breath unless you are prepared for it.
IOW if you're garroted you have to immediately make checks. then if you get a chance to take a breath you can hold your breath, but not before.
In the real world there is a significant difference between an air-choke and a blood-choke. Almost all chokes that render somebody unconscious in a matter of seconds are blood-chokes. The most ubiquitous example would be the classic rear-naked choke, which, when properly applied, will knock you out in less than six seconds.
I would rule that, for game purposes, a choke around the neck bypasses the ability to hold your breath, because it's not the ability to breath, but rather the flow of blood to the brain, that's being affected.
Very nearly anyone can hold their breath for 2 minutes if they aren't doing anything strenuous. I don't see the problem.
|
|
The problem is that there is no exception in the garrote rules. I just got the AA companion, and on a successful grapple they're holding their breath. Once again, that's 20 rounds to escape before they even need to make checks, and if they break free once it resets. Why on earth would anyone ever use a garrote?
|
|
Very nearly anyone can hold their breath for 2 minutes if they aren't doing anything strenuous. I don't see the problem.
Really, I can find plenty of people who can't. In fact I remember a riddle, what's lighter than a feather but not even the strongest man can hold it for a minute. And when is anything in DnD not strenuous, if you have a guy strangling you with a garrote I'm pretty sure that isn't non-strenuous.
|
|
Very nearly anyone can hold their breath for 2 minutes if they aren't doing anything strenuous. I don't see the problem.Really, I can find plenty of people who can't. In fact I remember a riddle, what's lighter than a feather but not even the strongest man can hold it for a minute. And when is anything in DnD not strenuous, if you have a guy strangling you with a garrote I'm pretty sure that isn't non-strenuous.
We can argue back and forth about how we can find people to prove our argument, but it makes little difference on the interwebs. The real point is that the garrote does not represent how lethal it is. That would probably be due to Paizo not wanting instant death effects in their game. Houserule it how you like, but realism is not catered to by this ruleset.
On that subject, I could see a garrote forcing a Fort save vs unconciousness every round you have someone pinned with it. Blood-chokes ARE extremely lethal if you can maintain them properly.
|
|
Very nearly anyone can hold their breath for 2 minutes if they aren't doing anything strenuous. I don't see the problem.Really, I can find plenty of people who can't. In fact I remember a riddle, what's lighter than a feather but not even the strongest man can hold it for a minute. And when is anything in DnD not strenuous, if you have a guy strangling you with a garrote I'm pretty sure that isn't non-strenuous.We can argue back and forth about how we can find people to prove our argument, but it makes little difference on the interwebs. The real point is that the garrote does not represent how lethal it is. That would probably be due to Paizo not wanting instant death effects in their game. Houserule it how you like, but realism is not catered to by this ruleset.
On that subject, I could see a garrote forcing a Fort save vs unconciousness every round you have someone pinned with it. Blood-chokes ARE extremely lethal if you can maintain them properly.
Thats what the suffocation rules already do, the first save is to prevent falling unconcious, the second save is to prevent dying, and the third save is to prevent death. I don't have a problem with that part, merely the kinda silly 2 rounds per point of constitution.
|
|
Thats what the suffocation rules already do, the first save is to prevent falling unconcious, the second save is to prevent dying, and the third save is to prevent death. I don't have a problem with that part, merely the kinda silly 2 rounds per point of constitution.
I don't find it silly at all, but once again, we can claim to know someone that proves our argument all day and never convince each other. But I was talking about making a rule that achieving a pin with a garrote bypasses the 2 rounds per Con point rule, since you're cutting off blood and not air.
|
|
Why on earth would anyone ever use a garrote?If you make a houserule that garrotes can render a character unconscious on the first round, the question will quickly becomes: Why on earth would anyone ever not use a garrote?
I'll gladly sacrifice realism for gameplay.
-Skeld
your opponent must be helpless or unaware of you.
because it takes very specific situations to use a garrote that requires a successful grapple check, thus making it a very specific weapon to use in very specific situations. Right now, I don't see anyone ever using it so why even add it to the game. So it's not even a sacrifice for gameplay, you might as well have not stated up the weapon.
On that subject, I could see a garrote forcing a Fort save vs unconciousness every round you have someone pinned with it. Blood-chokes ARE extremely lethal if you can maintain them properly.
I like this idea. Since you can tie up someone who's pinned in order to make them helpless, it's not a stretch to make them unconscious instead (IMO).
|
|
Right now, I don't see anyone ever using it so why even add it to the game. So it's not even a sacrifice for gameplay, you might as well have not stated up the weapon.Because then the complaint would be 'why are there no rules for garrotes?' instead of 'why do the rules for garrotes suck?' :)
There you go, okay so this is dealt with, I'll agree that maybe its a personal taste for the suffocation rules and I've already altered my game to fit. lets deal with the garrote.
Skeld said that a save vs. unconciousness is too powerful. But it's A)first a succesful stealth check or making them helpless some way, then B)a successful CMB roll then C) a failed con save VS. Unconscious.
Compare that with a sleep spell, which can take out multiple opponents with only a failed will save (which a lot of NPCs are going to have crap saves for) and it clearly becomes a case of fighters can't have nice things again, especially when this should be a nice thing. It's just sad that it has to be a houserule to make a very situational weapon useful.
Fighting against a choke-hold or blood-hold would certainly count as strenuous activity and reduce your remaining rounds of held breath by half, to say the least.
Also, you might say that the garrote forces immediate Fort saves, as already stated.
Maybe the same that applies for negative hit points, with a failed Fort save resulting in immediately gaining an amount of non-lethal damage equal to your current hit points +1, thus falling unconscious?
Just some suggestions. Pay no heed to the man behind the curtain.
...with the garrote. ;-)
|
|
Skeld said that a save vs. unconciousness is too powerful.
Errr. I didn't say that. I said that if you change the rules to make garrotes "more realistic" then don't be surprised if players start trying to garrote everything they can get away with.
Obviously, there are a number of "save versus unconscious" effects in the game. [And on the subject of sleep spells, note that there's a HD limit, not to mention some creatures are downright immune (like elves).]
-Skeld
Very nearly anyone can hold their breath for 2 minutes if they aren't doing anything strenuous. I don't see the problem.Really, I can find plenty of people who can't. In fact I remember a riddle, what's lighter than a feather but not even the strongest man can hold it for a minute. And when is anything in DnD not strenuous, if you have a guy strangling you with a garrote I'm pretty sure that isn't non-strenuous.
Hey, guess what, there are rules for that. In the Core Rulebook, even:
If a character takes a standard or full-round action, the remaining duration that the character can hold her breath is reduced by 1 round.
Skeld said that a save vs. unconciousness is too powerful.Errr. I didn't say that. I said that if you change the rules to make garrotes "more realistic" then don't be surprised if players start trying to garrote everything they can get away with.
True...but I'd rather have PCs strangling enemies all the time than tying them up with ropes/chains all the time. (Does that make me bloodthirsty?)
|
The garrote is very situational. I wouldn't allow it except against naked skin. So it wouldn't work on a fighter type wearing a coif, for example. I would rule that the coif spreads out the force too much to have an immediate impact on the blood flow.
I might also deny it against creatures with hard scales around their neck such as lizardfolk or dragons.
I might further make it an illegal weapon to help reduce law-abiding citizenry from using it, sort of like slim jims for opening vehicles (no restrictions on the bad guys, though!).
In general, I look for rules to cover problem areas in the game. If there is not a rule, try switching to a social, religious, or political reason. Those can be much more effective in many cases and add opportunities for role-playing instead of removing opportunities...
|
|
Skeld said that a save vs. unconciousness is too powerful.Errr. I didn't say that. I said that if you change the rules to make garrotes "more realistic" then don't be surprised if players start trying to garrote everything they can get away with.
Obviously, there are a number of "save versus unconscious" effects in the game. [And on the subject of sleep spells, note that there's a HD limit, not to mention some creatures are downright immune (like elves).]
-Skeld
Okay you're right, I inferred it, but you have to admit it's easy to make that inference from what you asked. I think I exemplified why it won't be used by everyone all the time. It requires three things to make it work, and the fort save isn't even a difficult one (DC10 +1/round successfully saved) in the meantime they'll also be able to make a grapple check each round to break free and then you can't re-garrote them if they do escape.
|
|
Very nearly anyone can hold their breath for 2 minutes if they aren't doing anything strenuous. I don't see the problem.Really, I can find plenty of people who can't. In fact I remember a riddle, what's lighter than a feather but not even the strongest man can hold it for a minute. And when is anything in DnD not strenuous, if you have a guy strangling you with a garrote I'm pretty sure that isn't non-strenuous.Hey, guess what, there are rules for that. In the Core Rulebook, even:
If a character takes a standard or full-round action, the remaining duration that the character can hold her breath is reduced by 1 round.
Can you please tell me where you got that quote from, cause I can't find it in the suffocation or garrote rules. Even if that's the case Garrote works off of grapple, so unless you have greater grapple you can't do that because your standard action is being used up. It would require you garroting someone and then having a friend help out by strangling them.
It's from the "Drowning" section of the rules.
|
|
Obviously, there are a number of "save versus unconscious" effects in the game. [And on the subject of sleep spells, note that there's a HD limit, not to mention some creatures are downright immune (like elves).]-Skeld
Well in all fairness once again there are also higher level versions that increase the hit die cap. and there are plenty of creatures outright immune to garroting as well. Undead, oozes, etc.
In our game last week, we had a fight that was just barely underwater. I had everyone make an initial swim check or take 1 CON damage from swalloing water. (Remember this was underwater, not surface swimming.)
If they took an attack action: swim check. (With the results for fighting underwater. Critical Fumble the check...then its a FORT save or -1 CON. And dont fumble the FORT save...)
If you get HIT, then its another FORT save or you take -1 CON.
And each standard action resulted in -1 turn of holding your breath on top of the normal turns...That CON damage quickly adds up.
As for Garrotes, I would say that choking is different than holding your breath. I would impose an opposed FORT SAVE vs CMB or something like that or lose 1+ Attackrs STR Bonus CON/ turn...
Orsomething like that (I havent thought that one through yet...)
|
|
It's from the "Drowning" section of the rules.
Thanks, at least now I know where it is, but the problem I pointed out still exists and technically by RAW you can only do that with drowning, although I do think you'd be hard pressed to find a DM that was that much of a stickler for the rules (I'm certainly not)
|
|
In our game last week, we had a fight that was just barely underwater. I had everyone make an initial swim check or take 1 CON damage from swalloing water. (Remember this was underwater, not surface swimming.)
If they took an attack action: swim check. (With the results for fighting underwater. Critical Fumble the check...then its a FORT save or -1 CON. And dont fumble the FORT save...)
If you get HIT, then its another FORT save or you take -1 CON.
And each standard action resulted in -1 turn of holding your breath on top of the normal turns...That CON damage quickly adds up.
As for Garrotes, I would say that choking is different than holding your breath. I would impose an opposed FORT SAVE vs CMB or something like that or lose 1+ Attackrs STR Bonus CON/ turn...
Orsomething like that (I havent thought that one through yet...)
Well when it comes to houserules in general I try to keep as close to the original as possible that way it's easy to remember. I honestly think that the garrote is fixed by simply saying that a successful grapple forces them to immediately make the suffocation fort saves. That actually fixes the garrote but I just think it's sad that right out the bat it needs a fix.
I would add that there is a difference between having your carotid artery cut or blocked due to a hold and holding your breath. When you hold your breath your heart does not stop pumping blood and O2 to your brain.
I would add some rules along the lines of the whip and sap to the garrote. Perhaps allow a sneak attack with the device when properly trained against someone without either an armor or natural armor bonus. This would allow subdual damage to the target like a sap. Perhaps add a rogue talent that converts the sneak attack dice damage into rounds of reduced breath holding.
Overall you are trying to bring in some advanced anatomy type rules into a game that is not designed to use them, and that is the root of the problem.
|
Getting garroted or choked to death is not the same as suffocation. I guess I've never really had to deal with this issue in game so never really thought about it.
What sort of attack would you need to make to get a garrot around someone's neck? What about a choke hold? I would suspect a choke hold would be a grappling check.
The 2 minutes for drowning/ suffocating itself is fine, that's a bit long for a lot of people but some people can hold their breath for 6 minutes. Heros are supposed to be heroic.
|
|
Getting garroted or choked to death is not the same as suffocation. I guess I've never really had to deal with this issue in game so never really thought about it.
What sort of attack would you need to make to get a garrot around someone's neck? What about a choke hold? I would suspect a choke hold would be a grappling check.
The 2 minutes for drowning/ suffocating itself is fine, that's a bit long for a lot of people but some people can hold their breath for 6 minutes. Heros are supposed to be heroic.
Well luckily the rules for Garroting someone are now in the Adventurer's Armory and just as your choke hold scenario, they function off of grapple.
Unluckily they run off of the suffocation rules and allow for the full two minutes of holding your breath making the garrote useless
|
|
Getting garroted or choked to death is not the same as suffocation. I guess I've never really had to deal with this issue in game so never really thought about it.
What sort of attack would you need to make to get a garrot around someone's neck? What about a choke hold? I would suspect a choke hold would be a grappling check.
The 2 minutes for drowning/ suffocating itself is fine, that's a bit long for a lot of people but some people can hold their breath for 6 minutes. Heros are supposed to be heroic.
Well luckily the rules for Garroting someone are now in the Adventurer's Armory and just as your choke hold scenario, they function off of grapple.
Unluckily they run off of the suffocation rules and allow for the full two minutes of holding your breath making the garrote useless
Well they make it useless in normal combat, you could still use it to sneak up on a guard and choke him to death.
No ship notice means I don't have my Armory yet :(
As others noted, struggling reduces the time you can hold your breath.
I grew up in southern California with a pool and made frequent trips to the beach. With no professional training, I was able to extend my breath-holding to four minutes, all I had to do was hyperventilate before I started and remain still while holding my breath. *Four* minutes. Two minutes is appropriate for a person who hasn't bothered to practice it, and one minute at most for someone struggling is appropriate.
Yes, the garrote is nerfed in the game so PCs don't go around one-shotting every monster they encounter... and also so sneaky monsters don't go around one-shotting high-level PCs.
Also keep in mind that in the real world, a typical person is at best a 3rd level commoner or expert, and against such people (and their low hit points), using the "damage opponent" option for grappling is a faster way to disable your target. In the game, choking a 50 hp PC to death in 20 seconds with a garrote is far less likely than the typical RL scenario.
|
|
Yes, the garrote is nerfed in the game so PCs don't go around one-shotting every monster they encounter... and also so sneaky monsters don't go around one-shotting high-level PCs.
Also keep in mind that in the real world, a typical person is at best a 3rd level commoner or expert, and against such people (and their low hit points), using the "damage opponent" option for grappling is a faster way to disable your target. In the game, choking a 50 hp PC to death in 20 seconds with a garrote is far less likely than the typical RL scenario.
One shot? it requires at least three roles before whatever can take out a PC and that's assuming they fail a DC 10 con check which gives them a second roll to escape the grapple and requires another roll from the monster to maintain the grapple if the PC succeeds. Anyone attempting to do this will have to be customized to grapple and they can only fail to grapple once before they can't use the garrote at all, and it requires 3 rounds to actually "Take someone out", the first failed save only knocks them unconscious. It's less of a one shot than a hold monster spell followed by a coup de grace. But at least you explain your justification even if I don't agree with it in the slightest. Oh well houserules it is.
Even with crappy suffocation rules considered there are a few reasons that the garrote is an attractive option.
1. Its a weapon explicitly used for grapple checks, as such it is the only item that when enchanted will give you a bonus on grapple checks. Also consider that as a weapon it is available for fun things like weapon focus, and fighter weapon mastery giving even more bonus to grapple, a +5 garrote in the hands of a grapple specialist fighter is nuts.
2. Being a light weapon, it is available for weapon finesse. As such it removes one more cmb check from the "requires agile maneuvers to use dex" list
3. The thought of a flaming garrote is hilarious. The thought of a vorpal garrote is awe inspiring.
|
|
Personally I try VERY hard to keep realism OUT of my games. Ability scores... Alignments... Hit Points... Saving Throws... Initiative... Combat by rounds... FIREBALLS! Cure Spells... Undead...
If we are looking for realism inn combat, join the military, go wherever they send you and kill people.
Otherwise it is just a game meant for fun first.
BTW would any NPC ever use any other weapon except a garrote?
Now if I were garroted, I don't think I would be down in 18 seconds. I'd be fighting back, twisting, arching back, sliding a hand or arm under the wire if possible, attacking the attacker's hands, all little things that make keeping a garrote hold very difficult, all little things that get SOME blood and air flowing again. The only way I would let a garrote go straight to saves is if the attacker has the defender completely helpless in some way first. I don't know maybe it's just my personal survival instinct to try and KILL and get free of the SOB before he kills me. Others might just decide to lay down and die.
Yes, the garrote is nerfed in the game so PCs don't go around one-shotting every monster they encounter... and also so sneaky monsters don't go around one-shotting high-level PCs.
I don't think anyone was suggesting that a garrote should be able to "one-shot" a monster. But if a grappling character can pin + tie up + coup de grace an enemy in 2-4 rounds, it doesn't seem too far-fetched to allow a character to force a save vs. unconsciousness or death with a few successful garrote CMB checks (e.g. round 1 = grappled, round 2 = pin, round 3+ = Fort save required).
|
|
1. Its a weapon explicitly used for grapple checks, as such it is the only item that when enchanted will give you a bonus on grapple checks.
Not true as gauntlets can also be enchanted and used in a grapple. And as a monk, all unarmed strikes can be enchanted with an amulet of mighty fists so all monk attacks (unarmed strikes or monk special weapons) would gain the bonus. Note that the monk can wield a kama with his feet, per the RAW, leaving both hands free for the grapple. Yet he doesn't have to actually use his hands to make the grapple check, since that's not specified in the RAW.
It's obviously not RAI and I would never allow it, but...
2. Being a light weapon, it is available for weapon finesse. As such it removes one more cmb check from the "requires agile maneuvers to use dex" list
Ditto for the gauntlets and the monk weapons.
3. The thought of a flaming garrote is hilarious. The thought of a vorpal garrote is awe inspiring.
I have a monk IMC wearing gauntlets with a shocking, flaming amulet of mighty fists that does some pretty heinous damage with his grapple checks. Especially if you add in the Animal Fury bite available via the rage ability. (In a full-round attack the bite is at -5, but there's no indication of what the attack modifier is when used in a standard action such as a grapple. I've ruled that it's still -5. And because it's a secondary weapon (my ruling to explain the -5 penalty) it can't be used more than once per round. I had to do that because the PC has a Str of 30 and was optimized for grappling.)
personally i agree that there should be specific rules for the garrote so it doesn't take 2 minutes to kill some one.
in the star wars saga edition game they have a great rule system that allows the garrote to function like it should but unfortunately it could not be assimilated into the pathfinder game without some heavy alterations.
Now if I were garroted, I don't think I would be down in 18 seconds. I'd be fighting back, twisting, arching back, sliding a hand or arm under the wire if possible, attacking the attacker's hands, all little things that make keeping a garrote hold very difficult, all little things that get SOME blood and air flowing again. The only way I would let a garrote go straight to saves is if the attacker has the defender completely helpless in some way first. I don't know maybe it's just my personal survival instinct to try and KILL and get free of the SOB before he kills me. Others might just decide to lay down and die.
If this is about realism, imagine this:
- the proficient grappler comes from behind and throws the garrote across your neck, his hands are also behind you and difficult to reach- being strangled is extremely painful, and most people will react to a garrote by bringing their hands to try to grab the wire, but the grappler is proficient and already squeezing your neck
- twisting your body and arching back would be even more painful as the garrote would squeeze your neck even more
- you could try attacking the grappler (elbowing the ribs, kicking backwards trying to aim at a sensitive part) but that doesn't remove the garrote, so I'd say you have two or three opportunities (one full-attack) to hurt the grappler before falling unconscious. If you manage to hurt him sufficiently, he might free the wire and you'd still have to spend a couple rounds returning to normalcy regarding your blood flow and breathing ability.
You can't just say that every people having died by garrote have chosen to "lay down and die." Garrotes were a favourite weapon among thugs for a reason. Incidentally, not so much during the middle ages, perhaps because piano strings weren't that available to commoners.
So, is Pathfinder's garrote a metal-reinforced string, or a thin but strong rope? In the latter case, someone with a blade could cut it within seconds, incurring some damage, sure, but freeing them from bring grappled to death.
...and I do know this doesn't belong to PRPG, because this is a role-playing game, not reality. Otherwise, we would have DR for armors, for instance. And rules for facing, too, especially when grappling. Since in reality most successful maneuvers to pin someone down start by twisting someone's arm to their back, I find especially difficult to believe that all Grapples are face-to-face (and that any grapplee escaping a grapple can choose to grapple his grappler instead).
But we can ask ourselves the question "what is the interest of a game in which all reality rules don't apply?" Suppose I present my players with a situation, they are going to use what they know of the situation to try to resolve it, including what they would do themselves when presented with the same situation in real life.
If you want to reflect on a role-playing game where reality is completely ignored, imagine a game where everything is magical, where gravity varies upon the time of the day, and where all characters have two or three heads and four to seven arms. That for sure would force everyone to think in game terms and not realism. Unfortunately, this medieval heroic-fantasy RPG is made upon a very specific set of species interacting in a very specific world, with few alterations when compared to the real world (magic is one thing). You can't force people to think about realism when dealing with situation they do know about.
Ending my rant, now.
|
|
Here's the thing, succesfully using a garrote even if it forced a one round save requires that you max your stealth because you can only use the garrote against unaware opponents. Then you have to be good at grapple, meaning you'll want to be a full BAB class or a monk, and even then you'll want to probably invest in the grapple feats, at the very least improved. Then you have the equivalent of a sleep spell (sleep, deep slumber, color spray, etc.) that only targets one creature at a time and has a DC 10 save.
This isn't even a discussion of reality anymore this is a discussion of whether or not it's too powerful to allow it to immediately force saves. And I'm sorry, I haven't seen one convincing argument that it would be. The most I would say is if you're worried that its too powerful to immediately give a save, make it have to be maintained for 1 round then force a save. But there is never a time when 20 rounds to force a save is not ludicrous and not even worth putting in the game.
|
Garrotes were a favourite weapon among thugs for a reason. Incidentally, not so much during the middle ages, perhaps because piano strings weren't that available to commoners.
So, is Pathfinder's garrote a metal-reinforced string, or a thin but strong rope? In the latter case, someone with a blade could cut it within seconds, incurring some damage,...
Just had to bring this up:
Wikipedia article on Thugees and their use of Garottes
The Thugees in India where using Garottes as early as the 13th century. Well within the 5th through 15th centuries that the "Middle Ages" covers. Their garottes where believed to be their rumal.
Just read through the rules concerning drowning.
It's a CONSTITUTION check, not a Fortitude save. That's a huge difference. One of them increases greatly over time, the other ... not.
So, what are we talking about here at 20th level? +7 or +8 as a Con modifier for this check? And that would be a tough, fighter type character. So on round 8 he'd fall unconscious and 3 rounds later, he'd be dead.
What's the problem with that?
If this is about realism, imagine this:
- the proficient grappler comes from behind and throws the garrote across your neck, his hands are also behind you and difficult to reach
- being strangled is extremely painful, and most people will react to a garrote by bringing their hands to try to grab the wire, but the grappler is proficient and already squeezing your neck
- twisting your body and arching back would be even more painful as the garrote would squeeze your neck even more
- you could try attacking the grappler (elbowing the ribs, kicking backwards trying to aim at a sensitive part) but that doesn't remove the garrote, so I'd say you have two or three opportunities (one full-attack) to hurt the grappler before falling unconscious. If you manage to hurt him sufficiently, he might free the wire and you'd still have to spend a couple rounds returning to normalcy regarding your blood flow and breathing ability.
If this is about realism, imagine this:
- the proficient assassin comes up from behind and uses a dagger to slice across your throat, severing your jugular vein, carotid artery, and windpipe.- bleeding to death and suffocating is extremely painful, and most people will react to their severed throat by bringing their hands to grab the wound and try to stanch the bloodflow, but the damage has been done and the blood is already flowing.
- twisting your body and arching back would be even more painful as this would tear the wound in your neck even more.
- you could try attacking the assassin (punching, kicking, stabbing with your own blade) but that doesn't heal your throat, so I'd say you have two or three opportunities (one full-attack) to hurt the assassin before he fades away into the night. Either way, you fall unconscious and die shortly thereafter. You will never return to normalcy regarding your blodflow and breathing ability.
Or imagine this:
- the proficient sworsman comes up from behind you and slides his sword between into your fourth intercostal space, ramming it through your heart and bursting it out of your chest...
- your cardiac arrest and the gaping wound running completely through your thoracic cavity is extremely painful, and most people will react to the blade jutting from their chest by reaching up their hands and try to grasp the blade, but the heart is already ruined and the blood is already flowing.
- twising your body and arching back would be even more painful as that blade slices and gashes more of your tender flesh.
- you could try attacking the assassin (punching, kicking, stabbing with your own blade) but that doesn't heal your ruptured heart, so I'd say you have two or three opportunities (one full-attack) to hurt the swordsman before he steps out of your reach. Either way, you fall unconscious and die shortly thereafter. You will never return to normalcy regarding your blodflow and breathing ability.
I don't think D&D is really about realism.
Further, I think if I had a choice between having your average guy try to kill me with a garrotte or a battleaxe, for example, I would prefer he has a garrotte. Maybe it's an illusion, but it seems to me my chances are better that way.
All things considered, in a game system where you might have to hit a guy a dozen times, or more, with your battleaxe before you bring him down, creating a different weapon, garrotte or otherwise, that can do the job in shorter time strikes me as unbalancing to the system.
Once again, it seems that flames follow my steps. Oh, well. I was perhaps carried away in my answer to Krome's comment about "Others might just decide to lay down and die." I don't think that anyone having been garroted to death (in the real world) has chosen to "lay down and die." Unless you went through that personally, pay respect to the dead.
Thanks Blake for the humorous adaptation of my comments. I was speaking about real life. Of course, in real life, having your throat cut by an assassin or suffering a case of blade-through-heart would kill you quickly.
EDIT: Thanks also Happler, for the historical reference. I was writing about ways to get out of a garrote, and reflected that a blade could be used to cut the garrote if it wasn't made of metal like those (made of piano strings) used in more recent times. Those Thuggee wouldn't have been as successful as Wikipedia seems to indicate if all their victims carried a dagger.