Dexterity poison damage

[Stv]

Hello, two questions:

A.) Can ability scores be reduced to negatives? We're unable to find an answer either way in the text, and the language of the ability section implies 'no' (only reference to reaching 0, not beyond) yet the poison section discusses "poison damage greater than ability score." Clarification?

B.) There seems to be an inconsistency re: zero (or negative?) dexterity. In the dexterity entry in the Ability section (p16) it says that a character with zero dexterity is immobile, yet conscious. In the ability damage section (p555) it says that any creature reduced to zero ability score is (aside from constitution) unconscious. Which is it?

Thanks,

English-Major-DM's Group

[Elven_Blades]

In the description of ability damage, p555 core rulebook, the rules read, " if the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious". Exceptions being Dex (immobile, but conscious), and con (dead). So yes, you can go beyond your ability score in damage. Some spells or effects specify how much damage they can apply to a score, usually no lower than your effective score being 1.

With regards to section B, the general ability rules state that 0 con kills you, but 0 any other score equals unconscious. Under Dex rules, it specifies immobile but still conscious. When rules conflicts occur in this manner, the rules of Specific Rule Vs. General rule apply. Specific rules trump general rules, usually they state that the are a an exception, but not always. In this case, the rules would read, written more clearly, something along these lines...
" when an ability score is reduced to 0 or below, the character is rendered immobile, unconscious, or slain, as specified under the abilities' description on pages 16-17, of the core rulebook.

On a side note, I don't think it makes sense that Str knocks you unconscious. In 3.x rules, Str = immobile and fall over, Dex = paralyzed, Con = dead, Int and Wis = unconscious, Cha = babble incoherently. I liked these much better.

[Oliver McShade]

Str = 0 = Passes out and Unconscious.

Wis = 0 = Unconscious.

Cha = 0 = Unconscious.

Int = 0 = Comatose and Unconscious

Con = 0 = Dead

Dex = 0 = Immobile but conscious.

[Sean K Reynolds]

Technically, you should track ability damage into the negatives, that way you know how much you need to boost that stat with magic to make the character functional again.

For example:

If you don't track it into the negatives:

Unlucky fighter is mobbed by giant centipedes and takes 20 points of Dex damage, reducing his 10 Dex to 0. His cleric buddy can heal the hit point damage but can't cure the Dex damage. His clever sorcerer buddy casts cat's grace on him, giving him a +4 bonus to Dex and temporarily bringing him up to Dex 4, and the PCs rush out of the dungeon to their horses before the fight goes limp again. (Alternate version of this story is they stick the rogue's belt of dexterity +2 on the fighter and he's able to stagger around at Dex 2 until they get out of the dungeon). If the fighter rests for 1 day, he recovers 1 point of Dex damage, is at Dex 1, and is no longer paralyzed.

If you do track it into the negatives:
Unlucky fighter is mobbed by giant centipedes and takes 20 points of Dex damage, reducing his 10 Dex to -10. His cleric buddy can heal the hit point damage but can't cure the Dex damage. His clever sorcerer buddy casts cat's grace on him, giving him a +4 bonus to Dex ... and temporarily bringing him up to Dex -6, which means he's still paralyzed. (Alternate version of this story is they stick the rogue's belt of dexterity +2 on the fighter and he's still paralyzed at Dex -8.) If the fighter rests for 1 day, he recovers 1 point of Dex damage, is at Dex -9, and is still paralyzed.

Being able to overcome severe ability score damage with a minor spell or item or one day of rest doesn't make sense.

[Oliver McShade]

So the first option is less realistic, but the part survives to live on the next day, and have fun.

The second option is more realistic, the fighter dies, and the player set out the rest of the game day. Then creates a new character.

to each his own.

[Mistwalker]

Oliver McShade wrote:

The second option is more realistic, the fighter dies, and the player set out the rest of the game day. Then creates a new character.

That seems harsh. I don't necessarily see that the character dies in SKR's scenario.

The rest of the group hauls the fighter out, go to their horses, tie the fighter on his, rush back to town/camp. Next morning, the cleric casts severel lesser restorations and the fighter is back up.

[Oliver McShade]

Mistwalker wrote:

Oliver McShade wrote:

The second option is more realistic, the fighter dies, and the player set out the rest of the game day. Then creates a new character.

That seems harsh. I don't necessarily see that the character dies in SKR's scenario.

The rest of the group hauls the fighter out, go to their horses, tie the fighter on his, rush back to town/camp. Next morning, the cleric casts severel lesser restorations and the fighter is back up.

That is one possibility.... another is that, the group while trying to haul the Unconscious fighter out, is slowed down and hampered from fleeing the area, in which case you end up with a group wipe out.

All things are possible after all, maybe the group is delayed, and this delay saves the entire party, right as the cave they are about to enter collapse right in front of them.

......

Example 1 = Player playing the fighter is back in action, playing his character.
Example 2 = Player is a Sack of Potatoes.

Which is more fun for the player :)

[Mistwalker]

Oliver McShade wrote:

Example 1 = Player playing the fighter is back in action, playing his character.

Example 2 = Player is a Sack of Potatoes.

Which is more fun for the player :)

I don't see this as any different than from hit points. If you go into negatives, you may still live (as long as you are still less than your Con in negative HP).

That, and I know that myself and my players prefer a game where we may die, or have to carefully ration out resources (like lesser restoration spells). So, example 2 is not a sack of potatoes, but someone who has enjoyed the fight, and is looking at ways of not having that happen to them again!

Besides, I personnally prefer to have my character go down with dex damage than con damage. :)

[Dire Mongoose]

Oliver McShade wrote:

Example 1 = Player playing the fighter is back in action, playing his character.

Example 2 = Player is a Sack of Potatoes.

Which is more fun for the player :)

But by that logic, you should never kill or incapacitate a character, which means the PCs basically just win everytime forever -- since not being in the action at all times is unfun.