Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JimProfit 02-22-08, 04:38 PM	I had originaly planned to implement this into 4th edition sense they don't seem to keep the massive damage=death rule. But I could use this in 3.5 meanwhile and see how well it works. This is how it functions. Your massive damage threshold is seperate from what it takes to deal massive damage. To "trigger" massive damage, you need to take more damage then your constitution score. (Not equal to or more, blatantly more) At that point, you then roll a d100 (no saving throw) and try to roll equal to or below a combonation of your constitution score and hit die amount. If a level 20 barbarian had a con score of 18, massive damage would only be triggerd if a single source of damage did 19 or more damage, then he'd roll a d100 and try to roll equal to or below 38 (hit die amount+con score). This is a bit less random then what i was doing of just hit for con score or more, make a flat fort save of 15. (1s always mean failure) Let's compare the fairness factor, a level 1 commoner 10 con is hit slashed with a bastard sword for six damage damage on a critical hit (x2=12). He's gonna need to make a fort save anyway to avoid losing more negative HP, so it'd be kindof repetitive and clunky to make him make another fort save (and argue which save meant which) So normaly the commoner would have a flat 75% chance of dying. (Assuming he doesn't die anyway from the negative HP) Leveling up would not change this at all, only a differance in con-score. Now he has an 89% chance to die. Much more realistic, much less random, but still has a luck factor that says "hey, **** happens". A great green wyrm is struck for massive damage with a critical hit (it's possible though unlikely a normal mudane weapon could do it). Normaly the great green wyrm would only have a 5% chance of dieing at this point. (Rolling a 1) Which people complained was too random and 1s/20s should not make or break the game. Now the great green wyrm would have a 45% chance of dieing. This actually INCREASES the chance of him dieing, but lowers the possibility of just any low level cretin killing him. (The 1 damage differance means alot when you're first level..) What About Golems/Undead? Sense golems/undead have no con-score, they instead use thier wisdom or charisma scores (whichever is higher) to determine what triggers massive damage, then add thier wisdom or charisma (whichever is higher) to thier hit die amount to determine thier percentile chance of success in not dying from massive damage. Can The Tarrasque die by massive damage? That's up to the GM to decide how omineous the tarrasque actually is. But i'd permit it to say YES! With only a 17% chance of dying from massive damage it'd be foolish to depend on it. What about Epic monsters? There are some epic monsters that go well above "100" and thus no longer apply normaly to the massive damage roll, there are several means to solve this. 100 always means death: It sortof takes from the 1s/20s stradegy that people were complaining about anyway, but 1% is alot differant then 5%. More importantly, epic level monsters are ridicously strong, if nothing else, allow PCs to have a 1% chance of delivering a lethal blow. Let's say you're fighting an atropal, what low level character is going to deal 42 damage? It would either an extremely lucky sorcerer to deliver enough damage with thier fireball. Nothing less then around level 10 would do. (And by epic standards that's a child) It kindof deters away from my vision of relying less on levels and more on luck, tactics, and good gear. But sense they are epic I suppose I have to compromise sometime.
Krusk 02-22-08, 06:10 PM	So if a pc takes damage equal to or greater than their con score they have to make the check. - means more checks made- If that PC rolls less than their con score+HD than they are not dead? -this means most PCs have a very good chance of death. I do not like this system, this means massive damage checks are going to be rolled more often, and that players and monsters alike are more likely to die from them. I would rather just drop massive damage, or take the existing system and expand it some. Maybe +5 to the DC for every 20 damage above 50.
JimProfit 02-22-08, 07:47 PM	Well that's the thing, you aint gonna be dealing 50 damage to about tenth level. This way right from level1 you could theoreticaly massive damage most creatures. In the short-term PCs get screwed yes, but once they get magic items that'll quickly pass.
Krusk 02-23-08, 12:28 AM	Well that's the thing, you aint gonna be dealing 50 damage to about tenth level. This way right from level1 you could theoreticaly massive damage most creatures. In the short-term PCs get screwed yes, but once they get magic items that'll quickly pass. Generic orc warrior 1. Greataxe 1d12 damage x3 critical. One of these gets a crit, and you can hit 50 damage easy. if you were actually focused on dealing damage, hitting 50 is even easier. which magic items would help PCs not be instant screwed?
JimProfit 02-23-08, 03:48 PM	Possibly a ring of Bear's Endurance. (+4 to con score as long as they wear the ring) That's just one example mind you, I'm sure I could think up more if I sat down and wanted my PCs to have better thresholds.
Krusk 02-23-08, 06:27 PM	The only items i can think of that would help would be the items of stat +x and honestly they top out at 6, giving 6% better chances. Not a very helpful thing, when we are looking at 75% chance of death if you take 30 damage.
JimProfit 02-24-08, 12:54 AM	Well they don't have to cap at +6. The only rule is zero.
Tequila_Sunrise 02-24-08, 01:26 AM	I don't see this working well. Dealing damage greater than a PC's Con score is easy at low level and all but assured at mid to high levels. So every time a PC gets hit, he's going to have to roll that percentile--which he has an overwhelming probability of failing. That equals a lot of dead characters. Suddenly all fights will come down to who gets first initiative. Personally I don't use massive damage at all--it's yet another roll to remember and keep track of.
Krusk 02-24-08, 02:25 AM	Personally I don't use massive damage at all--it's yet another roll to remember and keep track of. Me neither.
JimProfit 02-24-08, 01:08 PM	I don't see this working well. Dealing damage greater than a PC's Con score is easy at low level and all but assured at mid to high levels. So every time a PC gets hit, he's going to have to roll that percentile--which he has an overwhelming probability of failing. That equals a lot of dead characters. Suddenly all fights will come down to who gets first initiative. Personally I don't use massive damage at all--it's yet another roll to remember and keep track of. On the flip-side low level characters can never fight anything but a select few monsters, it lowers the diversity of the setting. Can't have them doing a dragon quest at level 3, even if the dragon is old and confused. A decrepite old dragon would still smoke the PCs. Atleast massive damage gives them some kindof aid. Especialy if they have +X weapons to trigger it sooner. Another possibility is (if you use the 2d10 d100 varaint) look at "both sides" and if both are higher THEN they die.
Cranewings 02-25-08, 11:42 AM	I use instant death. If 25 points of damage are dealt with a single blow the character has to make a standard Fortitude save of 16+ or die. This applies to all creatures from dragons to halflings. This is my logic - hitpoints don't equal meat density and blood volume in my game as much as they equal luck and skill. Hitpoints over 10 are in a way, part of the dodge. A damage roll of 25+ means the attacker landed a clean blow and there is a chance of killing the target. On the flip side, most large monsters have huge fort saves and aren't likely to fail a check. If the hit was REALLY good, I might give the monster a penalty. For the same reasons, low level healing magic can't be used on a 25 damage hit. That damage must be healed with time or cure critical wounds. I should also note that I'm using the Conan rpg damage rules, so two handed weapons do 2 dice of damage, rouge back stabs deal d8s, and war bows do d10-d12 so getting to 25 damage is even easier.
JimProfit 02-25-08, 12:34 PM	That's exactly how I feel. Conan has great story and intense combat even without magic or extradionary dynamics. I had a more "4th edition flavor" idea for massive damage, but it doesn't really work, it could kill a low level PC or monster, but higherups, even with the differant standard doesn't mean diddely squat. As it worksout... Hit die 5 or less: Roll a d20 and then a d4. You're dealt damage every round equal to the d4xd20 untill you make a fort save of 15. Hit die 6 to 11: Roll a d20 and then a d8. You're dealt damage every round equal to the d8xd20 untill you make a fort save of 15. Hit die 12 or higher: Roll a d20 and then a d12. You're dealt damage every round equal to the d12xd20 untill you make a fort save of 15. A great wyrm blue dragon has average 565hp, let's say he takes his con score in damage, that's 27, he now has to make a fort save every round, everytime he fails he takes his rolled additional damage. On every the additional damage will be 60 average. But seeing as the only way he'd fail is a 5% fumble-roll, it's not only unrealiable, it reverts back to the 1 or 20 mindset people were complaining about. Worst yet, if they roll "1x1", massive damage looks laughably flawed as I think a great blue wyrm can live with taking 1 damage for a couple of rounds... And low level PCs are even more inclined to die. Tucker the barbarian has a con score of 18 and his massive damage is triggerd. He's already at -2hp... Average there is an additional 20hp damage, even the lowest possibility of 1 will make him have to make two fort saves, the first to quit dying, the second to quit getting damaged. And he'll have to succeed at both within three rounds. Tucker has to make the fort save 15 to stop taking massive damage, one miss is all it'll take, he has a 45% chance of failure. (He has to roll a 9 or better) Tucker under the percentile system has an 81% chance of death. Yes, the percentage nearly doubled, but he'll be thankful it exsists when monsters are simply having itchy noses from massive damage lateron.. The only time this version actually works good is at the moderate stage of 6 to 11. Which is almost around "the G spot" of D&D levels. By level 11 Tucker has 176hp, and on average would be taking 40damage, it's a big bite, but not over the top, he can still fail his fort save, but only a 20% chance.. This is why we need massive damage, otherwise combat looks ridicoules just pounding and bashing eachother till one of you fallsdown.
Cranewings 02-25-08, 12:44 PM	I've often toyed with the idea of letting Natural 20's always cause a death chance. I agree with you.
Tequila_Sunrise 02-25-08, 07:24 PM	On the flip-side low level characters can never fight anything but a select few monsters, it lowers the diversity of the setting. Can't have them doing a dragon quest at level 3, even if the dragon is old and confused. A decrepite old dragon would still smoke the PCs. Wait, are you saying that massive damage is what gives PCs a chance against monsters of significantly higher CR than the party's level?
JimProfit 02-25-08, 07:34 PM	Wait, are you saying that massive damage is what gives PCs a chance against monsters of significantly higher CR than the party's level? That's exactly what i'm saying. Level differance shouldn't be so absolute. That's why it's called Dungeons&Dragons and not DBZ d20.
deathbane 02-26-08, 12:36 AM	That's exactly what i'm saying. Level differance shouldn't be so absolute. That's why it's called Dungeons&Dragons and not DBZ d20. Since the number of NPC's is theoretically endless this will not be in the PC's favor especially since the monsters will hit harder and more often than lower level PC's unless the DM does some serious dice fudging/monster stat manipulation, and in that case the monster is not really the CR that is was supposed to be anyway.
Tequila_Sunrise 02-26-08, 01:58 PM	That's exactly what i'm saying. Level differance shouldn't be so absolute. That's why it's called Dungeons&Dragons and not DBZ d20. Yeah, what deathbane said. Massive damage isn't anything but a nod in the general direction of realism. If massive damage is what PCs in your games rely on to overcome relatively high CRs, I won't say there's something wrong with your game, but I will say that such a game is very atypical. TS
The_Shaman 02-26-08, 02:25 PM	I thought about making it more fluid, myself. I'd base it on a fixed amount - say 15 or 20 - and then add to it the character's HD and/or class levels. If that amount is exceeded, they need to roll. However, for every point that the threshold is exceeded by, the DC improves by 1. Thus, a MDD roll needs not be a 95% chance of survival for a character with a good fortitude save! If you think it's too dangerous, improve the DC with 1 per 2 HPs of damage over the threshold. However, I don't think it will work too often anyway - just be more than the formality it is now.
Krusk 02-26-08, 04:36 PM	Jimprofit, why don't you playtest your idea for a few fights. Get a group of people willing to make characters, and just see how it effects your games.
JimProfit 02-27-08, 08:29 PM	Jimprofit, why don't you playtest your idea for a few fights. Get a group of people willing to make characters, and just see how it effects your games. It's an idea. Seeing as I do beleive in fairness I suppose that would be the logical thing to do.