Post/Author/DateTime	Post
058 11-17-06, 10:07 PM	Well, not quite. Non-magical fire in D&D does, I believe, 1d6 damage, yes? This irks me to no end. Why a level five hero can walk through a burning building at a leisurely pace is quite beyond me. Thus, I have decided to attempt to remedy the situation. Instead of imposing a flat 1d6 damage, I have decided to introduce a Fortitude save for every round a character is in flames. A successful Fortitude save results in the 1d6 damage. A failed fortitude save results in 1d6 + the difference between the DC and the roll. For every time the save is attempted (no matter success or failure), the DC increases for the next save by 2. Now, this still allows characters with their health in the triple digits to easily survive with few ill effects, so I have also included that a failure by 10 or more requires the character to roll another save. If this one is successful, then the character takes twice the damage--if failed, the character becomes unconscious as though their nonlethal damage were equal to their current health amount. If a character rolls a natural one, s/he instantly becomes unconscious. If s/he rolls a natural twenty, all damage is resisted. If the save succeeds by more 10, 1/2 of damage is resisted. The base DC for the resist would be based upon the intensity of the fire--something like a small campfire might have a DC of 11, but a torched inn could start at 15. 11 is the minimum DC for resisting flame. Players may opt to substitute Reflex for Fortitude in order to convert all damage to nonlethal (avoiding the flames doesn't keep the smoke out of your lungs), but a failed Reflex check still deals lethal damage. So, how does this sound? Will it work without being overbalanced, or is it not tough enough to cause high-leveled players hardship in the flames?
Xeviat-DM 11-18-06, 04:45 AM	Being licked by flames seems to deal 1d6 damage, but being emersed in flames would do far more. Acid deals 1d6 damage, but being emersed in it deals 10d6 damage; I'd say fire would be much the same. Check the DMG's rules on the Forrest Fire, a CR 7 encounter listed near the Forest description in the Adventure chapter (if I remember correctly). I'm pretty sure fire deals more damage than 1d6 per round (and there's also smoke inhallation damage as well).
058 11-18-06, 08:15 AM	Ahhh, ok.
Thiez 11-18-06, 01:36 PM	Xeviat, I think a forest fire, lasting 10 minutes or so, dealing 1d6 damage per round, can still be CR 7 :P (100d6 damage, even minimum damage on every die would hurt! :))
jeffepp 11-19-06, 12:16 AM	I had a thought on this today. When our intrepid adventurer enters a burning building to attempt to save the treasure, er..., I mean a baby (ya thats it, the baby), he is not facing one "fire" but many. Lets say he has to cross five fires to reach his goal. Each instance has an additive 5 DC, for a total DC of 25. The character mush make his save (DM pick) to avoid getting burnt, breathing smoke, or anything else damaging. For every 5 that the character missed, take 1d6 damage. So, if the save total is 21, take 1d6, or 18 then take 2d6. Having reached the bag of go.. er.. I mean the baby, the adventurer must make his way back out. But the fire has grown, timbers have fallen, and smoke has choked the air. There are now seven hazards, so the DC is now 35.
theotherdraxen 11-23-06, 12:41 PM	Well, not quite. Non-magical fire in D&D does, I believe, 1d6 damage, yes? This irks me to no end. Why a level five hero can walk through a burning building at a leisurely pace is quite beyond me. Because they're herioc. Heroes don't get their collective asses kicked by a burning building, especially at a leisurely pace. D&D is about heroism, not realism. A 5th level adventurer is pretty tough and good at avoiding damage, so he can plunge his way through a burning building and not get hurt. Why? Because it's heroic! :fight!:
OneWinged4ngel 11-23-06, 03:25 PM	Because they're herioc. Heroes don't get their collective asses kicked by a burning building, especially at a leisurely pace. D&D is about heroism, not realism. A 5th level adventurer is pretty tough and good at avoiding damage, so he can plunge his way through a burning building and not get hurt. Why? Because it's heroic! :fight!: Indeed! Though I would say the *smoke* and *falling timbers* and such would be much more dangerous than the fires themselves, and indeed more dramatic dangers. Have you ever seen a movie where a meaningful character dies right out from burns in a fire? Or do they get trapped under a fallen support? (Actually, consider how few people in real life actually die from the *burning* of a fire and how many die from smoke or something) Further, consider how dangerous running into a burning building is compared to fighting certain CR 5 challenges. Giant monsters, anyone?
058 11-23-06, 04:00 PM	Being really experienced or heroic doesn't save you from the dangers of fire. Sean Connery will burn to death (or choke on smoke or whatever) just as easily as the next guy.
theotherdraxen 11-24-06, 12:19 PM	Being really experienced or heroic doesn't save you from the dangers of fire. Sean Connery will burn to death (or choke on smoke or whatever) just as easily as the next guy. A 5th level character can cleave his way through 8 goblins, outgrapple a dire-lion, slay a devil, and you're saying he can't save the baby from the burning building? If he dies just as easily as the next guy, then he's level one.
True Cavalier 11-24-06, 12:40 PM	Remember it's 1d6 per round. Meaning a 1st level commoner will be dead in 2 rounds maximum - one could argue that's too high, since you can dose a guy in kerosene and set him on fire and he can actually be ...alive for more than 12 seconds (anyone who wants to help me test this is welcome-). If you want to make fire deadlier have it impose penalties to... dexterity? Catching on fire will not insta-kill you but it does cause pain... So have "catching on fire" cause 1d6 Fire Damage, and if the character takes any damage (that is, he is not resistant/immune to fire) be in pain (1d4 Dexterity Damage per round?). That will also make it gradually harder to make the reflex save and put out the flames, which makes sense because it would spread all over you. You could even add to the DC for every round it burns. Anyway, just some thoughts. I like the rule how it is, made for a few great moments in our previous campaign where my tiefling just walked away from the fire our enemies set to our place (when the other PCs were running screaming)
Lord_Tirian 11-24-06, 01:29 PM	(1d4 Dexterity Damage per round?). Too much... and not needed. People usually don't die from the fire, but rather suffocate from the smoke in RL fires. Use the smoke... and catching on fire. Together, it's a threat to most non-prepared characters below level 10ish region... and after that... well, that's high-level.
OneWinged4ngel 11-24-06, 03:31 PM	Being really experienced or heroic doesn't save you from the dangers of fire. Sean Connery will burn to death (or choke on smoke or whatever) just as easily as the next guy. In D&D this isn't true. A guy hit by a sword will die as easily as the next guy, but in D&D it's not true. In D&D the hero can take it, and he can take it hard! The hero isn't "the next guy." He's the frickin' hero who can kill monsters the size of your house with a shortsword. (Also, maybe Sean Connery, but how about Samuel Jackson? Huh? HUH!?)
Thiez 11-24-06, 04:46 PM	How about Chuck Norris? He would kick the fire, the fire would be scared and go burn somewhere else. Then he'd pick up the baby and deliver it to its mother. Then he roundhouse kicks the baby into space, just to let anyone know: Chuck giveth, and Chuck taketh away.
theotherdraxen 11-24-06, 05:10 PM	How about Chuck Norris? He would kick the fire, the fire would be scared and go burn somewhere else. Then he'd pick up the baby and deliver it to its mother. Then he roundhouse kicks the baby into space, just to let anyone know: Chuck giveth, and Chuck taketh away. Fire doesn't apply to Chuck Norris. For that matter, neither does pain.
OneWinged4ngel 11-25-06, 09:17 PM	Samuel Jackson > Chuck Norris.
jeffepp 11-25-06, 11:11 PM	I refuse to do the expected joke about flames on a plane. (The man will never live that line down.)
058 11-26-06, 09:05 PM	A high-leveled character is killed by a sword with only marginally more difficulty than a low-leveled one; insanely high HP represents not the ability to be hit ten thousand times without dying, but the ability to turn "near-lethal blows" into mere scratches and bumps.
theotherdraxen 11-26-06, 10:44 PM	A high-leveled character is killed by a sword with only marginally more difficulty than a low-leveled one; insanely high HP represents not the ability to be hit ten thousand times without dying, but the ability to turn "near-lethal blows" into mere scratches and bumps. Or it could be that your character is so valorous that he simply keeps on fighting despite the heavy blows that would fell a lesser man. It could also be a source of divine strength. It could also be that you exude a magical field of protection. Describe your hit points however you like. It doesn't have to be "turning fatal blows into grazing wounds". It can be whatever you want. I personally like the idea of a character that can keep fighting with 20 arrows sticking out of his back. It's unrealistic, sure, but who gives a damn about playing a realistic game? If I wanted to play reality, I'd get up out of the chair, go to work, drink some fermented water, file some papers, and go home. If I wanted to play D&D, I think I'd cleave my way through a horde of zombies and kill the lich at the end, all for a huge sack of gold. Face it: if you take the heroism out of D&D, you ain't playing D&D anymore.
058 11-27-06, 07:38 AM	You can be heroic and still vulnerable to fire. I can't think of many action heroes who don't burn; I can think of plenty who get terribly hurt dashing through the burning building to save the baby, and I can think of plenty who aren't capable of doing so.
theotherdraxen 11-27-06, 07:50 PM	You can be heroic and still vulnerable to fire. I can't think of many action heroes who don't burn; I can think of plenty who get terribly hurt dashing through the burning building to save the baby, and I can think of plenty who aren't capable of doing so. But I can think of many heroes that can dash through a burning building, brush off flaming embers, choke through the smoke, grab the baby, plunge their way out the other side, and still have enough energy to fight off a couple of dastardly goons. Where, pray, does He-man fit into your games? Is his level of power just a fantasy that the players are never meant to achieve? What about characters such as Boromir? Do the players never get to achieve such glory, only to be brought down by a burning building even if they have 100s of hit points (as your caveat of rolling again is meant to cover)? It sounds like you're trying to play down the effect of having a massive amounts of hit points, so that even common situations apply to high-level characters. It's a fantasy role-playing game, not a reality simulation game. I would recommend you to GURPS: it will have everything you're looking for (a much more realistic setting, that is), and it retains many of the more extraordinary aspects of D&D without all the gritty hit points and massive slews of damage. Pain is pain, in GURPS: virtually regardless of level, when you get hit, you feel the hurt. If you try to make D&D more realistic, you're going to have a massive headache by the end. D&D simply wasn't built around realism, and adapting it to a realistic setting would take a great amount of effort. Plus, by the time you're done, you probably aren't playing D&D so much anymore. On another note, a way of making D&D more realistic is to restrict the players to level 3 and below. Past level three, the characters start being able to do things that are outside the bounds of normal reality (such as walking unscathed through a burning building).
calvinNhobbes 11-28-06, 10:49 AM	Another option for realism is to use the wound point/vitality point variation and make cetain things (like falling, raging inferno buildings, etc.) go straight to wound points. More lethal, definitely, but reality is dangerous. But the real question is it more fun? Some people like the extra danger, some just want to be a fantasy hero.
theotherdraxen 11-28-06, 12:37 PM	Another option for realism is to use the wound point/vitality point variation and make cetain things (like falling, raging inferno buildings, etc.) go straight to wound points. More lethal, definitely, but reality is dangerous. But the real question is it more fun? Some people like the extra danger, some just want to be a fantasy hero. wound/vitality immediately locks people into the fatal wounds>grazing blows mentality, so if you can't really move out of the way (such as when you are immersed in flames), then it should go straight to wounds. Thus, they will get fatigued, exhausted, and die, if they aren't smart enough to get out of the building alive, regardless of level.
qwerty1 11-28-06, 01:06 PM	I'm pretty sure DMGII covered fires a little bit better than the DMG.
unundindur 12-25-06, 03:49 PM	Easy way to rule it; Fire deals 1d6 damamge per character level of the target for each round. This way fire is as dangerous at level 18 as on level 1. Regarding resistance, it could be ruled that resistance is applied before you multiply it as it is magical.
zae 12-26-06, 12:39 AM	In response to the idea of D6 per level. ...That means fire is more dangerous for D4 characters the higher in level you get. That's retarded. Knowledge makes you more flammable? Ok, in the real world, normal people get killed in burning buildings, bushfires etc. In D&D, normal people also get killed by them - an average commoner at first level has 2.5 HP. If you think the heroes are normal people, you're playing the wrong game and I'm glad you're not my DM. D&D PCs leap off cliffs and land with little more than a sprained ankle. They teleport around the place, they slay dragons (the breath of a dragon, a supernatural creature designed to kill things that are tougher than normal people, should do more damage than any nonmagical fire ever will), they fly, they turn invisible (with light still reaching their (invisible) eyes, thus allowing them to see - in other words, they're invisible in an unscientific way, though I admit I'm going by secondhand information, not being a scientist here), they do all sorts of things that real people cannot do. It sounds like someone here simply lost their favourite hero/cousin/whatever to a housefire and always thought that person was more spectacular than a D&D character ever could be. So while we're being bitter, I think the collision rules should be worse. Any overrun or colliding object should do a British Quadrillion D12 damage, ignoring Regen and DR. Long story short, *some* movie heroes die in fires. any others do not. Many real people do, some do not. D&D characters are not real people, and they're better than the majority of movie heroes. Face the facts, D&D characters are superheroes and anime characters, and the only things that can kill them are other people/creatures with the [Awesome] subtype.
calvinNhobbes 12-28-06, 11:19 AM	wound/vitality immediately locks people into the fatal wounds>grazing blows mentality, so if you can't really move out of the way (such as when you are immersed in flames), then it should go straight to wounds. Thus, they will get fatigued, exhausted, and die, if they aren't smart enough to get out of the building alive, regardless of level. Exactly. That's the whole point of the wounds/vitality system. Certain natural, environmental threats (like falling, raging fires, lava, etc.) are just as dangerous regardless of level. The WP/VP system adds some reality to the game. If you don't want it, don't use it.
robertliguori 12-28-06, 02:47 PM	There is a table tied to the psionic power Control Flames that I personally find very helpful if I want to adjucate slightly more deadly fires. The table (here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/controlFlames.htm)) seems to indicate that being splashed with burning oil does 1d6 per round, being soaked in oil and set on fire does 3d6 (while medium), and being in the center of a full-on rapidly-burning house does 7d6. Being on fire can mean multiple things, and sitting in the middle of a bonfire is (and should be) different than holding your arm against a torch.
theotherdraxen 12-29-06, 12:01 AM	I think that 058 has taken enough abuse. I only advise that before he adds more realism to his game, that he makes sure that reality is what his players really want.
unundindur 12-29-06, 08:08 AM	In response to the idea of D6 per level. ...That means fire is more dangerous for D4 characters the higher in level you get. That's retarded. Knowledge makes you more flammable? Ok, in the real world, normal people get killed in burning buildings, bushfires etc. In D&D, normal people also get killed by them - an average commoner at first level has 2.5 HP. If you think the heroes are normal people, you're playing the wrong game and I'm glad you're not my DM. D&D PCs leap off cliffs and land with little more than a sprained ankle. They teleport around the place, they slay dragons (the breath of a dragon, a supernatural creature designed to kill things that are tougher than normal people, should do more damage than any nonmagical fire ever will), they fly, they turn invisible (with light still reaching their (invisible) eyes, thus allowing them to see - in other words, they're invisible in an unscientific way, though I admit I'm going by secondhand information, not being a scientist here), they do all sorts of things that real people cannot do. It sounds like someone here simply lost their favourite hero/cousin/whatever to a housefire and always thought that person was more spectacular than a D&D character ever could be. So while we're being bitter, I think the collision rules should be worse. Any overrun or colliding object should do a British Quadrillion D12 damage, ignoring Regen and DR. Long story short, *some* movie heroes die in fires. any others do not. Many real people do, some do not. D&D characters are not real people, and they're better than the majority of movie heroes. Face the facts, D&D characters are superheroes and anime characters, and the only things that can kill them are other people/creatures with the [Awesome] subtype. I don't play with this, I jsut suggested a fix for the issue the thread-started had :) I like my groups to be heroic, and we use the core rules for this issue ;)
theotherdraxen 12-29-06, 09:46 PM	Anyone else think that this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0243.html) might be the inspiration for this thread?:D
058 12-29-06, 11:07 PM	As a matter of fact, it was.
Mc_Bane 12-30-06, 12:04 AM	Well, I'd like to comment on the whole "realism" issue, particularly with relevance to the issue of herosim. A couple of things have been said that really rub me the wrong way, specifically something along the lines of, if they (PCs) were in severe danger of dying when running into burning buildings then they wouldnt be heroes, and that DnD characters are basically Anime characters. Now firstly, I am by no means prescribing anyone to play in any other way or whatever, if you want to play supermen, go for it. However I can't help but think that if the heroes are in no danger at all when saving the child, then the action just isn't heroic. There is no personal risk involved, the hero can't fail or die. Is it heroic for the person immune to fire to reach into a fire to save someone, no, not in the slightest. Its not brave, takes no courage and frankly, you'd just be an asshat if you didn't do it. They are not a hero. What makes burning buildings an opportunity for herosim in films is that the character is in very real danger, there is a chance that he will lose his life, hence it is brave. Does it take any courage for the man who is impervious to gunfire (And knows it) to step in front of a bullet to save another person. No, none at all. You might praise him for his reflexes or whatever, but its not brave or anything, he is not risking anything. I checked up a dictionary definition for Heroism (Albeit on google, first result), what came up was: "Exceptional or heroic courage when facing danger" If there is no danger, then it cannot be heroic. As such I am all for making fire far more dangerous, as DnD is about being a hero, and you just can't do that when impervious to harm. The other point with the anime is that personally, I detest anime, and whilst if that is your thing, fine, but personally playing DnD like that gives me the same feeling that I have no doubt you would have if someone told you their new characters backstory, during which they held of an army of demons single handedly, threw down several gods and did some other stuff, probably involving at least 1 close call and several other unbelievable actions. Not relavent, just a pet hate of mine.
Mc_Bane 12-30-06, 12:29 AM	Edit: Horrible double post due to evil double mouse tap meaning back button
058 12-30-06, 10:13 AM	This illustrates, with much more clarity and focus, that which I have been attempting to get across since post one. Thank you.
unundindur 12-30-06, 01:58 PM	Well, I'd like to comment on the whole "realism" issue, particularly with relevance to the issue of herosim. A couple of things have been said that really rub me the wrong way, specifically something along the lines of, if they (PCs) were in severe danger of dying when running into burning buildings then they wouldnt be heroes, and that DnD characters are basically Anime characters. Now firstly, I am by no means prescribing anyone to play in any other way or whatever, if you want to play supermen, go for it. However I can't help but think that if the heroes are in no danger at all when saving the child, then the action just isn't heroic. There is no personal risk involved, the hero can't fail or die. Is it heroic for the person immune to fire to reach into a fire to save someone, no, not in the slightest. Its not brave, takes no courage and frankly, you'd just be an asshat if you didn't do it. They are not a hero. What makes burning buildings an opportunity for herosim in films is that the character is in very real danger, there is a chance that he will lose his life, hence it is brave. Does it take any courage for the man who is impervious to gunfire (And knows it) to step in front of a bullet to save another person. No, none at all. You might praise him for his reflexes or whatever, but its not brave or anything, he is not risking anything. I checked up a dictionary definition for Heroism (Albeit on google, first result), what came up was: "Exceptional or heroic courage when facing danger" If there is no danger, then it cannot be heroic. As such I am all for making fire far more dangerous, as DnD is about being a hero, and you just can't do that when impervious to harm. The other point with the anime is that personally, I detest anime, and whilst if that is your thing, fine, but personally playing DnD like that gives me the same feeling that I have no doubt you would have if someone told you their new characters backstory, during which they held of an army of demons single handedly, threw down several gods and did some other stuff, probably involving at least 1 close call and several other unbelievable actions. Not relavent, just a pet hate of mine. Good post :) Your point as far as I can understand is the same point as I make in MMORPGs, if there is no danger its not heroic (hench, I am pro permadeath). In normal DnD though I think there is a difference. The game is all about satisfying the players, and as long as they have fun its a good game. Now with that in mind there are two approaches, those who like there to be a numeric danger and those who just imagine the danger and is fine with that. As long as there are no other parties to please (as in an online game) and the players don't feel it is cheesy its fine. If they don't like it though, change it (1d6 par level = very real danger) :) Over to the other point I agree completely. before level 1 you better not have killed much. I can accept someone having killed a bear, or a thug or something, but not the good old "I was the warrior-king og the country who went into foreign lands...".
Sphyre 12-30-06, 04:49 PM	The other point with the anime is that personally, I detest anime, and whilst if that is your thing, fine, but personally playing DnD like that gives me the same feeling that I have no doubt you would have if someone told you their new characters backstory, during which they held of an army of demons single handedly, threw down several gods and did some other stuff, probably involving at least 1 close call and several other unbelievable actions. Not relavent, just a pet hate of mine. Not all anime is the same. Not all D&D characters are like "anime" characters. Sure, there are incredibly stupid Animes like DBZ, where constipation is the greatest most powerful source of power in the universe but not all anime is like that. (But if you know any japanese, you'll understand that the entire series is one big joke. Gohan means meal or rice. Bibbity Bobbity and Buu? Furiizaa? Come on that's an appliance we know as a Freezer. Then you have the Ginyu squad... :rolleyes:) Stereotyping Anime as like that is like saying D&D is evil based on 1 or 2 people who are "evil" that happen to play D&D. Anime is simply japanese cartoons. It has a lot of their culture in it. I can understand it if you do not share, or even understand parts of their culture, but hating something based on it's label is a different story. Enough about the tangent though. D&D at first level surprised me by how close to reality it actually is. It's not perfect, but it's close enough to impress me. Take someone with common hitpoints of 4, and have an average person and hit them with a shortsword. They have a 50% chance of having a wound that they could recover from without too much noticable difference, although another wound could cause a loss of too much blood issue. They have a 1/6th chance of being disabled, in which any strenuous activity would cause them to agitate the wound causing a more serious condition: dying. And finally the 1/3rd chance they have of going unconscious right away, bleeding to death. After you get that, you're getting into super human. You're superman, spiderman or yes, maybe even goku. You can take a few bullets, be stabbed repeatedly, or even be eaten by a dragon and survive. If you want to keep that sort of "realism" at higher levels the vitality/wound system does a good job of that, but the abstraction of HP really shows how superhuman you can at levels even as low as level 5.
unundindur 12-30-06, 05:11 PM	Shameless plug to a more realistic system, see my signature :rolleyes:
theotherdraxen 12-30-06, 07:00 PM	I think the problem with this high-level deal is that it keeps the players as real as first level regardless of level. 1st level is for pseudo-realism. After that, you're on to fantasy. Allow me to revise my use of the word heroic: fantasy heroes don't get brought down by a flaming inn.
PhaedrusXY 12-31-06, 12:28 AM	Anyone else think that this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0243.html) might be the inspiration for this thread?:DAs a matter of fact, it was.Priceless. :rofl: