Post/Author/DateTime	Post
573v3 08-11-05, 04:26 PM	Last night, me and my group spent the whole night playing dnd. This was a campaign in which the pc's were evil. My evil character was selfish, even to the other pc's. So to make a long story short, I killed a pc when his back was to me. A friend of his was a wilder, and I dont remember the spell name, but it cost 10 pp for 13d6 dmg. I had 59 hp, he did 55 dmg. I sighed relief in my head, knowing I could deal enough dmg to kill him on my turn. Then the DM makes me roll a fortitude save, the "Massive damage" rule. I fail, and I die. Does anyone else agree that the massive damage rule is ridiculas. It makes things that are strong enough to do massive damage even better. WTF? The hp system is arbitrary, it has NO realism to it, so why have this horrendous rule?!?
The Abominable Darkling 08-11-05, 04:31 PM	Realism? :P
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-11-05, 04:46 PM	Makes perfect sense to me. Especially when applied to a PKer.
AlexVADnD 08-11-05, 04:51 PM	...Then the DM makes me roll a fortitude save, the "Massive damage" rule. I fail, and I die. Does anyone else agree that the massive damage rule is ridiculas. It makes things that are strong enough to do massive damage even better. WTF? The hp system is arbitrary, it has NO realism to it, so why have this horrendous rule?!? Would you still hate this rule if your opponent had died as a result of your doing massive damage to him? Or if the BBGG (since you were playing evil characters) died as a result of massive damage? Rhetorical question; I am fairly certain I know the answer already.
Fanged Fremont 08-11-05, 05:01 PM	PCs take more hits than any one monster, thus the PCs are more likely to get offed by massive damage. I don't use this rule just like I don't use that silly critical fumble fall on your own sword rule when rolling ones.
Flushmaster 08-11-05, 05:52 PM	It really amazes me how many people think that an evil character means that you should kill your party members. You're still playing the same game and it remains a social game; you should still make an effort to cooperate with fellow players. What you did was act like a dick and then whine like a little brat when you got a taste of your own medicine. As to the rule, it makes perfect sense. Trama from "massive damage" is quite real and can be quite deadly. It only makes sense to have it in D&D. I wouldn't suggest you ever play D20 Modern, since massive damage applies in it any time you take damage equal to or greater than your constitution score. But I guess you'd whine then that "a single gunshot wound isn't enough to kill somebody" or some other self indulgent nonsense.
Plateau Child 08-11-05, 06:29 PM	Seems fair, especially since you are the sort of toe-rag that attacks other PCs.
Duration_10_Rounds 08-11-05, 06:38 PM	It really amazes me how many people think that an evil character means that you should kill your party members. Exaclty! ... good fears evil so much because: evil works!, evil grows, evil spreads, evil succeeds where good would fail. If every evil character spent thier time killing or planning to kill each other, Evil would be extinct. It was like the last but few episode of Enterprise where they are all "Evil" alternate dimension versions of themselves and all try to kill each other at every turn.... yet they are more advanced than the "Good" universe Enterprise.. It really made you think.... How in the name of common sence do a race who do nothing but murder the guy next to them evolve past apes who beat each others brains out with bones and sticks. Too many people play evil as pschotic-retarded. and WAY too many characters dont say "Oww!" or react realisticly to pain and suffering (hence this rule). The OP was ready to kill the guy if he lived because he knew he could kill him in a single blow ...*cough...your character cant look at his character sheet to read his hit points and con you skanky metagamer...cough* (sorry ive had a bad cold recenlty :rolleyes: ). Even when he almost killed him with a wave of his hands, rather than cower or say he was sorry and would do anything not to be blasted into the next life he wanted to push the attack against a stronger and mystical foe.... Evil != pschotic-retarded.
arphaxad 08-11-05, 07:00 PM	Last night, me and my group spent the whole night playing dnd. This was a campaign in which the pc's were evil. My evil character was selfish, even to the other pc's. So to make a long story short, I killed a pc when his back was to me. A friend of his was a wilder, and I dont remember the spell name, but it cost 10 pp for 13d6 dmg. I had 59 hp, he did 55 dmg. I sighed relief in my head, knowing I could deal enough dmg to kill him on my turn. Then the DM makes me roll a fortitude save, the "Massive damage" rule. I fail, and I die. Does anyone else agree that the massive damage rule is ridiculas. It makes things that are strong enough to do massive damage even better. WTF? The hp system is arbitrary, it has NO realism to it, so why have this horrendous rule?!? Never-mind, I reread some rules.
Xixt412 08-11-05, 08:18 PM	Why do people assume that character betrayal means that he played his character as a chaotic stupid pycho who wanted to murder everybody? Party betrayal can be a fun part of playing an evil character. Yes, D&D is a social game, but betraying the other characters in the party, especially if roleplayed well, can be an enjoyable experience. Of course, it's entirely possible that he did play his character as a chaotic stupid team killing psyco. But it's not nice to assume it.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-11-05, 08:25 PM	Why do people assume that character betrayal means that he played his character as a chaotic stupid pycho who wanted to murder everybody? Party betrayal can be a fun part of playing an evil character. Yes, D&D is a social game, but betraying the other characters in the party, especially if roleplayed well, can be an enjoyable experience. Of course, it's entirely possible that he did play his character as a chaotic stupid team killing psyco. But it's not nice to assume it. PKing is always Chaotic Stupid.
was_fired 08-11-05, 08:29 PM	From the sound of this situation it sounds like it was in this case. However it isn't always dumb as the risk of it can keep people in line. In this case the poster saw no risk in attacking a member of his party so he did which was chaotic stupid since he seemed to do it without provokation. However the character who killed his acted in a logical manner which I cannot begrudge him as a DM or a player.
Loren Pechtel 08-12-05, 12:05 AM	I don't exactly like it, either. The problem is the game has a bad notion of what death is. Numerous things inconsistent with life are considered to kill when they don't. As it stands when you have 0 or more hp your body is certainly able to heal itself. -1 to -9 means you are badly enough hurt that you might not be able to heal yourself. Reasonably, then, -10 is dying. Not dead, though! The body is badly enough damaged that it can't self-heal. Without magical healing you're going to die. That doesn't mean you're *INSTANTLY* dead. I consider failing a massive damage roll to reduce you to -10hp. You're out of the battle but if you have a friendly cleric you can be saved.
Vexsom 08-12-05, 02:15 AM	PKing is always Chaotic Stupid. ^.^ Someone doesn't know the meaning of 'roleplaying'. I'm not suprised really, maybe it's that you don't realize playing your character is part of the game! Evil characters are likely to kill each other if a trusting (even if sometimes filled with holes) group dynamic isn't created. By default, if the characters aren't aiming toward survival and defeating good characters, it's reasonable to say that each other are good targets. To assume characters wont find faults with each other and that everyone will get along is called... metagaming. You're using outside influence and stereotype to dictate a group that you force into a catiegory without conflict, even though such a thing makes no sense. Anyway! Back on topic. I don't use massive damage in my campigns and I always vote a house rule agains't it. You want a good die-rolling based varient for instant death without health involved? Why don't you look a few pages over to the rule where if you roll double 20s in a row and then confirm a hit, they or (in the case the enemy does it) you die. Seems a lot better to me personally.
aftin 08-12-05, 02:22 AM	Does anyone else agree that the massive damage rule is ridiculas. Didn't mean to hijack this thread. just seeing how the quote button works. Im new to this stuff. My DM doesn' use mass damage.
75RD Drum Clip 08-12-05, 04:12 AM	Last night, me and my group spent the whole night playing dnd. This was a campaign in which the pc's were evil. My evil character was selfish, even to the other pc's. So to make a long story short, I killed a pc when his back was to me. A friend of his was a wilder, and I dont remember the spell name, but it cost 10 pp for 13d6 dmg. I had 59 hp, he did 55 dmg. I sighed relief in my head, knowing I could deal enough dmg to kill him on my turn. Then the DM makes me roll a fortitude save, the "Massive damage" rule. I fail, and I die. Does anyone else agree that the massive damage rule is ridiculas. It makes things that are strong enough to do massive damage even better. WTF? The hp system is arbitrary, it has NO realism to it, so why have this horrendous rule?!? Get over it. Roll up a new character and game on.
Cymraegmorgan 08-12-05, 04:24 AM	Does anyone else agree that the massive damage rule is ridiculas. It makes things that are strong enough to do massive damage even better. WTF? The hp system is arbitrary, it has NO realism to it, so why have this horrendous rule?!? :tissue: The real question is: would you be pitching your little tantrum if you had caused the other PC's death using this rule? PKing is always Chaotic Stupid. No, just plain Stupid. :D
Callista 08-12-05, 08:46 AM	Last night, me and my group spent the whole night playing dnd. This was a campaign in which the pc's were evil. My evil character was selfish, even to the other pc's. So to make a long story short, I killed a pc when his back was to me. A friend of his was a wilder, and I dont remember the spell name, but it cost 10 pp for 13d6 dmg. I had 59 hp, he did 55 dmg. I sighed relief in my head, knowing I could deal enough dmg to kill him on my turn. Then the DM makes me roll a fortitude save, the "Massive damage" rule. I fail, and I die. Does anyone else agree that the massive damage rule is ridiculas. It makes things that are strong enough to do massive damage even better. WTF? The hp system is arbitrary, it has NO realism to it, so why have this horrendous rule?!? I agree; massive damage is just adding insult to injury. The point of massive damage: You die if you have taken too much damage in too short a time. The point of dying from HP loss: You die if you take too much damage (and are not healed or have time to rest to heal)... i.e., if you take too much damage in too short a time! It's rather redundant. Besides: At high levels, you take 50 damage in a single round routinely, and for a high-CON fighter, say, that 50 damage isn't even half his HP. Let's say a first-level fighter, who has 16 HP, is wounded in the arm by a raging barbarian. This is a serious, but not immediately life-threatening injury; he loses 8 HP, half his total. And there's no risk of a Massive Damage save. However, his friend the 20th-level fighter has 160 HP, ten times the amount the first-level fighter has. He takes the same wound the first-level fighter does. Because he's so skilled, his opponent was likely also very skilled, and his weapon specially enchanted. He takes 80 HP of damage--for the same wound the 1st-level fighter receives--because that wound represents the same percentage of his total ability to stay up and fighting. It does NOT make sense to me to put the 20th-level fighter at risk of dying, if his 1st-level cousin has absolutely no chance of the same thing happening. If you want realistic Massive Damage thresholds, then a percentage of total HP would make more sense. The problem with this is that mages and other low-HP characters, already frail and with, usually, bad Fort. saves, would be most hurt by this adjustment. Consequently, I don't use the massive damage rule. [Edit:] I just read back over the last few posts, and realized that most of you believe that the big problem was that the player decided to attack a fellow PC. I don't see the problem, really: PKing should be rare, but every once in a while (especially in evil parties), the personalities of the characters and the storyline demand it. If you kill another PC because of metagame reasons, of course, I would agree that PC-killing is a bad thing. If you kill another PC without first trying to find out whether there are other options, then yes, killing another PC is a bad thing. But if there are reasons within the story, and you don't know of any other options your character would be likely to take (and, in some games, you have warned the other player before hand so that he could plan strategy and make up a new character--something you should do as well, incidentally), then killing another PC is a good thing. PC-versus-PC fights to the death should be avoided if possible; but if avoiding it means you have to tie the story into knots and make silly excuses why your character isn't doing what your character WOULD do if that other PC weren't wearing a PC shirt, then don't avoid it. Often, it's done for metagame or petty reasons, or just to see "who's the best". But not all PC-killing is like that, so don't assume, because some of it is, that all of it is.
High Octane 08-12-05, 09:46 AM	The fort save is not that high, and actually being hit with a single strike for 50 damage is pretty rare unless you are facing a caster. Only spells like a maximized fireball (effective what, 7th level spell) or a disintegrate (6th level last I remember) will cause that much damage, and at that level there are already instant death effect spells. By that time, you can afford the occasional resurrection. Massive physical blows like that would only come from the tarrasque, a titan, or a 2 handed weapon wielding giant of the higher variety. In all cases, CR 13 or higher. (I dont have the books, but you get the idea) Yes the fighter will take a lot of damage, but remember this: 50 damage has to happen in ONE BLOW, if it happens in several attacks in one round, the character doesnt have to make a fort save. The fort save is what, 15? Lets see, at that level (13) your average fighter has a base fort save of +8 I belive, and being a fighter he will probably have a con of at LEAST 14 naturally (probably more) and an item increasing it another 4 to 18, making it a +4 modifier to fort. So being conservative thats a +12 to fort save. That means he has to roll a 3 or higher to save. 90% chance of survival. And that is being conservative. It will most likely be that you need to roll a 1 to save. What about other classes? Well clerics and druids have almost as good a fort save, and they can cast protections on themselves so they shouldnt be taking THAT much damage. Rogues have evasion and high reflex saves, so spells are easy to avoid, and they should avoid melee combat with anything that does 50+ damage anyway. Arcane casters are likely to DIE from the 50 damage without the massive damage save anyway, so they take measures to avoid such things as well.
Callista 08-12-05, 11:43 AM	I just don't see why it's necessary to have a massive damage save at all. 50 damage in itself is bad enough--the massive damage save just makes the game unnecessarily dangerous. And, even if you do want the danger, does it really make sense to have the higher-level guy save for massive damage, but not the lower-level guy, even though they are hit for the same percentage of their HP?
High Octane 08-12-05, 12:22 PM	In the old editions (first and what not) you had to make a system shock roll or die every time you were hit for half your hit points. Thats correct. The 9 con wizard with 2 hit points, according to the book, had a 25% chance of instant death every time an arrow NICKED him for the minimum 1 damage. We dont use that rule until WAY later in the game in our first edition group. Anyway, you have to understand that getting hit with 50 damage is one HELL of a blast verse say the 6 hit points of an ARROW, it doesnt matter WHO you are! But, through force of will, luck, skill, and straight grit, higher level characters CAN survive what kills your normal guy, but EVERY TIME? People hit THAT hard could easily go into shock and die, even if the initial damage doesn't kill him outright. Thats the "realistic" logic behind it. If you want to argue how it affects game mechanics though, I would say its only there to throw the fear of death into upper level characters to stop "Dont worry, with all the hit points I have I can take all those maximized fireballs EASY!"
Nyarlathotep 08-12-05, 01:36 PM	The massive damage rule is to prevent silliness like the high level fighter who throws himself off the 200' cliff then gets up, dusts himself off, and begins chasing monsters around. Odds are it will happen anyway, but it at least makes the player who would do something silly like that have to stop and think. It's not the best way, admittedly, but as long as you have hit point system, youa re going to have stupid things like that happen occasionally.
Reinforcements 08-12-05, 02:09 PM	Today, children, we learn that telling people you've killed a party member is not a good way to generate sympathy. And no, I don't have any particular problem with the "Death from Massive Damage" rule.
eudas 08-12-05, 02:15 PM	it's also there to provide an outside chance that the level 20 fighter with 280 hp actually has a chance of dying once in a while, so that you can't just build yourself around max'ing hp's. otherwise, at higher levels, combats will just drag on even longer simply because nobody can kill each other without tearing them down through hundreds of hit points first. it basically comes down to 'the more hp you collect, the less dangerous combat is', and could probably be said to be an example of the systemic shortfall of the hp system overall. eudas
Tedly224 08-12-05, 02:16 PM	I don't use the massive damage rule in the game that I run because I feel it doesn't contribute anything towards my player's survivability in times of really fickle die rolls. And we've all been there to see those. It doesn't work against the players, it doesn't work against the monsters, and we just move on. As for the killing other players thing, sure, it's completely valid in an evil campaign. If the DM is dumb enough to run an all evil alignment campain, it's up to HIM to present in-game reasons for party cohesion as well as have consequences for player character strife and killings. A real and always-present motivation should be provided for the group of people *being* a party, and working together. If it's simple mutual greed then yeah, there's nothing wrong with evil characters exploiting and/or killing each other for personal gain. It's the DM's own damn fault in that case - not the players.
Centauri 08-12-05, 02:20 PM	It will most likely be that you need to roll a 1 to save. A 1 on a saving throw is an automatic failure.
UltimateReality 08-12-05, 05:40 PM	the Unearthed Arcana has variant rules for massive damage that scale with level.
Ogmug 08-12-05, 05:55 PM	massive damage isn't that hard to obtain: Ftr 13, Divine champion 5, Cleric 6. Feats: divine might, Power Atack, Weapon Focus, Weapon specialization, greater weapon focus, greater weapon specializationepic weapon focus, Improved critical, power critical Greatsword, Overwhelming Critical . Great Sword, adamantine, +5: Threat 17-20. to hit +34 Belt of giant strenght +6 Damage:2d6 +21 +1d6 (on crit) base: 23-33. With a full power attack, no critical: 52-62 per hit. If you add in smite: (due to being an unbeliever:) and Divine channelling (an at work so cannot remember), with a decent cha (+3 mod) you get to add an additional 9 points to the first attack. (base 61-71). Add in Divine Might: Again, at work, so cannot recall (will edit later if someone corrects me) +3 damage (64-74). Hope you don't crit! 2d6x2 +24 (str bonus x1.5 (two handed) and doubled) +1d6 +29 (full power attack) +5 (weapon bonus) +4 (feats) +9 (DC abilities) + 3 (divine might) = 79-104. IN one hit. And I believe there is a way to get improved power critical (i can't recall) but i think it does even more damage. Feel free if my math is wrong to correct me. I don't have my books here.
lonesoldier 08-12-05, 06:20 PM	the Unearthed Arcana has variant rules for massive damage that scale with level. Which I use. It's a good rule. Actually, lots of the variants in UA are good.
Cymraegmorgan 08-12-05, 06:41 PM	On a Related Note: I think we can safely label the OP a troll, since he has yet to respond to the myriad posts in this thread. Who, brought the TrollBane?
skywyze 08-12-05, 07:06 PM	I personally LOVE this rule. It is sometimes the only way for a character to defeat the BBEG, and gives a good reason to play greataxe wielding barbarians at high levels. Remember: The PCs aren't always outnumbered, so it's not always to their disadvantage to use this rule. Rules like these help the underdog, whoever that may be - PC or monster. As for Player-versus-player action, it's only fun when certain conditions are met: 1) The players discussed it out-of-game before the session started. 2) Nobody's pride or ego is hurt by it. 3) It's the result of in-game conflicts. Personally, I think it's a good way to retire your character if you wish to play a new one, but I would never force my will on another player by making them roll up another character against their will. Also, it's not necessarily in-character either. After all, do YOU kill every person you argue with in real life? Let some conflicts go for the sake of everyone's enjoyment. An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless.
Sundragon 08-12-05, 07:36 PM	The massive damage rule is to prevent silliness like the high level fighter who throws himself off the 200' cliff then gets up, dusts himself off, and begins chasing monsters around. Odds are it will happen anyway, but it at least makes the player who would do something silly like that have to stop and think. It's not the best way, admittedly, but as long as you have hit point system, youa re going to have stupid things like that happen occasionally. Well because you see this is very stupid, I have a solution for you that I use in my campaign. Feet Fallen / Damage Dice 10 / 1d10 20 / 2d10 30 / 3d10 40 / 4d10 50 / 6d10 60 / 9d10 70 / 13d10 80 / 18d10 90 / 26d10 100+ / 36d10 It allows for some survivability at lower end falls but once you cross a certain point it's probably over. Plus if you take massive damage you still have to save at the bottom of the fall. ;) If you fall 100 feet and survive the damage and the save for massive damage.....the gods are with you and you truly deserve to live. Though in game if that happens, I will set it up so that the PC bounced into something on the way down allowing for survival. My players hate silly crap like the falling 100 feet brush yourself off and and charge into battle. Once, one of my player's PCs survived the 70' fall. He looked at me saying, (to paraphrase) "c'mon are you sure I'm not dead? Ok well something has to be broken because there is no way that I can get up from that, this isn't a superhero game." I made him save, he failed and had a broken leg. He was satisfied. :) Man he's a player after my own heart. Chris
Dunelord 08-12-05, 10:07 PM	On a Related Note: I think we can safely label the OP a troll, since he has yet to respond to the myriad posts in this thread. Who, brought the TrollBane? I have noticed that if you don't reply to the post on a thread you start it SEEMS to have more posts, and if your interested in seeing a large number of people's point of view that does matter.
Duration_10_Rounds 08-12-05, 10:50 PM	No he's probably just embarrassed... he was expecting sympathy from people who also fell foul of this rule but instead got flamed for playing his evil character as some one so mentally handicapped they couldn't resolve any kind of conflict without instantly switching into murder-mode. He consequently took over 50 points of "shame" damage, failed his saving throw and is now lying dead at his keyboard.
UltimateReality 08-12-05, 11:06 PM	On a Related Note: I think we can safely label the OP a troll, since he has yet to respond to the myriad posts in this thread.dude, don't be so hasty to jump on the bandwagon. I know we've had a lot of...uh...stress relief...going on these boards the last few days, but not everyone lives their life on the internet like us. He could have, you know, school or work or family or something that prevents him from being on these boards 24/7. Chill a bit. It's summer. Have a slurpee! :D *utter childlike glee* *slurps it all up at once* *twitches on ground as brainfreeze kicks in*
Anthus_Longblade 08-13-05, 07:22 PM	massive damage isn't that hard to obtain: Ftr 13, Divine champion 5, Cleric 6. Please tell me this is a joke. I suppose you call reaching level 24 easy to obtain?
ShinAkuma2 08-13-05, 07:46 PM	You have to take in account that hp is more than just physical health...It also partially represents rolling with the punches, so to speak... Do you really think a lvl 10 Fighter's body is just twice as tough as a level 5 Fighter's? It's more than just having a stronger body; it's about combat training to minimize damage done. It's not that a longsword hurts the high-level character any less; he just knows by then how to avoid getting seriously wounded by it. HP, AC, and DR all work together to provide your character the ability to survive attacks. They all work in different ways, but they really represent the same thing. It shouldn't matter how tough you are, in some cases. When that 60-point delayed blast fireball nails you square on, it should have a chance of killing you outright.
Cymraegmorgan 08-13-05, 07:47 PM	..., but not everyone lives their life on the internet like us. He could have, you know, school or work or family or something that prevents him from being on these boards 24/7. Then we have a quest! To find out who or what malign influence is preventing the OP from being like us, then remove said influence!! :D Slurpee? The closest to that in my neighborhood is a frozen Daiquiri. :thinks: Which is not a bad idea, as I know a place that will make one sans booze.
Archtyrant Terevoth 08-13-05, 08:23 PM	PKing is always Chaotic Stupid. Well not always... if you PK just for the sake of PKing, then it's chaotic stupid, but sometimes you get legitimate disputes between characters that logically would be settled by a fight. This is what makes D&D evil so difficult to play. You get a lot of conflicts, like treasure distribution, that may just end in a mutiny of sorts among the PCs. It's one reason I never run evil D&D campaigns.
UltimateReality 08-14-05, 12:38 AM	Then we have a quest! To find out who or what malign influence is preventing the OP from being like us, then remove said influence!! :D Sounds like it's time for a crusade to me! :fight!: (That's the only time I've ever used that smiley. It feels oddly peculiar.) Slurpee? The closest to that in my neighborhood is a frozen Daiquiri. :thinks:You live on the bar strip or something? :P Which is not a bad idea, as I know a place that will make one sans booze.Sans booze is like, against the whole point of an alcoholic drink, yo. Unless you're a pansy girlie who "just likes the flavour"...or the sucker who got stuck being the designated driver. So, in conclusion, we should all get drunk and go save the OP from whatever is giving him a life. I think it's a solid plan.
Cymraegmorgan 08-14-05, 01:33 AM	Sounds like it's time for a crusade to me! :fight!: (That's the only time I've ever used that smiley. It feels oddly peculiar.) You live on the bar strip or something? :P Sans booze is like, against the whole point of an alcoholic drink, yo. Unless you're a pansy girlie who "just likes the flavour"...or the sucker who got stuck being the designated driver. So, in conclusion, we should all get drunk and go save the OP from whatever is giving him a life. I think it's a solid plan. Done with weekend appointments...can now imbibe. :pint: I live in the Faubourg Marigny, which is the historic neighborhood that borders the French Quarter, fabled in song and story. We have lovely architecture, bars, freaks, mosquitos, wanna-be-vampires, a math shop, used book stores, questionable antiques, overpriced restaurants, mediocre music clubs, the Mighty Mississipi, ... everything a healthy imagination needs to grow....
Paradisio 08-14-05, 01:52 AM	I quickly removed the rule in my campaigns, simply because the level 6 warmage in my group would have ruined the entire campaign.
FlameLover 08-14-05, 03:05 AM	No he's probably just embarrassed... he was expecting sympathy from people who also fell foul of this rule but instead got flamed for playing his evil character as some one so mentally handicapped they couldn't resolve any kind of conflict without instantly switching into murder-mode. He consequently took over 50 points of "shame" damage, failed his saving throw and is now lying dead at his keyboard. Sigged! But on massive damage, I can see both the for and againsts but I personally don't use it just because I feal players die enough as it is. If you need the massive damage rule to die then your DM needs a smack for making you fight kobolds! (Ok just kidding but PCs die withought this rule easy enough anyway). And about PKing, i'll just say that it's generally not a good idea for morale.
Shaken, not Stunned 08-14-05, 10:52 AM	The game is (largely) designed with the supposition that players will fight monsters. When you start killing each other, of course you will find problems like, "wizards are better than fighters!" and, "That ability is broken!" It appears to be better or broken because it is not balanced against each other in the way you are using it. Either ability should be equally useful killing monsters, but in a niche circumstance one will be better than the other. Same thing here.
Sargon 08-14-05, 12:04 PM	On the Note of Massive Damage and All That, And UA. I've Played some SWRPG and I really Like the Viatilty / Wound System. Its very theatrical So that criting on someone really does hurt them.. Lots of Near Hits (as George Carlin calls them) though
The Hive Custodian 08-14-05, 03:02 PM	You can get massive damage at 1st level if you're really, really lucky: Half-Orc Barbarian: 18 base Strength, +2 racial, +4 rage = 24 Strength. Scythe: 8 maximum damage, +10 for Strength, +1 for Power Attack = 19 maximum damage. Critical x4 = 76 damage. Unlikely, but it's core only, and it does the job.
Light of Day 08-14-05, 04:32 PM	I'm not a big fan of massive damage. I've lost a character to it recently. It's a real kick in the teeth to have survived being hit by 70+ damage when you're already wounded, when you're playing a BARD no less, only to die due to one sucky saving throw. It just makes you feel helpless. I also find it feels cheap to kill a monster via massive damage. Yeah, it can be quite an achievment to do enough to trigger massive damage, but then you remember that they didn't actually die because of your damage, it wasn't an achievment of yours that you killed them, they just died because of bad luck. Fortunatly, massive damage doesn't come up that often, so I don't complain to my DM about it, but I don't like the rules myself. And to add insult to injury, my DM uses the different damage threshold based on size variant, which tends to hurt the PCs more than the monsters in our campaign (especially since I like small-sized characters). It's kind of irritating when Mr Giant can take 60 or 70 damage before invoking massive damage, but my halfling has to save or die as soon as he takes 40.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-14-05, 04:34 PM	Well not always... if you PK just for the sake of PKing, then it's chaotic stupid, but sometimes you get legitimate disputes between characters that logically would be settled by a fight. This is what makes D&D evil so difficult to play. You get a lot of conflicts, like treasure distribution, that may just end in a mutiny of sorts among the PCs. It's one reason I never run evil D&D campaigns. People try to justify this in RP terms and it just doesn't work. There is not situation which is not life threatening in which a rational person posessing a modicum of simain common sense and self preservation would kill thier ally. And saying 'evil' doesn't absolve it either. Evil people aren't stupid, uncontrolable brutes, they're people, plain and simple.
Snommelp 08-14-05, 05:01 PM	Vaal, did you ever read Treasure Island? If not, you should; I just finished reading it, and it's very well written. Anyway, there are at least a few pirates in that book who would be Evil in Dungeons and Dragons. They killed their shipmates in a situation where their lives were not at stake. There was a very compelling reason, though, to the tune of 700,000 English Pounds worth of buried treasure.
Anthus_Longblade 08-14-05, 06:49 PM	The way I see evil PKing is this: Evil PCs kill eachother more often than not, but not just for the sake of doing it. Each character desires to subvert the other party members and bring them under his or her control. Obviously, none of them desire another party member to become the leader, and this usually results in conflict. The characters fight, and one of them wins. If the loser's life is spared, he will attempt revenge upon the winner, which usually results in one character's death. The result is one of two things: a. One PC is established as dominant, which creates resentment in the others. They may plot against the dominant PC as a group, which leads to b. b. A power vacuum is created, which leaves the remaining characters squabbling with eachother, possibly resulting in a mass PK. Evil just dosen't lend itself to team play. It works far better with a single leader and many lessers willing to serve said leader. Yeah, it can be quite an achievment to do enough to trigger massive damage, but then you remember that they didn't actually die because of your damage, it wasn't an achievment of yours that you killed them, they just died because of bad luck. ...Huh?
Lord Gwydion 08-15-05, 03:33 AM	I'm not a big fan of massive damage. I've lost a character to it recently. It's a real kick in the teeth to have survived being hit by 70+ damage when you're already wounded, when you're playing a BARD no less, only to die due to one sucky saving throw. It just makes you feel helpless. I know it sucks when your character, who you've invested lots of time and effort into bringing to life, gets killed. But look on the bright side. With 3E, lots of stuff that used to kill or cripple characters in older editions (poisons, ability damage, energy drain, etc.) have been given quick fixes as long as there's a Cleric handy. Without the Massive Damage rule, there's not a lot to be afraid of anymore. I also find it feels cheap to kill a monster via massive damage. Yeah, it can be quite an achievment to do enough to trigger massive damage, but then you remember that they didn't actually die because of your damage, it wasn't an achievment of yours that you killed them, they just died because of bad luck. This, I think, may be a failing of your DM, actually. Instead of chopping the enemy to mincemeat, you managed to hit its vulnerable ankle/fire an arrow into the one spot the dragon was missing a scale/plunged your spear straight through the beast's vile black heart/decapitated the enemy/etc. If, when a creature or character fails a Massive Damage save, the DM gives it a bit of special flavor description, then I wouldn't feel cheated. What's cooler, hacking the dragon 80 times until it looks like a mountain of chopped liver (actually, it WOULD BE a mountain of chopped dragon...) or managing to slice it's head off in one smooth blow? Anyway, I don't mind the Massive Damage rule. Compared to the old poison save or die rule, or the old energy drain you lose a level or two no save rule, it's not that harsh.
King_Bulba 08-15-05, 04:52 AM	The way I see evil PKing is this: Evil just dosen't lend itself to team play. Im confused by your statment, are you saying allowing people to be evil is bad, or evil PKing is bad. Most people who have problems playing evil in groups are chaotic stupid and dont deserve to play evil. If you kill a player 99% of the time you are chaotic stupid. There are a few times when its not... Just because you are evil doesn't mean you steal from your friends, if the player does it then he is CS. Evil charicters are smart so they can fight another day. Look for posts on these boards where they have great discriptions of how evil charicters are, the alignment system gives a poor discription of how they are imo. If you play it right evil PCs are very benifitual to the party. Now back on topic, I dislike the massive damage rules because it favors monsters. It's hard enough to stay alive in DnD and this makes it worse, since monsters mostly have more str than the party and larger in size. The monster ends up doing massive dmg to you while you never do it to the monster, and dying often creates anger at DM for creating situations to hard for the players. I dont think its worth it to add in this aspect of realism... my 2 coppers...
Thesen 08-15-05, 07:42 AM	As far as the massive damage rule goes...no. I don't use it for many of the same reasons other players and DMs have already posted. It is a silly way to add "realism" to a damage system that is already waaayyyyy unreal. And as far as falling damage goes...100ft+ and you die in my game. (Came to that after I had a monk who would intentionally jump off insanely high cliffs!) The other argument here seems to be about playing evil characters. Evil PCs, like all characters, must be thought out before playing them. Here are some ideas, concerns, and facts I have had when considering evil PCs or even NPCs for my campaign. Hopedully they can fill in some gaps for PCs who are hazy on alignment. 1.) Evil, like good, can't be measured in extremes. (i.e. "I am good so I ALWAYS help people", or "I am evil so I ALWAYS commit murder!") You could very easily have a religious fanatic (LE) who honestly believes he is good, yet performs evil acts similar to the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials. On the same note, you can have a king perceived to be a "tyrant" (CG) for his attack against a neighboring nation over trade disputes. Neither of these characters is acting with the intent that they are following an alignment. They just act. 2.) Alignment is insanely important. Somone in an earlier post said it doesn't matter. I beg to differ. Alignment is the blueprint of your character's personality. It helps you decide who your character is. Alignment is a GUIDELINE for your roleplaying. It shouldn't determine your every act. Cops can be considered LG, but that doesn't mean that they can't act a little chaotic and "let you off with a warning" when they pull you over. 3.) Evil does NOT equal emotionless. Evil characters can love and be loved just the same as good ones. Think of a movie you've seen where the antagonist lost a relative or friend and was insane with agony. A party of evil PCs can still have friendship and trust, its just that their actions as a whole are selfish and evil. That's all I got. Hope I helped if anyone needed it.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-15-05, 06:37 PM	Alignment is the blueprint of your character's personality. It helps you decide who your character is. Alignment is a GUIDELINE for your roleplaying. Albiet a very poor one.
Dunelord 08-15-05, 10:46 PM	Alignment is insanely important. Somone in an earlier post said it doesn't matter. I beg to differ. Alignment is the blueprint of your character's personality. It helps you decide who your character is. Alignment is a GUIDELINE for your roleplaying. It shouldn't determine your every act. Cops can be considered LG, but that doesn't mean that they can't act a little chaotic and "let you off with a warning" when they pull you over. Alignment doesn't dictact your personality, your personality dictacts your alignment.
Bopple 08-15-05, 11:38 PM	This case shows why PK is stupid(though I don't like massive damage rule, myself). As IC, PK is usually motivated by chaotic stupidity rather than by compelling reason. Considering the triggering event that made him bash the rule, is his own death, it seems like the chaotic stupidity. If he had been so into RP, he should have been satisfied with his death, rather than bashing the rule. He was up against two, after all. He just took the risk but failed. If it had helped him killing the wilder, he would have had no problem with it. As OOC, PK is almost always stupid. It stirs and fuels the grudges among the members(unless you are playing with old friends who don't care whatsoever). Look at him. He himself is the offender, but he is upset because his character died.