Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Tashiro Aug 17, 2014 21:50:21	Something I tend to look at with every RPG, and a large part of how I judge the RPG, is how it deals with three things:  poison, disease, and environmental effects.  A number of the more recent games I've seen have been fairly soft on these effects, and it is frustrating, because if the effects are generally non-lethal, even to a normal person, why bother making spells and abilities to combat them?   For example, in 3.5, poison and disease did attribute damage usually, with some exceptions.  The amount of attribute damage was typically a small amount - from 2 to 5 points, give or take, and could usually be offset with one or two successful saving throws.  Environmental damage was more cinematic than anything else - though some later books seemed to address these better, but overall it seemed that most people really didn't need to worry about poison or disease being 'fatal', or even crippling, but instead an annoyance that made combat more difficult.   Looking at the new edition, I've seen poison doing 'poison damage', and I've seen a poison condition which hinders the character some, but is that all poison will ever do in the game?  I'm curious if we'll see 'save or die' poisons (like in the old red box), or poisons which will create permanent, negative effects (which can be cured by magic, yes, but I'm thinking 'what would these do to a person without magic intervention?')  I'm also looking forward to the DMG to see what is done with diseases.   Yes, this is a fantasy game - but people die from disease and poison in fantasy settings.  If it weren't an actual, real threat, there wouldn't be spells and abilities to counter them.  A friend of mine told me once to 'stop comparing the creatures in D&D to real animals', to which I replied, 'if they have a black mamba as a creature in the game, it had better damn well be as scary as an actual black mamba!'   Weather's the other important factor.  I like weather and environmental effects to be dangerous, so people have a reason to buy desert clothing, or arctic clothing.  I want people to worry about frostbite, heat stroke, or bursting into flames if they stand too close to a magma flow.  This means that spells to protect against the environment become important - something players keep in mind when they head out.  Or, as a friend once said, "nature is what happens to bad people" - his character considering being forced into the countryside a punishment.   Anyway, just some thoughts.
#2 OrwellianHaggis Aug 17, 2014 23:59:36	For the most part I agree with you, though I always find travel difficult to manage. My group tends to want to hand wave this stuff.
#3 spelley Aug 18, 2014 5:45:29	My ideas for environment penalties/effects:   1) Speed Penalties: Any environmental effect that hinders progress (thick jungle, swamps, heavy snow) and these can be circumvented usually by preparing accordingly (machettes, boats, snow-shoes...) 2) Max-Health Damage: If the environment is very oppressive, it might be sicken/weaken people so that even prepared the characters would be less healthy here than elsewhere. 3) (Dis)Advantage: This one is the most flexible. In an oppressively hot area (volcano, plane of fire, etc) spells that do Fire damage have Advantage or have their damage doubled whereas ice is less effective.  4) Rest Penalties: Depending on the hostility of the environment, could take 2x the amount of time to short/long rest, or maybe not even be able to rest at all. 5) Prolonged Debuffs: Unless you are specific prepared for it, the environment could start to take its toll. CON goes down each day/hour spent in it (possible to a cap), Max-Health degrades slowly, you lose your Hit Dice over time.... lots of ways to show the environment is damaging.   Example - The Poisonous Swamp: - Traveling through the swamp is an ordeal; unless otherwise stated, you move at half-speed. - When attempting to wade through the waters of the swamp, your speed is reduced to 1/4 due to the sickly plant life at the bottom - The swamp itself slowly erodes those who pass through it. For each hour you spend here, you lose 1 hit dice and your your CON reduces by 1. You must rest twice as long outside of the swamp to regain your CON and Hit Dice. - Your body, busy fighting off the swamp's sickening air is unable to protect you as well from more serious diseases; you have Disadvantage on all Saving Throws vs. Poison and Disease.   As for Poisons/Diseases, I would implement the following ones: - Ability-Score draining: Initially reduces the score by 2-4 on a failed save, then continues to reduce it every hour. A save negates only that specific reduction; you continue making saves until properly cured. The save required is based on the Ability Score being drained (ie: a CHA poison required CHA saves, CON requires CON saves, etc). CON poison is the only truly fatal poison (this way, the "CON protects you from deadly poisons" shtick is still intact) - Condition-Poisons: This could include anything from Sickness, Intoxicated, maybe even "Charmed" poisons and the like. CON save to prevent from initially being afflicted, CON save every hour from then on to fight off the symptoms until cured.   Basically, Poisons/Diseases should be Save vs. Initial Effect, if failed then hourly Save to prevent symptoms for the next hour. All of them require curing in some way to prevent the long-term effects.
#4 blake_marlowe Aug 18, 2014 6:53:21	i'm not really into save or die effects. i didn't like them in AD&D1 and was glad when they went away in 3.0. however, that wasn't what you were after.   so to model those things better, i suggest some combination of the following:   1. spelley's suggestions of speed reduction and disadvantage while under the effects both seem excellent. 2. a suggestion from the 4e tomb of horrors reboot: reduce the effect of healing. 3. spelley's suggestion re: doubling/disallowing certain types of rest also seem sensible. i'd personaly go with disallow long rests to model particularly difficult conditions. 4. if disad is too big a hit (although i'm not sure it is), a steadily-escalating penalty on checks might be more appropriate & allow greater granularity.   i would use the 4 foregoing to address all 3 things you're describing.
#5 kev777 Aug 18, 2014 7:11:15	Some modern games are a little too care-bear for my tastes.   I do enjoy having a few save or die poisons in the game, but it seems they are going with the poison doing damage.
#6 Tashiro Aug 18, 2014 7:30:55	All interesting ideas, thank you. As for 'save or die', well, the best example of how far something was divorced from reality was in Pathfinder. The blue-ringed octopus is a terrifying little guy.  His venomous bite doesn't hurt at all, but the poison will put you through so much agony your body shuts down.  There's no antidote - they have to hook you up to life support to keep your body going until the venom can be processed.   In PF:  Con Save or lose 1 Strength.  Ongoing for 6 Rounds.  1 Save ends the effect.   I looked at that, and went 'how the hell does 'you die screaming from a nibble' turn into 'I lose up to 6 strength, max?'  I could see this being a 'save or die' situation, where the PC has a period of time to get a cleric to neutralize the poison, however.