PDA

View Full Version : Tough first session for the new guy



ken-do-nim
2009-12-07, 03:46 PM
I had a new guy join my gaming group this past Saturday. We run Rules Cyclopedia D&D with my house rules, and he rolled up a pair of dwarves (I'm letting everybody play 2 characters). At the end of the session after a tense fight with skeletons and a shadow, we called it a night. One of his dwarves was down to 1 hp. As everybody is packing up to head out, he decides to have his character make a heal check to restore a few hit points. Well, in RC D&D, where you want to roll low on skill checks, if you roll a 20 on a heal check, you accidentally inflict 1-3 damage to yourself. We'd even joked about hoping this wouldn't happen to anyone earlier in the session. As luck would have it, he rolled a 20. Then I rolled a 3 for damage, bringing him to -2 hit points. In my house rules, this means make a save vs death at -2. Dwarves have great saves to start, so with the penalty he only needed to roll a 10. He rolled a 9. Failing the death save means a 50% chance to die right away and a 50% chance to go into a down-and-dying state (from which friends can rescue you). Naturally I roll low and his dwarf died on the spot. Talk about every roll going the wrong way.

Man, what a lame way to die, but very memorable.

dsmiles
2009-12-07, 03:51 PM
Nice. I bet he's thinking twice about playing with you guys again.

Sir.Swindle
2009-12-07, 04:08 PM
Well at least now the other dwarf has a dead brother to avenge, along with the dead one's identical twin of course. :smallwink:

ken-do-nim
2009-12-07, 04:09 PM
Nice. I bet he's thinking twice about playing with you guys again.

Yeah, I hope that's not the case but I don't like fudging die rolls. He did complain about the rule of rolling a 20 and doing damage to yourself, but he knew the risks before he made the roll.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-07, 04:13 PM
Seems like a wonky set of rules...but eh, dying happens.

ocdscale
2009-12-07, 04:15 PM
...Well, in RC D&D, where you want to roll low on skill checks, if you roll a 20 on a heal check, you accidentally inflict 1-3 damage to yourself.
...
In my house rules, this means make a save vs death at -2. Dwarves have great saves to start, so with the penalty he only needed to roll a 10. He rolled a 9.
...
Failing the death save means a 50% chance to die right away and a 50% chance to go into a down-and-dying state (from which friends can rescue you). Naturally I roll low and his dwarf died on the spot. Talk about every roll going the wrong way.

As Liz Lemon put it, okay that just seems intentionally confusing.
High means he hurts himself, then low means he fails the save, then low means he dies. I'm not familiar with RC D&D though, at least he has a story to tell.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-07, 04:21 PM
I'd be annoyed if I died because of a combination of odd house rules and non-standard variant stuff, honestly. Now I need to roll high, now I need to roll low...tis confusing.

And saving vs death for failing a heal check is bad enough. Saving with a negative 1 modifier for every negative hp(which appears to be the case) is brutal. It strikes me that this will result in a *lot* of people dying when they go into negative hp.

Early level combat is already lethal, and rocket tag like enough. No need to make it more so.

Starbuck_II
2009-12-07, 04:24 PM
As Liz Lemon put it, okay that just seems intentionally confusing.
High means he hurts himself, then low means he fails the save, then low means he dies. I'm not familiar with RC D&D though, at least he has a story to tell.

Old D&D was never consistent. Sometimes low was bad and sometimes it was good (2nd edition used low was good for AC).

toddex
2009-12-07, 04:35 PM
Old D&D was never consistent. Sometimes low was bad and sometimes it was good (2nd edition used low was good for AC).

No one is arguing against that, just saying that if this man is using 3.5 those are some retarded house rules.

ken-do-nim
2009-12-07, 04:40 PM
No one is arguing against that, just saying that if this man is using 3.5 those are some retarded house rules.

Which I'm not. RC D&D is lethal - btb you die when you reach 0 hp. The part about going negative but allowing a save is my house rules.

sofawall
2009-12-07, 04:40 PM
No one is arguing against that, just saying that if this man is using 3.5 those are some retarded house rules.

His first post says he isn't.

PinkysBrain
2009-12-07, 07:28 PM
Just curious, why are you rolling his checks and saves?

Rixx
2009-12-07, 08:02 PM
Just curious, why are you rolling his checks and saves?

In old D&D, characters didn't roll their own saving throws. They didn't even know what their saving throw modifiers were.

ken-do-nim
2009-12-07, 08:50 PM
Just curious, why are you rolling his checks and saves?

He rolled his failed skill check, I rolled the damage, he rolled his failed save, then as he hunted through the books and the house rules doc looking for a prayer, I rolled the "coin flip" live-or-die roll.

RebelRogue
2009-12-07, 09:13 PM
In old D&D, characters didn't roll their own saving throws. They didn't even know what their saving throw modifiers were.
I dunno about the very first versions, but in OD&D you have a flat DC for each type of save (there's 5 different ones) depending on level and class. You can add ability modifiers to the roll as an optional rule, but in general, there's little tampering going on. And generally, the players roll their own saves (although this could of course easily be houseruled).

And BTW, when you're familiar with OD&D, it's pretty much second nature to know rolling high = good except for skills (which are another optional rule). The rest is houserules, as noted. It's not exactly consistent, but it's not too bad.

Animefunkmaster
2009-12-07, 09:19 PM
Dwarves have great saves to start, so with the penalty he only needed to roll a 10. He rolled a 9.

Out of Curiosity was that "he needed to roll a 10 on a d20"? Because that doesn't seem like dwarves have GREAT saves, but rather .5 above average.

Inhuman Bot
2009-12-07, 09:19 PM
Yeah, I hope that's not the case but I don't like fudging die rolls. He did complain about the rule of rolling a 20 and doing damage to yourself, but he knew the risks before he made the roll.

What was his choice? Auto-dieing or that?

RebelRogue
2009-12-07, 09:22 PM
Out of Curiosity was that "he needed to roll a 10 on a d20"? Because that doesn't seem like dwarves have GREAT saves, but rather .5 above average.
8 vs. Death Ray/Poison was actually the best possible starting save. Yes, those were rough times (failing to save vs. poison meant instant death most of the time).

At higher levels, the opposite effect happened: you almost never failed a saving throw. Fear of SoD effects was somewhat lower then :smallsmile:

ken-do-nim
2009-12-07, 09:57 PM
I dunno about the very first versions, but in OD&D you have a flat DC for each type of save (there's 5 different ones) depending on level and class. You can add ability modifiers to the roll as an optional rule, but in general, there's little tampering going on. And generally, the players roll their own saves (although this could of course easily be houseruled).


We do use the rule to add ability modifiers to the saves, but in this case since constitution already gives you hit points to avoid death, it would be double dipping to allow it to affect this save.


Out of Curiosity was that "he needed to roll a 10 on a d20"? Because that doesn't seem like dwarves have GREAT saves, but rather .5 above average.

10 on a d20 yes, but most other classes at 1st level would have needed to roll a 16 or 17.


What was his choice? Auto-dieing or that?

He was at 1 hit point and the party was heading back to town. He could have hoped to get out of the dungeon safely, then get a good night's rest to regain hit points. He didn't have to make a heal check.

AFS
2009-12-07, 10:30 PM
We do use the rule to add ability modifiers to the saves, but in this case since constitution already gives you hit points to avoid death, it would be double dipping to allow it to affect this save.



10 on a d20 yes, but most other classes at 1st level would have needed to roll a 16 or 17.



He was at 1 hit point and the party was heading back to town. He could have hoped to get out of the dungeon safely, then get a good night's rest to regain hit points. He didn't have to make a heal check.

What is the point of the HEAL skill if it doesn't heal?

That is like saying you can't jump while using the jump skill. Just imagine the dramatic moment as Dwarg the Dwarf goes for this long jump to jump over this ever so annoying puddle of water,,,,ohhhhh epic fail he slipped in the puddle and died. You didn't have to jump ya know!

Starbuck_II
2009-12-07, 10:36 PM
What is the point of the HEAL skill if it doesn't heal?

That is like saying you can't jump while using the jump skill. Just imagine the dramatic moment as Dwarg the Dwarf goes for this long jump to jump over this ever so annoying puddle of water,,,,ohhhhh epic fail he slipped in the puddle and died. You didn't have to jump ya know!

No, heal does heal you, but he critical fumbled (never liked those concepts personally).

Zephyros
2009-12-07, 11:05 PM
In the long history of ridiculously hard and annoying first-sessions-with-a-new-group, I think this guy did fine; he, at least, made his own choices and had a character alive at the end of the day.

I've had some pretty rough (horrid) first sessions as a new player:

a. The how-it-should-be-done DM: Once, I joined the D&D group of a rock-band I used to be a part of. Firstly, I roll 4d6b3 (whereas the rest of the party -unbeknown to me- got a 5d6b3 and a free d6 to add around) and I am forced to place my 8 in CON. As a rogue. Talk about easily knocked-out character. Mostly annoying.
b. Rival player thinks you hit on the DM! : This guy was actually pretty funny. I am introduced to their group by the female DM (novelty!) and that dude proceeds to have me prepare two new characters 'cause he killed the first and the second at the time the DM tried to introduce them to their party. He even justified it with RP when the DM told him he was being an ass. As a result, the third character I set up was a Wizard with Contigent Spell, a huge dislike against invasions of his personal space, and already 3 of the slave-spells (from MoF) crafted as contigencies. It went downhill with him after that :smallbiggrin:

Levithix
2009-12-07, 11:25 PM
In the long history of ridiculously hard and annoying first-sessions-with-a-new-group, I think this guy did fine; he, at least, made his own choices and had a character alive at the end of the day.

I've had some pretty rough (horrid) first sessions as a new player:

a. The how-it-should-be-done DM: Once, I joined the D&D group of a rock-band I used to be a part of. Firstly, I roll 4d6b3 (whereas the rest of the party -unbeknown to me- got a 5d6b3 and a free d6 to add around) and I am forced to place my 8 in CON. As a rogue. Talk about easily knocked-out character. Mostly annoying.
b. Rival player thinks you hit on the DM! : This guy was actually pretty funny. I am introduced to their group by the female DM (novelty!) and that dude proceeds to have me prepare two new characters 'cause he killed the first and the second at the time the DM tried to introduce them to their party. He even justified it with RP when the DM told him he was being an ass. As a result, the third character I set up was a Wizard with Contigent Spell, a huge dislike against invasions of his personal space, and already 3 of the slave-spells (from MoF) crafted as contigencies. It went downhill with him after that :smallbiggrin:

story b = win

Shazbot79
2009-12-08, 03:49 AM
Old D&D was never consistent. Sometimes low was bad and sometimes it was good (2nd edition used low was good for AC).

Which is why most of us left old D&D behind.

The funny thing is that I bet the op was pestering this guy to play for quite a while.

Totally Guy
2009-12-08, 03:55 AM
Can you explain narratively how he died. I think I understand it mechanically but how does it translate into in-game death?

crimson77
2009-12-08, 04:49 AM
Can you explain narratively how he died. I think I understand it mechanically but how does it translate into in-game death?

If it was my game, i would say that he tried to apply bandages to his wounds. While he was dressing his wounds, with little help from his comrades, he was unable to stop the bleeding. He began to feel tired, thinking he stopped the bleeding, he lay down not knowing that his tiredness was due to blood loss and not fatigue. He never woke up.

Another version could be miss using some herbs or injesting too much of a certain kind of herb.

GolemsVoice
2009-12-08, 04:52 AM
Well, I guess he was bleeding heavily, but not life-threateningly. While trying to patch himself up, he failed so badly that he ripped his wounds open instead of closing them. How this means instant death, I'm not sure, though.

I personally would dislike this very much, and would dislike playing in that type of game, but that's just personal preference. Considering the game he was playing, that's just what happens, and there's nothing to be done about it. Either he learns to accept this (you didn't willfully destroy his character, after all) and rolls up a new character, who may now be wiser, or he doesn't and leaves. Either way, your problem solves itself. Though maybe you shouldn't be so "told-you-so" about him making the heal check. That's natural for a player, and if he had tried to get out with only one HP left, and would have been ambushed, it would be much the same.

Steelblood
2009-12-08, 04:58 AM
Sounds like the time my wife nat 1ed a disarm check then a nat 1 reflex to avoid the dart followed by a nat 1 to resist the purple worm poison. The DM was quite discriptive about her turning into a puddle of black goo.

Demented
2009-12-08, 05:47 AM
You are attempting to improve the condition of your wounds.
Which of the following most likely applies to you?

A. You have broken a bone in your arm. You attempt to set it so that it can be bandaged, but dislodge a minute piece of bone which ultimately causes a fatal embolism in your brain.

B. You have a large gash. After taking a few shots of your favorite liquor to ease the pain, you proceed to stitch closed the wound, puncturing a major artery in the process.

C. You have a bleeding head wound. Moderately unnerved at the sight of blood, you stop the bleeding by applying a tourniquet to your neck!

Zincorium
2009-12-08, 06:01 AM
I have a problem with dying from anything except someone dangerous attempting to kill you. If an expert (or at least notably good) swordsman manages to stick a sword into your throat, or you zig instead of zag against a dragon's fire breath, a good player won't have too many qualms. But this was supposed to be something beneficial. It's like an NPC carrying poisons that say 'healing potion' on them- basically a backstab without a thief.

Don't count on this guy ever relying on healing checks. Or most skill checks, for that matter. "Why would I want to jump? If I drink my potion of fly, that I spent good money to identify after finding, then at least I know I'll get across. Is 5% chance of dying outright worth a few gold?"

If you wanted a tomb of horrors mentality in this guy, he's probably on his way.

dsmiles
2009-12-08, 07:39 AM
It's like an NPC carrying poisons that say 'healing potion' on them- basically a backstab without a thief.

What's wrong with this? My BBEGs and their minions do this quite frequently. It's one of the perks of being eviL (with a capital L). If the PC's don't take the time and effort to identify their items, not my fault.

kamikasei
2009-12-08, 07:46 AM
What's wrong with this? My BBEGs and their minions do this quite frequently. It's one of the perks of being eviL (with a capital L). If the PC's don't take the time and effort to identify their items, not my fault.

It's weirdly PC-centric. Sure, the odd villain here and there might do something like that and be justified, but for most enemies to carry items useless to them simply for the sake of spiting anyone who defeats them comes off much more strongly as the DM messing with the players than the enemy messing with the characters.

(And it's just asking to be knocked in to negatives - "damn it! We need to question this guy, not kill him! Quick, search him for a healing potion we can pour down his throat!")

dsmiles
2009-12-08, 07:52 AM
In all fairness to the BBEGs, they know somebody's going to try to stop them from completing their evil plan. They're just using the mutually assured destruction theory as a backup plan.

Temet Nosce
2009-12-08, 07:58 AM
What's wrong with this? My BBEGs and their minions do this quite frequently. It's one of the perks of being eviL (with a capital L). If the PC's don't take the time and effort to identify their items, not my fault.

As the person above me mentioned, nothing except it means they're expecting someone else to acquire them (reasonable if they get them through a plot - not so much if they find them on the enemies body who wasn't planning on being killed). I've done it a time or two myself as a DM and as a player (although in those cases I was deliberately intending for someone else to get ahold of those).

I'm with Zincorium as far as dying for the most part though. My players don't die from fumbles or other nonsense, and I wouldn't play in a game biased the other way. However, generally speaking I'm extremely lethal as a DM anyways, since I long ago stopped caring about things like "level appropriate encounters" or making sure the party has a fair chance if they try to do something (or having my NPCs be fair for that matter).

The Op likes to play games with those rules - fair enough. Personally though, if I was the player involved I'd tell him sorry but I wasn't interested in playing. Either that or build some monstrosity that would never have a real chance of dying without severe DM bias (arms race responses are unsurprisingly common in these kind of situations).

Tyndmyr
2009-12-08, 08:00 AM
*shrug*

Just seems like if you are worried about tough, lethal sessions, playing that version of D&D and adding crit fumble rules isn't really the best choice?

ken-do-nim
2009-12-08, 08:00 AM
Which is why most of us left old D&D behind.


Well if the only reason most people are no longer playing older editions of D&D is that sometimes rolling high is good and sometimes rolling low, then that's pretty sad because overall, in practice, the older editions are a heck of a lot easier to play and run. No, I think the reason most people are no longer playing the older editions is the increased customizability and general power-up of later editions.

To me, the variations of the rules in different editions suggest different stories to me that would work better in them. I'm running an RC game because the RC best supports the kind of stories I want to tell, as well as being rules-lite and fast at the table. I'm looking to run a 3.0 or 3.5 game as well because those will allow me to tell a different kind of story. I also tend to pick up certain modules, get very enthusiastic about them, then want to run them in the edition they were originally written for.



The funny thing is that I bet the op was pestering this guy to play for quite a while.

Other way around. He was looking for an old school game in the area. I couldn't believe how fast he caught up on the previous session summaries, bought the book, and devoured the house rules doc.


*shrug*

Just seems like if you are worried about tough, lethal sessions, playing that version of D&D and adding crit fumble rules isn't really the best choice?

I didn't add the healing check crit fumble rule - it is in the book.

Btw, that makes 2 deaths now in 7 sessions. Well you know, it's 1st level play after all!

kamikasei
2009-12-08, 08:07 AM
I'm not sure why people are criticizing the OP - is it because of a misconception that he's playing houseruled 3.5? While the rules he describes certainly wouldn't be to my taste, apparently the player in question signed up in full knowledge, and while you may think the game design is poor that hardly reflects upon the OP's running of said game. Presumably if these oddities weren't part and parcel of what the group were looking for in their old-school game they'd have houseruled them out already.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-08, 08:19 AM
No, it's because he's complaining about the lethality in the form of the rough first session.

There's nothing wrong with lethality per se, but playing a version known for it's lethality, then complaining when people die seems a bit pointless.

dsmiles
2009-12-08, 08:28 AM
Well if the only reason most people are no longer playing older editions of D&D is that sometimes rolling high is good and sometimes rolling low, then that's pretty sad because overall, in practice, the older editions are a heck of a lot easier to play and run. No, I think the reason most people are no longer playing the older editions is the increased customizability and general power-up of later editions.

YAY FOR AD&D!!!!
Too bad you don't live near me, I still have all of my old books. I'd be more than willing to run an AD&D campaign (in the original Greyhawk setting, of course).

kamikasei
2009-12-08, 08:31 AM
No, it's because he's complaining about the lethality in the form of the rough first session.

There's nothing wrong with lethality per se, but playing a version known for it's lethality, then complaining when people die seems a bit pointless.

I didn't see any complaint. I saw a guy going "man, my player had some rotten luck, let's share the story because it's amusing".

hamlet
2009-12-08, 09:03 AM
I'm not sure why people are criticizing the OP - is it because of a misconception that he's playing houseruled 3.5? While the rules he describes certainly wouldn't be to my taste, apparently the player in question signed up in full knowledge, and while you may think the game design is poor that hardly reflects upon the OP's running of said game. Presumably if these oddities weren't part and parcel of what the group were looking for in their old-school game they'd have houseruled them out already.

I think what's going on is a fundamental miscommunication (i.e., people think that the OP was a complaint rather than an anecdote, and a fundamental disconnect on gaming paradigms (i.e., some people here comprehend what happened to the gamer who lost his character to bad luck as something objectively bad rather than something that was simply the result of phenomenal bad luck).


Anyway, to the OP, that's just bad luck, man. Don't often see the dice turn that sour so quickly.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-08, 09:32 AM
Dying at first level in pretty much any older version of D&D does not require phenomonal bad luck. The only edition you could really say that about is 4e.

If you use crit fumbles, things like this *will* happen. That's pretty much what they exist to do. It's why so many people hate them.

Splodgey
2009-12-08, 09:37 AM
YAY FOR AD&D!!!!
Too bad you don't live near me, I still have all of my old books. I'd be more than willing to run an AD&D campaign (in the original Greyhawk setting, of course).

Where do you live, I love first edition but nobody around me plays it :smallfrown:

GolemsVoice
2009-12-08, 09:40 AM
How did the player itself react? Did he take it in good sport, or was he (unreasonably) angry? After all, that's more or less the only thing that matters.

kamikasei
2009-12-08, 09:42 AM
Dying at first level in pretty much any older version of D&D does not require phenomonal bad luck. The only edition you could really say that about is 4e.

If you use crit fumbles, things like this *will* happen. That's pretty much what they exist to do. It's why so many people hate them.

Sure. But in this case, the guy rolled a fumble on a d20, max damage on a d3, just missed the 10 he needed on another d20, and had a coin toss come up badly for him. That's a 0.375% chance, which is pretty bad luck if you ask me (even worse if you count his rolling a 9 when he needed a 10 as a specifically bad result, rather than just one of a range of too-low values).

Yes, the rules the group played with made this luck a problem. No, they're not rules I'd enjoy playing under. But this is no reason to berate the OP.

dsmiles
2009-12-08, 09:43 AM
Where do you live, I love first edition but nobody around me plays it :smallfrown:

Northern Virginia.

hamlet
2009-12-08, 09:51 AM
Dying at first level in pretty much any older version of D&D does not require phenomonal bad luck. The only edition you could really say that about is 4e.

If you use crit fumbles, things like this *will* happen. That's pretty much what they exist to do. It's why so many people hate them.

Certainly true. Dying in RC D&D (and AD&D of any stripe) at first level can be precariously easy, but in this instance, the death was due to just plain old bad luck. Critical fumble on the skill check, max damage on the damage roll, failing an easy saving throw, it's just a series of unfortunate rolls all precipiated by taking a known risk.

Honestly, I don't see a problem here. Guy tried a healing check, with a known inherent risk (i.e., 5% chance, honestly that's not like it was screwing the player over) and just got unlucky. In fact, if I understand the house rule correctly, the guy got an extra chance to save himself with the saving throw, so really the comments on how horrible such house rules are are misplaced.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-08, 09:57 AM
Sure. But in this case, the guy rolled a fumble on a d20, max damage on a d3, just missed the 10 he needed on another d20, and had a coin toss come up badly for him. That's a 0.375% chance, which is pretty bad luck if you ask me (even worse if you count his rolling a 9 when he needed a 10 as a specifically bad result, rather than just one of a range of too-low values).

Yes, the rules the group played with made this luck a problem. No, they're not rules I'd enjoy playing under. But this is no reason to berate the OP.

I don't think anyone's berating him, just wondering at why he seems to be concerned about it.

Being that he was at 1 hp, maxed damage is irrelevant. He would have needed to save if he'd rolled less.

Once he made the fumble, he had roughly a 25% chance of death. Not all that unlikely. Fumble heals *will* eventually come up, and due to the nature of the healing skill, will come up when you're in pretty poor health. That's not really an odds thing, people don't use the heal skill on healthy folks. This is an expected result of using fumbles.

t_catt11
2009-12-08, 10:02 AM
Well, I have to say that I seriously dislike this house rule. The heal skill is meant to be battlefield stabalization - i.e. bandages, tourniquets, etc. Sure, your attempt might not help, but it really shouldn't hurt, IMO.

I guess that the character could have... um... placed a tourniquet around their own neck? Heh.

Maybe they dislodged an arrowhead, which caused more damage, I suppose. Or reopened some other wound. Still, I don't like this rule one iota, and I'm an old school guy - I believe that characters SHOULD die from time to time.

hamlet
2009-12-08, 10:03 AM
I don't think anyone's berating him, just wondering at why he seems to be concerned about it.

Being that he was at 1 hp, maxed damage is irrelevant. He would have needed to save if he'd rolled less.

Once he made the fumble, he had roughly a 25% chance of death. Not all that unlikely. Fumble heals *will* eventually come up, and due to the nature of the healing skill, will come up when you're in pretty poor health. That's not really an odds thing, people don't use the heal skill on healthy folks. This is an expected result of using fumbles.

Don't see him being "worried" about it at all.

And what's wrong at all with a fumbled heal when you're down to a single hit point resulting in, potentially, a 25% chance of death? Not "narratively appropriate" I suppose.


Well, I have to say that I seriously dislike this house rule. The heal skill is meant to be battlefield stabalization - i.e. bandages, tourniquets, etc. Sure, your attempt might not help, but it really shouldn't hurt, IMO.

The fumble of the heal skill on a nat 20 is NOT a house rule. It's right there in the RC rules. The house rule is the saving throw after being reduced to 0 or less hit points to avoid instant death, i.e., the only thing that gave him a chance after flubbing the initial skill roll.

kamikasei
2009-12-08, 10:10 AM
I don't think anyone's berating him, just wondering at why he seems to be concerned about it.

I definitely got the impression that Shazbot79 was berating him, though that may be an unfair reading. And you yourself seemed to be telling him off under the impression that a) he was complaining rather than chortling and b) he had introduced the fumbles as a house rule. In addition, Zincorium criticized the effects of the fumble as if they were an innovation for which the DM was personally responsible.

As I've said, I don't get the impression he's concerned at all. I think he thinks it's funny the way a streak of bad luck often is, and it's additionally unfortunate/funny that the player suffered this bad luck on his first time playing the game.


Being that he was at 1 hp, maxed damage is irrelevant. He would have needed to save if he'd rolled less.

I think he took a penalty to the save linked to the amount of damage, though.

dsmiles
2009-12-08, 10:12 AM
Well, I have to say that I seriously dislike this house rule. The heal skill is meant to be battlefield stabalization - i.e. bandages, tourniquets, etc. Sure, your attempt might not help, but it really shouldn't hurt, IMO.

Have you ever seen what somebody who's incompetent at applying first aid can do to somebody? *shudder*

Tyndmyr
2009-12-08, 10:15 AM
I don't think people are disliking the fumble rule because of it's origins, but because it's a fumble rule. Specifically, the type of fumble rule that exists solely to kill players.

I also dislike them because fumble rules don't make much sense within the context of d20. I don't randomly fail on simple tasks 5% of time time in real life, after all.

So if something hurts verisimulitude, and leads to frustration(even the OP called it a lame way to die), why use it?

Another_Poet
2009-12-08, 10:17 AM
I have to say I'm surprised at how much people dislike the "do damage on a failed healing roll" rule. Critical fumbles in general are ridiculous (you swung your sword and threw out your back, really?) but trying to fix people's torn-up bodies = very risky.

Anytime you're performing a medical procedure, even something minor, there is a chance to mess it up. My orthopedist made my broken ankle worse by assuring me there was absolutely no way it was broken and telling me to start walking on it with full weight and exercising it daily. Thanks doc.

Seriously, be it removing an arrowhead from a wound, or trying to prevent infection after someone's rusty sword sliced through your thigh - you can kill your patient.

If the wound was so minor that botching it couldn't possibly kill the person,. then the 1-3 points of damage won't put you in negs anyway.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-08, 10:22 AM
Anytime you're performing a medical procedure, even something minor, there is a chance to mess it up. My orthopedist made my broken ankle worse by assuring me there was absolutely no way it was broken and telling me to start walking on it with full weight and exercising it daily. Thanks doc.

That's not the medical procedure messing it up, that's the LACK of a medical procedure messing it up.

You have a wound that somehow, nearly killed you. However, it won't actually prevent you from walking, jumping, swimming, etc back to town. Yet, trying to patch it up can result in killing you. Huh?

Hp are inherently a bit limited in simulating wounds, and adding fumble rules does not make them more realistic. Most damage in the real world comes from failing to treat correctly, resulting in the same or similar damage as if the wound had been left untreated. Since D&D doesn't usually simulate bleeding out/infection/etc, this makes no sense in the context of a heal check.

dsmiles
2009-12-08, 10:29 AM
I don't think people are disliking the fumble rule because of it's origins, but because it's a fumble rule. Specifically, the type of fumble rule that exists solely to kill players.

I also dislike them because fumble rules don't make much sense within the context of d20. I don't randomly fail on simple tasks 5% of time time in real life, after all.

So if something hurts verisimulitude, and leads to frustration(even the OP called it a lame way to die), why use it?

Seriously? A fumble on a skill check? I did away with that, I don't feel that skill checks should be able to fumble. Attacks and saves, yes, skill checks, no. But if that's RAW for RC DnD, then so be it. Die and like it.

t_catt11
2009-12-08, 10:45 AM
You have a wound that somehow, nearly killed you. However, it won't actually prevent you from walking, jumping, swimming, etc back to town. Yet, trying to patch it up can result in killing you. Huh?


This. This exactly. I don't have problems with fumbles, insta-player death, one shot traps, etc. But this just bugs me.

hamlet
2009-12-08, 10:46 AM
I don't think people are disliking the fumble rule because of it's origins, but because it's a fumble rule. Specifically, the type of fumble rule that exists solely to kill players.

I also dislike them because fumble rules don't make much sense within the context of d20. I don't randomly fail on simple tasks 5% of time time in real life, after all.

So if something hurts verisimulitude, and leads to frustration(even the OP called it a lame way to die), why use it?

Really? The rule exists "solely to kill players"? You're really gonna have to back that up.

It's a perfectly fine rule, especially since in the real world, applying first aid when you don't know what you're doing, or worse doing so when you think you know what you're doing but really don't, can be disastrous and lethal. Plus, there's only a 5% chance that he'll flub that roll. PLUS, this isn't D20, so why are you comparing it to that?

In terms of verisimilitude, realistically, the First Aid skill should be even more dangerous to use and wounds should take weeks and months to heal, not counting risk of infection or complication even after excellent first aid care.

The critical failure rule in the RC Heal skill is perfectly fine. It represents the chance that, should you screw up badly enough while fiddling with a person's wounded body, that you will, in fact, cause more damage rather than help them.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-08, 10:57 AM
Really? The rule exists "solely to kill players"? You're really gonna have to back that up.

It does damage when you're trying to heal someone. What other purpose will that serve?

It isn't going to be used by the mobs, you know that perfectly well.


It's a perfectly fine rule, especially since in the real world, applying first aid when you don't know what you're doing, or worse doing so when you think you know what you're doing but really don't, can be disastrous and lethal. Plus, there's only a 5% chance that he'll flub that roll. PLUS, this isn't D20, so why are you comparing it to that?

It's a D20 using system. Im not discussing D20 the trademarked system. Thus, 1 on a D20 = 5%. 5% of autofailure is a poor representation of real life.

Note that crit failures do not differentiate between trained and untrained people. All fail catastrophically 5% of the time. In the real world, untrained people can in fact fail catastrophically with ease. Trained people are vastly less likely to do so.

In terms of verisimilitude, realistically, the First Aid skill should be even more dangerous to use and wounds should take weeks and months to heal, not counting risk of infection or complication even after excellent first aid care.


The critical failure rule in the RC Heal skill is perfectly fine. It represents the chance that, should you screw up badly enough while fiddling with a person's wounded body, that you will, in fact, cause more damage rather than help them.

Im fully aware of what it's intended to represent. The point is that it does so poorly, and in a way that detracts from gameplay.

Tiki Snakes
2009-12-08, 11:01 AM
Actually, isn't a skill DC still a 'high is good' stat? So he died by being healed too well? O_o

dsmiles
2009-12-08, 11:11 AM
No, I think that RC calls for AD&D-style skill checks, where low rolls are good.

Mordar
2009-12-08, 11:38 AM
Once he made the fumble, he had roughly a 25% chance of death. Not all that unlikely.

Well literally true, that's kind of like saying that once 2 evenly matched teams meet in the Super Bowl they each have a roughly 50% chance of winning the NFL championship...and discounting the 16 game season and 2 or 3 playoff games that had to be handled first. Sure, once he crossed the 5% threshold on the "20", there was a 1-in-4 shot...but 25% of 5% is a lot smaller than a one in four chance.


In terms of verisimilitude, realistically, the First Aid skill should be even more dangerous to use and wounds should take weeks and months to heal, not counting risk of infection or complication even after excellent first aid care.

I think the abstraction of hit points, though muddied when talking about 1st level, obviates some of your point. The first level dwarf with 1 hit point probably hasn't been stabbed through the abdomen or had a lung punctured by an arrow...he or she probably has an array of nicks, cuts, bumps and bruises. A poultice, a bandaid or rubbing some dirt on in (thanks coach!) would be, I think, the required first aid here...not a difficult suturing procedure or removal of an arrowhead that was 0.17 inches from the femoral artery.

All of that being said, I guess death could have been secondary to a concussion and subdural hematoma inflicted when he attempted the tried-and-true dwarven first aid method of drinking a pint of Old No. 7 and then shattering the mug on your forehead...

...and all of that being said, that was crappy luck (and I think that's the point of the story)...and if I were the player in question, I'd be wanting Experience Points for the orcs that fled combat while wounded and crit failed their First Aid rolls too! :)

- M

hamlet
2009-12-08, 11:43 AM
It does damage when you're trying to heal someone. What other purpose will that serve?

Eh? It serves the purpose to replicate the danger in applying first aid to mortally wounded persons.




It isn't going to be used by the mobs, you know that perfectly well.

:smallannoyed: And it's right about here that I'm just gonna bail on this conversation. I see no point in it, only an argument.

Suffice to say, I disagree with you on pretty much every word you've uttered here.

hamlet
2009-12-08, 11:44 AM
I think the abstraction of hit points, though muddied when talking about 1st level, obviates some of your point. The first level dwarf with 1 hit point probably hasn't been stabbed through the abdomen or had a lung punctured by an arrow...he or she probably has an array of nicks, cuts, bumps and bruises. A poultice, a bandaid or rubbing some dirt on in (thanks coach!) would be, I think, the required first aid here...not a difficult suturing procedure or removal of an arrowhead that was 0.17 inches from the femoral artery.M

Actually, any character reduced to a single hit point is likely to have been stabbed through the abdomen or otherwise critically inujured. Seriousness of damage has always been measured proportionally. Thus, a 5 hit point wound to a first level character is possibly fatal, while a 7th level character might not even notice it.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-08, 11:49 AM
Eh? It serves the purpose to replicate the danger in applying first aid to mortally wounded persons.

But it doesn't replicate it. The RL decision is "Do I let him bleed to death, or do I try to stop it?". The in game decision is "Do I want more hp in case I get hit again or leave my HP as they are?".

The hp system doesn't model bleeding and real life wounding very well at all, with the exception of a few conditions, spells, etc that don't apply in general. Thus, you're not replicating a realistic situation at all.


:smallannoyed: And it's right about here that I'm just gonna bail on this conversation. I see no point in it, only an argument.

Suffice to say, I disagree with you on pretty much every word you've uttered here.

Why? Do mobs routinely act as adventurers and heal up after the battle? Does the DM even roll for what happens to escaped mobs most of the time?

Even if he did, would it affect the players any? If the answer is no, then it exists only to endanger PCs.

Mordar
2009-12-08, 12:26 PM
Actually, any character reduced to a single hit point is likely to have been stabbed through the abdomen or otherwise critically inujured. Seriousness of damage has always been measured proportionally. Thus, a 5 hit point wound to a first level character is possibly fatal, while a 7th level character might not even notice it.

While I agree to a great extent (as relates to the proportionality of injury), the truth is that we know the wound is not fatal as evidenced by the fact that (as someone said previously) he could run, jump, swim, and continue life indefinitely. It's just a case where the abstraction doesn't provide the level of detail (and it shouldn't...after all, its abstraction!) - perhaps knowing if the dwarf was hit with several 1- and 2-point wounds as opposed to a single shot that put him to 1 would provide more basis, but its not germane to the story.

I kind of always felt that the low-level PCs were like tough mooks - can take a beating, but the sword in the gut is still a kill shot (reduced to 0hp or below, anyway). Mid- and high-level characters can take wounds that would debilitate or kill lower levels and could have the sword wound, 2 arrows in their backs and the punishing skull-shot from the mace in addition to all the nicks and bumps. Mheh, it's all relative and open to interpretation.

- M

hamlet
2009-12-08, 12:34 PM
But it doesn't replicate it. The RL decision is "Do I let him bleed to death, or do I try to stop it?". The in game decision is "Do I want more hp in case I get hit again or leave my HP as they are?".

Except that that was not the decision that was made. Rather, it was a decision by the player that his character was too injured to risk going further, even retreating, without at least attempting to repair some of the damage. It's akin to cutting yourself with a kitchen knife and being able to stop the bleeding with a bit of rag and stabalizing the injury, and then deciding, owing to your general skill with first aid, that you would suture the wound yourself.

You're conflating multiple issues. Nobody except you mentioned bleeding to death, or imminent death from the wounds sustained.

By the way, even very trained and very good doctors screw up ALL THE TIME performing basic medical procedures that can lead to the death of the patient even if the condition they are being treated for is not immediately life threatening.

Again, I see no problem at all with the rule as is, and as far as I can tell, nobody in the OP's group sees much of a problem with it except, possibly, the poor guy who's bad luck led to a character death.



The hp system doesn't model bleeding and real life wounding very well at all, with the exception of a few conditions, spells, etc that don't apply in general. Thus, you're not replicating a realistic situation at all.


You're right, the HP system doesn't inherently and immediately capture the concept of bleeding. But does it actually need to? It's a matter of what level of abstraction is satisfactory for the group.

Plus, on top of that, the "at Death's Door" optional rules in AD&D do model bleeding in some instances as well as the standard 3.x rules for being reduced to 0 to -10 hp IIRC.



Why? Do mobs routinely act as adventurers and heal up after the battle? Does the DM even roll for what happens to escaped mobs most of the time?

Even if he did, would it affect the players any? If the answer is no, then it exists only to endanger PCs.

First off, what the heck is a "mob"? Are you talking about general low level enemies (say, average town guards, or unremarkable goblins) that generally fight in groups to increase their effectiveness and survival rate?

If that's what you mean, then YES, members of "mobs" that survive a battle or successfully retreat from one to fight another day do, in fact, "heal up" in the meantime the same as the PC's do according to their own resources.

Does the DM track them? Yeah, when it's pertinent.

hamlet
2009-12-08, 12:44 PM
While I agree to a great extent (as relates to the proportionality of injury), the truth is that we know the wound is not fatal as evidenced by the fact that (as someone said previously) he could run, jump, swim, and continue life indefinitely. It's just a case where the abstraction doesn't provide the level of detail (and it shouldn't...after all, its abstraction!) - perhaps knowing if the dwarf was hit with several 1- and 2-point wounds as opposed to a single shot that put him to 1 would provide more basis, but its not germane to the story.

I kind of always felt that the low-level PCs were like tough mooks - can take a beating, but the sword in the gut is still a kill shot (reduced to 0hp or below, anyway). Mid- and high-level characters can take wounds that would debilitate or kill lower levels and could have the sword wound, 2 arrows in their backs and the punishing skull-shot from the mace in addition to all the nicks and bumps. Mheh, it's all relative and open to interpretation.

- M

Yeah, but then it again comes down to abastractions. For purposes of play and balancing verisimilitude and abstraction, there's nothing at all wrong with assuming that an entity reduced to 1 HP (or thereabouts) has enough wounds on him, or a single wound significant enough, to pose a real danger to his life even though he is stable and not in immediate danger of just kicking off.

By extention, it's not unreasonable or wrong to assume that in applying first aid at any point, there is the chance for something to go drastically wrong, even when done so by a highly trained individual. It happens all the time in the real world (i.e., somebody dying from something as minor as a broken arm being set incorrectly or a minor laceration becoming infected or being pulled open accidentally) and here, in the RC, it is modeled by the 1 in 20 chance that the character will cause further damage rather than repair damage.

For what it's worth, and I might be wrong since I don't have the RC with me here at the office, I do not think that players are allowed to use skills "untrained" in that book. So in actuallity, it's portraying the slim, 5% chance (which I actually find particularly low in a real world setting) for the character to cause more harm despite intentions. An "untrained" character's first aid skill would, likely, be limited to applying basic bandages and tournequates to stop bleeding and stabalize a dying character (i.e., the house rule that the OP mentioned), rescuing them from death until more qualified aid can be applied.

Ormagoden
2009-12-08, 12:49 PM
Question: Did the player who's dwarf character died, know that there was a possible chance of failing badly enough to damage himself before he rolled a heal check?

dsmiles
2009-12-08, 12:54 PM
Question: Did the player who's dwarf character died, know that there was a possible chance of failing badly enough to damage himself before he rolled a heal check?

Yes, he had the rules documents going into this, as far as I can tell from the OP's responses.

@hamlet: Please warn me before you cast Wall of Text next time, ok? I think I failed my Will save to go back to work.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-08, 01:05 PM
Except that that was not the decision that was made. Rather, it was a decision by the player that his character was too injured to risk going further, even retreating, without at least attempting to repair some of the damage. It's akin to cutting yourself with a kitchen knife and being able to stop the bleeding with a bit of rag and stabalizing the injury, and then deciding, owing to your general skill with first aid, that you would suture the wound yourself.

You're conflating multiple issues. Nobody except you mentioned bleeding to death, or imminent death from the wounds sustained.

Reread page one. GolemsVoice in particular referred to bleeding heavily. Demented gave three "realistic" examples, two of which involved bleeding to death. crimson77 interpreted it as him dying from massive blood loss. This is just page 1, how many examples do you need?

Multiple people have claimed that it adds realism or models a realistic chance of failure.


By the way, even very trained and very good doctors screw up ALL THE TIME performing basic medical procedures that can lead to the death of the patient even if the condition they are being treated for is not immediately life threatening.

Hospital death rates from those injuries are not even vaguely close to 5%. Even injury rates from those incidents are quite low. Yes, it happens, but this is not at all an accurate modeling of that possibility.


Again, I see no problem at all with the rule as is, and as far as I can tell, nobody in the OP's group sees much of a problem with it except, possibly, the poor guy who's bad luck led to a character death.

That doesn't make it a good rule, and the guy who lost the character to it probably didn't enjoy it terribly. Even the OP called it a lame way to die. You're speculating a bit here.


You're right, the HP system doesn't inherently and immediately capture the concept of bleeding. But does it actually need to? It's a matter of what level of abstraction is satisfactory for the group.

I don't particularily think it does. But given that it doesn't, the critical failure occurance does not make sense in the way described by so many people in this thread.


First off, what the heck is a "mob"? Are you talking about general low level enemies (say, average town guards, or unremarkable goblins) that generally fight in groups to increase their effectiveness and survival rate?

It's a generic term for things you need to stab to death. May be single, may be not. Like monster, but doesn't imply that it's non-humanoid.


If that's what you mean, then YES, members of "mobs" that survive a battle or successfully retreat from one to fight another day do, in fact, "heal up" in the meantime the same as the PC's do according to their own resources.

Does the DM track them? Yeah, when it's pertinent.

How often is it pertinent?

The point is, it's a disadvantage that applies only to the party. Does the DM sit there rolling the dice to determine if any enemies die from crit failures, and award xp to the party if they do?

That seems unlikely(and it'd chew up time).

hamlet
2009-12-08, 01:14 PM
@hamlet: Please warn me before you cast Wall of Text next time, ok? I think I failed my Will save to go back to work.

*snerk*

How do you think I feel writing it? I have to glance over my shoulder every two minutes to make sure the boss isn't walking by.


Tyndmyr: Yeah sure fine.

dsmiles
2009-12-08, 01:25 PM
How do you think I feel writing it? I have to glance over my shoulder every two minutes to make sure the boss isn't walking by.


I'd recommend getting your own office. Or, failing that, a computer at the very back of the room so nobody can see what you're doing. (Works for me lol.)

Starbuck_II
2009-12-08, 01:25 PM
The point is, it's a disadvantage that applies only to the party. Does the DM sit there rolling the dice to determine if any enemies die from crit failures, and award xp to the party if they do?

That seems unlikely(and it'd chew up time).

That sounds cool.
DM: so they got away, but wait they are trying heal skills.
Player: Come on, pappa smurf wants an extra 50 XP.
DM: (rolls) 2 failed and died, the rest made it. So yeah you get an extra 50 XP.
Player: Remember in the old days before the DM rolled this? We had to actually kill the creature to get XP.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-08, 01:36 PM
That would be kinda funny, come to think of it. Could change combat a bit too..."They're getting away! Wound em so they'll need to heal!"

Agreed about a comp in the back corner. It's where I sit.

hamlet
2009-12-08, 01:44 PM
I'd recommend getting your own office. Or, failing that, a computer at the very back of the room so nobody can see what you're doing. (Works for me lol.)

Unfortunately, my office sits within spitting distance of 3 directors, 5 managers, the department secretary, 3 major conference rooms, two major hallways, four major labs, and the busiest men's room in the building. So yeah.

On top of that, my office is a cubicle with walls that come up to my armpits, so more often than not, people don't even bother to enter my office, they just lean over the wall and start griping at me. Or better yet, the management just shouts from their offices.

Another_Poet
2009-12-08, 02:00 PM
That's not the medical procedure messing it up, that's the LACK of a medical procedure messing it up.

Meh, that's just semantics. He failed a heal check while examining me, told me to walk it off and boom, I took more damage.

The fact that he had actual X-rays providing him a circumstance bonus, and (I hope) max ranks from med school, leads me to believe that the universe does, in fact, use a critical fumble chart for heal checks. :smallwink:


You have a wound that somehow, nearly killed you. However, it won't actually prevent you from walking, jumping, swimming, etc back to town. Yet, trying to patch it up can result in killing you. Huh?

If it was such a minor wound then you weren't within 1-3 hp of death in the first place.

I'm not saying it's the world's greatest rule. There's all kinds of injuries you can think up that can't be made fatally worse through misapplication of proper medicine. But, there are so many counter-examples of injuries that can be made worse, and so many chances for human error in assessing and treating (or not treating) a wound, that the rule isn't exactly hard to believe. 5% of the time an honest effort at medical assistance results in very minor harm to the patient? May or may not be a perfect analogue of real-world medical mishaps but it's a good enough abstraction.

I was just surprised to see such outrage at the idea that poking around in a near-fatal wound could turn it into a fatal wound. That's all.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-08, 02:08 PM
If it was such a minor wound then you weren't within 1-3 hp of death in the first place.

But that's exactly what would have happened. Despite only having a single, solitary hp, he could have merrily done all sorts of active, exerting, or skillful activities with absolutely no real danger. Being nearly dead doesn't make you a worse swimmer.

It's not at all the same as lack of treatment, because the fumble has a worse result than simply not making the check. Autofail on a 1 would be sufficient to represent "he must have missed seeing the important stuff".

Another_Poet
2009-12-08, 04:00 PM
You seem to think that if you don't perform surgery or some other kind of serious treatment, you haven't made a Heal check.

To the contrary, examining a person and recommending basic treatment is, in my opinion, the definition of a heal check.

If the GM or player refuse to RP a botched healing check, that's a bad group dynamic, nothing to do with the rules. It could very easily go this way:


Dwarf: Awwwww, my head....
Cleric: Here, let me take a look, I can offer you healing if you need it.
*rolls 20 on heal check* (player: Crap...)
Cleric: What, you call this a wound? Your helmet didn't even break through. It's just a bump, put some cold mud on it and you'll be fine.
Dwarf: Okay, I guess... *stands up to go to the stream, stumbles with disorientation and falls to the ground*
*rolls 3 damage*
Cleric: What happened?!?!
Fighter: Oh my god, he's not breathing!

Head injuries: don't always look serious at first, frequently misdiagnosed, may suddenly get worse with no warning

Internal bleeding: doesn't always look serious at first, easily overlooked, will get significantly worse without treatment

Blood loss: doesn't always seem serious at first, can be hard to stop, may result in death long after being wounded

Shock: doesn't always set in immediately, easy to write off as unimportant, will cause downturn in patient's condition very quickly when it does set in (often some time after being wounded).

etc. I could go on, but I don't think I need to. A failed heal check may be as simple as not noticing or deciding not to treat something, never actually touching the patient and then finding them dead shortly thereafter.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-08, 04:04 PM
But if "not noticing something" is bad, then wouldn't not doing the heal check at all be at least as bad?

Your explanation also fails this basic test, since he would have continued to be fine indefinitely without a heal check unless he took additional damage.

Ormagoden
2009-12-08, 04:20 PM
I wonder...no word from the op on my question. I suppose we could assume the player knew. Well you know what they say...

ken-do-nim
2009-12-08, 04:56 PM
Question: Did the player who's dwarf character died, know that there was a possible chance of failing badly enough to damage himself before he rolled a heal check?

Yes, it was brought up at the start of the session and he knew precisely what had happened when the 20 came up. I believe I said that earlier.

I've been monitoring this thread, but it has reached 'train wreck' status so I haven't been posting in it. I do thank the earlier poster who calculated the odds that such poor dice rolls could occur in that combination.

Starbuck_II
2009-12-08, 04:59 PM
Yes, it was brought up at the start of the session and he knew precisely what had happened when the 20 came up. I believe I said that earlier.

I've been monitoring this thread, but it has reached 'train wreck' status so I haven't been posting in it. I do thank the earlier poster who calculated the odds that such poor dice rolls could occur in that combination.

Yeah, well, people had opinions and all.

Did you describe his death epically at least? Like the wound burst blood like a fountain into the air 20 feet high?
If I was dying to a fumble: I would hope at least it sounded good.

ken-do-nim
2009-12-08, 06:31 PM
Did you describe his death epically at least? Like the wound burst blood like a fountain into the air 20 feet high?
If I was dying to a fumble: I would hope at least it sounded good.

Well that's the saddest part. Everyone was packing up to go when this was occurring. The new guy was getting a ride home from another player who was already at the door waiting for him to go. All the rolls happened in a blur and then he was gone.

Zincorium
2009-12-08, 09:21 PM
This is why status effects are good. Okay, you critically failed your heal check, and resulted in damage to the tendon, you're going to be slowed for a while. Or you got some ointment in his eyes and he has a penalty to hit.

If you're worried about verisimilitude, then dying should only occur as a result of things that are deadly. Things that are relatively safe should have correspondingly lesser consequences even for maximum failure. And 5% is high, yeah. An unmodified saving through following it would be a good idea- but a penalized saving throw sends the wrong message I think.

Another_Poet
2009-12-08, 10:06 PM
But if "not noticing something" is bad, then wouldn't not doing the heal check at all be at least as bad?

Your explanation also fails this basic test, since he would have continued to be fine indefinitely without a heal check unless he took additional damage.

I'll cede that point. However the characters don't know it. For all they know the dwarf died BECAUSE they said, hey, get up and let's get a move on, you're fine.

Game balance wise I think it's fair to make efforts at non-magical healing carry a risk. After all, they don't cost gp or spell slots, and it's believable that poking at someone's wound (or failing to do so) can worsen them.

The players know the risk and choose to take it or not. The characters only know that after dispensing medical advice or treatment the patient died. Since the rule makes sense both for game balance and verisimilitude, it's not a problem.

It seems to me that you're treating the characters as if they somehow knew the dwarf would've been fine if they had just not meddled with his injury. They don't know that, they just know wounds can kill you. There's nothing hard to believe there unless you want the characters to meta-know that the person could have pushed on without further hp damage if they hadn't taken a gamble.

Seems like crossing the streams.

ken-do-nim
2009-12-09, 07:06 AM
Where do you live, I love first edition but nobody around me plays it :smallfrown:

(Keep in mind I'm not talking about AD&D 1E but rather RC D&D, the culmination of the Classic D&D line which came out in '91)

I'm in Mansfield Mass myself, halfway between Boston & Providence. I love AD&D too - heck I love just about every edition - and there are plenty of groups in the Boston-Providence area playing AD&D or Hackmaster.