Permanent damage on PCs

[Cicciograna]

Let's assume that PCs won't have access to restorative magic such a Regeneration for a while: do you consider, in your games, the idea that PCs can get permanent damage? Losing eyes, having limbs severed, being crippled and generally have permanent injuries - and the appropriate mechanical limitations they cause (as in penalities on Spot checks, to movement rate, etcetera)...

[Diarmuid]

There is no RAW to support it, so anything you do in that regard is going to be completely homebrew.

That being said, there are lots of ways to interpret it and with spells like Regenerate in the game they did account for fixing things like that. But determining what the penalties associated with losing 3 fingers on a hand, or having one of your eyes put out arent defined anywhere.

[Brookshw]

I've seen it homebrewed in games, usually with crit tables, definitely not something to spring on players unless it was understood pre-campaign. Kinda fun for grim and gritty. Watch out for arrows to the knee.

[urkthegurk]

Also regeneration abilities for monsters all specify whether the monster can regrow an arm if they loose it, whether they have to hold the old arm to the stump, etc. No rules on actually loosing arms, however...

[PersonMan]

Only if the possibility and rules are presented pre-game. Some people, myself included, play with the assumption that permanent harm a la losing an eye or similar is off-limits without player permission.

It's always safer to ask 'are you OK with your character losing a few fingers?' and them saying 'Of course!' than just doing so and ending up with someone very unhappy about it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Only if the possibility and rules are presented pre-game. Some people, myself included, play with the assumption that permanent harm a la losing an eye or similar is off-limits without player permission.

It's always safer to ask 'are you OK with your character losing a few fingers?' and them saying 'Of course!' than just doing so and ending up with someone very unhappy about it.
Pretty much this. Especially with stuff like losing limbs or eyes that can really mess up your character's performance.

[Gorfnod]

It's always safer to ask 'are you OK with your character losing a few fingers?' and them saying 'Of course!' than just doing so and ending up with someone very unhappy about it.

"Excuse me player, may I remove your head with this vorpal sword? You are fine with it, ok just wanted to ask before I had the balor decapitate you."

[Blackhawk748]

"Excuse me player, may I remove your head with this vorpal sword? You are fine with it, ok just wanted to ask before I had the balor decapitate you."

Why of course you can, i woulndt want the Blaor to feel bad.

But seriously, i've had a rogue that lost 2 fingers because my DM was a jerk, we also couldnt find anyone to cast Regenerate, and we were in a MASSIVE city, im talking 30,000+ people, it was also the center for a religion. I think i may have boiled his brains a bit with the amount of glaring i was doing at him, as i had a permanent -4 to all dex based/fine work skill rolls.

FYI i was a Elven Rogue whose whole job was opening doors and disabling traps, as well as shooting things every now and again.

[Cicciograna]

Uhm, I can see that the general consensus is that it would not be a good idea.
Yeah, I can understand that: the thought came to my mind reading the stat block of Jezz the Lame from FRCS, and asked myself what could have happened if I played something similar on my PCs.

All considered I agree that's a bad idea.

[Blackhawk748]

Well its not a terrible idea, just be sure that the players know when the campaign start. Honestly i wouldnt have minded losing fingers if my DM had told me that that might happen, but he didnt, thus why i was pissed. Also if losing bits is a thing, then just make sure they can get Regenerate, i mean its a Cleric spell so they just need a decently leveled cleric, a Large Town should have one.

[AntiTrust]

There is no RAW to support it, so anything you do in that regard is going to be completely homebrew.

It sort of bothers me that he didn't ask if there was RAW support for it, but the first post immediately states there isn't any. Answering a question that wasn't asked.

That being said I like the idea of limb loss and I'll usually throw in something like that as an option instead of dying at -10.

[Keneth]

I have no problem with permanently damaging players, just as I have no problem killing them. Bad things happen.

[Cikomyr]

One of my GM tought that Character Death was just too easy a way out for player stupidity. He thought that it did not necessarily made an impact on player, as they could simply rince and repeat with a new character.

Which is why he liked to hurt us elsewhere. Leave us alive, but hurt us in ways that lasted. Since we used the Storyteller game system, he liked to hurt our contacts, allies, ressources, etc...

But we'd have accepted a permanent loss of stat, if it made sense in story. The whole point is to have your palyers BE AWARE OF SUCH CONSEQUENCES. There's nothing wrong with harshness n your players as long as they actually accepted to play with those rules. Don't put that sort of consequences out of your hat without some forewarning. Many players just expect to reroll a new char when they screw up.

[Traab]

It sort of bothers me that he didn't ask if there was RAW support for it, but the first post immediately states there isn't any. Answering a question that wasn't asked.

That being said I like the idea of limb loss and I'll usually throw in something like that as an option instead of dying at -10.

Too be fair, the poster was asking about mechanics and such, so the response was, "Well, there isnt any official rules on this, so you will be working homebrew instead of quoting books." Its a fair point to bring up, as that means if the OP does bring in permanent injuries, the onus of balance will be on him, which can make things tricky. Yeah it wasnt precisely what the op was looking for, but it was still good info to give on the subject.

[Cicciograna]

It sort of bothers me that he didn't ask if there was RAW support for it, but the first post immediately states there isn't any. Answering a question that wasn't asked.

Eh, you know, I should have been more clear, you are right.
To clarify, I would just like to know if you would be partial to the introduction of some sort of permanent injury for the players as a consequence of their actions, injuries that could permanently damage them in a (yet to define) way appropriate to the type and entity of the injury itself.

However, the fact that I didn't ask if there was support for this kind of situation comes from the fact that I DO know that no, there is no support for such events, even if the Regeneration spell is present, so didn't think about asking a question I didn't need an answer.


That being said I like the idea of limb loss and I'll usually throw in something like that as an option instead of dying at -10.

You know, this could be a cool idea.


One of my GM tought that Character Death was just too easy a way out for player stupidity. He thought that it did not necessarily made an impact on player, as they could simply rince and repeat with a new character.

Which is why he liked to hurt us elsewhere. Leave us alive, but hurt us in ways that lasted. Since we used the Storyteller game system, he liked to hurt our contacts, allies, ressources, etc...

But we'd have accepted a permanent loss of stat, if it made sense in story. The whole point is to have your palyers BE AWARE OF SUCH CONSEQUENCES. There's nothing wrong with harshness n your players as long as they actually accepted to play with those rules. Don't put that sort of consequences out of your hat without some forewarning. Many players just expect to reroll a new char when they screw up.

And this leads me to the reason behind my question. In a dungeon crawl against some Drow, I planned that the final room of the temple my PCs are in would have an escape route for the BBEG: said tunnel should be equipped with a trap sprung by the BBEG himself during his escape, which would lead to the collapse of the ceiling of the tunnel on the heads of eventual pursuers. Not wishing to kill my players, but wishing to add some lasting consequence to a risky act against a prepared opponent, I thought about some sort of permanent injury. This is why I came to ask the question, to see what could be a possible reaction.

[PraxisVetli]

It may have been 3rd party, or OGL, or whatever, but Torn Asunder had tables for crits, I think it could be easily modified to suit "minor" injuries.

[Slipperychicken]

Uhm, I can see that the general consensus is that it would not be a good idea.
Yeah, I can understand that: the thought came to my mind reading the stat block of Jezz the Lame from FRCS, and asked myself what could have happened if I played something similar on my PCs.

All considered I agree that's a bad idea.

Honestly, I like how ACKS did it; Regeneration was a thing, but it's expensive (just finding someone who can cast it is a quest in itself), and using it means you have to roll on a table of permanent consequences. Same goes for resurrection (i.e. Restore Life and Limb), but you need to roll on the Tampering with Mortality table, which gives you all kinds of Fun results. You could screw with mortality, but your body and soul gradually become a patched-together mockery of your former self, and you will still die for real one day because even magic has limits.

[jedipotter]

It really depends on your players. Most players will just about refuse to play unless their character is at close to 100% at all times. They can't ''have fun'' or ''play their character concept'' with a damaged character. Other players will just roll with anything that happens in the game. While the type e player will refuse to play a one armed fighter others will have a ton of fun throwing his shield in the first round of any fight and then drawing his sword.

I love Old School Meat Grinder way of playing. It is so much more fun for everyone. I really don't have fun doing the ''oh no my character was hurt for a second...oh I just cure and then kill, loot, repeat''.

[lsfreak]

I'd agree that it's inappropriate for most "standard" 3.X campaigns. There is generally an assumption of some level of emotional attachment to the character, and adding in the ability to permanently cripple a character simply from luck is not conducive to that. It would be more appropriate for a meatgrinder game closer to Tomb of Horrors style, or perhaps added into a wound system where instead of dying upon failing your stay-alive-at-zero-wounds save, your character suffers some kind of permanent damage. It's then up to the player to continue playing the character with the disability, or retiring the character despite avoiding death.

I'll add that one thing I dislike about many "permanent damage" stuff I've seen presented is that it's rather unimaginative - it often comes down to losing a limb, hand, or eye. No getting an arrowhead lodged in your side, or suffering through a broken rib until it heals, or being prone to twisting your ankle. Nope, it's always body parts flying off.

[bekeleven]

Not exactly what you're looking for, but there's support for permanent HP damage in the Spell Compendium. A weapon with Cursed Blade cast on it deals damage that can't be healed until Remove Curse is cast.

[Slipperychicken]

I
I'll add that one thing I dislike about many "permanent damage" stuff I've seen presented is that it's rather unimaginative - it often comes down to losing a limb, hand, or eye. No getting an arrowhead lodged in your side, or suffering through a broken rib until it heals, or being prone to twisting your ankle. Nope, it's always body parts flying off.

There's almost never a chance to get disfiguring and/or badass scars* either. It's depressing because it's a huge missed opportunity to make almost any character ~10% more awesome than before.


*Or other purely cosmetic injuries like having your nose broken into your face, your teeth rendered jagged or missing, or having half of your ear ripped/bitten off.

[Angelalex242]

I know of one way to cause semi permanent HP damage.

And that's vile damage, from Book of Vile Darkness. Sanctified damage does the same thing to evil creatures (Even things that normally regenerate! A troll can't regenerate sanctified damage, no matter how long it tries. A vampire can't regenerate it either.)

[Coidzor]

It sort of bothers me that he didn't ask if there was RAW support for it, but the first post immediately states there isn't any. Answering a question that wasn't asked.

That being said I like the idea of limb loss and I'll usually throw in something like that as an option instead of dying at -10.

That rather ties into people's comfort zones though, whether there exist rules for it or if there's nothing but ad-hoc, off-the-cuff decisions or homebrew.

[PersonMan]

"Excuse me player, may I remove your head with this vorpal sword? You are fine with it, ok just wanted to ask before I had the balor decapitate you."

Yet another poor young soul killed by DnD. When will the string of decapitated players stop?

But, really, "can I kill you?" when a Balor crits with a Vorpal sword is kind of like asking "Is this flammable?" when you're holding a lit match to it. If you're not going to bother to do it properly, there really isn't much point. The point is to avoid such a situation where one or more people have less enjoyment because of this.

You ask things like "What things would you want to avoid this game?" so that, if someone wants to avoid certain issues, you know before they come up instead of finding out after you ruined someone's day.

[Garwain]

Reminds me of a D&D story: In a trap loaded dungeon, a player reached into the open mouth of a stone lion's head statue, with his arm, to reach a switch. Obviously the switch triggered the jaws to close, and one failed reflex save later, the player was disarmed.

Hilarious. Beter punishment for the player's stupidy than character death. I love the real sense of danger instead of the 'DM won't kill me' attitude. See signature.

[AzureKnight]

I know dungeons and dragons next has a critical hit chart, though i havent seen it myself, just heard about it. Crits, to the player's dismay, go both wayw as we all know. But I happened to fins the old adnd 2e players options: combat and tactics.

That crit chart is fun to use for a realistic combat scenerio. However the effects are devistating indeed, and holds potential to turn a campaign you worked on for weeks, spending one of those weeks perfecting the main bad guy.

With 1 roll of a natural 20 and 2 rolls in a target range, the effect is head destroyed target killed instantly then reroll 2 more times for additional effect.... Additional effect. seriously.... Anyway enough of this ramble, you can look at it for yourself at www.seads.org/TSR/POB/poctbk.htm

it is a very long artical, which I cant copy and paste for you due to my only way to access the net is on my xbox, but scroll down about half way to chapter 6 critical hits and you see what I mean.

[Crake]

There is no RAW to support it, so anything you do in that regard is going to be completely homebrew.

That being said, there are lots of ways to interpret it and with spells like Regenerate in the game they did account for fixing things like that. But determining what the penalties associated with losing 3 fingers on a hand, or having one of your eyes put out arent defined anywhere.

Actually there is a Variant in the DMG for damage to specific areas, so there is actually some RAW support for it, albeit quite limited.Theres a table and an associated list of things that damage to that area will affect, such as skill and ability checks, atack rolls, saves, etc. Nothing about permanent damage, but you could just assume that permanent damage resulted in a permanent penalty until fixed.

Edit: The variant is on page 27

[Slipperychicken]

"Excuse me player, may I remove your head with this vorpal sword? You are fine with it, ok just wanted to ask before I had the balor decapitate you."

The asking would likely occur before the campaign:

DM: "Hey guys, I'm looking to run a more 'realistic' campaign this time around, so I want to include limb loss as a potential consequence of damage. Are you going to be cool with your PCs getting dismembered now and then, or are you going to bitch and moan every time your PC loses a pinky?"

[Gnaeus]

I think people are being a little bit harsh on folks who do not want their characters to be dismembered. Remember that it is a game, an escapist fantasy where people choose to play heroes on a power level of demigods. They do not, in most cases, sign on to be crippled, any more than they sign on to many of the other grim gritty realities of medieval life. (Oh, you are walking through the cold rain? Make a saving throw. Oh, you got a cold. Make a saving throw. Oh, your cold turns into pneumonia and you die.)

In a recent episode in one game I am in, the party had a really rough fight while split up. 1 character died, 2 others were dismembered (loss of a hand, loss of fingers.) The dead character chose to reroll. The 2 dismembered PCs chose to have their characters mercy killed, then roll on the Reincarnate table, rather than live with their disabilities (no cleric, only a Druid).

[Spore]

Tell them beforehand. My rogue also misses two fingers (albeit for comitting a major felony) and gets only minor penalties for it (-2 on sensible skill checks as well as no ranged weapons without impeding -4).

But as a player I am pretty pissed atm. I wasn't clearly informed about the dwarven laws and they retroactively decided that if I were a member of their race my hand would have come completely off and they only "spare" me because I am like an ambassador from the outer world.

So I had a loss AND to be thankful for their pity which made things worse for me as a player.

[AzureKnight]

Never look at it as a handicap, but a way to be handi-capable. That the negative of missing fingers for example. Find some tinkergnomes and have them fashion new ones with a few modifications. Think 1980s Inspector Gadget.

Some of you may remember the phrase, "Go go gadget insert needed effeft here." Why not have them add lock picks into the fingers or various other tools a rouge may want. then find a mage, get some magical bonuses going and its all like you were before, except version 2.0.

We had a rouge, whos arm and leg was bitten off by a tarrasque, we cultivated the wounds useing yellow hemlock,and traveled to a known tinkergnome named Bob the nearsited.

After a couple weeks of downtime in game, the gnome build a masterfully built arm and leg, and with the help of our mage graphed them to his body. After a few more days of study and research, the mage set some magical enchants to them.

Right Arm: +2 open locks, +2 disable device, +1 strength on that hand vs being disarmed. +2 escape artist checks (as arm could bend forward or back at the elbow) Fingertips extracted and retracted theives picks. Permanate Illusion to appear like a real arm.

Right leg:
+ 2 move silently, compartment that held a grappling hook, 100ft cord able to 300lbs., +2 jump checks, took 25% longer to fatigie.Permanate illusion to appear as a normal leg.

[Angelalex242]

Defenders of the Faith had a good old fashioned 'Mithril Arm'. And having two of them was flat out a good idea (See, Jax of Mortal Kombat.) Makes me wonder if you could equip enough of these to essentially be Mithril Darth Vader if you lose enough limbs, by including Mithril Legs as well.

If you use the Power of the Dark Side, Hand and Eye of Vecna are always around.

"You lose a hand. However, there just happens to be a mummified one over there...go ahead, attach it. No, really..."

[Person_Man]

It depends on your game.

Permanent or permanent-ish damage (you can't heal it unless you remove yourself from the dungeon, rest, spend one or more days out of commission, etc) makes players very risk averse. It makes them want to avoid combat, and to avoid risky styles of play in combat (melee, glass cannon, etc).

It also makes it much harder for the DM to run balanced combat encounters (easy sometimes, hard sometimes, giving different players the opportunity to have the spotlight based on their abilities, not killing players capriciously while still having a real threat, etc), because it's hard to plan out multiple combats for one sitting of a game if you don't know how powerful a player will be at any moment. (The first combat might be balanced, but if you can't predict how much permanent-ish damage players will have after each combat, how are you supposed to plan 3+ combats for a single game session?)

So if your game is primarily about combat (ie, if you want to spend most of the game in combat, and combat is the primary method of getting rewards of XP/GP/resolving the plot), you should avoid permanent-ish damage like the plague. It makes combat less fun and harder for the DM to manage.

However, if your game is primarily about exploration, then having limited resources (including limited ability to absorb and deal with damage/wounds) is absolutely essential, because it makes their exploration choices meaningful. If combat is very risky, players avoid combat. They hide. They run away. They try to steal from an enemy instead of just killing them. They take their time with traps, and thing through ways to bypass them even if they can't disarm them. They poke things with 10 foot poles to make sure they're not a mimic. They listen at every door. They come up with clever ambushes. They conserve every potion of healing they find because they never know when they'll absolutely need it. And so on.

[Rijan_Sai]

Never look at it as a handicap, but a way to be handi-capable. That the negative of missing fingers for example. Find some tinkergnomes and have them fashion new ones with a few modifications. Think 1980s Inspector Gadget.

Some of you may remember the phrase, "Go go gadget insert needed effeft here." Why not have them add lock picks into the fingers or various other tools a rouge may want. then find a mage, get some magical bonuses going and its all like you were before, except version 2.0.

We had a rouge, whos arm and leg was bitten off by a tarrasque, we cultivated the wounds useing yellow hemlock,and traveled to a known tinkergnome named Bob the nearsited.

After a couple weeks of downtime in game, the gnome build a masterfully built arm and leg, and with the help of our mage graphed them to his body. After a few more days of study and research, the mage set some magical enchants to them.

Right Arm: +2 open locks, +2 disable device, +1 strength on that hand vs being disarmed. +2 escape artist checks (as arm could bend forward or back at the elbow) Fingertips extracted and retracted theives picks. Permanate Illusion to appear like a real arm.

Right leg:
+ 2 move silently, compartment that held a grappling hook, 100ft cord able to 300lbs., +2 jump checks, took 25% longer to fatigie.Permanate illusion to appear as a normal leg.

Arm grafts and enchantments: 3000000 GP <-Yes, the numbers are arbitrary
Leg grafts and enchantments: 3000000 GP<-Yes, the numbers are arbitrary
Being Steve Austin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Six_Million_Dollar_Man) in D&D: Priceless!

[Tim Proctor]

I've had loss of limbs and stuff, and made it work where the damage of that attack that inflicted the loss of limb was permanent like Vile Damage (BoVD p. 35), until they could get the spell cast. Had it work on a confirmed crit from a slashing weapon, but then I had bleeding on peircing to represent a bleeding artery, and a couple other home rules. It all ended up as more pain than pleasure.

[Neon Knight]

And this leads me to the reason behind my question. In a dungeon crawl against some Drow, I planned that the final room of the temple my PCs are in would have an escape route for the BBEG: said tunnel should be equipped with a trap sprung by the BBEG himself during his escape, which would lead to the collapse of the ceiling of the tunnel on the heads of eventual pursuers. Not wishing to kill my players, but wishing to add some lasting consequence to a risky act against a prepared opponent, I thought about some sort of permanent injury. This is why I came to ask the question, to see what could be a possible reaction.

This doesn't sound like a good idea. While it might be reasonable for a villain to cover his bases and make sure he has a way to cut off pursuit, pursuing a villain isn't really an action you want to punish. Sure, chasing a villain with prepared defenses is a risky action; so is assaulting his temple in the first place, and confronting him. Adventure is itself risky. Why does this particular instance of risk need to be singled out with additional consequences?

I mean, what would you prefer them to do? Hang back and let him run away, to simply come back one day and cackle "Ha ha! you should have killed me when you had the chance."

It is very possible that your players might respond to your tunnel collapse scenario with anger; not only do you make their pursuit impossible, but you punish and cripple them as well. It is very close to "rocks fall, everyone dies", and it could be received poorly as a railroady way to ensure your villain escapes.

[NichG]

I think the best use of this kind of stuff is purposeful, rather than random. I wouldn't want a system where for every attack in every combat, there was some % chance of random limb loss. Rather, permanent effects like this should be there to highlight situations that are to be taken more seriously than others.

Part of this is that its best if the PCs know the danger and must choose to risk it. I disagree that this has to be communicated at the start of the campaign, but I do think its best to make it a risk that the PC 'volunteers' to take (even if the alternative to not taking the risk would be unacceptable for the group as a whole).

For example, the aforementioned lion's mouth. It can be very effective to communicate 'this dungeon is not going to be playing around with you' if for example there are traps that obviously cannot do anything but cause permanent damage. Its even better if the trap doesn't have to fire to make the point, but instead if its a situation where the PC clearly has the choice between 'risking a limb' and not getting what they want (the treasure in this room, etc). This can be used to good effect to generate some tension and diffuse a hulk-smash approach to a place.

Another example would be using permanent damage as a way to highlight the power or alien nature of a particular enemy. Something that does 1 permanent reduction to max HP on a successful melee attack will very much make the players themselves not want to get into melee with it, even if they could easily kill it before taking more than a few points of permanent loss. Once its a known quantity 'this kind of enemy/this kind of energy produces this kind of effect' then you can use it to communicate the severity of a situation to the players.

I will say though, I can very much understand players not wanting their character to lose their main schtick from a permanent injury or whatever, and that's something to keep in mind and be open to work-arounds about. Its one thing to cause someone to lose an ear and suffer a -2 to Listen checks; its another thing to cause the barbarian specialized in greatswords to lose a hand and thereby lose most of their feats. In such a case, its best to make acquiring a prosthetic something that can happen, or make sure that the damage is reversible via quest or just leaving the dungeon.

But at the same time there are some players that will throw a tantrum at losing a few points of permanent hp - not because it changes their image of their character or actually interferes with them mechanically, but because it renders them 'less' than the best they mechanically could have been. Personally I would tell these players to grow a thicker skin and work with it; especially if it came up in a situation where they understood the risks and still went ahead with them.

[PersonMan]

Part of this is that its best if the PCs know the danger and must choose to risk it. I disagree that this has to be communicated at the start of the campaign, but I do think its best to make it a risk that the PC 'volunteers' to take (even if the alternative to not taking the risk would be unacceptable for the group as a whole).

So, in other words "I think you should include this thing that could cause problems with some players in a way that screws them over if they choose to not go through with it, rather than talking about it beforehand and making sure it won't cause a problem"?

Honestly, I can't imagine a realistic scenario in which you would not want to talk to your players about something like this beforehand. It has no advantage. It's just pure increase of risk, with no payoff apart from not having to ask a few questions/write an email.

The difference between "By the way, anyone have allergies?" and "Oh, I don't need to ask them about allergies!" is similar. Sure, it might be fine. Or you may ruin someone's afternoon for no good reason*.

*Assuming an allergic reaction of "gah my face is swelling up" rather than "well there goes my ability to breathe", for a more accurate metaphor. The first thing that came to mind was a seatbelt metaphor, but dying in a car crash is more extreme than losing a player (as one of the worst outcomes).

---

I also think that implying that people who don't want to have permanent damage on their PCs are worse for it isn't a good idea. It's at least not the more mature option. I've managed to avoid saying things like "well you either avoid permanent damage on your PCs or you play a cardboard cutout", it should be easy to present things like this without taking shots at people.

---

As far as my characters are concerned, I'm generally in the 'larger than life' crowd: if something like a scar or lost eye/ear/limb comes up, then it had better be dramatic and end with an opportunity for a more badass appearance later rather than "well, Mook #35 crit you".

[Andvare]

It can be fun, but D&D isn't the best system for these kinds of things.
These things tends to penalize the already beleaguered classes.

Now scars, and temporary penalties aren't bad. And can bring life to characters and the game as a whole.
Instead of losing two fingers, and getting a permanent penalty, you could lose some of two fingers, and have a temporary penalty, until you learn how to overcome the change. That could lead to memorable characters.

There are other RP games with fun (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/File:FunComic.png) dismembering mechanics. Like Warhammer Fantasy RPG, where crits and dismemberment are established parts of killing and combat.

[Cicciograna]

stuff
Interesting analysis. Please note that after thorough consideration I chose not to include permanent damage into may games; however, the part about exploration is quite enticing.


stuff
I see your point, but what pisses a little bit me off is that, sure, the game is about players, but their opponents should be stupid, nor too much gimped just because "hey, they're the PCs". I mean, if the situation was reversed, and if were the players who had to flee in the trapped tunnel (a countermeasure set up with the express scope to delay end hopefully severely maim pursuers) I would adjudicate that yes, their pursuers have been smashed by the fallin ceiling, and those who survived are now crippled. While I agree that the spotlight has to be on PCs, I fail to see why they shouldn't avoid some risks.


stuff
Clearly such a condition (the crippling) would be triggered only by certain particular situation, and not as a result of any combat action. We have HPs after all.

[Coidzor]

It depends on your game.

Permanent or permanent-ish damage (you can't heal it unless you remove yourself from the dungeon, rest, spend one or more days out of commission, etc) makes players very risk averse. It makes them want to avoid combat, and to avoid risky styles of play in combat (melee, glass cannon, etc).

It also makes it much harder for the DM to run balanced combat encounters (easy sometimes, hard sometimes, giving different players the opportunity to have the spotlight based on their abilities, not killing players capriciously while still having a real threat, etc), because it's hard to plan out multiple combats for one sitting of a game if you don't know how powerful a player will be at any moment. (The first combat might be balanced, but if you can't predict how much permanent-ish damage players will have after each combat, how are you supposed to plan 3+ combats for a single game session?)

So if your game is primarily about combat (ie, if you want to spend most of the game in combat, and combat is the primary method of getting rewards of XP/GP/resolving the plot), you should avoid permanent-ish damage like the plague. It makes combat less fun and harder for the DM to manage.

However, if your game is primarily about exploration, then having limited resources (including limited ability to absorb and deal with damage/wounds) is absolutely essential, because it makes their exploration choices meaningful. If combat is very risky, players avoid combat. They hide. They run away. They try to steal from an enemy instead of just killing them. They take their time with traps, and thing through ways to bypass them even if they can't disarm them. They poke things with 10 foot poles to make sure they're not a mimic. They listen at every door. They come up with clever ambushes. They conserve every potion of healing they find because they never know when they'll absolutely need it. And so on.

Well said.


Honestly, I can't imagine a realistic scenario in which you would not want to talk to your players about something like this beforehand. It has no advantage. It's just pure increase of risk, with no payoff apart from not having to ask a few questions/write an email.

You alter the rules, you inform the players of it. You bring in a homebrew subsystem, you inform the players of it. That's just common courtesy. :smallconfused:

The only exceptions I can think of offhand are for things like horror campaigns, and knowledge that you can lose limbs (easily) isn't going to tip your hand on your horror campaign unless it's in need of a bit more workshopping.


I see your point, but what pisses a little bit me off is that, sure, the game is about players, but their opponents should be stupid, nor too much gimped just because "hey, they're the PCs". I mean, if the situation was reversed, and if were the players who had to flee in the trapped tunnel (a countermeasure set up with the express scope to delay end hopefully severely maim pursuers) I would adjudicate that yes, their pursuers have been smashed by the fallin ceiling, and those who survived are now crippled. While I agree that the spotlight has to be on PCs, I fail to see why they shouldn't avoid some risks.

Falling rocks just do HP damage and maybe bury people so they have to be dug out or they get squished if you want 'em to be more deadly. The main interest in that sort of trap is in potentially killing/damaging enemies enough to dissuade pursuit as well as slowing pursuit by blocking conventional movement until they bring up an alternate movement mode such as earthglide or going ethereal to walk through it or try to dimension door through it... not permanently crippling foes but not killing them. :smallconfused:

Unless you're wanting to simulate brain damage from massive blunt trauma, there's not a whole lot of room for crippling injury from rocks fall. Rocks fall is most thematically followed by "everyone dies" or "you barely avoid them" or "you avoid most of them but get whinged for X damage." :smallconfused: It's not like having your fingers lopped off or an eye plucked out and eaten mid-combat by an abomination from beyond the stars.

[PersonMan]

You alter the rules, you inform the players of it. You bring in a homebrew subsystem, you inform the players of it. That's just common courtesy. :smallconfused:

Agreed.


@Cicciograna: The issue with a trap like that is that the people chasing the PCs are far more likely to be mooks, i.e. people who die quickly anyways.

It's the basic "You're the DM, you have as many orcs as you want! I only have one character!" thing. If a PC trap kills a dozen orcs, well...good job. You might even get XP. If a trap kills a dozen PCs, it's called a TPK.

[NichG]

So, in other words "I think you should include this thing that could cause problems with some players in a way that screws them over if they choose to not go through with it, rather than talking about it beforehand and making sure it won't cause a problem"?

Honestly, I can't imagine a realistic scenario in which you would not want to talk to your players about something like this beforehand. It has no advantage. It's just pure increase of risk, with no payoff apart from not having to ask a few questions/write an email.


Basically you don't want to play the hand too early. If you are playing permanent injury for maximal effect, to contrast 'day to day adventuring' with 'oh **** moments' then you don't want the players to be aware its on the table until they have to decide.

Notice I'm not saying, spring sudden severe permanent injury on them unawares as a random thing. I'm saying, make them think it wasn't an option and then give them a sudden, but aware choice between risking it and losing out on some benefit.

For example, IMC I've had a location where you could immerse yourself into raw chaos, the result of which was that you would lose a random feat but gain a random feat that not only would ignore prereqs, but could be far afield of the normal allowed sources; the quality for your character was determined by a die roll, so a high roll meant a feat that would synergize well with your build.

I made the players aware of what the stuff did before they chose to try it, but I did not warn then at the start at the campaign that this stuff could come up, and I think doing so would have been harmful to the eventual reveal. Some players still chose to drink, and whether they got a good or bad result, that was the risk they had decided to take.

Later, when they encountered an enemy whose hands dripped the stuff, they knew the consequences of getting into melee with it.



I also think that implying that people who don't want to have permanent damage on their PCs are worse for it isn't a good idea. It's at least not the more mature option. I've managed to avoid saying things like "well you either avoid permanent damage on your PCs or you play a cardboard cutout", it should be easy to present things like this without taking shots at people.


Obviously no one should 'want' it. But the maturity question comes in as far as how a player deals with it. If someone throws a tantrum over something that has only minor mechanical effects (the aforementioned -1 to permanent hitpoints) then yes, they're being immature. Its not that they're playing a cardboard cutout, but it does mean that basically they are being inflexible as a player. In some sense its no different than a player who can't stand the thought of their character dying. Or of being anything but invincible in a fight.

Does that make them dislike it any less? No. Their distaste for the situation is still just as real, and such things will in fact make them enjoy the game less. And if you want to play with them, that is something you have to keep in mind.

But it does mean that such a player is somewhat of a liability at the table - given the choice, I would prefer to play with people who can roll with and enjoy all sorts of situations than people who have very narrow zones of play in which they can enjoy the game.

[Coidzor]

Basically you don't want to play the hand too early. If you are playing permanent injury for maximal effect, to contrast 'day to day adventuring' with 'oh **** moments' then you don't want the players to be aware its on the table until they have to decide.

Notice I'm not saying, spring sudden severe permanent injury on them unawares as a random thing. I'm saying, make them think it wasn't an option and then give them a sudden, but aware choice between risking it and losing out on some benefit.

And do you have a good reason aside from capriciousness for deliberately withholding knowledge of your table rules from your players?

It doesn't add anything as far as I can see in your argument, except for the chance to randomly spring it on players when you decide that things are suitably dramatic.


Obviously no one should 'want' it. But the maturity question comes in as far as how a player deals with it. If someone throws a tantrum over something that has only minor mechanical effects (the aforementioned -1 to permanent hitpoints) then yes, they're being immature. Its not that they're playing a cardboard cutout, but it does mean that basically they are being inflexible as a player. In some sense its no different than a player who can't stand the thought of their character dying. Or of being anything but invincible in a fight.

That you and others so far in this thread seem to immediately jump from disliking such rules to throwing a temper tantrum due to having them sprung on a person's character is the main problemproblematic area. You're appearing to come very close to deliberately smearing those who disagree with you if not already in that territory.

[NichG]

And do you have a good reason aside from capriciousness for deliberately withholding knowledge of your table rules from your players?

It doesn't add anything as far as I can see in your argument, except for the chance to randomly spring it on players when you decide that things are suitably dramatic.


Its not capriciousness, its the possibility for discovery and impact. You establish the comfortable, then you introduce things that subtly break expectations - those things then become hints as to the future direction things may take (and thus plot hooks), and also encourage different behavior than the usual.

It doesn't always have to be negative - thats just because of the particular question in this thread. The aforementioned chaos effect had profoundly positive impacts as well as profoundly negative ones.

In general, I do not feel that all possible rules must be vetted with the players first. When I have a new player to my campaigns I basically give a very simple boilerplate 'this campaign is not by-the-book, and you should not be surprised if things end up being different; if you want a RAW campaign, this isn't it'. I don't think its necessary or even at all beneficial to exhaustively list out all the variations planned in the future, much like I wouldn't list out the future encounters the PCs will have to deal with and their specific builds and abilities. Uncovering those variations and discovering the differences is in fact part of the game.



That you and others so far in this thread seem to immediately jump from disliking such rules to throwing a temper tantrum due to having them sprung on a person's character is the main problemproblematic area. You're appearing to come very close to deliberately smearing those who disagree with you if not already in that territory.

I attempted to be concrete about this in my previous post, when I said I specifically only have a problem with those who do throw a temper tantrum, and listed a number of reasons why you should have a light touch with this kind of thing even with players who are more flexible.

But I also do maintain that players should try to be flexible and deal with situations, and that the ability to do so is a very valuable trait in a player that improves the game as a whole.

[Flavel]

Seems like this could be a variant of the fortification save from massive damage or die optional rule.

Instead of dying, come up with a list of bad things that could happen and pick one that makes sense. At the shallow end, a scar. At the deep end you could get real nasty...blow to head causes insanity/alignment change.

Perhaps, better then being killed outright, it would definitely make an impression.

[XmonkTad]

I don't remember what it is called, but I think the spell compendium has an item that is a ruby that replaces one of your eyes. My DM gave me one without telling me what was happening. At first I thought I'd just lost the eye, but the laser beams kind of made up for it. Of course, I never used the laser function, because I wasn't sure if it ran on charges, and didn't have identify cast on it, so I had no idea what would happen if it ran out of charges.

If you're going to really smack a player around like that, keep in mind that they're going to want to run FAR away from whatever it was that did it. For example, someone reaches into a lion statue, flicks a switch, and gets their arm bitten off. That is the end of the dungeon as far as that PC is concerned. No amount of gold is worth their life, which was already in danger when they were at 100%. Any PC with any sense of self preservation would want to end their dungeon crawl right there, and will beg for a teleport out.

I think your idea of hitting them with this as they run away from a well prepared enemy is a good one. Of course, don't force it on them, and have a note card ready to pass to the victim of the maiming that says "don't worry" or something like that. If they get really bent out of shape: "you find a Silthilar wandering around saying 'I can barely carry all of these grafts!'"