PDA

View Full Version : Massive Damage?



Mr. Moogle
2007-05-25, 09:06 AM
it seams to me that massive damage is an insanely broken factor of the game I was playing a level 12 fighter with somewhere around 120 HP and im hit by a skeak attack crit. It delt 53 damage and i failed my fortitude save, i had been owned by a rouge around half my level. I argued to the DM but he was adamant. What are your thoughts on massive damage?

pathanos
2007-05-25, 09:13 AM
in my opinion that is why it is there and like that ....so that there is the element of someone being taken down by a pc/npc of lower levels also so that your not going to be able to ignore ANY hostile npc/pc

B!shop
2007-05-25, 09:17 AM
I've always assumed that massive damage, when properly used is the only one thing that can anchor DnD to some kind of reality.

You had ill luck probably, if the rogue didn't crit the sneak attack you'll kill him.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-25, 09:17 AM
My thoughts—only good if you use a variant that negates the need to roll it with almost every attack after reaching the point that 50 damage is just a drop in the bucket. For the most part, that means I'm most interested in the HD based threashold (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/unearthedInjury.html#hd-based-threshold).

It still has its weak spots, but I think it can help with certain aspects of verisimilitude.

Spiryt
2007-05-25, 09:33 AM
it seams to me that massive damage is an insanely broken factor of the game I was playing a level 12 fighter with somewhere around 120 HP and im hit by a skeak attack crit. It delt 53 damage and i failed my fortitude save, i had been owned by a rouge around half my level. I argued to the DM but he was adamant. What are your thoughts on massive damage?

Dude... You must had really bad luck... I think your fighter had at least 12 Con, so you must roll 6 on d20.
Anyway, massive damage is, as B!shop said "some kind of reality"- you can be muscular/big like gorilla or vital like stereotypical cat, but it won't save you from daggers in kidneys...:belkar: and something what fighters and other non-magic guys can do to fight against magic abuse in D&D.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-25, 09:42 AM
It just hit me...

The rogue was theoretically around 6th level, right? 53 damage, even for a crit sneak attack seems a bit much for a rogue of that level.

I hope your DM wasn't multiplying the sneak attack dice on the roll. Even then... let's assume 7th or 8th level at best... 4d6 averages to 14, which doubles to 28 on a standard crit. 42 on a triple crit... I assume it was a triple crit weapon at least then. And that still requires the crit damage to be incorrectly applied to begin with.

Spiryt
2007-05-25, 10:00 AM
You know Shhalahr, many weird things can happen...

4d6 can give 24, plus 3k6 + 3 from +1 composite shortbow can give 21 plus 6 from 14 strenght plus 3 from point blank shot. Whole gives 54.

But yes, this rogue must anyway have insane luck! It would be good, Mr.Moogle if you could tell us something about for example weapon of this rogue.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-25, 10:03 AM
You know Shhalahr, many weird things can happen...

4d6 can give 24, plus 3k6 + 3 from +1 composite shortbow can give 21 plus 6 from 14 strenght plus 3 from point blank shot. Whole gives 54.

But yes, this rogue must anyway have insane luck! It would be good, Mr.Moogle if you could tell us something about for example weapon of this rogue.

Well, no. Part of what Shhahlahr is saying is that extra dice aren't multiplied by criticals, including SA.

Spiryt
2007-05-25, 10:07 AM
Well, no. Part of what Shhahlahr is saying is that extra dice aren't multiplied by criticals, including SA.

I didn't multiply any extra dice! 7th level rogue have 4d6 sneak attack normally. What I calculated was max damage that this rogue could do. So i underlined that he had to have insane luck.

Whiplord
2007-05-25, 10:07 AM
Also, isn't Massive Damage over half your HP? If you had 120, 53 isn't half. But this is probably just me not getting the rules.

Spiryt
2007-05-25, 10:11 AM
Massive Damage: If you ever sustain a single attack deals 50 points of damage or more and it doesn’t kill you outright, you must make a DC 15 Fortitude save. If this saving throw fails, you die regardless of your current hit points.

THat's all, however what you said could be interesting homebrew (but probably would make deaths too common on low levels).

Indon
2007-05-25, 10:16 AM
Also, isn't Massive Damage over half your HP? If you had 120, 53 isn't half. But this is probably just me not getting the rules.

Nope, massive damage is a flat 50. It might have been half back in AD&D, I seem to recall something like that.

Generally, I don't remember the mechanic exists. If I did, I'd probably immediately houserule it to be 5 or 10 times CON in damage. 5 times CON means the average person's damage threshold is still 50, and that a Kraken with 400 HP who got hit hard and got a bit unlucky with a save doesn't just... die.

B!shop
2007-05-25, 10:19 AM
There was a % roll for massive damage back in AD&D, but I must ceck when it's used.

Spiryt
2007-05-25, 10:24 AM
and that a Kraken with 400 HP who got hit hard and got a bit unlucky with a save doesn't just... die.

Why? Even Kraken can die from one good blow. And kraken basicaly has + 21 to fort. save so...

Fax Celestis
2007-05-25, 10:25 AM
There's also a massive damage variant based on creature size. Medium is 50, and you add or subtract 10 for each degree in size change.

Poppatomus
2007-05-25, 10:32 AM
Generally, I don't remember the mechanic exists. If I did, I'd probably immediately houserule it to be 5 or 10 times CON in damage. 5 times CON means the average person's damage threshold is still 50, and that a Kraken with 400 HP who got hit hard and got a bit unlucky with a save doesn't just... die.


Maybe I am wrong about the mechanic, but one aspect that I've always liked about combat in this game is death by massive damage being about CON and not about HP.

When I conceptualize it, I think of it like this: This game doesn't distinguish where any particular attack is aimed or where it hits, it leaves that up to the DM as a flavor element, but in real combat it matters. The same amount of force applied to your heart or your shoulder has a big difference in effect. It works the opposite way too. A large caliber bullet can hit you just about anywhere and still kill you thanks to hydrostatic shock.

For most attacks this difference is just assumed in the reduction in HP. but for truly massive attacks that doesn't cut it. doing 50 damage in a single attack means you've been hit hard enough that it either doesn't matter where you were hit or it matters a lot more than usual.

At that point, It should be about fort, not about HP. It should be about your system's ability to take a huge shock and your training to roll with a blow and stay on your feat.

The kracken doesn't die from massive damage. Not because it happens to have a lot of HP, but because it has a +21 to fort and makes the DC 15 save automatically. This distinguishes the ancient, frail, but buffed up mage that you've managed to get one good shot on from the giant water beast that is the scourge of all things living and could care less if you take a chunk of its hide.

If anything, there should be more levels of massic damage, say 100 HP in a single attack requiring DC 22 fort or some such.


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/massaveDamageThresholdsAndResults.htm

Srd's list of varient options.

Indon
2007-05-25, 10:38 AM
The kracken doesn't die from massive damage. Not because it happens to have a lot of HP, but because it has a +21 to fort and makes the DC 15 save automatically. This distinguishes the ancient, frail, but buffed up mage that you've managed to get one good shot on from the giant water beast that is the scourge of all things living and could care less if you take a chunk of its hide.


Yours is a very good point, except that a natural 1 always fails a save. So an attack that deals more than 50 damage has a 5% chance to flukishly kill anything that can die from HP damage, regardless of if it's a PC, or a great wyrm dragon with a +50 fort save. The problem is solvable if you make massive damage saves an exception to this, though.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-25, 10:41 AM
4d6 can give 24, plus 3k6 + 3 from +1 composite shortbow can give 21 plus 6 from 14 strenght plus 3 from point blank shot. Whole gives 54.
7d6 has a 1/279,936 chance of maxing out. Not very likely.

Likewise, a rogue with a 14 Strength is atypical, though certainly more likely than a maximum roll on 7d6.

All in all, it's generally better form to assume something closer to average until given reason to think otherwise.


Yours is a very good point, except that a natural 1 always fails a save.
Not if you have Steadfast Determination (PH2)! At least where Fort saves are concerned.


So an attack that deals more than 50 damage has a 5% chance to flukishly kill anything that can die from HP damage, regardless of if it's a PC, or a great wyrm dragon with a +50 fort save. The problem is solvable if you make massive damage saves an exception to this, though.
I don't consider that a problem since, y'know, the point of massive damage is that even the toughest of creatures have a point at which the trauma is just too much to handle. It's kinda the reason for the rule.

Poppatomus
2007-05-25, 10:43 AM
Yours is a very good point, except that a natural 1 always fails a save. So an attack that deals more than 50 damage has a 5% chance to flukishly kill anything that can die from HP damage, regardless of if it's a PC, or a great wyrm dragon with a +50 fort save. The problem is solvable if you make massive damage saves an exception to this, though.

Is that an actualy rule or a variant? I was under the impression that the critical failure rule, like the critical success rule was not part of the RAW, just a popular option. (like putting a $500 bounty on free parking in monopoly)

Fax Celestis
2007-05-25, 10:47 AM
Automatic Failures and Successes
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure (and may cause damage to exposed items; see Items Surviving after a Saving Throw). A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success.

Not a variant.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-25, 10:47 AM
Is that an actualy rule or a variant?
It be da rules (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/combat.html#automatic-failures-and-successes)!

Same goes for Attack rolls if you look up further. But Attacks and Saves are the only rules that feature automatic success or failure.

Poppatomus
2007-05-25, 10:50 AM
It be da rules (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/combat.html#automatic-failures-and-successes)!

Same goes for Attack rolls if you look up further. But Attacks and Saves are the only rules that feature automatic success or failure.

thanks for the link. The more you know.

Person_Man
2007-05-25, 10:54 AM
Yours is a very good point, except that a natural 1 always fails a save. So an attack that deals more than 50 damage has a 5% chance to flukishly kill anything that can die from HP damage, regardless of if it's a PC, or a great wyrm dragon with a +50 fort save. The problem is solvable if you make massive damage saves an exception to this, though.

Steadfast Determination: Moves your Will Saves from Wis to Con, and you no longer auto fail Fort Saves on a natural 1. It's a great feat for most melee builds, and it allows you to dump Wis as far as possible.

You can also become immune to critical hits in a variety of ways, usually by being or becoming a construct or undead.

Indon
2007-05-25, 10:58 AM
Giving all my high-HP mobs Steadfast Determination in order to keep the combat from accidentally ending in round 1 (or fudging a die roll, which admittedly I am entirely capable of) is unappetizing.

Though, giving some of my high-hp (generally monstrous) mobs that feat so they can have a snowball's chance in hell of making a will save doesn't seem that bad at all.

Spiryt
2007-05-25, 11:02 AM
7d6 has a 1/279,936 chance of maxing out. Not very likely.

Likewise, a rogue with a 14 Strength is atypical, though certainly more likely than a maximum roll on 7d6.

All in all, it's generally better form to assume something closer to average until given reason to think otherwise.



I said insane. I know that it is ridiculously ulikely to happen, but It can happen. We just must know something more about this rogue to continue disscussion, i think.

Capfalcon
2007-05-25, 11:03 AM
As a DM, I never use the massive damage rule, because it hurts Melee classes too much. It become a game of "Who Fails Their Save First?" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html)!

I understand that it makes combat more realistic, but it also makes the game less fun for people who want to swing a sword instead of sling a spell. To me, these classes are gimped enough as it is. I don't mind out a rule that hurts them for doing their thing.

And also, that Rogue had crazy luck if he made you roll for massive damage at that level, OP.

Spiryt
2007-05-25, 11:08 AM
Capfalcon, it actualy make game more fun to melees.
When Massive damage (50 dm) is often, melees have usually so good fort save, that they are not in big danger.
On the other hand, mage types and many monsters can be still taken off by one blow. So fighters sometimes also can do "one shot" (especially Schock Troopers ec).

OOTS_Rules.
2007-05-25, 11:10 AM
Same here. I also do the same with old age. I think somebody would be happier if they had time to be healed before the were slain, not just by suddenly croaking due to playing for too long or losing the 'Made my save" game. Save-or-suck I can understand, because it has a limit. Not so with sword swinging.

Capfalcon
2007-05-25, 11:37 AM
Capfalcon, it actualy make game more fun to melees.
When Massive damage (50 dm) is often, melees have usually so good fort save, that they are not in big danger.
On the other hand, mage types and many monsters can be still taken off by one blow. So fighters sometimes also can do "one shot" (especially Schock Troopers ec).

Er... Not in my experience...

Granted Melee classes normally have higher fort saves than casters (except Clerics and Druids) but, then again, they also get HIT more than casters... since... you know... they are standing next to the guy with the sword or the dragon or the unholy firebreathing two-headed half-fiend troll. Which then makes them roll a fort save. Which they automaticly have flat 5% chance of failing. Which ends up with the party buying diamonds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raiseDead.htm) in bulk for the savings over the long run.

Also, the people they are fighting in Melee also likely to have the awesome fort saves. And since they arn't PCs, they probably won't live long enough for statistics to catch up to them

I don't use it for the same reason called shots got removed from DnD and the same reason the new Star Wars System (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20070322jc101
) is getting rid of Wound/Vitality Points. Any system that allows for quick KOs hurts the players more than the NPCs. They even have fun math showing how it hurts the players more than the enemies.

Spiryt
2007-05-25, 12:02 PM
Good point, but it can be also handy for warriors, beacuse it gives qiute nice method of killing f.e. abberations quickly. Not to mention rogues/archers who can one shot even powerful mages (17th level lets say even 16 CON - still good chance of killing). Mages can of course have "never suprised cheese", but if your GM throws full Batmans against you, everything is hard anyway.

Nnanji
2007-05-25, 12:28 PM
My thoughts—only good if you use a variant that negates the need to roll it with almost every attack after reaching the point that 50 damage is just a drop in the bucket. For the most part, that means I'm most interested in the HD based threashold (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/unearthedInjury.html#hd-based-threshold).

It still has its weak spots, but I think it can help with certain aspects of verisimilitude.


The HD based threshold system seems like it would be useful at high levels, but I liked the Constitution based system a little better. Although I would apply a multiplier to the Con score to determine the damage threshold, maybe based on class. If the standard rules assume damge 50 is massive, and the average Con score is 10, then a multiplier of x5 might be reasonable. This would benefit high Con, melee classes while showing that the frail, sickly magic user can't take a massive hit without magical buffs. Plus, the Con multiplier keeps the threshold number massive, as in massive damage, as opposed to 14 or whatever.

Alternatively, the alternate failed save rules seem like a good choice as well. Failed save sets you to dying (-1 hp). This has the shock of the high level fighter getting dropped in the first round by a massive blow, while giving the party time to recover.

Of course, shouldn't a 12th level party have access to Raise magic?

Fax Celestis
2007-05-25, 12:34 PM
Of course, shouldn't a 12th level party have access to Raise magic?

A lot of DMs ban raise dead and the like for continuity's sake.

Squatting_Monk
2007-05-25, 12:43 PM
Didn't see this mentioned, but... isn't the save versus massive damage a variant rule listed in the DMG? If it is, your DM had better have established at the beginning of the game that he was using that variant. Pulling an optional rule out of the hat at the exact moment when it will kill your player is really bad form. :smallyuk:

Douglas
2007-05-25, 03:23 PM
No. Death by massive damage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/injuryandDeath.htm#massiveDamage) is not a variant.

Capfalcon
2007-05-25, 03:34 PM
Good point, but it can be also handy for warriors, beacuse it gives qiute nice method of killing f.e. abberations quickly. Not to mention rogues/archers who can one shot even powerful mages (17th level lets say even 16 CON - still good chance of killing). Mages can of course have "never suprised cheese", but if your GM throws full Batmans against you, everything is hard anyway.

I'm not saying that it does not help melee people sometimes, just that the rule hurts more than it helps.

Called shots were funny and useful to melee classes when they got to chop the goblin's arm off, but they were decidedly less funny when that same fighter got to figure out the sound of one hand clapping first hand.

It's only funny until a PC gets permanently crippled. Then you have a new NPC. And an annoyed player.

Poppatomus
2007-05-25, 03:51 PM
I'm not saying that it does not help melee people sometimes, just that the rule hurts more than it helps.

Called shots were funny and useful to melee classes when they got to chop the goblin's arm off, but they were decidedly less funny when that same fighter got to figure out the sound of one hand clapping first hand.

It's only funny until a PC gets permanently crippled. Then you have a new NPC. And an annoyed player.

This is the law of large numbers issue. It's not that the NPCs have an advantage, its that you only see them once and at the end of that time they're usually dead. If they roll 20 times it's alot. On the other hand, over many encounters or campaigns, a PC will roll, or be rolled against, 100's of times. This guarentees they will, at some point roll poorly. (The DM manual I believe mentions this when they talk about an optional nat. 20 to attack nat. 20 to damage = auto kill rule.)

More importantly, I actually care if my PC rolls poorly, whereas I want my enemy to do so. The party as a whole, especially if people are willing to swap in characters after people die, benefits from this rule to the extent that they regularly face enemies more powerful then themselves, and is hurt by it in so far as they are faced by weaker enemies. I don't really see a melee vs. caster bias, at least in the sense that there isn't one already. It's just a bias towards decisive/deadly encounters. To a lesser extent it's a bias against hit point dependent characters vs. evasion/reduction/armor dependent characters.

Were I a fighter beset by campaign after campaign of mob opponents 2 or 3 levels lower than me, but able to do massive damage, I would hate this rule. If they were 2 or 3 levels above me I, or someone else, would be getting killed at much the same rate, but the party would be more successful than otherwise.

As far as I am concerned the rule, in some form, is needed in a world that has resurrection. To the extent rez is restricted, this should be restricted and vice versa. I also feel that the drops to -1 makes alot more sense then drops to negative 10.

Jack Mann
2007-05-25, 07:58 PM
The problem with massive damage is that at high levels, fighter types are going to be taking 50+ damage near every hit. That means that every four or five fights, they die. Sure, they can get raised, but A) that makes death even more meaningless, and B) it's going to be hard for them to gain levels (or else the party is going to need a lot of diamonds).

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-25, 09:11 PM
As a DM, I never use the massive damage rule, because it hurts Melee classes too much. It become a game of "Who Fails Their Save First?" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html)!

The problem with massive damage is that at high levels, fighter types are going to be taking 50+ damage near every hit. That means that every four or five fights, they die.
These are the reasons I advocate the HD-based threshold.

And regarding the rogue's luck in the original scenario—I just remembered that there is the deadly precision weapon property from Complete Adventurer. This property adds +2d6 to the damage of a successful sneak attack with the weapon. Now, a regular weapon with this property would be too expensive for either an approximately 6th level PC, as it would be at least +3 equivalent. However, if, as Spiryt suggested, the attack was made with a bow, the rogue could have used the much cheaper deadly precision arrows to achieve the proper effect. That would make the provocation of a massive damage check a tad bit more likely. Still would require an amazing roll, of course. Just not a max roll.

Quietus
2007-05-25, 11:04 PM
All these are the reasons my groups don't use massive damage rules. Frankly, if something is swinging 50+ damage on a regular enough basis for it to matter, you have more important things to worry about than the 5% chance you outright die. You ought to be more worried about not getting hit with the backswing.

brian c
2007-05-26, 12:01 AM
There's also a massive damage variant based on creature size. Medium is 50, and you add or subtract 10 for each degree in size change.

I use this, but slightly different, subtracting 5 for sizes smaller than medium. I also say that the fort save DC is increased by 1 for every 5 damage over the threshhold, but that if you fail the save you're stunned for the next round, and if you fail it you're clobbered (partial action only). So it's easier to get an effect from massive damage, but not death. This is, like most variants I like to use, a synthesis of several different variants offered in the DMG/UA.

Tor the Fallen
2007-05-26, 12:23 AM
And regarding the rogue's luck in the original scenario—I just remembered that there is the deadly precision weapon property from Complete Adventurer. This property adds +2d6 to the damage of a successful sneak attack with the weapon. Now, a regular weapon with this property would be too expensive for either an approximately 6th level PC, as it would be at least +3 equivalent. However, if, as Spiryt suggested, the attack was made with a bow, the rogue could have used the much cheaper deadly precision arrows to achieve the proper effect. That would make the provocation of a massive damage check a tad bit more likely. Still would require an amazing roll, of course. Just not a max roll.

There is a feat that lets you reroll sneak attack dice, isn't there?

FirstAdam
2007-05-26, 01:00 AM
One thing we've noticed in a lot of our games, is that a lot of things become kind of pointless with the RAW. So we implemented a kind of step-up thing. Massive damage of 50 HP in a single attack is a DC 15 fort save, and for every 5 points of damage beyond that (or whatever) the save DC increases by 1. 55 Damage in a hit, Save DC 16 and so on.

We use a similar kind of step up for poisons too with multiple exposures making harder saves, and not just because there's a higher chance of a natural 1 showing up the more you roll.

brian c
2007-05-26, 09:47 AM
One thing we've noticed in a lot of our games, is that a lot of things become kind of pointless with the RAW. So we implemented a kind of step-up thing. Massive damage of 50 HP in a single attack is a DC 15 fort save, and for every 5 points of damage beyond that (or whatever) the save DC increases by 1. 55 Damage in a hit, Save DC 16 and so on.

We use a similar kind of step up for poisons too with multiple exposures making harder saves, and not just because there's a higher chance of a natural 1 showing up the more you roll.

The only issue with this is that it makes the game significantly more challenging for the PCs while not affecting NPCs/monsters as much. Not that it's bad, and I agree it makes sense, but it might result in you dying more often than normal.

Quietus
2007-05-26, 09:59 AM
There is a feat that lets you reroll sneak attack dice, isn't there?

Only if they come up on a 1 on the dice. Not a spectacular feat, really.