Massive Damage?

[Mr. Moogle]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

[Spiryt]

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... and something what fighters and other non-magic guys can do to fight against magic abuse in D&D.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

There was a % roll for massive damage back in AD&D, but I must ceck when it's used.

[Spiryt]

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]

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]

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/ad...AndResults.htm

Srd's list of varient options.

[Indon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Is that an actualy rule or a variant?

It be da rules!

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]

It be da rules!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?"!

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]

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.]

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]

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 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 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]

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.