Massive Damage 'n Temp HP

[Ayrynthyn]

So here i sit with my ML 11 Slayer, and the party mage teleports us outside a dwarven throne room where a negotiation / rescue attempt has gone fubar. Turns out the "problem" is an Old Green Dragon working with a champion of Hextor to subjugate the dwarven king.Anyway... pop, pop, pop we teleport in. Dragon says ahh... nice tight group. Breathe! luckily for me, i got a 50 point Vigor off prior to arrival, but the dragon drops a 55 hit point breath attack on us. I fail my reflex save (stoopid 2 on the dice), and then i fail my Fort save for Massive damage (stoopid 4 on the dice). At this point i say, Hey, wait a second. I only took 5 damage... all the rest was eaten (poor words) up by the Temp HP. DM disagreed, but gave me the opportunity to find out for sure before he prounounces me KIA. Bottom Line...

80 HP + 20 Temp HP from Spell/Power/Effect and takes 55 damage. Do they need to roll for Massive Damage?

[cyberchihuahua]

My reading of the rules is that temp HP are treated just like HP. So yes, you be dead. Sorry.

[Yechezkiel]

Yes. The exception would be DR where you are not actually taking the damage.

[Jack Mann]

It only gets worse as you go higher level. Once you get to about fifteen or so, you'll be taking fifty-plus damage at least once a fight, possibly more. By the time you hit twenty, you're taking that much damage several times a fight. Once every five or six fights, you'll die, just because you roll a one on your fortitude save.

Massive damage: A bad idea all around!

[Yechezkiel]

I've played higher level campaigns with and without massive damage. It can suck, but I appreciated it when I was a Ftr. The luxury of a nice Fort Sv and a Power Attack that was most likely massive damage every hit made me feel like I could compete in some fights with the other classes (low hp/low Fort Sv. classes being terrified of massive damage didn't hurt either).

But Jack's right, if you don't like "surprises", it's not fun.

[Jack Mann]

The main problem is that it doesn't scale. A high-level character has a much greater chance of dying from it than a low-level character. If you reach high enough levels, it becomes a near certainty.

This is why any high-level fighter type in a game that uses massive damage should invest in steadfast determination. It's failing on the one that kills it for fighters. They will roll a 1 eventually, and once you get up there, it becomes a nigh-certainty. Death isn't that exciting when it becomes a matter of when, not if.

[sleeping fishy]

really ANY fighter should invest in s. determination... its a great feat, basically made cuz they figured out fighters kinda suck in part cuz of their will save...

[Skjaldbakka]

I am reminded of my first experience with 3rd edition. I was playing a barbarian, and the DM did not know well the rules of the game. I was having a hell of a time trying to kill zombies, with their immunity to death from massive damage. For some reason, the DM had it in his head that this meant zombies could not die from any attack that did more than 50 damage. Not so bright, that one.

[Yechezkiel]

For some reason that retarded dm/zombie story made me think of a massive damage house rule. Something akin to 9-lives, only you can take one massive damage death per character lvl. It means adventurers have a few chances but it doesn't get rid of the rule altogether. It would only apply to death by massive dmg.

I wonder if it has any merit.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

The main problem is that it doesn't scale. A high-level character has a much greater chance of dying from it than a low-level character. If you reach high enough levels, it becomes a near certainty.

Which is why I recommend the HD-Based Threshold. Doesn't solve all the problems, but it's a heck of a lot better than the standard rule.

[NullAshton]

This is why most people have a house rule that simply ignores massive damage. Massive damage is silly, most people don't use it for high level campaigns.

[Matthew]

It's not such a big deal if you're using some sort of Fate/Destiny Point thing. i think Action Points allow for the same sort of thing. Anywho, you save 'em for the impending death by Massive Damage.

[Orzel]

Dying save (failed save brings you to -1 HP) is good. I like MD at High levels because it gives a chance/option of removing the whole "6 rounds of attacks back and forth" thing (aka cleric fight).

[Yechezkiel]

Dying save (failed save brings you to -1 HP) is good. I like MD at High levels because it gives a chance/option of removing the whole "6 rounds of attacks back and forth" thing (aka cleric fight).

See, I'm of this opinion too... the less rolling per round the better. This holds true (for me) across all games.

[Thrawn183]

My DM uses a rule of Save from MD when damage > 1/2 your starting hp. (Though I don't know how this interracts with temporary hp).

This is only done at higher levels... say around 10 I think (more just a campaign that starts at high levels than any specific point).

It really helps out characters that are tanks and supposed to be able to take those kind of hits, because when your tank has 2 or 300+ hp, it becomes a lot harder to get him with.

In this case you still would have been hit with it, by my DM's rules, but that seems appropriate as its a freakin dragon's breath weapon. (and the save DC really isn't all that high) I mean, is it really all that different from phantasmal killer? You failed a reflex save and then a fairly low fort save. You bet something bad is going to happen to you.

[Ayrynthyn]

Wow, not the responses i had expected. The DM ruled at the time that i would be at -1 after my debate points. I'm really surprised theres not a single "seein it my way" post.

First, Temp HP ARE different from regular hit points. By virtue of their definition. They cant be restored, the go away before "real HP", etc, etc. Signifying a difference.

Second,
I have 81 HP
I cast Effect X
I'm dealt 55 Damage
Thanks to effect X, i'm now at 76 HP

...why in the world would i have to roll a massive damage check. Should it matter that Effect X is called Temp HP, or Damage Reduction, or Resistance, or... ?? I only took 5 damage... No??

Regardless, i see the points that have been presented here. I'd much prefer some kind of cite i can hit my DM with, but i can live with dying in this manner. As mentioned, i failed two "easy" saves. Something bad should happen...

[Shhalahr Windrider]

First, Temp HP ARE different from regular hit points. By virtue of their definition. They cant be restored, the go away before "real HP", etc, etc. Signifying a difference.

Death by Massive Damage is triggered by taking damage. It doesn't matter if one type of hit point is different from another, because you are still taking damage.

In any case, the only difference between a temporary hit point and a normal one is that a temporary hit point is temporary. In all other ways, it functions exactly the same. Losing one means you have actually taken damage.

...why in the world would i have to roll a massive damage check. Should it matter that Effect X is called Temp HP, or Damage Reduction, or Resistance, or... ??

Yes, it does matter, because all of those are very different things.

Temporary Hit Points increases the cumulative amount of total damage you can take. It in no way prevents you from actually taking damage. It makes you tougher, but Massive Damage is meant to represent the type of blow that no amount of toughness can easily withstand.

Damage Reduction and Energy Resistance each actually reduce the damage you take. When those effects come into play, you actually reduce damage taken.

I only took 5 damage... No??

If you are only protected by Temporary Hit Points, you have taken 55 damage, not five damage.

[Ayrynthyn]

I see it... i still don't buy it, well, maybe i buy it a little, but i don't like and i do see it. I guess the way i pictured the effect working was a 50 HP shield or buffer that surrounded me. It absorbs the damage and then goes away. Theres nothing in the description to imply that, and just a bad inference on my part. Looks like I'll need to change up my buffing kata when it comes to spell casters and big hitters like that. (Defensive Precog, Cats grace, THEN... Vigor, Force Screen and what ever else suits my fancy). Would have made my save, and made this all moot. Thank the gods that it's the dwarven king we just saved so 5k Diamonds should be raining from the heavens ;).

[Yechezkiel]

There's always spells that actually do reduce the damage, like Stoneskin. More often the mage is invisible, 100' above the battle, and partially in another dimension.

[Dausuul]

The massive damage rule is pretty clear--it's basically a decapitation strike or a thrust to the heart, you're dead no matter what. (Not sure how that works with a breath weapon, but anyway.) Temporary hit points aren't an energy shield or anything, they're just a reserve of supernatural vitality that you can use to keep going in the face of severe injuries.

Of course, if you want to argue that the massive damage rule is lame and should be eliminated entirely, I'm one hundred percent with you.

[Seffbasilisk]

The temporary hit points is like you're supercharged for a bit, you can take a few more hits and keep moving...

but the massive damage rule is that they slammed you so hard it's a nearly one-shot kill. Like a sword swing so massive it could take off a leg. Even if you're supercharged, that's still gonna **** you up.

[Dan_Hemmens]

The massive damage rule is pretty clear--it's basically a decapitation strike or a thrust to the heart, you're dead no matter what. (Not sure how that works with a breath weapon, but anyway.) Temporary hit points aren't an energy shield or anything, they're just a reserve of supernatural vitality that you can use to keep going in the face of severe injuries.

Of course ironically D&D describes *actual* hit points as representing your ability to avoid injury in the first place.

Of course, if you want to argue that the massive damage rule is lame and should be eliminated entirely, I'm one hundred percent with you.

I could have sworn that it was an optional rule in 3.0.

Massive Damage is one of the things I think highlights the problems with D&D. It's a rule that was put in as a response to people saying "but it's unrealistic that a character can take that much damage and survive" so they added what amounted to a house-rule which completely undermined the whole point of the HP system.

[Fixer]

As a GM, to mitigate the effects of the roll I'd take the character, drop it to -10 then add in the temporary hit points to calculate the severe hit the character took (or the original amount minus the damage, whichever was less).

So, in your example:

80hp regularly
20hp temporary
100 hp total

55 damage
Roll vs. Massive Damage? (Yes, because greater than ½ hp, I play by the 1/2 hp rule)
Failed roll = HP dropped to -10, but then add back in the temporary HP remaining before the attack, bringing it to 10hp (as 10 is less than 100-55).

Results:
Character lives with 10hp, and just relieved themselves in their pants.


(If the person had had 20hp and 50hp in temporary damage, they would have ended up with 15hp, because of how the math works out (15 is less than -10 + 50).)

[Closet_Skeleton]

Death isn't that exciting when it becomes a matter of when, not if.

But... that's the way death works...

[Talya]

This is why most people have a house rule that simply ignores massive damage. Massive damage is silly, most people don't use it for high level campaigns.

Massive Damage is a variant rule, is it not? Don't you default to NOT using it, requiring a house rule to enable it? I don't know, maybe there are just variants on the massive damage rule.

We've never used it in any campaign i've played in. I can see the appeal of it, but with 1 being an automatic failure, it's a bad thing at upper levels.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Massive Damage is a variant rule, is it not? Don't you default to NOT using it, requiring a house rule to enable it? I don't know, maybe there are just variants on the massive damage rule.

We've never used it in any campaign i've played in. I can see the appeal of it, but with 1 being an automatic failure, it's a bad thing at upper levels.

No, Massive Damage is not a variant/optional rule.

[Matthew]

Indeed. Massive damage is in the PHB. The Variant Rule Leon is no doubt referring to is a variant on the Massive Damage Rule based on Size.

[Leon]

Indeed. Massive damage is in the PHB. The Variant Rule Leon is no doubt referring to is a variant on the Massive Damage Rule based on Size.

I stand corrected - i really should read all of that book some day.....

[Jack Mann]

But... that's the way death works...

Yes and no. While it's certainly true that most characters will die eventually, it's generally assumed that they have some chance of making it through their adventuring career. At higher levels, however, if one uses massive damage, the chances of them surviving become vanishingly small. When you have to make massive damage saves three or four times a fight, you know you're going to fail the save eventually, and it probably won't be all that long until you do. You're not just going to die, you're going to die often. Which in itself destroys dramatic tension. It's hard to care about the death of Sir Hootananny when a character dies when it happens every session or so.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Indeed. Massive damage is in the PHB. The Variant Rule Leon is no doubt referring to is a variant on the Massive Damage Rule based on Size.

I think it was a variant in 3.0, and became official in 3.5