Loosing a limb

[TheThan]

Here is an interesting situation.

I’m currently preparing an encounter for my 2nd (soon to be 3rd level) pcs. Part of this is a tavern encounter with some knights, ( one 5th level fighter, three 3rd level fighters). Now I have an evil aligned thief in the party and since I know him pretty well, he’s more than likely going to attempt to pick one of their pockets. I’m fine with him trying. However the knights are already unfriendly towards the party (they unknowing stole their quest, hehe).
I’ve decided the knights are going to take justice into their own hands if they catch the rogue in the act. My plan is for the rogue to be grappled by some of the knights while another chops off his hand. Naturally if the rogue succeeds then he gets away with it.
The other players should intervene and save the rogue’s bacon, whether through combat or diplomacy, but you never know what the pcs will do. Irritatingly there are no rules (that I’m aware of) for getting a limb chopped off. So I’m having to homebrew some rules just in case things go really far south.

So what do you guys think of this:


Flaw: One hand Willie
The character looses 1/4 of his current dexterity score (rounded down) additionally the character is also forced to make a fortitude saving throw (DC 20) or permanently loose 1d4 points of constitution.

Also he would no longer being able to duel wield or fight with any weapon other than light or one handed weapons (long swords, dagger, hand crossbows etc). The difficulties for certain skills are doubled (such as climb, disable device, escape artist, open lock, slight of hand, tumble and use rope.
Additionally the player qualifies for the feat: captain of the hook

Feat: captain of the hook
A player that has lost his hand gets it replaced by a wicked hook. This weapon deals 1d6 points of damage +str (1d4+str for small characters). It is treated as a light weapon for the purposes of determining his two weapon fighting penalties and he is automatically proficient in the hook. The hook cannot be disarmed, and he gains a +2 bonus to any grapple checks and disarm checks he makes with the hook.

Additionally the character performs the following skills as normal: climb, escape artist, tumble, use rope.

I know it’s a harsh punishment but these knights don’t take any sort of crap lying down. Besides their leader is part of the local nobility, and is basically in charge, which lends them a certain amount of power. They’re normally pretty fair in handing out punishment, but when one gets targeted, they take great offense.

[Tempest Fennac]

I'd say that losing a hand should result in the character losing the ability to use weapons which need 2 hands while giving a penalty to any skills which require both hands (-5 should be appropriate). I don't get the Con loss, but I would have the Rogue lose the minimum amount of HPs for an attack with the weapon which would be used to amputate the hand.

[Edan]

Just one question, how would restoration affect the hand loss (dex loss, con loss and skill use) and how would restoration affect the hook?

I know flaws are really supposed to slam characters, but losing that much dex, for a dexterity dependent class (AC) and (assuming the rogue has a positive constitution modifier) losing that many future hitpoints (d6 isn't a lot, especially at such a low level.) Also, at that level, the rogue practically needs a nat 20 to make that DC. Finally, the rogue's roll as skill monkey becomes useless. (So many of the Rogue skills are dexterity and/or fine manipulation dependent, I mean a simple lock becomes DC of 40) Seems slightly unfair to the player to penalize his characters' effectiveness just because he was role-playing a kleptomaniac.

I don't like the strict penalties to dex tho. It is not all about hand and finger movement for combat. I would just keep the penalties for skills that involve fine manipulation, and perhaps a fixed -2 loss, 1/4 seems like overkill. I mean, cutting off your own hand to use the Hand of Vecna just gives you a -2 dex penalty, I think...no DMG near me.

I apologize if I sounded mean or harsh, it is just my $0.02. It is your campaign and it is your choice to run it as you may.

PS: I do like captain of the hook however, it could be used to fluff out some serious roleplay backgrounds.

[Crow]

I have a related question;

How often does a character lose a limb in-game anyways. I was reading the description for the Regenerate spell and couldn't help but think that I don't know of any ways (aside from mummy rot) that characters lose limbs. It's an instantaneous effect that cures 4d8+lvl. All for the low-low price of one 9TH LEVEL SPELL!

[Tempest Fennac]

It's actually 7th level for Clerics. I'm assuming some traps could destroy limbs,\and I remember 1 DM had a Fighter losing an arm rather then dying due to an attack as the Fighter was an interesting character (that was mentioned on a similar thread to this one).

[TheThan]

Hit point loss can be hand waved away as the pc dodging at just the right time, or as his ability to turn a fatal wound into a mere scratch. But you really can’t do that with a lost limb. The limb is gone, forcibly removed, chopped off. Its going to cause a tremendous amounts of physical trauma. So I feel the con loss is appropriate.

I once knew someone who accidentally blew off three fingers on his right hand. He told me it is the most excruciating and traumatizing thing he’s ever gone though and the most painful thing he could imagine. The accident crippled him for life, even simple things like writing or tying his shoes became difficult, he was forced to become ambidextrous, and even then he found it hard. I haven’t talked to him in a long time so I don’t know how well he’s adapted, but at the time of the accident life was very rough for him.

Also about the skills, I think the –5 penalty is a better option. It’s easier to keep track of, more consistent and just easier to deal with.

The rogue in question is a halfing with 20 dexterity. I don’t recall what his slight of hand skill is but it’s at least at +5 due to his dex alone. So if he’s put 5 points in it (at level 2), he only needs a 10 to hit DC 20 (the dc for lifting a purse). Which is exactly average, so its quite possible…

I checked his character sheet, and he’s got +7 to slight of hand, so he needs a 13 or better, still quite possible.

Anyway loosing 5 point of dex is still quite harsh. Maybe I’ll make it a 1d3 or something not quite as harsh.

And yes the player can’t use two-handed weapons.

As for restoration… well I suppose they’d have to remove the hook to reattach the hand. hmm id say he’d loose the feat but recover what he’s lost. Sort of a redo if you will.


Yeah, the hit point system, the way they currently has it is kind funky that way. You can’t be horribly maimed though hit point loss, yet there’s a spell or two out there that can do it.

[Tempest Fennac]

The loss of a hand would still have a large effect on the character, but it would make sense from a story-line perspective considering who the character is dealing with. Please could you let us know about what ends up happening with the character? (I'm assuming the other party members would save him due to how much of a liability the Rogue wold be with only 1 hand, but I'm still curious about how it will play out).

[Paragon Badger]

The DMG has a table on penalties for losing a hand,eye,arm,ect.

...Don't ask me what page, though. >_<

[Aquillion]

This is sort of odd.

The SRD has several effects to restore lost limbs, including one that does absolutely nothing else; items that restore limbs; multiple creatures with special abilities to restore limbs...

...and yet I cannot find, anywhere, even the slightest hint of a rule for severing limbs, or for what happens when you do. The closest thing is a vorpal blade (which does helpfully tell you that most creatures die when their heads are cut off).

I wonder, did they decide that severing limbs was too gruesome? Did they want to avoid characters being crippled long-term, so they tried to guide DMs away from severing limbs, but provided abilities to restore them, just in case?

It seems odd, anyway.

[Crow]

I feel your pain Aquillion. I can't find a single one. The nearest I can find is the ability to sunder a hydra's heads, or possibly mummy rot. It's too bad you can't sunder limbs.

Can a Cleric or Druid cast Regenerate to restore the head of a party member who was hit by a vorpal weapon? A kind of low-budget, higher-slot, Raise Dead?

[tyckspoon]

Can a Cleric or Druid cast Regenerate to restore the head of a party member who was hit by a vorpal weapon? A kind of low-budget, higher-slot, Raise Dead?

No, Regenerate has a target of '1 living creature'. Even if you could cast it on a corpse, it doesn't fix death, so all you would get out of it would be a more-intact corpse.

[Rift_Wolf]

The DMG has a table on penalties for losing a hand,eye,arm,ect.

...Don't ask me what page, though. >_<

If it does, it's disguised as something else. I wanted to stat out a battle-hardened Orc chieftain with only one arm, but could find no rules. The core books have some weird loopholes, like polymorph other object (Among its other broken bits) can replicate the effects of a transmute water to dust spell. Golly gosh gee whizz, but one question; does that spell exist?

[kamikasei]

The core books have some weird loopholes, like polymorph other object (Among its other broken bits) can replicate the effects of a transmute water to dust spell. Golly gosh gee whizz, but one question; does that spell exist?

No, and it's been errata'd out, replaced with transmute metal to wood.

[Tempest Fennac]

I was just thinking that if the character loses a hand, his player may end up just re-rolling a character. In order to avoid that, the knights could mention that they are friendly with a reasonably powerful Psion, and that, if the party does them a huge favour, they will get the Psion to regenerate the Rogue's hand (if the party fails in the quest, the character would have to keep the handicap until he can afford to pay someone to regenerate the hand).

[snoopy13a]

I don't think the Dex and Const modifiers are necessary. Losing a hand isn't going to affect how well you dodge a fireball or resist disease.

However, the loss of the hand will prevent the character from using some items, make skills more difficult or perhaps impossible (it is reasonable that a rogue might requre two hands to disable a trap). It could even result in an AC modifier (the rogue does not have a free hand to help ward off melee attacks).

In some ways, losing a hand is so bad that you might be better off with the knights just killing him. Plus, it is doubtful that the PCs will go to bat for the rogue. They might try to use diplomacy but the best that could do is to give the rogue a trial (with the head knight being an important figure it is doubtful that it'd be fair) in which he'd probably end in prison (or have his hand chopped off). The knights aren't going to let him go and if the PCs attack the knights then it is possible that surrounding NPCs might jump in on the side of the knights.

[Tempest Fennac]

Those are all good points (I mainly suggested the forfeit quest due to how the Rogue would be better of dead in some ways. Also, I assumed the idea of the knights knowing a level 9 Egoist Psion who could help wouldn't be that implausible due to their position in society).

[Devils_Advocate]

It's "lose", not "loose". Lern2spel, ppl.

1. Slicing someone's hand off should not be an easy thing to do. The way that D&D combat works generally assumes that you can't do something like this to someone who hasn't been immobilized, which means that the rogue needs to be not only grappled but pinned before they can even try this. Technically, even then, he isn't considered helpless. He can't be coup de graced, and other characters still have a chance of missing their attacks against him. Maybe you could rule that someone being pinned by two other characters can be considered helpless by another, fourth character. Which brings us to the next point.

2. You might think that once you've got someone immobilized, chopping his hand off with a great big sword should be pretty easy. Well, killing him by sticking a dagger though his eye ought to be easy too, but the rules don't treat it as an automatic success, mostly because they model a cinematic fantasy world and not real life. We're talking about something basically like a coup de grace here, but targeted differently and with different intended results. That means that it should work like a coup de grace, but with different results on a failed save. It still takes a full-round action, still counts as an automatic critical hit, and the Fort save is still DC 10 + damage dealt.

As to what those results should be:

3. A one-handed character should not have lower hit points, a lower Fortitude save, a lower AC, a lower initiative modifier, a lower Reflex save, or etc. than a two-handed character. None of those things really requires two hands in any way. It seems especially silly to penalize his Constitution... over the long term. Of course, getting one's frelling hand chopped off probably results in a lot of blood loss, so we're looking at temporary Con damage, but not permanent Con drain. A vampire or a stirge sucking on you does 1d4 points of Constitution drain per round; I dunno if this should be better or worse. Probably he keeps losing blood for several rounds unless someone stabilizes him; any magical healing should fix this instantaneously, of course.

Page 27 of the DMG lists penalties for damage to specific body parts. Of course, actually missing a whole hand is way worse than just having a hurt hand. So the skill penalties should worsen to, like, -5. But he really shouldn't suffer an attack penalty if he's still using his dominant hand. If he lost his dominant hand -- meaning that you actually want to model handedness... Hoo boy. If he has the TWF feat, he should still be able to use a light weapon in that hand without penalty, and a one-handed weapon with a -2 penalty. If he doesn't have TWF, then, uh... let's say he gets a -2 penalty with a light weapon and a -4 penalty with a one-handed weapon. That's bad enough. Yeah, he's using his non-dominant hand, but he's not dividing his attention between two arms, which is a lot of what the penalties for two-weapon fighting account for.


And yes, it is both notable and annoying that there are rules for blindness and deafness, and rules for restoring lost limbs, but apparently no listed penalties for having actually lost a limb. If they're going to implicitly allow for that happening, then they really ought to include rules covering the effects of the disability, not just how to fix it.

[Chronos]

...and yet I cannot find, anywhere, even the slightest hint of a rule for severing limbs, or for what happens when you do. The closest thing is a vorpal blade (which does helpfully tell you that most creatures die when their heads are cut off).

The funny thing is, previous versions of D&D did include a vorpal-like weapon property, Sharpness, which severed a non-essential limb (like an arm, leg, or even a hydra's head) on a critical hit. Mind you, the rules still didn't say what mechanical effect this was supposed to have (second edition left a lot more up to the DM's whim), but at least there was something that the Regeneration spell was supposed to fix.

Incidentally, Second Edition also had a Transmute Water to Dust spell (and a Transmute Dust to Water; it was reversible), which explains why that would be listed in Polymorph Any Object.

[LibraryOgre]

There was a mechanic from the d6 Star Wars game, and a similar one from Rifts, that you might borrow to give you the limb-chopping you want.

The rule in D6 is that if you cause enough damage to kill a character (i.e. take them all the way down to -10), you can instead maim them. So, if I'm facing an orc, and decide I want a prisoner, if my axe critical does 36 damage, I may not kill him... instead, I chop his arm off at the elbow, instantly dropping him to Dying (-1) and leaving him with the nickname of "Lefty".

The rule in Rifts is that if a single, concentrated attack causes such massive damage that it will kill a person outright (remember, a simple laser pistol can do 100-600 damage, and an average person is likely to have maybe 30 points when not in armor), then immediate medical attention (within a few minutes) will let you survive if you were hit in an non-critical area (a limb, instead of head or chest).

In d20 terms, I'd say that any single attack that takes a person from Positive HP to Dead should allow a Fortitude or Reflex saving throw (defender's choice) against the amount of damage caused or the attack roll (attacker's choice) to instead cause maiming and putting the person at -1, with no chance for self-stabilization (you're not going to stop bleeding from a cut-off limb unless someone helps you).

[FlyMolo]

There was, long ago, critical tables and suchlike that could remove limbs. Just allow restoration to replace the hand, and let him take the penalties until he gets it back.

[kamikasei]

The rule in D6 is that if you cause enough damage to kill a character (i.e. take them all the way down to -10), you can instead maim them. So, if I'm facing an orc, and decide I want a prisoner, if my axe critical does 36 damage, I may not kill him... instead, I chop his arm off at the elbow, instantly dropping him to Dying (-1) and leaving him with the nickname of "Lefty".

That is an awesome rule.

[LibraryOgre]

That is an awesome rule.

Thanks; if a DM (or player) is trying to save a character's life, I think I'd go with the more complex save rules I posted, but giving the players the choice to maim rather than kill also works well for paladin-types who might want to take prisoners.

[Matthew]

(second edition left a lot more up to the DM's imagination),

Fixed that for you.

The rule in D6 is that if you cause enough damage to kill a character (i.e. take them all the way down to -10), you can instead maim them. So, if I'm facing an orc, and decide I want a prisoner, if my axe critical does 36 damage, I may not kill him... instead, I chop his arm off at the elbow, instantly dropping him to Dying (-1) and leaving him with the nickname of "Lefty".

That was also an Optional Rule in AD&D 1e.

[LibraryOgre]

That was also an Optional Rule in AD&D 1e.

Really? I must have missed it. I'll go hunting.

[GrassyGnoll]

This is sort of odd.

The SRD has several effects to restore lost limbs, including one that does absolutely nothing else; items that restore limbs; multiple creatures with special abilities to restore limbs...

...and yet I cannot find, anywhere, even the slightest hint of a rule for severing limbs, or for what happens when you do. The closest thing is a vorpal blade (which does helpfully tell you that most creatures die when their heads are cut off).

I wonder, did they decide that severing limbs was too gruesome? Did they want to avoid characters being crippled long-term, so they tried to guide DMs away from severing limbs, but provided abilities to restore them, just in case?

It seems odd, anyway.

Agreed, he's totally gonna weasel his way out of this somehow.

Not to say I don't like the prospect of retooling around with limbs. You're removing an extremity of an evil aligned character and you don't expect them to get a graft of sorts? Trafficking with demons to restore a hand is well in the domain of a man who makes his living off the deftness of said members.

[Matthew]

Yeah, of course, it wasn't at the discretion of the player, but the DM...

1e DMG, p. 82

If any creature reaches a state of -6 or greater negative points before being revived, this could indicate scarring or the loss of some member, if you so choose. For example, a character struck by a fireball and then treated when at -9 might have horrible scar tissue on exposed areas of flesh - hands, arms, neck, face.

and

1e DMG, p. 110

Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character when they have played well. When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may!

[LibraryOgre]

Yeah, of course, it wasn't at the discretion of the player, but the DM...

Of course. It's in keeping with 1e's design philosophy, whereas this is in keeping with 3.x's design philosophy.

[Matthew]

Of course. It's in keeping with 1e's design philosophy, whereas this is in keeping with 3.x's design philosophy.

Indeed.

I think the references to limb removal in 3.5 harken back to an Optional Rule in the 3.0 DMG for targeting limbs and such. I would have to go and look it up to be certain, though.

[Hzurr]

I was DMing a game where a PC lost a hand (A kobald bit it off, rolled a 20, 20, 19). The penalties I gave him were, I believe -5 to skill checks that required hands (climb, slight of hand, etc), and since it was his primary weapon hand, he took a -2 to hit that would decrease to -1 at the next level, and disappear the level after that (essentially, reflecting that he had made his "off-hand" his new primary hand (adjusting from being right-handed to left-handed) ). No perminant Con damage or Dex damage though. Obviously, he couldn't use any weapons that required 2 hands. We ended up strapping his shield to his stub, and increased the armor check penalty for it.

[Annarrkkii]

I've always thought it was good, for both RP and verisimilitude, if serious effects would follow when a character drops from the positives to below -5, or suffers damage over his massive damage threshold, whether he succeeds his save or not. Things like game legs, concussions, and scarring.

However, I've never had to adjudicate for a lost limb. In this case, I'd say that the attack should have to be delivered by a slashing weapon of one-handed or two-handed size, and be treated as a full-round action sunder attempt that is only able to be performed on an opponent that is immobilized or helpless. Give the wrist a hardness of maybe 5, no more than 7, and 10 hitpoints. Make the attack be against an AC of 10 + size bonus (probably diminutive for a small character's wrist), no DEX since the character is immobilized.

If the Knight succeeds (should be relatively easy, if he's using a two-handed weapon and has a reasonable STR score—maybe Power Attack), I'd say treat the wound like one from a wounding weapon—with the halfling losing 1 hp per round. I'd probably not make the character suffer more hp damage initially, but maybe make him suffer 1d4 temporary CON damage. Thing is, if you do it like this, a human commoner would be dead in a 60 seconds if you cut his hand off and left him alone...

In the long run, give him a -6 on STR and DEX-based checks that would otherwise require two hands (Climb, Open Lock), and the character obviously cannot use two-handed weapons or dual-wield.

I'd have the hook hand be a piece of equipment, treated as an exotic weapon. Without the proficiency, you take a -4 to attack with it. With the proficiency, you can use it without penalty, and the -6 on DEX-based checks drops to -4, and the -6 on STR-based checks drops to -2. It can be used as an offhand weapon, and could probably also have interchangeable attachments of various light weapons (rapier, dagger, hand crossbow, and corkscrew come to mind) which would require no additional proficiencies. Maybe skill ranks, but only 1 feat should be required since he's already at such a large disadvantage.