Quick and dirty fixes

[Murtak]

So when do you get your lives back?

When you get healed past the maximum of your second life. I guess my wording can use some (or a lot) of improving.

And does that apply to monsters too or just PCs?

If you just want longer fights it should apply to monsters too. If your goal is to have the PCs die less the monsters should stay with just one life.

The raw damage dealer now takes more than twice as long to kill stuff, compared to the wizard's two spells (can quicken a save or die to still double kill in one round I reckon if you really want to rub the fighter's nose in it).

Statistically everyone now takes twice as long to kill their opponents (well, barring the fast healing). Yes, wizards can still one-round low save targets, but damage dealers can still one-round low HP targets too.

It really doesn't help let save or dies and raw damage help each other, it just makes raw damage much worse (and thus save or dies more powerful relatively).

Currently if you toss a save-or-die at something that has been damaged down to 50% of it's HPs you are wasting all of that damage. If you go with two lifes you can stack damage and save-or-dies.

* Fast healing 5? WTF? Intended to slow down raw damage dealers even more I guess.

Actually that is intended to not use up wands of cure light wounds at twice the usual rate. You can throw this bit right out, change it for something level dependant, instead double all healing or make it out-of-combat only (this is always hard to define though). As is it should not even be noticeable past during combat past level 8 or so.

* This messes with much of how healing, spells and many many other abilities function. You're going to find it's tentacles reaching into many aspects of gameplay with unintended results.

Well, duh. It is intended to change the way combat works for everyone. It would not be much use if it only affect damage.

[Murtak]

That article makes my head hurt. It has one solid reason (which is the same already stated in this thread): "there is no such rule". Ok, that is pretty simple Hopefully I will have the leisure to look through core book errata soon - if I still have not found anything then I will be convinced I was simply wrong (heck, I am pretty sure now).

The rest of that article though ... "it can't only apply to the base spell, that would be too complicated"? Or, worse, "it obviously applies to the modified spell, since applying it to the base spell is underpowered"? Sheesh.

[erik]

By unintended consequences, I mean stuff like, cleave feats are greatly diminished, mobbing enemies and save or dies are about the only way to get things done, save or dies are more potent and casters will run out of them in less battles (so the rest of the party may as well wait for their wizard's next day of spells), suicidal actions are no longer deadly (blowing up holly berries while holding them, jumping off a cliff, etc.), and there are surely plenty of changes I haven't thought of that will happen that have nothing to do with making combat longer (hence, "unintended consequences").


Here's a couple quick and dirty rule changes:

WotC designers apparently find it funny that barbarians and other raging classes over 4th level die whenever they get knocked down to dying during a rage. So make the bonus HP from extra Con into Temporary HP instead of useless base HP which just go away.

As a somewhat related quick and dirty rule fix. Have death occur at -[10+Level+Con Mod], so there is a slightly greater chance that folks don't insta-die when they go below zero at higher levels.

[Murtak]

By unintended consequences, I mean stuff like, cleave feats are greatly diminished, mobbing enemies and save or dies are about the only way to get things done, save or dies are more potent and casters will run out of them in less battles (so the rest of the party may as well wait for their wizard's next day of spells), suicidal actions are no longer deadly (blowing up holly berries while holding them, jumping off a cliff, etc.), and there are surely plenty of changes I haven't thought of that will happen that have nothing to do with making combat longer (hence, "unintended consequences").

I just don't see the problem there. Yes, some abilities (cleave, oneshot spells) are less valuable than before. Some other abilities are more valuable (say, summon monster spells).

I also don't see your issue with people suddenly jumping off cliffs (they did that before, just not at level 2) or blowing up fire seeds at point blank range (again, they did that before). I mean, seriously, what is the problem with people jumping down cliffs? Either you don't want that to happen, in which case you better already fix falling damage (which in turn affects reverse gravity and possibly the hulking hurler) because your level 10 barbarian with 22 con while raging simply can not die from falling 40 miles straight down. Or you don't care, in which case you should be fine with people starting to jump cliffs right at level 1.

Of course you could also just have damage carry over from life 1 to life 2.

As a somewhat related quick and dirty rule fix. Have death occur at -[10+Level+Con Mod], so there is a slightly greater chance that folks don't insta-die when they go below zero at higher levels.

In our campaigns we have been using a death threshold of one-quarter of your maximum HPs for some time now. So far it works fine (though I guess a hypothetical first level wizard who now dies at -1 HPs might complain).

[Kirin_Corrigan]

Of course you could also just have damage carry over from life 1 to life 2.

Which in the end is the same as saying your attacks deal only half damage and save or die spells (by a strict definition) now inflict damage equal to half the target's max HP on the target itself. I honestly don't find it preferable to the current situation, since IME fights last long enough as it is.

In our campaigns we have been using a death threshold of one-quarter of your maximum HPs for some time now. So far it works fine (though I guess a hypothetical first level wizard who now dies at -1 HPs might complain).

I've been toying with the idea of simply adding your Con modifier to the death threshold: for example, if you have a 16 Con you die at -13 HP.

[PhoneLobster]

Now I know I'm mad but if death threshold is a problem then the only real solution is...

no death threshold.

You don't care diddly how far below 0 the hit points go, it don't kill you unless its a "special event".

Otherwise the death threshold will always continue to be a problem, characters will always be viable targets down to 1 hit point and there will always be a single attack or single spell that will deal the damage required to knock them from 1 to below the threshold. Be it 11 points of damage or 55, something does it.

[Kirin_Corrigan]

You don't care diddly how far below 0 the hit points go, it don't kill you unless its a "special event".

The idea of dying only special events is basically unfair, since when it matters most, people can die more easily than normal. And that's not a good thing per se. What's more, if you remove any chance of dying in all the other events, you'll end up with players doing all sort of stupid things like suicidal acts and taking on challanges beyond their current possibilities. They'll become mentally lazy and will expect to get away with anything just because they can't die: give them enough time and they'll heal (or be healed) back, so who cares if someone gets dropped for approaching the fight in the worst possible way. You can kiss goodbye to tactics and teamplay. You'll end up with a game like Torment where you can try and try until you succeed, since you just can't die.

Death is a deterrent. And a good one at that. It could use a little nudge to make it a bit less likely to happen but removing it entirely is not what you want for your players.

[Murtak]

I honestly don't find it preferable to the current situation, since IME fights last long enough as it is.

What kind of argument is that? The whole point of the change is to have fights last longer.

Now I know I'm mad but if death threshold is a problem then the only real solution is...

My problem with the death threshold is not the threshold itself, but how it is a huge threshold for a level 1 wizard (larger than his hit point total) and unnoticeable for a level 20 barbarian, let alone some of the higher HP monsters out there.

I prefer a scaling threshold, and scaling it to maximum HPs seems logical to me.

[Kirin_Corrigan]

What kind of argument is that?

The argument is "IME fights never last less than 5 rounds even against small threats, so that kind of fix and the implementation proposed seem all but necessary". And from where I'm sitting that's a good argument, Kraut.

[Murtak]

Problem
"Fights in DnD just do not last long enough!" or "With all the instant-kill spells flying around, combat can be over in just one action and an unlucky saving throw".

This is the issue the rule change is supposed to solve. If the problem does not apply to you, fine. I don't see that particular issue in any of my games either.

But I know some people have in the past complained about DnD's fast combats. I might want to run some capaign based on longer fights myself. And then your "5+ rounds" (which is bullshit by the way - I have seen fights with multiple opponents of appropriate CR end in one or two turns) might not cut it.

Feel free to ask for an even more kindergarden-like explanation. Your needing to resort to name-calling suggests you might need it.

[Kirin_Corrigan]

Just like you felt the need to look down and complain on a simple observation I made on the issue (i.e. the fact that that doesn't look like something in need to be fixed) means you need to be called for what you are. Play nice and you'll be treated nice, bud.

[Username17]

Actually, if people could sacrifice half their normal hit points to clear off any spell effects they wanted, you could clear away a lot of legacy rules about giving people suicidal commands with Dominate and the like. You just hold out the possibility that if people are willing to lose hit points equal to half their total, they can refuse to do what they are told. Then you just have to figure out what instructions you can give your enemies such that they won't be willing to do that.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1133384042[/unixtime]]Actually, if people could sacrifice half their normal hit points to clear off any spell effects they wanted, you could clear away a lot of legacy rules about giving people suicidal commands with Dominate and the like. You just hold out the possibility that if people are willing to lose hit points equal to half their total, they can refuse to do what they are told. Then you just have to figure out what instructions you can give your enemies such that they won't be willing to do that.

Well, the problem is that it'd make dominate pretty much the same as a save or die, since generally people are going to sacrifice half their hp before they start attacking their companions anyway, since they'll probably end up doing more than that in the combat.

[fbmf]

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
The name calling will stop. Now.
[/TGFBS]

[Josh_Kablack]

Although IMX, long combats can and do happen on occasion, here's another idea to lengthen them if you think they're too short:

Allow characters to take a full-round action, (which provokes AoOs) to heal back their level+con mod in hit points. Effectively, everybody has a use activated fast-healing ability.

This change strengthens hit and run tactics and encourages hiding behind cover in combat. It also powers up non-hit point damage (save or dies) and pretty much negates the need for Cure Spells.

[Murtak]

Well, the problem is that it'd make dominate pretty much the same as a save or die, since generally people are going to sacrifice half their hp before they start attacking their companions anyway, since they'll probably end up doing more than that in the combat.

Not the same, no. Not even close. However if you mean that combat dominate becomes a damage spell ... yep, in most cases that will be right. Of course if you make it half of your maximum hit points the second dominate might well stick - and of course paladins would suicide on the second one.

And it certainly would make dominate much less powerful. Probably enough to warrant moving Dominate Person down to level 3ish and Dominate Monster down to level 6ish.

[RandomCasualty]

1133344975[/unixtime]]Now I know I'm mad but if death threshold is a problem then the only real solution is...

no death threshold.

You don't care diddly how far below 0 the hit points go, it don't kill you unless its a "special event".

Well, you don't need to go that far, all you do is this.

-Require a CdG or some special event (like being buried under 5 tons of rubble) to kill someone.
-Don't allow combat healing to bring back a guy who is at negative.

If you can't heal a guy who goes down until after combat, then nobody will bother to finish off dying foes in the midst of a battle. It's that simple.

If you're worried about people being too reckless you can institute a penalty for dying, such as "if you go ever get healed from the dying condition, you lose half your max hp for the rest of the adventure." That way, you keep getting weaker and weaker everytime you get revived.

[Username17]

Well, the problem is that it'd make dominate pretty much the same as a save or die

I don't usually use emoticons, but I think this statement warrants one:



A "save or die" is a spell like Sleep, Planeshift, Hold, or Dominate that removes an enemy from the field if they fail a save. They don't literally have to die to make it a SoD. In fact, Dominate is one of the iconic SoDs.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1133403320[/unixtime]]
A "save or die" is a spell like Sleep, Planeshift, Hold, or Dominate that removes an enemy from the field if they fail a save. They don't literally have to die to make it a SoD. In fact, Dominate is one of the iconic SoDs.

No not quite. Dominate is a save or die and a summon spell combined. Not only does it remove a foe, it also gives you an ally. Taking away the control part by allowing people to just choose to die effectively removes the element of the spell that makes it different from hold person or sleep. Dominate does more than just remove someone's positive contributions to the team, it takes those positive contributions and makes them a negative liability as your friend is now hacking you up.

By default dominate is a "save or turn on your friends" spell, which is better than a save or die. Choosing to die is an easy way out for the enemy, and I'd really be pissed if I made an enchanter and the guy could just choose to suicide rather than get dominated, because then I might as well just be throwing out hold monsters or baleful polymorphs.

[Fwib]

Anyone else thinking "he's only mostly dead"?

If you want to lower death thresholds but still make -ve hp dangerous why not have mostly dead below -10 and have mostly dead characters save at the end of each round vs real death - I was thinking DC10 with a penalty of (-ve hp/10)

That way, being damaged a bit more doesnt automatically kill you - but it might - and since the mostly dead players only need to make one extra roll a round and arn't doing anything much with their body - it shouldn't slow things down too much.

Thoughts?

[Neeek]

Why not make it use the same mechanic as everything else regarding hps and go with 10*level for the threshold. More consistent than the current system in any case.

[PhoneLobster]

-Require a CdG or some special event (like being buried under 5 tons of rubble) to kill someone.

Thats basically what I'm saying. You got to be below the death threshold/otherwise helpless AND then you have take a CdG or be dropped into a volcanoe (with everyone watching to make sure you hit the lava) before you die.

I do not agree that its unfair unless you start declaring special death causing events on major characters that do NOT meet the requirement of already having been knocked down with negative hit points, an effect that renders them helpless or perhaps a save or die.

All of which still knock them down, which means little difference in game play except you don't have to tear up character sheets and throw continuity out the window.

[Crissa]

I don't mind characters put at zero or negative hitpoints being declared otherwise unconscious and seriously injured.

There's alot more damage your body can take and remain minimally 'alive' than it can take and remain functional.

Besides, we're dealing with a system where a single wound does not normally take down even a peasant; if your team survives, gets you to the hospice, how's that any different than having to liberally spice up ressurection?

-Crissa