PDA

View Full Version : NEW massive damage rule!



Koga
2008-03-14, 03:13 PM
Me and Amaya are so smart! We make a great team!:smallbiggrin:


We were discussing it and she was like "I wish there was some sortof bleeding mechanic, that slowly killed you.. That would fit fourth edition perfectly.. Everytime they fail thier save, they'd take damage.. But a dragon would make that save in no-time, and hardly feel the effects!)


That made me consider not making fort saves or d100 checks at all. But rather a flat d20 roll, (this would truly make for an equalizer). Here's an example...


A Vrock has 25 constitution, you will have to deal more damage then his con-score to trigger massive damage. (26 or more)

His claw attack deals 2d6 damage, critical: 20, we all know that.
But now he has two new additions to his claw attacks.

Internal damage: 1d4 DC: 4


This means that it doesn't matter how high your fort save is or what level you are. If the vrock hits you with it's claw attack and triggers massive damage, every round you're going to have to roll a d20 (no modifiers, just a d20) and have to roll a 4 or higher, if you don't, you take an additional 1d4 damage...



Truly an innovative way to balance weapons! Because everything could be differant...


Longsword. 1d8 damage. Critical: 19-20. Internal damage: 1d8+1 DC: 7
Fireball. 1d6/caster level damage (max 5d6) Internal damage: 1d4 DC: 4


This could actually translate to fourth edition because I hear saving throws are going to act more like AC. And this truly is the great equalizer as no matter who or what you are, you're going to think "holy crap, he's got a longsword! I deffinitely don't want to take that extra damage 35% of the time!

Albonor
2008-03-14, 03:17 PM
Would work, but I wouldn't use it (combat are slow enough as it is).

Nice idea nonetheless

Reel On, Love
2008-03-14, 03:19 PM
I'm sorry, but these are bad rules. They don't model anything useful, they don't add anything tactical, they unfairly punish melee characters, and adding "extra damage unless you make a fort save" is one of those pointless, game-bogging-down things 4E is getting rid of. Now I roll a Fort save for every attack the fighter makes? WOOOO. This will be FUN. Why don't you just add some flat amount of damage to the weapon? This is just a roundabout way of doing that.

Koga
2008-03-14, 03:21 PM
I'm sorry, but these are bad rules. They don't model anything useful, they don't add anything tactical, they unfairly punish melee characters, and adding "extra damage unless you make a fort save" is one of those pointless, game-bogging-down things 4E is getting rid of. Now I roll a Fort save for every attack the fighter makes? WOOOO. This will be FUN. Why don't you just add some flat amount of damage to the weapon? This is just a roundabout way of doing that.
Flat damage could work. But it doesn't use fort saves. You just roll a d20 and try to meet the DC, making it scary no matter who you are.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-14, 03:24 PM
And the massive damage rule is horrific. Normally, you roll for massive damage from level 10 or up. With that, you're rolling From level 3-5! That is horrible! Personally, I prefer using your CON score * 5 to determine a massive damage threshold, if I use that thing at all. Every size over or below medium lowers or heightens the multiplier by 1, so a fine char will have a massive damage threshold equal to his or her CON, and a colossal will have a threshold of CON * 9.

Reel On, Love
2008-03-14, 03:25 PM
Flat damage could work. But it doesn't use fort saves. You just roll a d20 and try to meet the DC, making it scary no matter who you are.

No, that doesn't make it scary. Oh, no, a 20% chance of another 1d8+1! I'm sure high-level monsters care so much. For low-level characters, it's basically like adding 20% of that to each hit... except with extra variance, for occasional "fine, fine, boom--dead".

It's also rather arbitrary.

Basically, this contributes nothing to the game.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-03-14, 03:46 PM
Totally unnecessary rolling that doesn't seem to add anything and introduces balance issues.

There's no reason the D&D system should try to model bleeding. If anything, modelling how mounting injuries make you worse at fighting is more important (several games do this), but even that's not very D&D.

For more lethal combat, just yank up damage (like the SAGA rules where you add ˝ your level to damage, or by raising weapon base damages) or reduce the massive damage limit (works wonders to make combat a less attractive option in Conan d20, Call of Cthulhu d20, and d20 Modern).

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-03-14, 03:55 PM
Any type of 100% unmodified d20 roll would be better represented by an addition of damage.

Think about this, the DC is 100% based on your roll, you have no modifiers at all. The clunkiest d20 ever rolled in D&D 3.5 is initiative because there is so little to modify it. You are just making it even worse.

An unmodified d20 role for more damage is exactly the same as adding slightly more fixed damage with two changes:

1) Combat is slower.
2) Damage per attack is more variable and less predictable.

These are two of the core things that 4th edition is trying to fix.

This doesn't fit with fourth edition, it is completely counter to it.

Indon
2008-03-14, 03:58 PM
Personally, I prefer using your CON score * 5 to determine a massive damage threshold, if I use that thing at all.

This.

Bleeding rules aren't a bad idea, but I wouldn't want to try to model them in a system that has as many HP's as D&D without a high level of abstraction.

Example (note - calibrated for lower-damage systems like D20 modern, or theoretically 4'th edition, not high-hp, high-damage 3'rd ed):
Every character has three damage thresholds:

1'st Threshold: CON
2'nd Threshold: CON * 2
3'rd Threshold: CON * 3

Every character, when wounded over a threshold, begins to bleed (by 1, 2, or 3 hp/turn, respectively). These wounds accumulate from each seperate source of damage (so multiple Magic Missiles are multiple wounds, but a Fireball is a single wound). This isn't neccessarily explicit bleeding, but also a residual effect of adrenaline fading after a combat event. Each round, after taking damage from wounds, an individual heals a number of points of wounds equal to half their level, until the residual damage from all wounds have stopped.

Creatures with no CON score can not take damage from wounds - this variant replaces the Massive Damage variant.

Or something like that. It's relatively simple, represents persistent damage from various damage sources, and can be HP-abstracted some.

Kantur
2008-03-14, 04:00 PM
You also haven't mentioned when you stop taking this damage. At the end of combat? When you make a Heal check on a DC based of con/damage? When you get healed equal to the taken required for massive damage? When you take 1 point of magical healing? With a Wish/Miracle spell? Restoration? Regenerate?

Craig1f
2008-03-14, 04:02 PM
Like a lot of ideas, it's a great idea that would work well if it could be done automatically (like with computers, as if if DnD were a computer game). But it adds needless complication and bookkeeping, and slows down combat too much.

There are a lot of variations that "make sense" that just slow things down too much. For example, if you beat someone's touch AC, but not their full AC, this means that you connect with your blow, but don't get between their plates of armor. Well, if you're using a bashing weapon, this should still do some subdual damage. If I slug you with my axe, you should still get hurt, even if I hit your armor. Maybe less damage than with a blunt weapon, but some damage.

On the other hand, now you gotta do the math against 2 ACs every time, and figure out the damage type, and it just gets complicated and combat takes longer and is more frustrating for everyone.

The system is meant to be simple.

If you want to add new features, they should be things that don't slow down or complicate things too much.

One example is arrows. You get stuck with an arrow, you can't heal the arrow damage until you've pulled the arrows out. Pulling an arrow out deals 1d4 bleeding damage without a DC 15 heal check used as a standard action. So after the fight, you've got to deal with a bunch of arrows.

Of course, when people are done with fights, they're more interested in congratulating themselves and healing up. Not having to roll a bunch of dice to remove arrows that they had to count during the fight. So again, this idea, while good in theory, just ends up being cumbersome.

Indon
2008-03-14, 04:04 PM
You also haven't mentioned when you stop taking this damage. At the end of combat? When you make a Heal check on a DC based of con/damage? When you get healed equal to the taken required for massive damage? When you take 1 point of magical healing? With a Wish/Miracle spell? Restoration? Regenerate?

You take 1/2 your level less every round after taking the damage. Admittedly, it's not well-termed and the numbers are just outright uncalibrated, but that's what happens when you design a variant rule in a couple minutes.

Kantur
2008-03-14, 04:06 PM
Ah, I was referring to the OP, not yourself. Damn 'Ninja :smallwink:

Indon
2008-03-14, 04:09 PM
Ah, I was referring to the OP, not yourself. Damn 'Ninja :smallwink:

Oh, for his system you stop taking the damage after you make the associated save once.

Koga
2008-03-14, 04:28 PM
You also haven't mentioned when you stop taking this damage. At the end of combat? When you make a Heal check on a DC based of con/damage? When you get healed equal to the taken required for massive damage? When you take 1 point of magical healing? With a Wish/Miracle spell? Restoration? Regenerate?
When you make the save, I thought I typed that down.

Or in the event you die, when you're ressurected lol!

Talya
2008-03-14, 04:39 PM
I'm fully in favor of massive damage being able to kill you. In fact, what I propose, is if a single attack ever does lethal damage equal to your current hit points +10, you die, without a saving throw.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-03-14, 04:42 PM
"FATALITY!"

Talya has earned three Solo's for her awesomeness rate.

Kioran
2008-03-14, 05:02 PM
The worst thing about thiss rule is that it doesn´t mesh with the rest of the 3.5 mechanics, at all, and 4th Edition isn´t even out. Even before I adress balance (which doesn´t exist......), I say no one can remember this stuff properly, since it violates several basic assumptions and shares few characteristics of resolution........

Cuddly
2008-03-14, 09:17 PM
This would be another reason not to play a melee character.

Koga
2008-03-14, 09:57 PM
This would be another reason not to play a melee character.
Actually I think more people would under my system.

Not only the massive damage=more damage system, but I've considerd changing weapons to be more powerful, something like critical hits are more common then you think, etc etc.


Bastard Sword: Damage: 1d10+1 x2. Critical: 19-20.
Internal Damage: 6 DC: 5

This means whenever you roll a 19 or 20 the attack succeeds regardless of AC.
If you deal massive damage the foe takes an additional 6 damage unless they roll a 5 or more on a d20 every round untill success.
And if they roll a 20 on attack roll, not only is it critical hit, but the damage is maximized. (So 22 damage)


I think the casters might be a bit scared knowing a commoner could pullout a sword and kick their ass.

Nebo_
2008-03-14, 10:05 PM
Now you're just adding more stuff in the hope that people will start liking this. It won't work because the system is clunky and useless. It doesn't add anything useful to the game at all. For some reason people think that adding more damage to melee characters will fix them. This isn't the problem, it goes much deeper than that. When someone adds more damage as a fix, it points to a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem.

Koga
2008-03-14, 10:28 PM
Now you're just adding more stuff in the hope that people will start liking this. It won't work because the system is clunky and useless. It doesn't add anything useful to the game at all. For some reason people think that adding more damage to melee characters will fix them. This isn't the problem, it goes much deeper than that. When someone adds more damage as a fix, it points to a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem.
I got a fever, and the only cure is more damage!

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-03-14, 10:51 PM
Actually I think more people would under my system.

Not only the massive damage=more damage system, but I've considerd changing weapons to be more powerful, something like critical hits are more common then you think, etc etc.


Bastard Sword: Damage: 1d10+1 x2. Critical: 19-20.
Internal Damage: 6 DC: 5

This means whenever you roll a 19 or 20 the attack succeeds regardless of AC.
If you deal massive damage the foe takes an additional 6 damage unless they roll a 5 or more on a d20 every round untill success.
And if they roll a 20 on attack roll, not only is it critical hit, but the damage is maximized. (So 22 damage)


I think the casters might be a bit scared knowing a commoner could pullout a sword and kick their ass.

Of course then all the melee characters are taking more damage too. Oh, and the caster is still flying invisible and not taking any. Yeah, that make melee characters better, totally.