Does anyone use the Massive Damage rules?

[Telonius]

Used it during the first campaign we ever played; junked it after that.

We did use the "triple 20" houserule. If you roll a 20 on an attack, then roll another 20 to confirm the crit, roll again. If that result is also a 20, the target dies, no save. 1/8000 chance of happening. It came up exactly once, but was pretty spectacular when it did. Our sorcerer shot an Orb spell at a pyroclastic dragon, who "went up like the Death Star" according to the DM.

[PhantasyPen]

Used it during the first campaign we ever played; junked it after that.

We did use the "triple 20" houserule. If you roll a 20 on an attack, then roll another 20 to confirm the crit, roll again. If that result is also a 20, the target dies, no save. 1/8000 chance of happening. It came up exactly once, but was pretty spectacular when it did. Our sorcerer shot an Orb spell at a pyroclastic dragon, who "went up like the Death Star" according to the DM.

My old group used this rule too, it was pretty funny when I almost killed his final boss at level one when my monk rolled 20/20/18 on the dice for an Overpowering Attack.

[Blu]

Just to add a little to this discussion, 50 damage is not that far away actually. It's not a mid-level thing and even on low optimazitions it can came up pretty early.
Just by using Blade of Blood and Enlarge person i had a characer deal 36 damage on an attack at level 3 with a Greatsword. Even tough i did roll well on damage(a bit above average on each dice) i would say it is that close of a margin and i reckon that by level 5 i would probably have a damage that can average pretty close to 50.
Even worse, the attack that caused 36 damage wasn't even a crit.
50 damage can be an occurence even in low levels when a Fort 15 is not laughable yet so it goes to show how horrible the rule is.

[Zaq]

Just to add a little to this discussion, 50 damage is not that far away actually. It's not a mid-level thing and even on low optimazitions it can came up pretty early.
Just by using Blade of Blood and Enlarge person i had a characer deal 36 damage on an attack at level 3 with a Greatsword. Even tough i did roll well on damage(a bit above average on each dice) i would say it is that close of a margin and i reckon that by level 5 i would probably have a damage that can average pretty close to 50.
Even worse, the attack that caused 36 damage wasn't even a crit.
50 damage can be an occurence even in low levels when a Fort 15 is not laughable yet so it goes to show how horrible the rule is.

Devil’s advocate here: if it actually happens at low levels when 50 HP is a significant chunk of your max and a DC 15 Fort save isn’t trivial, that’s likely when the rule is INTENDED to be most relevant, because 50 HP all in one lump really IS kind of massive damage at that level.

The problem basically comes from the fact that it doesn’t scale at all in either direction, so at high levels it bogs down play with a ton of extra rolls that you’re unlikely to fail but that can technically kill you, resulting in fun for, well, very few playstyles.

My group has name-dropped the rule a few times, but I don’t think we’ve ever actually used it. I’m in favor of ignoring it; if 50 HP (or the threshold you set) really is massive damage, then you don’t need to reward the attacker or punish the target more than is already happening. If the threshold ISN’T actually massive damage to you, then acting like it is and tacking on a semi-gratuitous save-or-die effect (n.b.: I consider SoD effects to be some of the worst parts of 3.5’s design) is either pointless or vindictive.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Just to add a little to this discussion, 50 damage is not that far away actually. It's not a mid-level thing and even on low optimazitions it can came up pretty early.
Just by using Blade of Blood and Enlarge person i had a characer deal 36 damage on an attack at level 3 with a Greatsword. Even tough i did roll well on damage(a bit above average on each dice) i would say it is that close of a margin and i reckon that by level 5 i would probably have a damage that can average pretty close to 50.
Even worse, the attack that caused 36 damage wasn't even a crit.
50 damage can be an occurence even in low levels when a Fort 15 is not laughable yet so it goes to show how horrible the rule is.

If I'm guessing accurately at how this went down, even a crit would average just below the threshold in that setup unless you're power attacking. I'm also not seeing where 2 more levels would make the difference of ~20ish points of damage at those levels. Finally, what did you even hit that it wouldn't be killed outright by 50 damage at level 3?

What I'm getting at its that you've described here something that, to me at least, throws up a couple of flags that say "this is not a typical game; heavy op and encounters way above CR."

[Blu]

If I'm guessing accurately at how this went down, even a crit would average just below the threshold in that setup unless you're power attacking. I'm also not seeing where 2 more levels would make the difference of ~20ish points of damage at those levels. Finally, what did you even hit that it wouldn't be killed outright by 50 damage at level 3?

What I'm getting at its that you've described here something that, to me at least, throws up a couple of flags that say "this is not a typical game; heavy op and encounters way above CR."

Just to elaborate, said character was a Duskblade 2/Wizard 1. My first round in the combat was used to buff me with Enlarge person and to move on position and the second round was used to use Blade of blood while attacking with a now Large Greatsword.
For damage it was 3d6 from the greatsword, 3d6 from the blade of blood plus 4(1.5 x STR) plus 3(Knowledge devotion).
The combat was against a group of hobgoblins and i one-shot the leader. The DM was surprised with the damage.

2 more levels would mean a whole new spell level for me, with at least two spells that can increase that damage(that i remember on top of my head). Probably it would still need to be above average damage to get the 50 points. Unless i crit, then It would be easy to get average damage 50.

I honestly don't consider using one buff and one swift action spell to be heavy OP.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Just to elaborate, said character was a Duskblade 2/Wizard 1. My first round in the combat was used to buff me with Enlarge person and to move on position and the second round was used to use Blade of blood while attacking with a now Large Greatsword.
For damage it was 3d6 from the greatsword, 3d6 from the blade of blood plus 4(1.5 x STR) plus 3(Knowledge devotion).
The combat was against a group of hobgoblins and i one-shot the leader. The DM was surprised with the damage.

2 more levels would mean a whole new spell level for me, with at least two spells that can increase that damage(that i remember on top of my head). Probably it would still need to be above average damage to get the 50 points. Unless i crit, then It would be easy to get average damage 50.

I honestly don't consider using one buff and one swift action spell to be heavy OP.

I'm thinking bull's strength for one but blanking on the other.

To be clear, after ceding the advantage of going first or giving the enemy an extra action you did enough damage to OHKO a leader in a multi-enemy encounter with -long- odds of triggering MD that wouldn't have mattered anyway.

I'm not seeing the problem. I think you're overestimating how rapidly damage grows here. Even arcane channeling says hit -then- spell effect rather than being simultaneous.

Ultimately, MD only matters if the enemy has at least 51 hp in the first place.

I'll admit I was completely wrong about how you got there though. Assumed non-caster instead of Gish for some reason.

[Remuko]

I've never seen this version before, but it looks interesting. Every character has a massive damage threshold equal to their CON, or if they have the Improved Threshold feat it becomes CON +3. Failing the DC 15 Fortitude save puts a character at -1 hp. Immunity to critical hits also gives immunity to massive damage.

I really imagine 'massive' damage begin a lot more than even most CON scores. Something more in the range of 3x CON score for most characters. The DC 15 Fort save becomes even more irrelevant to beefy characters, however. Since that is also based off of CON, characters with a high threshold also have a higher save.

Yeah it works really well in modern since damage numbers arent as high and really dont scale (cuz guns) but it works okayish in D&D as well, as by the time things consistently hit over it, most characters can make the check somewhat reliably, and even a fail isnt insta death so its not TOO punishing (imo at least).

[Blu]

I'm not seeing the problem. I think you're overestimating how rapidly damage grows here. Even arcane channeling says hit -then- spell effect rather than being simultaneous.

Ultimately, MD only matters if the enemy has at least 51 hp in the first place.

I'll admit I was completely wrong about how you got there though. Assumed non-caster instead of Gish for some reason.

More on the idea of using spells that increase my damage on attacks. There is some spells in Spell Compendium that add one or two d6's to your attacks, some of wich also add more damage on crits.
Bull's strenght would also be a good one since then my damage from STR would bump from +4 to +7.

I may be overestimating it a little but it's not like something that only comes up by mid-levels. And has Zaq has said it, that amount of damage in itself is already it's pretty punishing to the defender it's not needed to just add a flat "roll or die" in it.

[D+1]

I used to think it was a good idea. Now I think it's just a sign of twisted expectations. If 50 points of raw damage needs to be one-shotting opponents then the hit points of those opponents should simply cease to increase above 50 hit points so that such an attack accomplishes that with raw damage alone. If you want hit points to increase above 50 then you are by definition accepting that a single 50-point attack is NOT sufficient to kill something and you similarly by definition should not need or want any additional rule to say that it will, and a save-or-die effect should not be proc'ed by a damage threshold alone.

[BowStreetRunner]

The more I think about it, the more this rule feels like something that could be relegated to a feat or special ability. A PC could create a build around it or a DM could build an encounter around it, but it wouldn't come into play otherwise.

[Kelb_Panthera]

More on the idea of using spells that increase my damage on attacks. There is some spells in Spell Compendium that add one or two d6's to your attacks, some of wich also add more damage on crits.
Bull's strenght would also be a good one since then my damage from STR would bump from +4 to +7.

So three rounds of buffing before the murder-smiting starts, 2 with a quicken rod you can't aford before mid~ish levels? Yeah, still okay with that and still only a mild chance of MD triggering outside of a crit. I generally consider 7 to be the start of mid-level.

I may be overestimating it a little but it's not like something that only comes up by mid-levels. And has Zaq has said it, that amount of damage in itself is already it's pretty punishing to the defender it's not needed to just add a flat "roll or die" in it.

I'm not saying it's an unqualified positive but the element of chance can have a useful place by the time it can be triggered reliably (barring ridiculous charger builds, of course.)

[HighWater]

If you tried to go with a percentage, like 75% of max hp, then doing 3hp to a level 1 wizard with 4hp would count. So I think they just couldn't find any other uncomplicated way to do it that wouldn't have really strange results. Sure, some characters have lots more hp, but the damage being done is still the same regardless of whether they can soak it all or not.

I'm not sure that 3 damage on a 1st level Wizard is NOT massive damage... Just because pretty much any melee has a good chance rolling that (or higher), doesn't mean it's not definitely massive for that Wizard. Obviously a Fortitude Save DC of 15 is unnecessarily steep at that level, but it could've quite easily been scaled.

Other than that, "Massive Damage" feels very weird considering Hitpoints supposedly "determine how hard your character is to kill" (PHB, p6). Got 500 HP? Well, I guess you're really hard to kill!... Except when you get hit for 50 damage 'cause you might just drop dead...

It also has some serious gameplay unfairness:
- It rewards THF, while it effectively tells TWF and sword&board to go take a hike. Too bad those are already the weaker melee styles. Although to be honest, at this point in designing the game, the designers probably had no idea of the power gap between them.
- It poses a much greater threat to melee (martials) than it does to ranged (casters): the melee get hit a lot more and therefore likely get hit for "Massive Damage" a lot more...
- It is unfavorable for PC's, like all "chancey" effects that go both ways...
- It is much less relevant to the Wizard than to the Barbarian: the Barbarian might actually have 50HP-and-then-some to tank a 50hp hit, only to possibly die of this fixed-limit feature. Meanwhile the Wizard will likely be too-dead-to-care-about-fortitude-saves when hit in the face for 50 damage...

[BowStreetRunner]

Other than that, "Massive Damage" feels very weird considering Hitpoints supposedly "determine how hard your character is to kill" (PHB, p6). Got 500 HP? Well, I guess you're really hard to kill!... Except when you get hit for 50 damage 'cause you might just drop dead...

I honestly always felt it was less intended for sword attacks and things like that and more for what to do when a wall falls on you. I remember a scene in a movie where they had one of those huge blocks that the great pyramids are made from held up by a huge crane and it fell on someone smashing them flat. I could see the conversation in development going something like this:

"Well, what if someone drops a wall on top of them?"
"I don't know, maybe say it's 50 damage. That should kill most characters."
"Dude, I think this game may reach a point where PCs have more than 50 hp."
"Really? Well, then let's just add a massive damage rule that anything over 50 hp also requires a Fortitude save."
"Okay. That will probably work."

[martixy]

The 3.5 rule is nonsensical. It really should scale.

The more I think about it, the more this rule feels like something that could be relegated to a feat or special ability. A PC could create a build around it or a DM could build an encounter around it, but it wouldn't come into play otherwise.

I agree with this. I introduced it as an element in my game. You can, if you want to, build a character around this concept. If you want your character to cause a bloodbath everywhere he goes...

It comes together in the following form:
I use PFs called shots variant rules. They have 3 stages of severity - normal, critical hits and debilitating blows(the latter one uses the same rule as massive damage and equals things like chopping off limbs, gutting people, etc).
Introduced a rule that says, certain damage types are favoured for certain called shots, which allows you to upgrade the "severity" of a called shot by 1 step for a small penalty to atk. It means you can cause the effects of a debilitating blow with a critical hit. Enter crit-fishing.
Vorpal weapons automatically increase the severity of a called shot by one step.
There's also a feat that allows you to total all damage from your attacks for the purpose of determining the severity of a called shot. Similar to the Clustered Shots feat in PF(which incidentally is also useful, but for a ranged version of the build).