"He's beyond my healing ability..."

[Zelda Themelin]

Late here, but to original question.
I always hated in old D&D or ADD modules when there was some dying npc, and healing didn't work, and last words or something. More so as dm as player. Because those damn modules never told reason, why you can't heal person, they just say it's "Plot thing". Never mind that, there still should have a reason instead of blindfolded railroad.


There never was anyone in groups I regularly was playing, where people liked that.


It's fine if there is reason. Some nasty magical poison stopping healing/resurection, easily followed by interesting story who has access to something like this, and is death maybe just first of many to follow. Ok, remembering one adventure here.


I always think cause for for unhealable injuries should have something related to story rather than some "rules-allow".
Besides that healer should be able to find out why he failed. Not always the actual reason, depending on skill of a healer and intrest, but something apperant.
Reason could be medical one. You could well simulate some internal bleeding in the brain, by sudden massive damage shock that happens when injured person tries to move. LIke with con effecting poison with it's secondary damage. Well in D&D 3x anyhow.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Which isn't a miss.

Again, this is a language barrier, where different wording might affect the perception of the mechanic.

Ah, but you called it a "never miss", which is exactly what we had pre-4E. It's a partial miss. It represents that the person making the save deflected a good portion of your attack. The only difference now is that you have to make the roll to hit, instead of them making the roll to avoid. I really cannot see the difference you are trying to make. To me, it is the same as saying the perception is different depending on whether AC goes up or down.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

There is nothing wrong with a never-miss -- especially if it is a blanket effect or in some way magical. Even if it is a mundane ability, I can accept it to some degree. For instance, in the ERB Tarzan novels, Tarzan never misses with a ranged attack. Never.

I have long thought of D&D magic in terms of "never-miss". With few exceptions you cast a spell and you don't have to roll a to-hit, or a casting ability check, or the like. The spell WILL take effect - unless the victim succeeds in his allowed last-chance of a saving throw, which often will only reduce the effect rather than negate it entirely.

However, in those earlier examples of never-miss effects, they never called a partial hit a "miss". Doing so is a mistake, IMHO. Degree of success? Yep. Sure thing! Calling a partial success a failure? I'm not so good with that.

That may be simply an asthetic thing, but it does affect my enjoyment.

Because words MEAN things. It may sometimes SEEM like it shouldn't matter what words you use to name or describe something but it does. Designers need to use the words that evoke the moods and perceptions they want and eliminate misunderstandings about their intents.

 

[dogoftheunderworld]

This has been an interesting discussion. Seriously, there are a lot of good ideas to be gleaned. Here are my (not so serious) findings:

Option A: Never find yourself in a situation were you adjucate against the rules for the benefit of the story. (And/or only use situations your game was designed for.)

Option B: Plan ahead and create a rule for every possible trope you might want to use in the future of your campaign. (And/or only play games designed for your situations.)

Option C: Use the cliche, rules be damned!

Option D: Use the Rules, story be damned!

Option E: Do what you feel your group will find most fun! (Note: feelings do not always follow rules.)


"Rules vs. railroading" almost always comes down to group preference.

Happy Gaming!

 

[Skyscraper]

Late here, but to original question.
I always hated in old D&D or ADD modules when there was some dying npc, and healing didn't work, and last words or something. More so as dm as player. Because those damn modules never told reason, why you can't heal person, they just say it's "Plot thing". Never mind that, there still should have a reason instead of blindfolded railroad.


There never was anyone in groups I regularly was playing, where people liked that.


It's fine if there is reason. Some nasty magical poison stopping healing/resurection, easily followed by interesting story who has access to something like this, and is death maybe just first of many to follow. Ok, remembering one adventure here.


I always think cause for for unhealable injuries should have something related to story rather than some "rules-allow".
Besides that healer should be able to find out why he failed. Not always the actual reason, depending on skill of a healer and intrest, but something apperant.
Reason could be medical one. You could well simulate some internal bleeding in the brain, by sudden massive damage shock that happens when injured person tries to move. LIke with con effecting poison with it's secondary damage. Well in D&D 3x anyhow.

I agree with you. An explanation should be provided.

However, this explanation can be provided by the player. It is not only up to the DM to explain everything. This is cooperative storytelling, right? Right.

One player at my table asked me why a skill that seemed like it should work, didn't.

- Why, he asked, why oh why doens't it work? It seems so logicial that it would!
- You tell me, I answered.
(Silence. Smile creeps on the player's face as an explanation comes to mind...)

If your idea of healing is that it can close a wound that has blood gushing out of it, and then give back lost blood to the injured, that's fine. It will explain many healing circumstances. But hit points can represent a lot of things, not just actual blood pouring out of a wound; and consequently healing can represent a lot of things, not just closing wounds.

So, you - the cleric - you provide me with an explanation when I tell you that your healing power does not cure the dying NPC. Work with me. Pick up my story proposition and add a layer to it that will satisfy your requirement for a logical explanation. Not just anything, find something that fits, something cool. Sure, I can probably come up with an explanation as a DM. But if you wanna have a whole lot of fun, pick up the DM's proposition, then watch him throw the ball back at you, adding another layer to your own, and so on. When you've tried surfing that way, you won't want to go back

p.s.: I didn't read throught he whole thread, only page 1 and the last page, so I assume that what hit points represent has been touched upon from the few posts that seem to imply that topic. Hopefully this is not too repetitive.

 

[Nagol]

I agree with you. An explanation should be provided.

However, this explanation can be provided by the player. It is not only up to the DM to explain everything. This is cooperative storytelling, right? Right.

One player at my table asked me why a skill that seemed like it should work, didn't.

- Why, he asked, why oh why doens't it work? It seems so logicial that it would!
- You tell me, I answered.
(Silence. Smile creeps on the player's face as an explanation comes to mind...)

If your idea of healing is that it can close a wound that has blood gushing out of it, and then give back lost blood to the injured, that's fine. It will explain many healing circumstances. But hit points can represent a lot of things, not just actual blood pouring out of a wound; and consequently healing can represent a lot of things, not just closing wounds.

So, you - the cleric - you provide me with an explanation when I tell you that your healing power does not cure the dying NPC. Work with me. Pick up my story proposition and add a layer to it that will satisfy your requirement for a logical explanation. Not just anything, find something that fits, something cool. Sure, I can probably come up with an explanation as a DM. But if you wanna have a whole lot of fun, pick up the DM's proposition, then watch him throw the ball back at you, adding another layer to your own, and so on. When you've tried surfing that way, you won't want to go back

p.s.: I didn't read throught he whole thread, only page 1 and the last page, so I assume that what hit points represent has been touched upon from the few posts that seem to imply that topic. Hopefully this is not too repetitive.

So what happens when he says "It really did work -- it just took a moment to catch."?

 

[Krensky]

So what happens when he says "It really did work -- it just took a moment to catch."?

You suggest that maybe he's not playing at the right table.

 

[prosfilaes]

However, this explanation can be provided by the player. It is not only up to the DM to explain everything. This is cooperative storytelling, right? Right.

I've done cooperative storytelling, and it's quite a bit different then D&D, lacking the rules structure and particularly in this case the asymmetric power structure.

My instinct would be to say that this a construct; obviously the man (if notable) is not really dead, but that a simulacrum has replaced him and his foes have put the dying words in its mouth to mislead us. I've responded with a "yes, and" in the spirit of cooperative storytelling; are you going to follow up in the same spirit by accepting that?

If the DM or player does something in D&D, it's up to them to have an explanation.

 

[Nagol]

You suggest that maybe he's not playing at the right table.

So deliberately surrendering narrative control to the player is good only until the player asserts that control towards an end they already evidenced a desire for and then you kick them out? Nice.