Alternative Environmental Damage

[ValhallaGH]

1. Having environmental effects and starvation deal wound damage. ... If you don't differentiate between wound damage dealt from combat and wound damage dealt from the environment, you can have characters "heal" the effects of starvation with magic and healing potions.

I play a lot of Deadlands: Hell on Earth (original, not OGL or Savage Worlds). A lot of things in that game deal Wind damage (wounds, bleeding wounds, evil magic, soul-destroying attacks, starvation, dehydration, radiation, etc).
Generally, Wind damage heals at 1 point per minute of Rest, or fully with simple magic or medicine.
Wind damage from starvation / dehydration cannot heal until the character eats / drinks sufficient quantities.
Wind damage from Radiation requires powerful magic, decontamination procedures, or one week (and a successful check) per point to recover.

All it takes is a couple of sentences in the rules for the various environmental conditions. Wound damage from falling (or fire) is regular wound damage ala combat.
Wound damage from starvation / thirst cannot heal until the character eats / drinks appropriate amounts.
Extreme temperatures can be healed by magic or by being in a non-extreme temperature. (If magic can heal burn damage or sword wounds or being turned to stone, it ought to be able to heal freezing.) Dehydration, a common side effect of exposure to both extreme heat and extreme cold, cannot be directly healed by magic (hello Create Water).

What I'm really saying is that if this is what you want then this is the way to go. A couple extra sentences to turn certain situations into exceptions is all you'll need.

2. Having environmental effects and starvation deal Constitution damage.

Very dangerous. For some groups it would be more fun. Not most groups, just some that enjoy that sort of feel.


Good luck.

 

[Hawken]

Re: Valhalla,

Since being on fire deals hit point damage, unless you have some sort of resistance, there's plenty of effect there. Also, the woman you're referring to that survived a 33,000 fall was because she was trapped inside the part of the plane that was falling and pinned in a position. She wasn't free falling on her own. And she was found by someone with medical training so she received treatment right there on the spot. Had she been free falling on her own, she wouldn't have survived, and her survival would have been unlikely if she hadn't received medical treatment so quickly after the fall.

So, again, feel free to explain how one's proficiency with a sword or picking locks comes with the ability to survive falls or live through environmental conditions that will kill humans. That's not being petty and being a good fighter doesn't make one super-human.

As for alternate forms of damage, I'd include conditions as well such as exhaustion or fatigue, maybe apply nauseated effects, dazed, etc.

If straight ability score damage is too harsh, then do "virtual" Con damage. If a person has a 13 Con and they are suffering some circumstance (heat, starvation, etc.), then when they fail a check, they suffer up to 13 points of "Con" damage--though their actual Con score doesn't change--and when that is done, they fall unconscious and go from there. Maybe when they lose 4 points of "Con", they become Fatigued, and if they are down 8 or more points they are Exhausted and these conditions cannot be removed without the cause (heat, thirst, etc.) removed AND rest is had.

That way, they can still fight if they have to, but they'll be at a disadvantage because of their suffering.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Since being on fire deals hit point damage, unless you have some sort of resistance, there's plenty of effect there.

And none of it lasts longer than it takes for the character to heal hp damage (which can be as short as one standard action). That's no more significant than an ogre hitting the character for the same amount of damage, which is fairly negligible.
Further, you've in no way addressed why you're making a rules distinction between being on fire for four minutes and falling 100 feet. In real life, both are immediately fatal more often than not (the fire is generally worse), and the lingering effects are fatal even more often.

Also, the woman you're referring to that survived a 33,000 fall was because she was trapped inside the part of the plane that was falling and pinned in a position.

Sure. Followed by links to articles about WW II flight crew that survived free fall. And ending with another note about a British fellow falling 3,000 ft onto snow-covered rocks; in free fall.
Those were the most relevant stories, however 33k is more impressive than 22K, 18k, or 3k. All are worse than your 100 ft death sentence.

So, again, feel free to explain how one's proficiency with a sword or picking locks comes with the ability to survive falls or live through environmental conditions that will kill humans.

The same way it allows him to survive everything else the rules use to try to kill PCs.
If I wanted realism then I wouldn't use d20, and probably wouldn't bother with role-playing games. I haven't seen one yet that was very realistic.

... being a good fighter doesn't make one super-human.

In generic d20 it does. Whether or not it should is an entirely different question; that it does is a fact obvious from the interactions of the rules.

 

[shadow]

If I wanted realism then I wouldn't use d20, and probably wouldn't bother with role-playing games. I haven't seen one yet that was very realistic.

This is a point that I'm somewhat conflicted on. On one hand I want a game of larger than life heroes. I really don't get into "grim and gritty" games.

However, on the other hand, I have seen some downright "silly" situations arising from players metagaming with the rules. For example - I have seen players flat out refuse to get provisions and supplies for the arctic expedition. The line of reasoning goes something along the lines of "1d6 points of non lethal damage isn't going to hurt my 10th level fighter. Why should we bother weighing ourselves down or spending any more gold than we have to?"

Maybe if we were playing something like Exalted or a game where the PCs are demi-gods, that logic would fly, but when trying to maintain a semi-"believable" game (not realistic, but believable) it seems really out of place.

 

[ValhallaGH]

The line of reasoning goes something along the lines of "1d6 points of non lethal damage isn't going to hurt my 10th level fighter. Why should we bother weighing ourselves down or spending any more gold than we have to?"

Please tell me that every character that didn't take rations died because of that non-lethal damage.

Otherwise I'm going to start losing faith in the ability of DMs to punish stupid actions with deadly consequences.

After this time, the character must make a Constitution check each day (DC 10, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage.

Characters who have taken nonlethal damage from lack of food or water are fatigued. Nonlethal damage from thirst or starvation cannot be recovered until the character gets food or water, as needed—not even magic that restores hit points heals this damage.

1d6 nonlethal + Fatigue, which can't recover until after eating. Per day after the first 3. That's a heck of a lot worse than spending 20 gold on food, or half-filling the bag of holding.
Seriously, if someone pulled that crap in my game, their character would get dead about three days after they started suffering from Starvation. Not because I'd do anything different, but because I wouldn't do anything different, and that ragged edge of victory and survival would be 3d6 hp away.
I take that back, I'd be willing to coup de grace their characters guilt free. It would actually be a mercy blow, putting the poor starveling out of his misery.



Reviewing all the SRD environmental damage, it all makes you Fatigued (neither run nor charge and takes a -2 penalty to Strength and Dexterity). Which is mean enough to make me and my group want to avoid it entirely.

 

[Sadrik]

I would never let this kind of goofiness go. My house rule is such that I would be cause CON damage on the failed Con checks. The players are going to try and keep their food around. The SRD is silly in this regard.

Acid- acceptable
Cold- replace non-lethal damage with CON damage but d4 CON instead of d6 (as heat)
Slippery- replaced with grease spell effects
Darkness- acceptable
Falling- remove all instances of non-lethal damage
Falling Objects- acceptable
Heat- replace non-lethal damage with CON damage
-Catching on Fire- remove the destroyed equipment clause
-Lava- acceptable
Smoke- replace non-lethal damage with CON damage
Starvation- replace non-lethal damage with CON damage
Thirst- replace non-lethal damage with CON damage
Suffocation- acceptable
-Slow Suffocation- remove non-lethal damage and instead work it like Suffocation but every 15 minutes
Water- Remove instance of non-lethal damage completely
-Pressure- acceptable
-Hypothermia- deleted use Cold instead
-Drowning- acceptable

Poison- Secondary damage is continued until made twice in a row (as disease)
-Onset time- (new rule) change it from immediate to some increment of time rolls save every minute there after
-Dose- (new rule) increase the base DC based on the dose per dose adds +2 DC

 

[Hawken]

Valhalla, how can you argue with me that being burned alive for 4 minutes or falling 100 feet is insignificant and then comment that 1d6 nonlethal and fatigue from starving is a terrible fate? That's quite a discrepancy.

Damage is not insignificant because healing is available. This topic is about the effects on characters not on what you can do afterward to reduce or negate the effect.

And I'm not going to argue point by point with you. We could throw out examples back and forth to no end. The point is that the rules regarding hazardous conditions (not just environmental extremes) are sadly deficient in D&D, always have been.

The fact is many effects cause a person to suffer cardiac arrest (resulting in death if no one else is around to tend to them with the proper medical training). Many effects cause brain death, paralysis, nerve damage, organ failure, internal bleeding, etc. These effects/side-effects/after-effects are not even considered or handled at all by the rules.

If you want a super heroic game, play one. If you want characters to survive a fall, play a Jedi in a SW game, they can all survive falls (except Mace Windu) as long as they land on their feet or hit the ground running. But the cold hard truth is that hazardous conditions kill, maim or cripple. Its not very dramatic or entertaining but it does and should happen to PCs that are careless or unprepared. If a PC falls off a mountain, yeah, it sucks for that character, but you can be sure the remaining PCs are going to be a lot more careful about what they are doing and the tension (and excitement) is going to ratchet up a notch.

Unless a character dies by combat with a monster, a trap or the direct or indirection action of the BBEG, PC death sucks and is no fun at all. But it can and should happen. DMs shouldn't be afraid to kill off a character because they failed to prepare for something. Those bones in the dungeon the PCs casually pass by were previous adventurers that weren't as prepared. D&D is about resource management.

Hit points, Con scores and Fort saves go up so that battles can be drawn out even longer with tougher monsters--its just poorly written rules that have those increase turn characters into super heroes that can blithely ignore the perils of the real world as they make their way toward the BBEG.

Without making drastic changes, applying Con damage, or whatever, just have hazardous effects work around Fort saves, or maybe Reflex saves for things that can be avoided, and maybe Will saves that allow the character to ignore ongoing effects for a round or two. AND.

AND...use their save values for these hazardous effects from their 1st level save modifiers. So, a 1st Fighter with a 10 Con would have only a +2 Fort save against poison or suffering the effects of extreme heat or dehydration. And a 15th level Fighter with a 10 Con would also only have a +2 Fort save against those same things--although he would have access to items that improved that save (suddenly a Cloak of Resistance seems like a cool thing again) or mitigated damage (extreme heat isn't so bad when you've got Fire Resistance 10 or Endure Elements going on).

Those same characters would have the same chances of starving to death if they ran out of food, but in combat, the higher level character would definitely be a bad-ass without necessarily becoming super heroic.

 

[shadow]

Please tell me that every character that didn't take rations died because of that non-lethal damage.

Otherwise I'm going to start losing faith in the ability of DMs to punish stupid actions with deadly consequences.

The example I used was somewhat exaggerated. However, I have had players argue with me over environmental damage and rations. When DMing I don't let such arguments fly, but I have played with several rules lawyers over the years who have tried to argue (quite passionately) that their high level characters don't have to worry about such mundane details of survival.


Also, does anyone notice that the whole idea of wilderness survival adventures become rather pointless by 5th level (when the cleric can cast the 3rd level Create Food and Water spell)?

While I do not want to DM a grim and gritty game where characters frequently get killed by starvation and disease, I do want to run a game where danger comes not just from monsters, but from the environment. Man vs. Wilderness is one of the oldest themes in literature - it is even found to some extent in fantasy literature (think of Frodo and Sam trying to survive in Mordor).

Unless a character dies by combat with a monster, a trap or the direct or indirection action of the BBEG, PC death sucks and is no fun at all. But it can and should happen. DMs shouldn't be afraid to kill off a character because they failed to prepare for something. Those bones in the dungeon the PCs casually pass by were previous adventurers that weren't as prepared. D&D is about resource management.

Yes, I don't like games where there is no element of danger and risk involved. If characters can never die, the game gets boring fairly fast. However, I dislike "cheap deaths". That's why I like characters being a little larger than life (i.e. able to bounce back from fights and taking damage rather quickly), but not superhuman.

 

[Celebrim]

Unless a character dies by combat with a monster, a trap or the direct or indirection action of the BBEG, PC death sucks and is no fun at all. But it can and should happen.

I generally agree with your essay, but I'd like to make one ammendment.

PC death sucks and is no fun at all regardless of how it happens. Dying to a monster or trap is not inherently more fun or better for the story or more heroic than drowning, freezing to death, or dying of pnuemonia. Not dying when you might be expected to die is heroic, but the heroes are heroes for the most part because they don't die whether its a monster or being cast into the ocean and being adrift at sea far from land.

When the player argues that he shouldn't die from starvation, drowning, frostbite, or dehydration, what he's really doing is make an especial appeal that he shouldn't die period. Of course, he knows that if he made his appeal openly that he'd seem like a jerk and a tosser, so he makes his appeal covertly and based on some sort of reasoning like, 'Heroes never die from ____' Well, generally speaking, the argument can be made that 'heroes' in this sense don't die period. Superman doesn't die. Even when he does die, we know that there is some escape clause which is going to let him come back. So the argument is spurious and circular.

Generally the player that makes the argument that they can't die from starvation is going to make a slightly different argument about them not dying from traps and monsters. It won't be an open argument, but it will be there, usually in the form of 'the encounter wasn't balanced'/'the DM was metagaming'/'you didn't give us a fair chance'/'you missed something two rounds ago, I want a retcon'/'Heh, wait a minute, I deserved this extra modifier', etc. That sort of player always has an answer, and its always an out of game answer. The player doesn't come up with in game answers for why he won't die of starvation - like say, the fact that he has food. The player figures he has the answer for most monsters and may believe himself to be (and may actually be) more rules knowledgable than the DM or more tactically skilled than the DM, so he figures that monsters can't kill him. And if it looks like he might die, he resorts to browbeating the DM for not being fair.

But all this is really just a proxy argument for, "I can't be allowed to fail."

But of course, if that argument is allowed to stand, then the game begins to fall apart.

 

[Celebrim]

Also, does anyone notice that the whole idea of wilderness survival adventures become rather pointless by 5th level (when the cleric can cast the 3rd level Create Food and Water spell)?

In my experience, if you are dependent entirely on spells for your food, water, shelter and healing, then you'd better be pretty high level. So, I don't think it's rendered pointless at 5th level. It's true however that at some level you run into that problem.

At very high level, you get spells like 'Magnificent Mansion' that do everything at one shot, but that begins to move into the topic of high level spell use in D&D and how it can be balanced, not whether the environmental rules are sound since at high levels of spell use any environment is negotiable.

The more likely problem you'll first run into when trying to run 'Man vs. Nature' is the fact that by mid-level, PC's are capable of carrying civilization with them in a portable hole or bag of holding. It's less like backpacking and more like going camping in a motor home with the general store near at hand. This ultimately returns us to the magic problem in D&D.

In 1e AD&D spells were primarily balanced by how they effected combat. Spells who had no utility in combat and which didn't profoundly effect the dungeon environment (like passwall or etherealness) were generally deemed to not be that powerful, regardless of how profound the effect of such a spell might be on a society that had access to it. Items like the 'Bag of Holding' demonstrate the problem with that approach, in as much as no party would desire to be without 'Heward's Handy Haversack' and if you increased the price by a factor of 5 or 10, players would still eventually by one (or something comparable).

So, yes, even if you fixed the environmental hazard rules, you'd still have some problem with the effects of magic. The trick is fixing this in such a way that a high level party can still go on a trek across the burning Elemental Plane of Fire or into the depths of the Abyss and have some hope of survival, while still maintaining some degree of threat from the hazards of the Sahara Desert or the Arctic to a party of slightly lower level.