Death From Massive Damage?

[fba827]

i always thought the rules was silly and treated as it was in 2e just an optional rule. it adds no flavor at all, if there's going to be something like it it should be % based in relation to total normal hps.

Agreed, it would make more sense based on a percentage of HP. That does cause a problem for low level characters (a 1st level mage is going to get hit by a short sword and have to make a Fort save every freakin' time just about

Perhaps a multiple of Con score (any single attack that causes 3 times Con score requires a Fort save.. or something).

Anyway, this all moves away from D&D rules to House Rules so I'll hush now lest I go off on that tangent any more than I already have

 

[Ranger REG]

Not fond of percentage. Low-level characters already have the disadvantage of low HP. Players like me tend to keep a close tab of any HP less than 20 hp. But for high-level characters, it seems ridiculous that they can handle an earth-shattering strike that does 50 points or more damage without blinking, due to their high HP.

Of course, I don't mind using different massive damage thresholds based on size (see DMG, page 67).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

10 points is to low! On higher levels, most of the attacks wil deal 10 points and more.

 

[Ranger REG]

10 points is to low! On higher levels, most of the attacks wil deal 10 points and more.

Well, that's the CoC version, unless your PC's Con score is set at 10 (and you never bothered to increase it or acquire Improved Damage Threshold feat from d20 Modern rules).

Although I don't play CoC, I know well enough it's a game where you enjoy creating new PCs, because if you're not killed by those Mythos creatures, then insanity will eventually claim you.

Again, it depends on what kind of game or reality level you wish to play: epic like D&D, heroic like d20 Modern, or less than heroic like CoC d20.

 

[Celebrim]

I personally would scrap the death from massive damage rule. The only reason it exists is D&D handles falling/falling objects so poorly that after a while it gets laughably unrealistic what a high level fighter type can survive.

DM: "Five hundred feet below you can barely make out the form of Shavalian, fleeing from the great tower. It appears he has given you the slip."

PC: "Not this time, he isn't. Sir Edvald leaps from the tower."

DM: "You can't be serious?!?!? I told you it was 500' down. Five HUNDRED feet!"

PC: (nonplussed) "Yeah, but Sir Edvald is at full hit points. I can take 20d6 damage no problem."

If you aren't playing CoC or the like, scrap the death from massive damage rule and use some better falling/falling object rules.

 

[Dimwhit]

I personally would scrap the death from massive damage rule. The only reason it exists is D&D handles falling/falling objects so poorly that after a while it gets laughably unrealistic what a high level fighter type can survive.

DM: "Five hundred feet below you can barely make out the form of Shavalian, fleeing from the great tower. It appears he has given you the slip."

PC: "Not this time, he isn't. Sir Edvald leaps from the tower."

DM: "You can't be serious?!?!? I told you it was 500' down. Five HUNDRED feet!"

PC: (nonplussed) "Yeah, but Sir Edvald is at full hit points. I can take 20d6 damage no problem."

If you aren't playing CoC or the like, scrap the death from massive damage rule and use some better falling/falling object rules.

I hear you on that one. In such a case, as a DM, I would say, "Fine, you take 20d6 points of damage. Of course, in the process, you also broke both legs, and arm, and five ribs. And you have a major concussion. Until you get some serious healing (no Cure Light Wounds here), you're not going anywhere."

 

[melkoriii]

Hmm here is a thought. Make the Damage needed to threat.

CON + Character lvl vs DC Damage over this number.

So a Fighter lvl 5 with Con of 16 would have a DMD of 21.

Any time he is hit for more than 21 points og damage in one hit he need to make a Fort save of (Damage - 21). If he fails he is knocked to -1 hp.

Just a thought.

 

[Celebrim]

Dimwhit: Well, I concur with the sentiment, but mechanics wise, if you are going to give a fiat ruling on the damage from any given blow you might as well not have dice (or a game system for that matter).

There just aren't any rules for called shots, criticals on falling, crippled limbs, ability damage from falling, etc.

And there are rules for concussions and they specify that they don't happen unless the sum of damage and subdual damage is greater than the hit points of the creature.

While I agree that the onus is on the DM to note when limitations in the game system cause the normal rules not to apply, I do think that it is up to the DM to provide in those cases some sort of non-arbitrary set of rules. I think it kinda silly to not worry about crippled limbs after a 60' fall (which is a very long ways and quite sufficient to kill anyone), and then suddenly when the system's limitations do blow your suspension of disbelief out of the water to then insist on them.

 

[Ranger REG]

Your Campaign, Your Rules.

I personally do not see it as being a fix-it to the falling damage rules. Any attack that does 50 or more points of damage is as devastating and traumatic as falling from a great height.

 

[Celebrim]

Under the rules, this is true. But why is it true? Don't make the mistake of thinking reality models the rules. The rules try to model reality. In reality, there aren't blows doing 50 points of damage to base the rule on.

I think it is only in the cases like 'falling from a great height'/'dropped a safe on you' in which there is clearly no abstraction to the event that as a designer you start to feel the need for such rules. I mean one has to ask, what about 50 damage is so much more tramatic than 49 or 45? In theory aren't all blows traumatic if they take you to -10 h.p.? Why do we need a second definition of traumatic blow? What justifies the existance of the rule in the first place?

IMO, the whole point of the rule is to enforce a certain level of realism. There ought to be only so much damage that a body can take. We know this. But, the D&D combat system is very abstract. There really is a no need for worrying about how much actual physical damage someone took when hit by a weapon. Clearly every time a high level fighter is hit by an arrow for 3 points of damage, he doesn't get another clothyard shaft protruding from his torso. The only time you really have to worry about that is when the source of damage isn't abstract, and that is mostly when falling and sometimes when crushed (though often in the case of being crushed you can say a high level character 'almost' jumped clear and just took a glancing, bruising blow rather than a bone smashing body flattening one). But in the case of falling from a great height _we know_ that no matter how high level you are it ought to be something to be feared and could or maybe even should kill you.