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

[Celebrim]

The problem with all forms of D&D is that they are limited to 3 functional states (or less): fully functional, unconscious, or dead.

This is only partially true, and its not always a drawback. D&D tends to avoid combat death spirals where if you start to lose, then things just go worse for you. It also means less condition tracking. However, I agree that it can be a problem.

However, the problem has been addressed somewhat by the rules. Technically, RAW 3.0 has a condition track. It looks like this:

Healthy -> Staggered -> Dying and Unconscious -> Dead

Additionally, D&D 3.0 can inflict all sorts of conditions on a character with their own removal conditions. For example: ability damage, negative energy levels, cursed, stunned, dazzled, confused, poisoned, diseased, dazed, nauseated, etc. etc. It's also pretty good in every edition about allowing to to ad hoc invent a condition with its own removal conditions. Want a 'one legged' or 'one eyed' condition? Just make one; these conditions might not be the normal results of combat but the game rules certainly imply the possibility of them occuring because they contain spells for removing such conditions. You don't want magical healing to work on a target? Bestow Curse or something similar works just fine for achieving that effect - you don't need to evoke an illogical divine intervention. You can always invent a higher level version of the spell as well. That's pretty much encouraged by every edition of the game as well (if you count 4e rituals as spells). By cleverly combining statuses, you can probably thwart a low level parties ability to heal a character indefinately, while simultanesouly having the character's condition detriorate at whatever speed you like.

My only problem with the RAW 3.X condition track is that its not aggressive enough in its implementation. I liked the idea of 'staggered' as a good medium ground between healthy and dying; it captures the ideal of 'I'm hurting' without imposing penalties that make self-defence impossible. I didn't like how rare it was and how marginal it was. My current game works something like the following. Without going into why, a typical 1st level human fighter PC has about 20 hit points. His condition track looks something like the following:

3 to 19 h.p = Lightly wounded but otherwise healthy (at least for a hero)
1 to 2 h.p. = Staggered. This threshold scales with h.p. If you had 100 hit points, then at 10 or less you'd be staggered.
0 h.p. = Staggered plus must make DC 15 save to remain conscious. Success means you remain conscious unless injured again (which provokes another save)
-1 to -9 h.p. = Staggered plus must make DC 15 save to remain conscious. Also, bleeding until stabilized, taking 1 additional damage per round (which provokes another saving throw).
-10 h.p. = Dead

Now, it takes about 30 points of damage to kill a 1st level PC fighter. He's probably not going to die slipping off of a ladder. But equally interestingly, he only takes about 18 points of damage before he falls down the wound track. That is to say, when reduced to 40% of his starting life, he starts to act wounded (in this case slowly staggering about). I've had several scenes this game where the PC was 'bleeding out' (as my players call it) and circumstances required that they remain conscious for several rounds in order to survive, and many situations where characters were hoping to self-stablize or characters were scrambling to apply a tourniquet to a wound. I've also had situations where multiple characters were staggering out of the 'dungeon' with negative hit points. And I've had several bad guys bleeding out, who hurl a few dying invectives at the party.

No need for fiat or for forcing a predetermined outcome. Interesting things have just happened 'naturally' and in some cases far more interesting things than I would have invented on my own.

I do not tie game conditions directly to the literal real world meaning.

I don't tie my game conditions strictly to realism. A realistic wound track leads to less gamable situations. But I do try to make them have some versimlitude.

Maybe it's just an sense of what Cure Light Wounds/Healing Word can accomplish, but it fits my common sense to come across a townsfolk with his guts hanging out onto the floor, dying but still barely speaking. I don't picture CLW/HW doing anything to fix this guy.

I don't necessarily either. I have an actual inflictable condition 'Gaping Chest Wound' that prevents healing with either a Cure Light or Cure Minor, but technically, you could be conscious and dying for days after getting one if you were really lucky with your stablization checks and consciousness saving throws. (Or you could have the 'Hard to Kill' trait, which would mean you'd need a lot less luck.)

Nor for that matter does the RAW require that the guys wounds be healable by a CLW. CLW does not heal a missing arm, or in this case a missing liver/intestine/kidney. That requires Regenerate, which the PC's probably don't have ready. So impose a 'Shredded Intestines' or 'Missing Liver' condition on the target ('until this condition is removed the character hemorages and cannot be stablized'), make it suitably hard to deal with ('DC 30 heal check or DC 20 heal check + cure critical wounds or Regenerate'), and now we no longer have a big disagreement either between me, or you, or the RAW. The RAW does not explicitly provide for missing intestines, but its doesn't explicitly forbid them either; what is not forbidden is permitted.

It's not necessarily with the scene set up that I have a problem. It's with the cut scene like nature of the scene and the heavy reliance on defensive DM fiat suggested by some posters (not necessarily you, I'd have have to back and read who said what) to ensure that the scene played out in the intended manner no matter what the PC's did. I have a problem with 'the rules are suspended until the DM achieves the result he wants'. When I suspend the rules, it's not to achieve a result I 'want', but because the strict reading of the rule isn't fair to the character in this situation. If I had foreseen the need to suspend the rules because of some edge case, I probably would have patched the rules ahead of time.

Likewise, I think the attitude exhibited by some that PC's expending considerable resources to thwart the DM's plan that the NPC die is the PC's playing badly and acting like jerks is not a very productive attitude for a DM to have. I'm sure some groups are happy with it, but in general its not very artful DMing IMO.

 

[S'mon]

If you actually *describe* the mortal injuries - guts splattered across the grass, impaled by a spear, limbs removed, arterial blood spurting - players are much less likely to query why a cure light wounds etc won't save the NPC. This is particularly true of 4e where 'healing' is no more powerful than a warlord's shouted encouragement.

 

[Quickleaf]

Wow this thread is moving at a furious pace! I'm trying to keep up with the comments but I may have missed some, apologies. But I've been reconsidering my position a bit with my particular example in regards to "drama", "gravitas", "emotional poignancy", etc.

Maybe they could have saved the life of the lord, what would that mean? Would he blame himself? Would be blame the king? The PCs even? Would he become a liability when the PCs make a sneak attack against goblins? Could the goblins' smart-ish leader leverage his captive family to turn against PCs? What if his family died, would he go out in a blaze if vengeance, turn to the dark side, become a permanent NPC companion? There's really a lot of room for cool dramatic situations there - obviously different in tone than what I had in mind, but still equally valuable.

Indeed, the whole point of the orginal scenario seems to have been to encourage the players to invest in the interaction with the NPC. Which is why I find the fiat scene resolution to be so counterproductive. 'Cut scenes' in which you can't effect the outcome even though my character concievably has the ability to do so are jarring even in cRPGs where I have reduced expectations of player freedom.

I see, so the player might think " Why should I bother caring about NPCs when our DM is willing to kill them arbitrarily, putting us behind an artificial piece of glass where we are powerless to make a meaningful choice to change the outcome."

I thought there was a lot of choice involved in what happened to the lord NPC, it just was resolved in previous adventures. Maybe that was part of the problem? As a DM I already made a decision about the impact of a past adventure then put the PCs in a situation where they confronted that fallout and the bar player felt he should be able to reverse it because of the way in which I set up the scene (with the lord dying, not dead). IOW the finality of the outcome of the past adventure was in dispute.

If a character can't be healed by normal magical means, then it ought to be obvious why and make sense within the context of the game. For example, if I was really compelled to make it clear that the poor schmuck couldn't be healed I probably would have run the scene as follows:

<snipped gruesome violence>

Yeah that's a great scene you've set up there. My group sticks to PG-13, the couple has a 3 year old, several of the ladies are squeamish, and we host guest players now and then.

My concern with the setup with the glowing green rod (magic poison, or what have you) is that it establishes this as a challenge. Which may be exactly why it appeals to you. The players are going to bethinking how to beat the glowing green rod with teleport, readied Heal checks and Strength checks, rings of regeneration, etc.

My resistance to setting this up as a challenge was that with this particular group (not universally) challenge-thinking brings out the zany flippant ideas which just kill any emotional impact. It's not that they dislike or are immune to drama, but once they're in challenge-thinking mode their attitude changes.

Of course, me wanting this scene to be an emotionally charges one could be the problem. You could argue that this sort of thing should emerge naturally from play. Usually I'd agree. With my particular group, however, that just isn't the case - it really does take DM scene framing to draw that out of them. They enjoy it when it happens (aka I orchestrate it), but it's not their default MO.

as a matter of achieving the immediately desired result I find the above scene framing far better than, "No, you can't just cast Cure Moderate Wounds because I say so, and if you don't like it then just go home."

Heh, considering that we usually play at the bard player's house, that would be pretty funny if I said that. At the very least they'd cut me off on the next round.

Thinking about this in hindsight it would be easy to set up this situation in the rules (not that I had this worked out in advance):

NPC lord was hit be special coup de grace which negates natural 20 on death saves, and prevents Heal skill from stabilizing dying character. This is akin to a combination of the 4e peryton's "feast" (kill dying adjacent character) and ongoing damage. Then I give the NPC an ability to stay conscious albeit helpless at negative HP up to half their healing surge value. Not overpowered as it's weaker than a barbarian ability to fight into negative HP. This way it's possible he has been rolling death saves for several minutes and just getting really lucky (or maybe he has an item or feat which grants him bonus to death saves).

Anyhow, upshot of that 4e goobldigook is this could conceivably be handled by the rules without needing much special explanation besides "The NPC lord is tough as nails, but the hobgoblin warchief is a badass SoB."

Once the PC's are interacting with the environment, you've gone beyond scene framing.

Makes sense overall.

I tend to notice a bit of bleeding as the PCs begin exploration, so it's not necessarily true that there's an off-on switch where you jump from scene framing to playing the game immediately. That's certainly possible, but I've noticed exploration mode in particular it takes a bit for the PCs to warm up to interacting.

I'd be curious to hear you chime in on this [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]? You seem to have a stronger grasp of scene framing than me.

DMs are effectively all powerful.

There is a force more powerful than the DM: children, especially creeping up at dramatic moments to ruin the tension of a scene wanting to play the yellow "dwaggin" or (personal favorite) choosing as climactic battle music with the dracolich the alphabet song. :sigh:

But seriously, youve really made me pause and think how I could do a similar setup better in the future, and how I can empower the players more even if they're not taking the initiative. Thanks [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], consistently well though out advice.

 

[CuRoi]

My resistance to setting this up as a challenge was that with this particular group (not universally) challenge-thinking brings out the zany flippant ideas which just kill any emotional impact. It's not that they dislike or are immune to drama, but once they're in challenge-thinking mode their attitude changes.

It's good to recognize that about your group, though from your explanation you had at least one person who was trying or wanted to interact or make it a "challenge". I'm too much of a softy and I'll entertain anything anyone wants to put on the table. But I can see how if your group sort of drifts too far afield during such "Challenges" that you might feel you need to reign it in to keep the game moving.

My group is pretty hard nosed on challenges (I don't run 4e so don't interpret this as the 4e definition of "Challenge" BTW!). It's one major component of how we play the game together. They love to seek them out and hate to admit defeat. They've opted for a TPK when presented with the possibility of capture by superior forces, they've changed the course of my entire campaign through resourcefulness and great ideas that I wish I would have had first. They're stubborn, and honestly I love 'em for it. We've integrated that into how we play.

If there is some sort of puzzle / secret door on a wall and the PCs are being hunted down by a horde of ghouls, if all the players gather around and start tossing skills at the puzzle asking for answers, I'm not the least bit upset if the Druid steps up, melts the stone wall like butter and says "By the gods we don't have time for this you fools, MOVE!" So, my challenge was eradicated by a prepared player, big deal. That makes a great scene yet and something the players will probably talk about for years as opposed "do you remember that time we all rolled random skills standing by a wall so we could get past some annoying puzzle?"

Of course, me wanting this scene to be an emotionally charges one could be the problem. You could argue that this sort of thing should emerge naturally from play. Usually I'd agree. With my particular group, however, that just isn't the case - it really does take DM scene framing to draw that out of them. They enjoy it when it happens (aka I orchestrate it), but it's not their default MO.

When you guys start all this regimented talk of "scene framing" and "resolution" and such, honestly, I get completely lost. Gaming for me isn't an academic exercise but a creative pursuit. I'm very positive I maybe frame scenes and all that jazz, but frankly, I couldn't tell you when that specifically happens in any given session.

I start with a vague idea of how the story is going to go in my head and just as often some one will say "Hey, we'll do X". "X" will be something I had not considered, is an incredibly cool idea, and takes the entire story in a direction which I want to explore as much as they do. So I just run with it.

At any rate I long ago gave up trying to "control scenes" because the stuff my players do is often cooler than what I had in mind. I usually just introduce my players to situations and see what they do with it, all the while trying to stay one step ahead of them so the story keeps flowing (and doing it by rules we're both trying to adhere to).

I've got a player that loves to play self sacrificing do gooders. Letting a dying man utter his final words and pass into the great beyond would be a no-go for him and would have been a pretty darn funny "scene". He'd be all over the NPC, "Shhh, save your breath my friend, we'll get you out of here." And then someone would propose some completely off the wall plan to stabilize the guy and it would be just so darn good there's no way I could just say "oh, no, he's dead Jim."

At any rate, I'm not saying anything you or anyone else had proposed is "wrong", just saying how from my experience it wouldn't work with my group. Sometimes I do think it would be cool if I could tell MY story during a DnD session without my meddlesome players interrupting, heh.

If I feel I really need a dying man's words to be passed on without the players being able to rush to his aid it will probably be a programmed illusion, a note, a magic mouth, a magic item, a construct or familiar, voice from beyond the grave, ghost, an actual non-vague answer from speak with dead (very rare for me), etc. etc. Or, the guy will really be, by any rule I can think of, unsaveable, cause I know the players are going to try - it's part of the way they enjoy our game. Frankly, for me its part of the fun to see if they can puzzle out a way to save him or not using the same rules I used. And when they do trump my "brilliant" (sometimes) idea, it's usually even just as exciting to me.

If I want emotional investment, it's all in the lead up to the death. They get to know the NPC, his strengths, his faults, where he works, his family. They probably have relied on him in the past in their adventures and when that NPC is found dead, beyond death, close to death, it's got enough emotional charge to require a reflex save. But, if they do manage to find some way to save him, well, I can't complain. It means I did my job and they're invested in him enough to try to puzzle out a means of bringing him back.

 

[Water Bob]

In this thread, I've seen people try to make the situation in the OP reasonable--a reasonable match of the rules and reality. And, I've seen people completely dismiss the idea of "the last dying words" of an NPC as a cliched railroad tactic that should be avoided.

But, set aside the rules for a moment, folks.

And...ask yourself. What about drama? What makes for a good story? What grips the players, pulls them in, makes them want to come back?

I've never heard a player say, "Man! My GM sure mixed reality and the game rules well on that encounter." But, I've heard them say (and I strive each game session for them to say it again), "Crap, that was creepy!" Or, "Good lord, did you see what the bad guy did! Man, that was fun!" Or, even, "Wow, what an interesting premise. It's really got me thinking about...".



In my current game, I've got a situation I'm setting up. I know what I want to happen (or....more likely, what I want to set-up, as you can never tell what the players will do and throw a monkey wrench in my plans), and I've been spending a lot of time trying to figure out how to make it work "within" the rules. (One of my threads, explaining the scenario, is here: Giving Nish

Part of this is because I'm learning the 3.5 ruleset and am not as familiar with it as a gamer that used the ruleset for a decade. The other reason for spending time on this is that, in a perfect world, I like the rules and the story to match.

But, sometimes, the d20 rules do not make the goal easy.



Case-in-point: In the situation I describe via the link above, I expect the PCs, who are out near their village gathering firewood, to hear some of initial attack echoing off the mountainous walls and come running.

I expect they'll charge up the side of a steep slope to make the trail, then run as fast as they can to where the battle is taking place. Of course, the scenario is about some warrior attacking a cart with an old woman and some children aboard--so it was so much a fight, but more of a slaughter.

As the PC's run up the trail, from around the bend in the forest comes one of the little kids, staggering, about to collapse. He's little Jozan. 5 years old. Head bleeding and sever blunt trauma to the right side of his head. There's an indentation in his skull, and his right eye is closed.

The kid falls to his knees just steps from the PCs.

They'll check him out, I'm sure. His one eye will stare, glossy. He's conscious, but completely out of it. He might be dying for all they know.





Now, see. This is a pretty dramatic moment. And, big, dramatic, moments are what the game is all about. In my game, the players, through their alter egos, are quite attached to these NPCs--this old lady and her wayward children. When they see this little boy in this state, it's going to piss them off. They're going to be affect by this, and they're going to want to get whomever did this to little Jozan.

That's what I'm going for. That's drama. When my players feel what their characters feel....well, that's golden for a GM.

It's the makings of a gripping, memorable session.




But now, in planning all this out, how do I make all this happen within the rules (the d20 3.5 rules)?

I think the closest to the rules I can get on this scene is to have little Jozan in the 0 hp, Disabled state. That accounts for the slow movement.

But, by the rules, he should be able to talk--and, I've got him on the verge of unconscious ness. By the rules, he shouldn't collapse until he's at -1 HP.

I could go a little bit futher and say that Jozan is suffering from blood loss damage, but that's not really in the rules, is it. Nope. A GM doesn't normally add a wound effect to a NPC unless a monster or some weapon has a special attack or damage form.



So...do I give up my neat little set-up just because the rules don't exactly fit?

Naw, I don't think so. Story is more important than rules.

Or, do I stretch the rules a bit and throw in some GM fiat?

Yeah, that's it. Maybe Jozan is in the negative hit points, but I gave him a (non standard, of course) Fort Save that allowed him to stagger away from the battlefield as if he were Disabled for a couple of rounds.

Still not strictly "within the rules", but it's close.





I will note that, back in my 1E AD&D days, this situation is a no brainer. Stick with the drama and what the GM says.

Now, in my new 3.5 d20 days, I find that the rules intrude more than support the game as they used to do--mainly because the game attempts to model almost everything, leaving not a lot of room (in some people's eyes) for GM fiat in the way of "very cool description".



So, what do you do? Stick with cool, gripping drama? Or be a slave to the rules?

I'm going with drama.







EDIT: And, what about little Jozan's survival? I haven't decided yet (and I may leave it up to a die throw during the game). But, should it be an automatic that Jozan survives?

It might be more dramatic to have the kid go into a coma for a while as the PCs sweat it out, hoping for his recovery. Maybe he makes it out, but maybe he dies, too.

Or, maybe Jozan survives but he loses the right eye?

None of these things are specifically covered by the rules but each might make for a better, more gripping story.

 

[CuRoi]

If you actually *describe* the mortal injuries - guts splattered across the grass, impaled by a spear, limbs removed, arterial blood spurting - players are much less likely to query why a cure light wounds etc won't save the NPC. This is particularly true of 4e where 'healing' is no more powerful than a warlord's shouted encouragement.

Several people have made this distinction and I don't quite get it. Admittedly, I could be walking into some sort of edition war fishing trip, but could someone tell me why they feel there is a substantive difference in the way 4e / 3e /2e HPs are repesented? (Not only S'mon has expressed this view but other posters.)

From what I can tell, the damage from powers in 4e is pretty explicitly spelled out as "deep bleeding gashes", "drawing blood", "cracking skulls", "your enemy suffers bleeding wounds", etc. etc. which are in turn "healed" by clerical healing, surges, warlords shouting encouragement, etc. etc.

Previous editions, what a weapon swing "did" to make someone lose HPs was pretty much completely in the hands of the DM (with the exception of say Vorpal Swords and the like). This vague "damage" was in turn healed by rest or clerical spells.

If anything the older editions give more leeway for DM interpretation whereas the newer seems to imply encouraging words can close "deep bleeding gashes". Of course it could also be said "and this is different from soothing clerical prayers closing deep bleeding gashes how?"

At any rate, I don't see the distinction (and don't worry, I'm a wily fish, I'm just nibbling, not ocmpletely on the bait if that's what this is

 

[CuRoi]

But, by the rules, he should be able to talk--and, I've got him on the verge of unconscious ness. By the rules, he shouldn't collapse until he's at -1 HP.

Little bugger is probably tired to boot. Fatigued, collapses in Exauhstion (-6 Strength and Dex) as he comes into view. (Doubt he has much more than 6 Strength so the collapes makes perfect sense)

And no, it doesn't have to always follow the rules. I do it cause I've been playing for years, my players have as well and if I sat down and gave vague explanations for all of my story elements they'd probably hold me to task, or remind of ways they can interact with my story using the shared ruleset we have agreed to.

At any rate, if you are sitting across from veteran players hoping they give some slack while you are learning the rules and don't rules lawyer you about story decisions. If you are sitting around with a new group, they won't know the difference and you will all be building on your rules knolwedge as you go.

If your group hates rules, just use the ones you like : )

There's a million ways to do it really, sounds like an exciting err..."scene" or whatever they're calling it around here. Best measure is that everyone is having fun really.

 

[S'mon]

Several people have made this distinction and I don't quite get it. Admittedly, I could be walking into some sort of edition war fishing trip, but could someone tell me why they feel there is a substantive difference in the way 4e / 3e /2e HPs are repesented? (Not only S'mon has expressed this view but other posters.)

From what I can tell, the damage from powers in 4e is pretty explicitly spelled out as "deep bleeding gashes", "drawing blood", "cracking skulls", "your enemy suffers bleeding wounds", etc. etc. which are in turn "healed" by clerical healing, surges, warlords shouting encouragement, etc. etc.

Previous editions, what a weapon swing "did" to make someone lose HPs was pretty much completely in the hands of the DM (with the exception of say Vorpal Swords and the like). This vague "damage" was in turn healed by rest or clerical spells.

If anything the older editions give more leeway for DM interpretation whereas the newer seems to imply encouraging words can close "deep bleeding gashes". Of course it could also be said "and this is different from soothing clerical prayers closing deep bleeding gashes how?"

At any rate, I don't see the distinction (and don't worry, I'm a wily fish, I'm just nibbling, not ocmpletely on the bait if that's what this is

Well, my impression is that PCs inflict "deep bleeding gashes", "crack skulls" et al, but PCs suffer what turn out to be only relatively minor, unspecified injuries - unless the PC actually dies, of course.

I think 4e hit points are presented as an order of magnitude more trivial than in 3e. Some examples:

Bards' song inflicts psychic damage - actual hit point damage.

There is no separate subdual damage in 4e - *all* damage in 4e is effectively subdual damage, except the final killing blow, if any.

You can recover all damage after 5 minutes, if you have healing surges - less serious than prior edition subdual damage, typically 1 hp/hour!

Healing in 1e-3e restores a fixed hp total dependent on the power of the spell. Hit points appear 'absolute', of fixed importance. Healing in 4e restores a fixed portion of the target's max hp - indicating that the importance of a hp is relative.

 

[CuRoi]

Well, my impression is that PCs inflict "deep bleeding gashes", "crack skulls" et al, but PCs suffer what turn out to be only relatively minor, unspecified injuries - unless the PC actually dies, of course.

I think 4e hit points are presented as an order of magnitude more trivial than in 3e. Some examples:

Bards' song inflicts psychic damage - actual hit point damage.

There is no separate subdual damage in 4e - *all* damage in 4e is effectively subdual damage, except the final killing blow, if any.

You can recover all damage after 5 minutes, if you have healing surges - less serious than prior edition subdual damage, typically 1 hp/hour!

Healing in 1e-3e restores a fixed hp total dependent on the power of the spell. Hit points appear 'absolute', of fixed importance. Healing in 4e restores a fixed portion of the target's max hp - indicating that the importance of a hp is relative.

Excellent explanation, thanks! I always feel like I'm walking on eggshells when discussing differences between the editions so I appreciate the level response.

I'm fascinated by that initial aspect of 4e you touch on - that solid distinction between what PCs do and what NPCs / Monsters can do. It's like they live in their own worlds per se. It's a useful trick to not only distinguish PCs from everyone else and firmly establish them as the protagonists of the story but also can be used to keep them from getting to fiddly with a DM's plans. i.e. "Your powers need not necessarily apply to this situation" (Still, another reason why it isn't so much my group's cup of tea, cause my players thoroughly enjoy fiddling with my plans, and I in turn expect them to do so, heh).

I know others pointed this same thing out in previous posts but I'm not a regular 4e player so the "schooling" helps. At any rate, it also explains some of the "shouting over each other" in a few of the side arguments. People were arguing from totally different perspectives without really getting what the other was talking about.

 

[S'mon]

I'm fascinated by that initial aspect of 4e you touch on - that solid distinction between what PCs do and what NPCs / Monsters can do. It's like they live in their own worlds per se.

Pretty much, I think. A partial exception is the DMG2 Companion NPC, they are intended to function similarly to PCs in several respects, including hit points & healing surges.