He's Stable!

[Greenfield]

Water Bob, you've touched on something important, then let it slip away.

The last wound may or may not have caused the shock. In all probability it was the sum total of his injuries that have been adding to it all the way.

In any case, if someone is suffering from shock to the point of collapse, that's what you treat for.

As an example: Once upon a time, real world, I got hit by a car while bicycling home from work. The Paramedics got me to the hospital in near record time and they checked me out. I was in the waiting room, waiting for my ride home (the bicycle had been destroyed) when the shock hit. Dry mouth, cold and clammy, tunnel vision as my blood pressure fell, the whole thing. The broken hip they missed in the X-Ray would trouble me for years after that, but the shock nearly killed me, then and there. And no amount of wound binding, bone setting or applying ice to the swelling would have helped. Hell, if they'd applied ice it probably would have killed me.

For the record though, a Heal Check is indeed both a diagnosis roll and a treatment roll. There are a number of afflictions in the game that call for a Heal check with a specific DC to *detect*. Not treat or cure, just to detect.

The paralyzing touch of a Lich is an example. The victim will appear to be dead, unless someone makes a DC 20 Spot check, or a DC 15 Heal check.

Now you're certainly entitled to play 1st or 2nd Ed (i.e "Olde School Method") with regard to "skills". (You used that term in quotes, as if you didn't really believe in it.) But if you're discussing this topic under the 3.0 or 3.5 rules, don't expect others to know that you've house ruled to nerf "skills". And pretending that this isn't a house rule is disingenuous. The fact that you're importing those house rules from some other system doesn't change the fact that they're group-specific changes to the rules.

And, if you're going to require some kind of medical knowledge on the part of the player before they're even allowed to attempt a Heal check, it isn't at all silly to suppose that you'd require some other specific knowledge before other skills are allowed to be used.

So try this: A player giving a good description of what they're doing may get a circumstance bonus (or penalty) to the action. It encourages game color (your "alternate reality"), without the DM telling someone that their characters can't use their "skills" because the player isn't an EMT, or didn't guess right when it came to treatment.

 

[domino]

You wouldn't allow a character standing out in an open field, in plain view, under a bright sun, with nothing to hide behind or conceal himself a chance to roll on his Hide skill, no matter how high that skill was, right?

There's no reason why the First Aid function of the Heal skill should be treated any differently.

A character gets a Hide check when it's logical that he can hide.

The same goes for the application of First Aid. It happens when it's logical that a character can administer first aid.

You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check

It explicitly prohibits the exact thing you're talking about in the rules.

 

[Water Bob]

It explicitly prohibits the exact thing you're talking about in the rules.

That's why I picked that skill to use in the example--so I wouldn't have to defend it.

If I'd used, say, Disable Device, and described how the thief needs to figure out how to disable the trap before he can attempt to disable it, people would just argue that the thief could just throw on his skill without knowing squat about the trap.

I had to find a skill with logic behind its use, written in the game, so that people would accept it in backing up my argument.

The problem is, the only reason I think that some use cover and concealment with the Hide skill is because it actually says to use it in the book. If it didn't, I guarrantee you there would be many "new schoolers" shouting, "It doesn't matter if he has anything to hide behind. He's got the skill, so he can do it if he makes the roll!"

Apply the same logic to the rest of the skills when they're used. The First Aid check is no different from the Hide or for the Disable Device check. The use of the skill must make sense in order to use it. A character can'd just do it because he has the skill (as many of you seem to believe).

The last wound may or may not have caused the shock. In all probability it was the sum total of his injuries that have been adding to it all the way.

Not really. Because without that last blow, the character is fine--only minimally hurt.

As an example: Once upon a time, real world, I got hit by a car while bicycling home from work. The Paramedics got me to the hospital in near record time and they checked me out. I was in the waiting room, waiting for my ride home (the bicycle had been destroyed) when the shock hit. Dry mouth, cold and clammy, tunnel vision as my blood pressure fell, the whole thing.

I experienced something similar in 1997. Was on a Jet Ski. Idiot friend behind me, following too close. I hit a wave and let off on the accelerator. Friend didn't, and used me for a ramp.

Cracked my back in three places. Bed bound for a month. There was a scare that I'd never walk again. Took me three months to really get my pace back and six months before I could run again.

But....with all that damage, I actually crawled out of the lake and was walking around when the ambulance arrived. They had to convince me to go to the hospital because I thought I only had a bruise.

For the record though, a Heal Check is indeed both a diagnosis roll and a treatment roll.

You keep calling it a "Heal Check". There are many uses of the Heal skill.

I'm talking of the First Aid roll, the DC 15 Heal skill check that characters use to make stable downed characters that are in the negative hit point range.

If that's the same check you're referring to, then, nope, it does ot include a diagnosis. The description of that use of the skill does not say anything about diagnosis.

Can you give me a page number where the First Aid check is described as allowing the character to make a diagnosis?

But if you're discussing this topic under the 3.0 or 3.5 rules, don't expect others to know that you've house ruled to nerf "skills".

But, I haven't house ruled it. I'm playing it RAW.

The First Aid check is used to make stable characters that have fallen victim to negative hit points, yes? That's what I'm using the First Aid check for--exactly as written.

And, the First Aid roll is a standard action. I haven't changed that, either.

And pretending that this isn't a house rule is disingenuous. The fact that you're importing those house rules from some other system doesn't change the fact that they're group-specific changes to the rules.

Please state which rule you think I'm importing.

 

[domino]

That's why I picked that skill to use in the example--so I wouldn't have to defend it.

If I'd used, say, Disable Device, and described how the thief needs to figure out how to disable the trap before he can attempt to disable it, people would just argue that the thief could just throw on his skill without knowing squat about the trap.

I had to find a skill with logic behind its use, written in the game, so that people would accept it in backing up my argument.

So you're arguing for stuff that's not in the rules, and to defend this, you're using something that is written in the rules to explain something not written the rules.

I would absolutely argue that the player doesn't need to know squat about the trap. The Thief, the character, does, but that's why he has ranks in disable device, and the trapfinding class feature. The player doesn't.

 

[anest1s]

So. How do one hides in an open field at night? How do you ask him to explain how he hides in just darkness? And how he hides under the light of the stars?



''Uh...I bend a bit...like this...and uh...I then do something like uh..that...uh...he didn't see me, did he?''

 

[Water Bob]

So you're arguing for stuff that's not in the rules, and to defend this, you're using something that is written in the rules to explain something not written the rules.

According to the DMG, pg. 6, "Often a situation will arise that isn't explicity covered by the rules. In such a situation, you need to provid guidance as to how it should be resolved."

Which means that I am following the rules.

I would absolutely argue that the player doesn't need to know squat about the trap. The Thief, the character, does, but that's why he has ranks in disable device, and the trapfinding class feature. The player doesn't.

Then, you are probably one of those players who would have a character Hide out in a field, in full view, on a bright day, just because the character has a nifty Hide skill, if the rules didn't specifically specify that use of the skill is impossible.

So. How do one hides in an open field at night? How do you ask him to explain how he hides in just darkness? And how he hides under the light of the stars?



''Uh...I bend a bit...like this...and uh...I then do something like uh..that...uh...he didn't see me, did he?''

I routinely have players describe in detail what their characters are doing.

 

[Jack Simth]

It's crazy to think that all it takes to stop a character from dying--one that has a wound so bad that he will day in less than a minute--is 3-4 seconds. A person can't even fully examine a wound in 3-4 seconds.

It's a bad rule. Doesn't make sense at all.

It doesn't make simulationist sense. Like HP, it's not supposed to. It does, however, do it's job.

Wow. No roleplaying in your group?

I don't mean that to be snarky. It's just that, I can't fathom leaving my brother to die if I can do something about it. I'd try to find a way to save him, if at all possible.

It seems that at least some of the adventurers in your party might feel the same about each other?

If not, then it's as your footer says. Such is life.

There is a significant difference between what your earlier posts were very strongly implying and what your later posts said.

If you're in the middle of a firefight (which doesn't generally last long) and someone goes down from a shot, and the shooter is still shooting at you, no, you don't immediately stop and tend the wounded, unless the wounded fell somewhere where you'll have cover. You deal with the shooter first. Why? People are still in immediate risk. It's one of those cold logic things. If your companion falls in such a way that you can get to him without risk, and your companion is not in immediate risk of getting shot again, this can be a different story... but in the middle of a melee? No.

I am the GM. I am the rulebook. I control the world, the environment, everything except the PCs.

When a player asks, "I look at the chest, what do I see?" What I tell him is...arbitrary.

The GM having aribrary calls is not a bad thing. In fact, it happens all the time.

Yes & no, but I'm growing fatigued of this discussion, and am not going to get into the difference here.

I actually do stuff like that in my game.

For example, I know that people do not wear armor all the time. So, if the PCs are smart, they can catch bad guys out of their armor. At night, for instance. Guards will be wearing armor, but most other people will not--especially if its close to bed-time.







I have....and I haven't.

I'm keeping the RAW mechanics and action types. It's just that the player doesn't know the outcome.

Let's say a Taurl goes down, and his buddy Fronn comes to help him. When Fronn arrives, I secretly throw the First Aid check and know that Taurl is stablized. I'll keep that result no matter what Fronn does.

But, Fronn doesn't know the result.

So, we start to roleplay the situation...then Fronn decides that he has no choice but to go help his comrades in the battle. Fronn leaves Taurl, not knowing if he'll live or die.

There's a lot of drama there.

After the battle, the PCs come back to check on Taurl....and find him....alive! Stable.

Of course, Taurl might be dead, too. Depends on how the roll turned out.

This is not what you were implying earlier. You were using phrases like "keep him engaged" and "can't just poke him and walk away" and similar, that were strongly implying keeping the person administering first aid had to stay there for the rest of the fight for it to be effective.

Actually.... ....I do!

I really do.

We roleplay combat. It's not about I-roll-you-roll. It's more, "I duck under that swing and come up into your armpit with the tip of my sword."

It's really fun. You should try it.

That's only part of the question. What's your standard of realism? When someone does an uppercut on an opponent, do you require that the next blow be in a downward direction? After someone's done a downwards blow at an opponent, do you object if the next one is at the opponent's head?

It was a shadow across the stone floor from the torchlight. But, it's the player's job to ask questions.

This is the give-n-take of roleplaying.



These would be some good questions to ask.

And, if you come up with another idea to disable the trap that might work, I'll give you a roll. But, you're right. If you can't figure out how to disable the trap, then no, you don't get a roll "just because".

So what do you do on magical traps? Your basic Fireball trap cannot be disabled in that manner without a reasonably consistent theory of magic traps. For that matter, it can't even be found in that manner.

Also, as a follow-up: How then do you account for the "Other Ways To Beat A Trap" portion of the Disable Device entry, if such "logical" methods of beating the trap are what permits the roll in the first place?

There are two basic styles of gaming. There's this type....

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic]The Pit Trap (Modern Style)[/FONT]
GM: “A ten-foot wide corridor leads north into the darkness.”​

John the Rogue: “I check for traps.”​

GM: “What’s your target number for checking?”​

John the Rogue: “15.”​

GM: Decides that the pit trap in front of the party is “standard,” so all John has to do is roll a 15 or better. “Roll a d20.”​

John the Rogue: “16.”​

GM: “Probing ahead of you, you find a thin crack in the floor – it looks like there’s a pit trap.”​

John the Rogue: “Can I disarm it?”​

GM: “What’s your target number for that?”​

John the Rogue: “12. I rolled a 14.”​

GM: “Okay, moving carefully, you’re able to jam the mechanism so the trap won’t open.”​

John the Rogue: “We walk across. I go first.”​

That's pretty "blah" and unexciting in my book, and that's how the First Aid rule seems to be played by many.​

Not in my game.​

I prefer this style, below. It's much more interesting and leads to extremely memorable game sessions.​

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic]The Pit Trap (Old Style)[/FONT]
GM: “A ten-foot wide corridor leads north into the darkness.”​

John the Roguish: “We move forward, poking the floor ahead with our ten foot pole.”​

GM: Is about to say that the pole pushes open a pit trap, when he remembers something. "Wait, you don’t have the ten foot pole any more. You fed it to the stone idol.” [if the party still had the pole, John would have detected the trap automatically]​

John the Roguish: “I didn’t feed it to the idol, the idol ate it when I poked its head.”​

GM: “That doesn’t mean you have the pole back. Do you go into the corridor?”​

John the Roguish: “No. I’m suspicious. Can I see any cracks in the floor, maybe shaped in a square?”​

GM: Mulls this over, because there’s a pit trap right where John is looking. But it’s dark, so “No, there are about a million cracks in the floor. You wouldn’t see a pit trap that easily, anyway.” [A different referee might absolutely decide that John sees the trap, since he’s looking in the right place for the right thing].​

John the Roguish: “Okay. I take out my waterskin from my backpack. And I’m going to pour some water onto the floor. Does it trickle through the floor anywhere, or reveal some kind of pattern?”​

GM: “Yeah, the water seems to be puddling a little bit around a square shape in the floor where the square is a little higher than the rest of the floor.”​

John the Roguish: “Like there’s a covered pit trap?”​

GM: “Could be.”​

John the Roguish: “Can I disarm it?”​

GM: “How?”​

John the Roguish: “I don’t know, maybe make a die roll to jam the mechanism?”​

GM: “You can’t see a mechanism. You step on it, there’s a hinge, you fall. What are you going to jam?”​

John the Roguish: “I don’t know. Okay, let’s just walk around it.”​

GM: “You walk around it, then. There’s about a two-foot clearance on each side.”








I do run my game in the "Old Style", but I haven't had any bad consequences show up that you seem postive will show up in the game.

As a few other posters have mentioned, this starts having significant issues when you get into traps that aren't mundane in nature. But apparently, you play without magic...

And, of course, many of your trap-finding materials are going to be used up after a few checks... so you can't search for certain types of traps anymore.

 

[domino]

Then, you are probably one of those players who would have a character Hide out in a field, in full view, on a bright day, just because the character has a nifty Hide skill, if the rules didn't specifically specify that use of the skill is impossible.

Thank you for telling me what I'd do.

The point is, to argue for your point on what the rules don't cover, you... used as an example, something that the rules do cover.

Let's say I want to make a sword. I have ranks in Craft Blacksmith, access to a forge and anvil, and a set of tools. What else, in your "old style" game would I need to tell you to in order for you to say "make that roll?"

 

[Water Bob]

Thank you for telling me what I'd do.

Lucky guess.

The point is, to argue for your point on what the rules don't cover, you... used as an example, something that the rules do cover.

Exactly. So that I could make the point. Otherwise, there'd be two arguments: one about the original bit of contention and the second about what I used to back it up.

I nipped the second argument in the bud by using something specifically stated in the rules.

Let's say I want to make a sword. I have ranks in Craft Blacksmith, access to a forge and anvil, and a set of tools. What else, in your "old style" game would I need to tell you to in order for you to say "make that roll?"

Typically nothing. Sometimes, rolls are made just like the New Style. "Off camera" and quick.

But, if the focus was on you making the sword, we'd describe what you're doing a little bit more in detail, and I might even use the extended Crafting rules where multiple rolls are required. This is where New Schoolers differ. They just make rolls, never describing what they're actually doing.

It doesn't make simulationist sense. Like HP, it's not supposed to. It does, however, do it's job.

Actually, Hit Points do make some simulationist sense.

There is a significant difference between what your earlier posts were very strongly implying and what your later posts said.

I'm not sure what you think my original posts were implying, but I will tell you I've changed my mind, yesterday, on how I would handle the First Aid check.

The way I'm going to handle it is much more like what some were thinking I was saying originally but wasn't.

If you're in the middle of a firefight (which doesn't generally last long) and someone goes down from a shot, and the shooter is still shooting at you, no, you don't immediately stop and tend the wounded, unless the wounded fell somewhere where you'll have cover. You deal with the shooter first. Why? People are still in immediate risk. It's one of those cold logic things.

Depends on the character, but I get your point and agree.

If your companion falls in such a way that you can get to him without risk, and your companion is not in immediate risk of getting shot again, this can be a different story... but in the middle of a melee? No.

Yes & no, but I'm growing fatigued of this discussion, and am not going to get into the difference here.

OK.

This is not what you were implying earlier. You were using phrases like "keep him engaged" and "can't just poke him and walk away" and similar, that were strongly implying keeping the person administering first aid had to stay there for the rest of the fight for it to be effective.

I'm saying that now.

A character will have to earn a First Aid check in a logical way, just like a character has to describe how he is hiding when he uses the Hide skill.

That's only part of the question. What's your standard of realism? When someone does an uppercut on an opponent, do you require that the next blow be in a downward direction?

We actually began with that kind of detail in combat. It's gone a little more free-form. I usually describe the action unless the player wants to describe what his character is doing. In this situation, I always let the player trump what I say.

But, typically, I set the scene. "You hunch at he waist, your spear held in one hand, your hatchet in the other. Quickly, you move by the hedge to where the Grath and Thrallan are fighting. With all your might, you shove the tip of your spear forward....Roll your attack!"

Depending on the results, I will describe what happens. And, I usually roll NPC throws behind a screen so that the players don't know what happened until I describe it. "You shove, and the Grath dodges left. Your spear tip draws a line across his rib cage. It begins to bleed."

So what do you do on magical traps? Your basic Fireball trap cannot be disabled in that manner without a reasonably consistent theory of magic traps. For that matter, it can't even be found in that manner.

No magical traps in my game.

Also, as a follow-up: How then do you account for the "Other Ways To Beat A Trap" portion of the Disable Device entry, if such "logical" methods of beating the trap are what permits the roll in the first place?

I use the character's skill to govern how much information I tell the player.

For example, let's say there's a floor trap that has a string that cross the floor, but if you cut that string, you set off the trap. The string is a decoy. The trap is really pressure sensitive.

I'll roll the character's Disable Device skill behind the screen and look at the result. If the roll is high, I'll give the player a lot of information to work with. If it's low, I'll only tell the player what he obviously sees and answer his questions.

Note that a smart player can still figure out how to disable the trap even if his roll is low by asking the right questions. This rewards the player and his skill at playing the game instead of a dice throw.

If I've giving the player a lot of info, I might say something like, "There's a string that crosses the floor, but you've seen this before. It's not the way to disable the trap and is likely to trigger the trap."

Now, because of his skill, the player has good information to work with--stuff his character would know but the player doesn't--in disabling the trap.

And, of course, many of your trap-finding materials are going to be used up after a few checks... so you can't search for certain types of traps anymore.

Yep. That's part of the game and part of real life.

Some of the best game moments I've had have come when the players were out of supplies.

Case-in-point: I was running a 1E AD&D game, and the players were exploring this old, abandon castle. They were in a room with 4 doors. One door lead to the way they had come. One door opened to a room with a giant snake in it. One door opened to a room with a giant spider. And one door opened to a room full of giant rats.

This was one of the old D&D "B" series adventures.

The players got very creative. They went into the room with the giant spider, paralysed it and then cut its venom sack. Then, they captured one of the giant rats, paralysed it, shoved the venom sack down its throat, and threw slow poison on the rat.

Then, they simply opened the door to the giant snake room (the only room with another door to go further into the castle), tossed in the rat, then decided to rest for a bit and memorize spells.

After a few hours, they opened the door to find the snake dead with this big lump in the center of it.

The problem came when the mage realized that he had memorized a spell that required iron shavings as its material component, but he was out of that particular item. I, of course, made my players keep track of the material components.

The player of the mage said, "Where in this dank, dark dungeon, right? It's humid in here? The walls drip with water?"

Yes. I'd described the place like that earlier.

"Well," he said, "there's these big doors, right? And, they've got this big, iron hinges? Rusty iron hinges?"

Oh yes.

"I'll scrap some off."

God, that was a fun game.

 

[Water Bob]

So what do you do on magical traps? Your basic Fireball trap cannot be disabled in that manner without a reasonably consistent theory of magic traps. For that matter, it can't even be found in that manner.

This is an interesting question. Since I don't play D&D (3E), I haven't considered this particular situation. I know how I'd handle it in 1E/2E AD&D, though. I'd say that a dispel magic is needed--that the thief could not disable a magical trap.

How is this handled in 3/3.5E D&D? Do you guys allow the thief to use his Disable Device skill to disable magical traps?

It's a bit of a tangent, I know. But, I thought it interesting.