OK, settle the Strength thing.

[wolfen]

Ray of Enfeeblement has been discussed, but the rules-to-realism logic has no been sufficiently explored, in my opinion.

For example, is STR a universal value, or is it relative based upon size and race, etc. It would appear from Melee Attack and Damage mods that it is universal, but...

OK, you zap a Half-Orc with Enfeeblement and his STR goes from 14 to 4. What if he was Enlarged at the time? Technically, he is carrying around a lot more weight than he should be able to. I don't see how an 800lb opponent with a new STR of 4 could be unaffected in movement, max # of attacks, etc.

Do the rules address any practical effects of STR range 1-5 outside of encumbrance, attacks, dmg? How low does STR have to be before one's own weight threatens encumbrance? On reverse, how heavy would a person need to get before their STR is inadaquate? There seems to be ratio guideline missing or a rule I don't understand.

Ultimately, it seems silly that a PC w/ STR 1 can behave normally outside combat, but STR 0 renders them immobile regardless of setting.



wolfen

 

[kreynolds]

There seems to be ratio guideline missing or a rule I don't understand.

You're not missing anything. You're just trying to add something that isn't there to begin with.

 

[wolfen]

OK. Thanks. Given the Views-to-replies ratio, I'm guessing you're right.

House rule, comin' up.


wolfen

 

[gfunk]

Same thing with hit points.

If you are a dragon with 650 hp and are reduced to 1 hp, you take no penalties of any kind.

Chalk it up to the abstract combat system of DND.

Personally, I prefer it.

 

[Lela]

I agree with gfunk. If you start adding House Rules to cover everything in DnD that clashes with RL, then you're going to have quite a set. HP, AC, Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha, skills, etc. Often it just doesn't mesh with RL and forcing it to do so may detract from the game.

That said, I will say that I have had a PC nocked to 1 Con (2d6, rolled the max, 13 Con). While it didn't really interfere in combat (aside from abyssmal HP), we still carried him back on a strecher. Him having trouble walking, breathing, and generally moving was the session joke. They also kept him away from anyone who appeared the least bit sick ("No, don't bring him inside the temple, get the Cleric to come out. You don't know who else is trying to be healed"). Anything could kill him at this point.

Of course, they still made him pay for his own healing. After all, he was the one who fell for the Evil Nymph of Con draining.


But that was just fun and flaver for the session. I doubt it really would have affected combat at all. We could still have fun with it though.

 

[wolfen]

I agree with what's been said. Thanks for the example, Lela. It was useful.

I don't plan on actually creating a stupid table...ugh. It does take away from the game. However, it seems very reasonable to apply an immediate condition of Exhaustion if more than 50% STR has been lost. Not too Complicated, right?

I guess I'm really just saying that I will use my own on-the-spot judgement regardless of the rules.

I will probably penalize enfeebled (STR 1-5) PC's and NPC's by halving movement, halving the max # of attacks, require STR checks for standing from prone, etc. and assess their condition as exhausted if >50% of their STR is lost.

wolfen

 

[Staffan]

The way I see it, the only check needed for low Strength scores in themselves is encumbrance. Sure, you don't count your own weight as encumbrance, but at Str 1 you're going to have trouble lifting a dagger. The point where your own body weight becomes too much for you is at Str 0, which is why you're helpless by then.

 

[kreynolds]

However, it seems very reasonable to apply an immediate condition of Exhaustion if more than 50% STR has been lost. Not too Complicated, right?

Actually, it is. You want to apply reason to high and low Strength scores, but you can't stop there. Does it not stand to reason that someone with a low Strength and low Constitution will become exhausted faster than someone with a low Strength and a high Constitution? After all, when you hustle for an extended period of time, what kind of check do you make?

Basically, you can't muck up one without mucking up the other. That's why the system is so basic.

 

[Iscariot]

Not to mention, your ruling would make a 1st level spell more insanely powerful than it needs to be.

A loss of strength already results in less damage and melee hot probability. Why add further to the penalties?

 

[Anubis]

A bunch of needless RL-compliant rules is what bogged AD&D (2nd Edition) down so badly that the entire system got scrapped.

If you want things more realitic, play Mage or Vampire. Hit points alone make the system incompatible with real life. One sword stroke will take Rickson Gracie (world-famous MMA fighter and one of the best fighters in the world, likely a Level 30+ martial artist of some sort) down just as easily as it will take me down.

Most often a weapon will kill just about anything inside of three hits regardless of who the attacker OR defender is.

So just fuggetaboutit . . . Not worth it. Nothing is lost from the game. D&D is about action-adventure, heroes, epics, dungeons, and dragons. More "Die Hard" than "Discovery Channel", ya' know?