Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4166972" data-attributes="member: 710">Why do you create situations that are pretty obvious to become inconsistent and illogical? You're injury example seems to assume that the description you give is &quot;fact&quot;, and suddenly the rules negate it. But you are using the wrong description in the first place! Why describe someone as nearly cleaved in half if there is a non-neglible chance of him- recovering- not dying.Even in 3E, this would have caused problems - Imagine someone making his stabilization roll. (He has a 10 % chance for making this each round!) Essentially, even without any outside help, this guy could recover from being nearly cleaved in half in a day. Even if he doesn't manage to get to that, he could live for several minutes or hours. That absolutely does not fit your description. I never described massive splatter effects in D&amp;D combat, unless the opponents where outright killed (dropped to -10 or less hit points). My best advice on &quot;fluff&quot; on damage is to use something that is ambigious. A lot of blood might be spilled in the process (but sometimes, just a loud &quot;thumb&quot; when the head hits the ground/nasty killing implement), but you'll never see body parts detached or guts hanging out (unless you're extremely metal <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ). So, if the blood is eventually cleared, only then you'll really see how bad the wounds are. At that point, you've made a heal check to stabilize (stabilizing/recovery, it can't have been that bad), or the victim is dead (terrible wound, internal bleeding).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 4166972, member: 710"] Why do you create situations that are pretty obvious to become inconsistent and illogical? You're injury example seems to assume that the description you give is "fact", and suddenly the rules negate it. But you are using the wrong description in the first place! Why describe someone as nearly cleaved in half if there is a non-neglible chance of him - recovering - not dying. Even in 3E, this would have caused problems - Imagine someone making his stabilization roll. (He has a 10 % chance for making this each round!) Essentially, even without any outside help, this guy could recover from being nearly cleaved in half in a day. Even if he doesn't manage to get to that, he could live for several minutes or hours. That absolutely does not fit your description. I never described massive splatter effects in D&D combat, unless the opponents where outright killed (dropped to -10 or less hit points). My best advice on "fluff" on damage is to use something that is ambigious. A lot of blood might be spilled in the process (but sometimes, just a loud "thumb" when the head hits the ground/nasty killing implement), but you'll never see body parts detached or guts hanging out (unless you're extremely metal ;) ). So, if the blood is eventually cleared, only then you'll really see how bad the wounds are. At that point, you've made a heal check to stabilize (stabilizing/recovery, it can't have been that bad), or the victim is dead (terrible wound, internal bleeding). [/QUOTE]

Verification