The ethics of ... death

[Guest 85555]

Actually, I mentioned this several times, but was told that just because the game designers decided that SoD was perhaps a bad mechanic for this, doesn't mean anything. Go figure.

Again, if you look at the poison entries in the 2E dmg and the snake entry in the monster manual it isn't all automatic death on a failed save in every case. Many do hp damage of varying degrees, some just incapacitate you.

the 3E solution was an interesting one. I found the two step process a bit involved for something like being poisoned, but i think they were trying to simulate how poison tends to work. Going after hit points was an interesting solution because it gets around the problem of hit point levels not being stable over time, and means domething that does 3d6/3d6 con is always potentially lethal even if you are high level. That can certainly work. I still prefer having poisons on the list that will kill you on a failed save though. But the ability score damage is a useful alterlative for hp damage (which many poisons in 2E did instead). Still that does mean you have to account for lowed ability scores which can sometimes be a pain.

 

[Guest 85555]

So it wouldn't be appropriate for a glancing blow to nick or cut the fighter in some way? Doesn't have to be a gash that leaves his entrails on the ground but are we seriously contending that relatively small cuts or nicks would be out of the question? If so I agree with bild91, that this doesn't show anything except that you are purposefully choosing a narrative to support your particular argument over another that is just as applicable, allows for a wider range of narrative and is consistent with the SoD mechanic.

i think the hp debate is a whole other discussion, one we have had many times and one where people imply disagree. But I feel that there is usually a certain amount of physical damage mixed in with hp damage. I dont think it is a matter of taking absolutley no physical am until you reach zero hp. It is an abstraction though so it isnt going to be 100 percent logical when you look at individual cases under a lens. For me it makes sense the way poison wirks within that.

 

[Ahnehnois]

EDIT: I am also noticing that no one here on the side claiming SoD is inconsistent has addressed the massive damage rules... They allow for when a sufficient amount of damage is taken a character of any level with any amount of hit points to die. In fact the 100ft fall @Umbran brought up does have a chance of instantly killing any character, regardless of hit points (how does this happen if as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] seems to be implying no damage is really physically meaningful?). This is also disregarding the alternate methods of Massive Damage Threshold that are included in the SRD for 3.x.

That's a good angle that hasn't been talked about yet. Personally, I've never used that rule, and the save is easy by the core rules, but if you use the UA rules for scaling the DC, suddenly a whole lot of things become SoD.

 

[Imaro]

i think the hp debate is a whole other discussion, one we have had many times and one where people imply disagree. But I feel that there is usually a certain amount of physical damage mixed in with hp damage. I dont think it is a matter of taking absolutley no physical am until you reach zero hp. It is an abstraction though so it isnt going to be 100 percent logical when you look at individual cases under a lens. For me it makes sense the way poison wirks within that.

This pretty much lines up with my view as well... In my games a miss on the attack roll is a miss and a hit does at least some physical damage (whether it's a deep cut or a minor bruising). the funny thing is that in 4e and (as well as some attacks in earlier editions and 13th Age... to a much lesser extent) you can actually do damage on a miss, that IMO is when the whole hit points as pure plot protection, divine favor, luck, morale, your ability to dodge, etc. comes in. Otherwise I believe at least part of any damage taken on an actual hit is physical.

 

[billd91]

Yes - that is my point.

The idea that I can dodge giants' clubs til kingdom come but can't dodge a 1 HD snake (ie if it hits then I have been poisoned and must make a save) is silly.

You're assuming that the saving throw means you are poisoned. A success could mean that so little got in you that it had no effect. I would consider that to be not really poisoned (in other words, not always hit as in your terminology).

There's really no inconsistency. Take a look at modern martial artists or boxers. They're pretty good at minimizing the effect an incoming attack has on them with blocks and other techniques. But if Floyd Mayweather sat on an inland taipan and got bit, I doubt he'd last much if any longer than Stephen Hawking would. His ability to withstand punishment in the ring certainly wouldn't be of much help. The venom simply bypasses that line of defense and directly attacks something else.

I prefer to assume that, absent a specific rule abstraction or change in the setting (like magic), things generally work according to real world expectations. There are some things that can occur in life that don't conform well to being tracked via hit points that have been tracked in other ways in D&D or other RPGs. And if that means I have to assume that characters in an RPG have neurons (or gametes, or blood cells, or ear wax, or fingerprints, or need to urinate), then I'm fine with that. In fact, I think having a good concept of the characters as real characters rather than playing pieces kind of depends on it.

 

[N'raac]

The identity of a werewolf includes shapeshifting. The identity of a magmin includes setting things on fire. The identity of a basilisk includes turning things to stone. Are you saying that the "identity" refers to a creature's name and tells you absolutely nothing else about it?

Your premise is that everyone has already hear the legends of these creatures before encountering them. If these creatures are rare and mysterious, that is not necessarily so. They are, according to the D&D RAW (discussed further below).

Remove the D&D aspects - let's go talk to a fellow who has never played D&D before. He probably knows what a werewolf is - that's deepl enough ingrained in our 21st century pop culture for him to know what a werewolf is.

A Basilisk? Very likely, Joe Average has never heard of one. Now, maybe he has read Harry Potter - the second book has a Basilisk, IIRC. Talk to a professor of Greek mythology and tell him how "everyone knows a basilisk turns people to stone". Just don't pick one you are taking a course on Greek Mythology on - if you want to pass. The gaze of the mythical basilisk causes death. It has nothing to do with petrification.

According to the Naturalis Historia of Pliny the Elder, the basilisk of Cyrene is a small snake, "being not more than twelve fingers in length,"[2] that is so venomous that it leaves a wide trail of deadly venom in its wake, and its gaze is likewise lethal; its weakness is in the odor of the weasel, which, according to Pliny, was thrown into the basilisk's hole, recognizable because all the surrounding shrubs and grass had been scorched by its presence.

That doesn't sound remotely familiar in a D&D context. It's not too close to Harry Potter's Basilisk either (which petrified, but that was more paralysis than stone statue petrification).

A magmin? That's a D&D specific monster which first appeared in an early D&D module, then got a Monster Book slot. There is absolutely no reason for someone with no knowledge of D&D to have any knowledge of a magmin. Now, he looks like a heat-damaging creatue, but those don't all ignite their targets, so why shoul this one be different - other than having read about it in the MM.

So I come back to that Monster Manual sitting in every peasant cottage so they can look up all these bizarre creatures.

Now, the conceit of the Knowledge skill is that higher hit dice = more rare and mysterious. That's a balance aspect, IMO, such that the ever-growing skill bonuses of the PC's are matched by ever-growing identification DC's. A village living near a swamp where a coven of Hags dwell might well know a lot about Hags, despite lacking the appropriate knowledge skill. But that's where the role playing aspect overrides the game aspect. As well, might they not also be under some misconceptions? Old wives' tales that provide you with false information should be as, or more, common as true knowlege and understanding. How many peasants face a Basilisk and live to bring back stories?

According to the rules, the highest DC is 30 for really tough questions. That means if I'm a player and I roll a 30 on a Knowledge check with the right skill for a monster, I expect to learn every piece of information that could be meaningful to me, even regarding the most unusual monster that I have no reason to know about.

The rules tell me that "Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions)." They also tell me that "In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information."

These are two separate points in the rule. One is about a single question, and the other about identifying monsters and their special abilities. Nowhere is it suggested that one overcomes the other. They are two different checks for two different things. By your reasoning, a 10 HD creature cannot have more than three bits of useful information, a 15 HD creature may have no more than two and a 20 HD creature is permitted only one. If it has 21 HD, it can't have any useful bits of info, since I need a 31 to get one piece of info, and that's more than the 30 you need to answer the most difficult of questions. So no, I do not believe the rules suggest, in any way, that a check of 30 means you know everything there is to know about the monster. If it has 21+ HD, it means you have not even the slightest idea what this creature is - you have failed to identify it.

Are you suggesting the converse? That in a world where "Medusa" is a race, not an individual (and is real, not a part of some mythology), that their identity is a mystery to anyone who can't make a DC 17 trained Knowledge check? And that someone who can only learns about the obvious petrification ability if the DM decides to let that be the "useful bit" of Knowledge?

IIRC, that's a DC 16, but I'm not going to look it up again. I am not "suggesting" anything. I am reading the rules. They tell me that your ability to identify the Medusa is contingent on a Knowledge check of the appropriate DC. They tell me that DC is 10 + the monster's HD. And they tell me that "An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower). " By the RAW, there is no monster whose identity or abilities are common knowledge - the DC is always greater than 10. This suggests that, perhaps, some monsters should have their base DC lowered. But that's a modification to the rules. We were, I thought, discussing the actual rules. Although, based on your expectations, it seems you are not prepared to abide by the rules as written.

Do you know which African nations the Bantu tribe resides in? How about which US states and Canadian provinces hosted the Sioux and the Mohawk nations? Can you show me which portions of South and Central America were home to the Incas and which to the Aztecs? From memory - no internet searches. Then why would you expect every peasant to know where a few solitary medusae reside? They're clearly not commonplace - if they were, their abilities should be common knowledge, and we should have a lot more petrified villages. How long could a large D& settlement withstand attack by even 20 or 50 Medusae, much less the numbers needed for them to be common knowledge?

Are you suggesting that a trained adventurer, having slain a hundred monsters or so to reach level 7 and traveled the world and had great adventures, could see a Medusa in the distance, clearly identify its scaly skin and snaky hair, rolls a 16 on the appropriate Knowledge check, and turns to his compatriots and says "Hey, what's that thing?" The implications of what you're suggesting are that everyone in a D&D world is astonishingly stupid.

First, if he lacks the appropriate knowledge skill, then he has no knowledge of Medusae. Second, if he has the skill and fails the roll, he has no knowledge of Medusae. That is precisely what the rules say. Given the need for that knowledge skill, it is clear that, by the books, knowledge of medusae is rare, not commonplace. Now, if they characters have encountered a Medusa in the past, that would imply at least the opportunity to have gleaned some info. But if the PC's lack the right skill, or blow the rolls, then any use of their PLAYER knowledge of a Medusa is OOC knowlege being leveraged for in game advantage. It's no more legitimate than making gunpowder or nitroglycerin because a player has the chemistry knowledge and skills to do so.

Offsetting that, if the PLAYER has no clue what a certain beast is or does, but his character has the appropriate skill and makes a good check, he will know the abilities of the creature. He will know, for example, what a Magmin is and does, and he will know what a &D Basilisk is, as opposed to the Basilisk he saw in a Harry Potter movie or studied in a mythology course.

In that case, the players aren't getting screwed by the SoD!

We again come back to play style. Gygax style pawn play relied on player knowledge - if the players knew the MM, their characters had that knowledge. If not, then there was no way their players had it. Those players in the Dungeons of the Slave Lords in 1981 had no way of gathering info on the Magmin - there was no skill roll for their knowledgeable and well studied wizard to know what this unpublished beast could do. If the objective is for the PC's to succeed or fail on their own merits - on their skills and abilities, and not those of the players - then the rolls have spoken and they know nothing of this strange, scaly creature.

How about this - you can use any knowledge you have personally, but if you want to Tumble past the guards, I want to see you drop to a shoulder roll, tumple through three somersaults, then nimbly leap back to your feet. Don't tell me about your character's +17 roll - we're working with PLAYER skills, just like for Knowledge rolls.

They don't need one. The monsters in the MM exist when the players are not fighting them. They communicate (in some cases anyway). People interact with them, fight them. Then those people communicate. I should think that if, say, basilisks live in a particular area, a DC 10 to 15 Knowledge (Local) or Gather Info should tell you "hey, watch out for those lizards with the petrifying gaze!". Seeing a field of statues should allow a DC 15 or so Knowledge (Arcana) check to know that a monster with a petrifying ability is probably nearby. The monster identification rules are a backup in case that kind of stuff does not work.

And, again, this is not what the rules say. It is your broad expansion of the rules. Seeing a field of statues would tend to mean that, at one time, this area was inhabited and the inhabitants built statues. Players will, however, gravitate to the "petrification" theory. But what prevents these being some obscure relative of the Gargoyle, or small Stone Golems?

I wouldn't call falling off 100 foot cliffs and walking away genre consistency. How many times does it happen to Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Shadowspawn, or Cudgel? That's a quirky artifact of the way hit point ablation has been designed to keep more advanced PCs in the game and a solution is out there - the massive damage rule.

I think there's enough fantasy where the hero falls over a cliff, plummets into a river, or otherwise is left for dead because "My Lord, no one could have survived that - your enemy is dead". Yet, by some combination of luck, skill and toughness, the hero DID survive!

But who said it has to be run of the mill rattlesnakes? They're comparatively non-deadly aside from necrosis. Would a king cobra die if it was the one who bit Conan? Or an inland taipan? Or would being envenomed by one be an ordeal he had to grit through, perhaps with the help of spirits summoned by Akiro? I think the idea of a snake being the one who dies is a bit of a caricature even for fantasy - unless that fantasy involves either Chuck Norris or Vin Diesel.

I think there are quite a few stories where Conan battles a snake, but I doubt there is a single one where he perishes from a snakebite. I suspect, in most, he narrowly avoids the serpent's fangs on one or more occasions (the classic "just avoided the monster's strike" which ablative hit points are so often said to suggest).

So it wouldn't be appropriate for a glancing blow to nick or cut the fighter in some way? Doesn't have to be a gash that leaves his entrails on the ground but are we seriously contending that relatively small cuts or nicks would be out of the question? If so I agree with bild91, that this doesn't show anything except that you are purposefully choosing a narrative to support your particular argument over another that is just as applicable, allows for a wider range of narrative and is consistent with the SoD mechanic.

This is the logic expounded in 1e, I believe - did that tiny nick still get some venom injected? It made a bit more sense in 1e when the likelihood of that venom being injected declined as the hero became higher level and gained more hp. But then, why is the save the same whether our 100 hp fighter is hale, hearty and in fine form as it is when he is exhausted and has been brutally beaten (ie is down to his last 3 hp)?

 

[Guest 85555]

I think there's enough fantasy where the hero falls over a cliff, plummets into a river, or otherwise is left for dead because "My Lord, no one could have survived that - your enemy is dead". Yet, by some combination of luck, skill and toughness, the hero DID survive!

there is also plenty of fantasy where such falls would presumably kill the hero. In D&D a fall from a high cliff is still potentially lethal, particularly if you are using the massive damage rules. It depends on class and level of course, but even at higher levels there is no certainty you will walk away from a complete fall if the descent is large enough. I think in 3E it maxes out at like 20 d6.

think there are quite a few stories where Conan battles a snake, but I doubt there is a single one where he perishes from a snakebite. I suspect, in most, he narrowly avoids the serpent's fangs on one or more occasions (the classic "just avoided the monster's strike" which ablative hit points are so often said to suggest).

plenty of conan stories have him taking heavy blows from foes, and getting up, but clearly show that so much as a nick from a giant snake will kill him (i recall one where the venom dripped on his skin and burned). I do not think conan stories translate very well into hp though, and like I said before, much of this depends on how you view HP (and while you and pemertons HP analysis is entirely valid as an opinion, it is not shared by everyone....i would say most people assume a certain amount of physcial damage from any given succesful attack). These things do break down under scrutiny, but that is the nature of abstractions.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Your premise is that everyone has already hear the legends of these creatures before encountering them. If these creatures are rare and mysterious, that is not necessarily so. They are, according to the D&D RAW (discussed further below).

They can be, but are not necessarily. If we were talking about an area where a Medusa has never been and where no one has traveled much, and one shows up, the DC to identify it should be pretty high. However, that is not generally going to be the case.

I do not see anything in the RAW that requires us to treat creatures that are real within the D&D world as being more obscure than their legends are in the real world.

Remove the D&D aspects - let's go talk to a fellow who has never played D&D before. He probably knows what a werewolf is - that's deepl enough ingrained in our 21st century pop culture for him to know what a werewolf is.

A Basilisk? Very likely, Joe Average has never heard of one. Now, maybe he has read Harry Potter - the second book has a Basilisk, IIRC. Talk to a professor of Greek mythology and tell him how "everyone knows a basilisk turns people to stone". Just don't pick one you are taking a course on Greek Mythology on - if you want to pass. The gaze of the mythical basilisk causes death. It has nothing to do with petrification.

Ask him what a giraffe is. Does he know that it has a long neck? Does he know that a jellyfish can sting you? Probably yes, even if he lives in the Midwest. People knew these things before the internet. A basilisk is very likely on the same level in a world that has them.

A magmin? That's a D&D specific monster which first appeared in an early D&D module, then got a Monster Book slot. There is absolutely no reason for someone with no knowledge of D&D to have any knowledge of a magmin.

There is, however, every reason that any D&D character who had ever lived near a or been to volcano or extraplanar portal leading to the inner planes would know what one is. Character knowledge is likely to be greater than player knowledge regarding D&D-isms.

Now, the conceit of the Knowledge skill is that higher hit dice = more rare and mysterious.

Quite a conceit!

For example, are we to believe that if an elder red dragon appears in the distance, a bunch of townsfolk will have no idea what it is, let alone that it breathes fire and is evil? That seems unlikely.

As well, might they not also be under some misconceptions? Old wives' tales that provide you with false information should be as, or more, common as true knowlege and understanding. How many peasants face a Basilisk and live to bring back stories?

Peasants are generally not the chief disseminators of knowledge. All it takes is one adventurer stopping at the local inn with his stories of monsters far and wide for many of them to become common knowledge.

These are two separate points in the rule. One is about a single question, and the other about identifying monsters and their special abilities. Nowhere is it suggested that one overcomes the other. They are two different checks for two different things.

And what is your explanation of what happens when a players asks the single question: "What is that thing?". Are we required to ignore the first rule? There is nothing that says that the question cannot relate to monsters or that the second use supersedes the first. I would say this is a simple case of using whichever rules is more favorable or makes more sense.

First, if he lacks the appropriate knowledge skill, then he has no knowledge of Medusae. Second, if he has the skill and fails the roll, he has no knowledge of Medusae. That is precisely what the rules say.

The rules don't say that. They say that a DC 10 Knowledge check can be made untrained, and that one can answer a really easy question with such a check, and that trained characters can answer other questions at higher DCs. Depending on context, the existence of a monster living nearby with a powerful ability can easily be a DC 10 Knowledge (Local) or Gather Info check. The existence of a really powerful monster or common race of monsters not nearby could easily fall under another Knowledge, such as Geography or Planes. Legends could fall under History or bardic knowledge. The rules, as written, promise that if you make the DC 10 + CR check you will get identity and useful information, but there is absolutely nothing in the rules that says that a player cannot identify a pertinent threat without using the DC 10 + CR rule.

And, again, this is not what the rules say. It is your broad expansion of the rules. Seeing a field of statues would tend to mean that, at one time, this area was inhabited and the inhabitants built statues. Players will, however, gravitate to the "petrification" theory. But what prevents these being some obscure relative of the Gargoyle, or small Stone Golems?

Well, closer observation. If the statues look like they are terrified and running away or fighting, that kind of suggests that, in a world with petrification magic, they were. Again, it's very easy to rationalize this kind of thing as being a DC 10 or 15 untrained Int or Wis check (which, given a four-character party of non-imbeciles, is pretty easy for at least one to make), let alone Knowledge (Arcana).

The bottom line is that given a rational DM, most PCs will have some idea of what their opponents are and what the capabilities of said opponents are most of the time, because PCs are not stupid. Using a selective and narrow reading of the rules to suggest that DMs can deprive players the use of that knowledge is just spiteful.

 

[Balesir]

So it wouldn't be appropriate for a glancing blow to nick or cut the fighter in some way? Doesn't have to be a gash that leaves his entrails on the ground but are we seriously contending that relatively small cuts or nicks would be out of the question? If so I agree with bild91, that this doesn't show anything except that you are purposefully choosing a narrative to support your particular argument over another that is just as applicable, allows for a wider range of narrative and is consistent with the SoD mechanic.

Sure there might be bruises or a "nick or cut" - but those generally aren't going to result in a full injection of poison, which requires the fangs to sink in and remain in for a short while.

EDIT: I am also noticing that no one here on the side claiming SoD is inconsistent has addressed the massive damage rules... They allow for when a sufficient amount of damage is taken a character of any level with any amount of hit points to die. In fact the 100ft fall @Umbran brought up does have a chance of instantly killing any character, regardless of hit points (how does this happen if as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] seems to be implying no damage is really physically meaningful?). This is also disregarding the alternate methods of Massive Damage Threshold that are included in the SRD for 3.x.

OK, look - this seems to be turning into you three (again) assuming that there is some sort of attack on 3.x going on, so you have to man the barricades once more. That's not where I started, and I'm not going to continue a protracted back-and-forth while you try to - what? Get me to break down and admit that 3.x was the uber-edition that perfectly simulates the ultimate fantasy reality or something? It's not going to happen.

You like 3.x D&D - I get that. You like mixing up hit points and SoD in the same game - great. Good for you. I don't, and I find it an inconsistent milieu when it happens, but I'm not going to waste more time here defending my views from people who seem to need to prove some particular scheme "right". There is no "right", here - get over it.

 

[billd91]

This is the logic expounded in 1e, I believe - did that tiny nick still get some venom injected? It made a bit more sense in 1e when the likelihood of that venom being injected declined as the hero became higher level and gained more hp. But then, why is the save the same whether our 100 hp fighter is hale, hearty and in fine form as it is when he is exhausted and has been brutally beaten (ie is down to his last 3 hp)?

Because on one hand, a death spiral in D&D would suck a lot of the fun out of the game and on the other hand, the PC's impaired state is already abstracted into his lower hit points. He's no longer able to dodge forever. If he's down to his last 3 hit points, the venomous creature's bite may actually kill him outright (or put him into unconsciousness territory and dying - which is the same if he doesn't have any buddies to help him out).