|
5 years ago ::
May 23, 2008 - 11:56AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2006
|
Carrying capacity would be a strength based check. You have to check what you can carry with X strength. As a DM, I refuse to allow something to weaken a character without affecting ALL things that would be affected by a weakened state. To do otherwise is just silly.
So, you enjoy taking away armor, the power attack line of abilities (I. Bull Rush, Cleave, Greatcleave, Whirlwind, et all), and some weapon choices?
That''s no longer a penalty that enhances combat by increasing tension, that's punishing players twice for failing a save. First, you take away their bonuses (possibly add a penalty), then you take away some of their abilities.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 23, 2008 - 12:03PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
And how does this kill you. Why wouldn't I just end up -10,462 on my fort saves if I kept drinking it?
If you want it leathal you write it up as potentially lethal.
Ex:"effect - +X vs. Fort. Hit - subject is weakened(negative penalty) until save. If the save fails, subject unconscious. Each [insert time period] after, roll save: when these saves = 1/2 con mod, subject dies. Miss - subject is -X to con modifier. Save negates"
Which one of those effects will kill as a poison, without requiring someone to come along with a sword afterwards?
Those? none.. but neither do all poisons. If you want a lethal poison, see above or use something similar.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 23, 2008 - 12:04PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Jan 16, 2003
|
Con Damage was pretty obnoxious. It was pretty much just a flimsy excuse to circumvent the HP system and was pretty much never fun to use because either you were killing the PC's constantly with it, or annoying them constantly be making them waste resources on restore all the bloody time.
Sig to be rebuilt soonThe Descendants-- the webserial that reads like a comic book! World of Ere-- A campaign setting that puts style to the fore.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 23, 2008 - 12:04PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
So, you enjoy taking away armor, the power attack line of abilities (I. Bull Rush, Cleave, Greatcleave, Whirlwind, et all), and some weapon choices?
I enjoy playing in, and running a non-Disney game. Considering the very small amount of time you'd typically be damaged, it wasn't bad. Most groups had a cleric and given 2 points back a day AND the low level restoration spells, you were rarely affected for longer than a day or two. That's acceptable.
That''s no longer a penalty that enhances combat by increasing tension, that's punishing players twice for failing a save. First, you take away their bonuses (possibly add a penalty), then you take away some of their abilities.
My God. A minor consequence in D&D! Kill it!
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 23, 2008 - 12:06PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
If you want it leathal you write it up as potentially lethal.
Ex:"effect - +X vs. Fort. Hit - subject is weakened(negative penalty) until save. If the save fails, subject unconscious. Each [insert time period] after, roll save: when these saves = 1/2 con mod, subject dies. Miss - subject is -X to con modifier. Save negates"
I shouldn't have to house rule in a poison that can actually...........kill.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 23, 2008 - 12:07PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2007
|
None of these are "rare" occurances - there is real, measureable effects to ability damage/drain that go beyond a simple penalty and are firmly in the realm of "save or suck".
It's why it was removed.
You know, I can live with the occasional "save or suck" situation. I think it can add a lot to dramatic tension. Something that affects a character's role in the game can be an interesting threat. But the implementation of that sort of mechanic shouldn't be so byzantine.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 23, 2008 - 12:07PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Con Damage was pretty obnoxious. It was pretty much just a flimsy excuse to circumvent the HP system and was pretty much never fun to use because either you were killing the PC's constantly with it, or annoying them constantly be making them waste resources on restore all the bloody time.
You obviously played with a bad DM. No one should be being poisoned/hit with CON damage "constantly."
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 23, 2008 - 12:08PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2006
|
I shouldn't have to house rule in a poison that can actually...........kill.
Yeah, it's too bad poisons can't do HP damage in 4th ED. Oh wait....
But I forget, HP are a red herring designed to distract noobs from the proper ways of killing things in D&D.
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 23, 2008 - 12:08PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2006
|
Considering they're all common sense, it's not too hard for a new player. Not to mention, if you're throwing a new player into a mid to high level campaign, you're doing something wrong already. Low level compains have very, very, very little stat damage/drain.
All of the buff abilities (Cat's Grace, etc.) can be cast by a 3rd level Wizard and function off of the same mechanic. It's not very intuitive that Climb is based on Strength instead of Dex and that Intimidate is based on CHA, especially for a new player.
It's much more streamlined if you say you are -2 on Attack and Damage rolls rather than -4 STR even though you are giving up some of the "realism"
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 23, 2008 - 12:09PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2006
|
Actually, take a hint from the Bodak/sleep.
+x vs fort; target is weakened (save ends); if target fails save, reduce target to -1 HP and target begins to die.
|
|
|
