Fair enough. But it still means that barbarians can’t die from raging, since their Con doesn’t drop to 0.
edit: unless they “fixed” their fix to their fix. Which is entirely possible…why have a simple rule that works when you can have a dozen special cases, instead, right?
Nothing about D&D 3X is “simple”, so your first choice is not an option. 
I’m not sure about the 3.5 rules (I moved on to Pathfinder) but I don’t think barbarians not having a sudden heart attack on rage end is really an issue, in fact I’d say it is in itself a patch.
I mean, I realize the whole “warrior gives his all, then drops dead when he’s sure the last threat to his village/group/land is gone” element is a thing in the sagas and heroic tales ; but it still often is kind of silly in practice.
I think y’all are misreading this on a fundamental level. The “minimum one hit point per die” refers to maximum hit points, not current hit points. Otherwise, a nineteenth-level character with 2 hit points left hit by Con damage would regain 17 hit points through the damage, which is a bit silly :).
If I have a con of 10 and 50 hit points and 10 hit dice, and I take 9 points of con damage, I would normally lose 50 hit points from my current and maximum hit points, dropping to 0 hit points. However, the “min 1 hp per hd” rule means I would only lose 40 hit points, dropping to a maximum of 10 hp and similarly lowering my current HP to 10.
But if I had been dropped by harm to 4 hit points, I’d still be dropped to 10 max HP with 40 points of damage; the drop to -30 hp would make me dead, dead, dead.
Right, that’s how it was in 3.0, but apparently not in 3.5…I checked the updated 3.5 SRD, and they did, in fact, get rid of the ‘dying when rage ends’ discussion from the barbarian class. Seems dumb, but there you go.
Um, no ? It just says Con damage itself can’t possibly drop you below 1HP/level. It doesn’t **up **you to 1HP/Level.
Can’t drop you below that much max hp. That’s the difference. Not current hp.
Check out this official faq
Emphasis added.
I sit corrected, albeit without underwear.
I stand by my assessment that the real hack in his hack is “land Harm on a dude”. I don’t think you really *need *any whizbang magic item after that to kill a guy :).
Thank you. I always did think that players who based their actions too much on game mechanics took the role playing right out of an rpg.
Why would they create all these complex rules if not for you to strategize on how to use them? If you want an RP heavy game, make the rules simple. OR if you’re so trusting of the GM, just let them make it up as they go and don’t worry about even having rules.
It seems to me that these games with complex rulesets are designed to be run as strategy games, and that pure RP-ers are just playing the wrong game.
Well, you’re wrong. There are better strategy games starting with chess, working through the various hex-map war games, and finally coming down to the great dufus of strategy games: Risk. If you want to play a strategy game, play one of them.
D&D and the other RPG’s are supposed to tell a story and/or simulate a world where magic and monsters are real. Rules lawyering and rules hacking does nothing but break immersion.
I think both approaches are fine.
You can play D&D as a strategy game with minimal roleplaying, or you can play it heavy on the roleplay and tossing the cumbersome table-based gameplay. Honestly, I’m with **BigT **there - games with complex and rules-lawyering-friendly rulesets (and even more so D&D 3.5/Pathfinder where a lot of the rules involve 5-foot grid maps and minis, positioning that matters and so on ; as well as a very involved character-building process) are meant, or at least lend themselves very easily to be more about the door-monster-treasure. Which is fine - that’s one kind of fun. It’s not everyone’s cuppa, but what is ?
Conversely, a game like Vampire or Star Wars 2nd Ed. with their absolute rubbish and fuzzy combat rules lend themselves more to character-based, improv theatre play.
Both characteristics tend to be reflected in their respective modules, too - Pathfinder modules have a **very **heavy monster-and-dungeons component (while still offering a smattering of social setpieces and options for DMs who want to push that aspect of the game further), while Vampire scenarios used to be more “here are the NPCs involved, here’s what each of them is trying to do and a general idea of how they’re planning on doing it, improvise from there”
(I would add that the two best roleplaying sessions I took part in my life involved games with no rules whatsoever)
Then why are you reading/posting in this thread? That’s what I don’t get. Just to come in and say “Hacks are bad, GMs should stop them!” Isn’t that basically just threadshitting in a more polite form?
No, it does require two standard actions. As stated in my original example, there was a surprise round and a winning initiative roll involved. Or in 3.0, the original version of Haste could give you a second standard action in a round.
I suppose you can play an RPG as it was Risk, to each his own, but if I am the DM it won’t fly.
Since I play with some of the same players since 1996 they know what to expect, and the new players are mostly people with no previous RPG experience so they are molded in our way :).
I’ll remember this thread if an RPG veteran from another group comes to play with us I’ll tell him that we are not a “Machaco-y-me-llevo-el-tesoro” (smash and grab the loot) kinda group.
Well, Harm got nerfed in later rulesets. It no longer reduces you to 1d4 HP, it does a substantial amount of damage. And really, that was the correct fix for this loophole - “I am a mighty monster with 2,000 HP!” “Harm.” “Well, shit.” And if you were running 3.0 and wanted to houserule so your players didn’t try to use this loophole, fixing Harm is the correct way to do it, preferably before your players gain access to the spell.
It wasn’t my intention to threadshit, I see how it can interpreted that way I’m sorry.
I came to say just that “Hacks (most of them at least) are bad, GMs should stop them.” and got sucked in the discussion about the right of the GM to stop them.
That said I’ll leave the thread and leave you to the discussion of interesting ways of hacking.
My reading of the 3.5SRD is different than most here. It says your hit point “score” can’t be reduced to less than 1 per hit die by Con damage - I think that’s your maximum hit points, not your current hit points. It’s essentially a re-statement of the rule listed with the Con ability score that says no matter how low your Con is, you still get at least one point per hit die.
And I think that makes sense. If you get a high level opponent down to single digit HP, you ought to be able to finish them off with a rapier of puncturing. But since 3.5 fixes the Harm problem, you’ll just have to find a more creative way to do that.
ETA : I see Left Hand and the official FAQ agree with me.
Fair enough. And I’m not disputing the Rule Zero Theorem. But people do make decisions based on the rules as written, so if you suddenly change those rules, you have to let them retroactively change those decisions. Or, alternately, let it work the first time, and then work with the player to find an alternative.
Personally, I prefer the Rule Zero Corollary : Anything the players can abuse, the NPCs can abuse better. Or : “That’s a great trick! Now everyone’s going to use that!”
That’s why I said above that you shouldn’t do such things and then raise a fuss when the DM overrules it, because he can pull the same tricks and you won’t appreciate it.
And as this thread proves, all you end up doing is turning your fun game into one long argument that pisses everyone off. So it really comes down to “The person who is trying this crap and then arguing it with the DM is the ASSHOLE who is wrecking the game.”