Recovery checks random? Should be regulated.

[jugnaut]

Why ar ewe subject to rolls in numbers we are never going to hit?

It's all part of the DM's plan to add to the feeling of alienation, oppression, and hopelessness of the Ravenloft setting

[Soren / Zarathustra217]

Haha, yeah.

Honestly, it may be better that we just hide the numbers, since people seems to be so confused by them.

The point is simply that it is an opposed roll with a modifier, which gives a good mean chance.

[HellsPanda]

its basically a d20+a modifier based on damage, vs a d20+fort/con cant remember what right now


the secret too a long healthy life, on this server, is and has always been,
never go anywhere alone

[Anarcoplayba]

Since I've understood the "never alone rule" I've been dying a lot less... But since I solo a lot, I still have my share of problems.

And regarding the bleeding checks, suposing you're on a dungeon suited for your PC, after level 10, they are more or less useless: I hadn't a chance of a save for months now: It's always two "or more" attacks that kill you instantly, so, don't worry about the saves: soon you won't need then.

[harlock]

I really don't care about the dc to recover... but i still believe that with a roll of 20 you should be able to recover no matter what... it's not nice to have -1 constitution mod and a recovery check dc 20 that you can never succeed. Had that experience today and rolled 20 two times... it's kinda unfair, or would be also nice recovery checks to be based on fortitude instead of cons.

[Soren / Zarathustra217]

Actually, the DC varies from 11-30, so even with a -1 constitution mod, it's possible to recover. Auto-recover on a natural 20 would be sensible though, I figure. But how about auto-die on a natural 1? 

[HellsPanda]

being the self tormenting bastard I am, I have too say YES!

[harlock]

Actually, the DC varies from 11-30, so even with a -1 constitution mod, it's possible to recover. Auto-recover on a natural 20 would be sensible though, I figure. But how about auto-die on a natural 1?  

Yes all the way
with a -1 modifier it's 9/20 to recover and 11/ 20 to die  
Also with auto success 20 you can rever from a dc that with a normal 20 you can't.

[Anarcoplayba]

Please kill yourselves.

Painfully.

And I tought that a check based on Fortitude would be nicer.

[Emomina]

keep it CON check, and auto success 20 and auto fail 1 sounds great to me.

[Ophie Kitty]

Please kill yourselves.

Painfully.

And I tought that a check based on Fortitude would be nicer.

With low 30's being the highest DC, some people just wouldn't die if it were fort checks.

[Soren / Zarathustra217]

The main reasoning that it isn't fortitude checks is actually that it'll benefit high levels way too much over low levels.

[Anarcoplayba]

The main reasoning that it isn't fortitude checks is actually that it'll benefit high levels way too much over low levels.

They benefit more the higher level, but they don't punish the lower levels (since Con adds to Fort). And, by the way, nobody will be a lower level forever.

Personally I can imagine the difference between the seasoned warrior who can push it's own limits and the young one who doesn't know what's happening.

Well, to sum up: I think fort saves would be nicer since it would benefit everyone (tough more the high levels).

(However, I've learnt the hard way to not rely on the saves...)

[Soren / Zarathustra217]

There's a major difference between con modifier and fortitude modifier at higher levels, so con would only matter marginally. The balance of the system would significantly turn toward benefiting the high level over the low instead of the high con over the low con.

If it's to make it easier for all, then it's better to revise the basic save in my opinion.

[Anarcoplayba]

There's a major difference between con modifier and fortitude modifier at higher levels, so con would only matter marginally. The balance of the system would significantly turn toward benefiting the high level over the low instead of the high con over the low con.

If it's to make it easier for all, then it's better to revise the basic save in my opinion.

Dunno. Depends on what do you want to happen.

IMO:

Today the checks are random, so you can't rely not even one bit in the fact that you will recover or not, since you can have a DC ranging up to 30, what is simply unreachable.

Consequences: I don' take risks. I don't venture in areas not even one bit harder than I think I can handle. Result: As a level 12, I usually wander trough areas, IMO, designed to level 10.

Make things more reliable and we will take more risks. Consequence: the imersion and the "horror" experience will be lessened.

My suggestion: If we decide to rebalance the checks, we would need a more wide array of areas to allow harder challenges while the lower levels still have their "safe" dungeons.

The death checks are indifferent to me, since I've learnt to play according to the rules. Change the rules and we change the game we play.