Talk:Relapses (3.5e Variant Rule)

Ratings

	DanielDraco is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
	It seems kind of skimpy. But it's not bad, necessarily. I guess I can see how it can make things a bit more exciting, in the same way that any other against-all-odds critfail does.

Skimpy

Kinda skimpy there unauthored one..... I know you're Ideasmith from Recent Changes, but where did your author box, and everything else, go? -- Eiji-kun 23:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I used the standard 'template', (from the link at the top of the 3.5e Variant Rules page), and failed to notice that it now lacks an author box. Thanks for catching that, author box added. --Ideasmith 23:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? I'll have to check it out, methinks its missing much more (there should be those breadcrumb thingers on the bottom, and whatnot). I'll do it when I can get to it.

On other news, the rule itself seems kind of skimpy (though that doesn't make it BAD, just... weak). All it seems to do is add a 1% chance that you'd crit-fail while long term healing. You could do plenty with this idea beyond that, and 1% really has no effect. I was thinking something like... if you make a save but only barely (by 5 or less) you might relapse. After X time you have to make the save again with a bonus, and if you fail you relapse and take appropriate penalties again, with modifiers on the bonus or DC based on activities... like, you just survived the plauge. Bonus if you've kept clean these last few days, penalty if you decided to stand in the cold and eat raw rats... etc. -- Eiji-kun 00:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If I wanted more relapses, I would expand "00", perhaps to 96-00 if attended/91-00 if unattended. I am not sure what the additional die rolls you seem to be suggesting would add.--Ideasmith 00:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I presume the purpose of the rule is to make things more 'real and gritty'. All well and fine enough. However, 1% is... nothing. It's not a difficulty vs nondifficulty thing so much as 1% chance on a circumstantial situation may as well be non-existent. The other issue is that relapses tend to be a bit more complicated than a 1% chance of failure, and if 'real and gritty' is the goal, including things which effect its relapsing would make sense. That means accounting for various circumstantial issues which increase or decrease chances of relapse, thus encouraging players to think ahead and go through the appropriate steps to prevent a relapse. In disease, that means keeping yourself clean usually. With broken bones and trauma, it's not aggravating the location of the trauma. And so forth. -- Eiji-kun 01:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I prefer 'resembles fantasy fiction' to 'real and gritty', and this rule is intended to increase the resemblance to fantasy fiction. Also, I don't care to track how clean characters are, or ask players to do so. --Ideasmith 02:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? ...huh. The concept of relapses seems more like a gritty thing, not a fantastic thing. Well then, I don't know if I can help cause your stated goal and what you have seem to contradict. I dunno. -- Eiji-kun 03:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

In my experience with fantasy fiction, wounded characters can be in danger after the first few minutes, even if attended. Perhaps you've been reading different fantasy fiction than I have.--Ideasmith 12:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)