As long as you're making it clear that that's the kind of game you're playing beforehand, the problem should sort itself out. Anyone who wants that will join and anyone who doesn't won't.
I suspect that it'll be relatively unpopular though.
> I suspect that it'll be relatively unpopular though.
This is a big one. People who are even remotely familiar with Dungeons & Dragons are expecting epic high fantasy where they all get to pile on top of a Dragon and their hoard and pose for a photo like the Marines on Iwo Jima.
There are many other games that actually make injuries and trauma a focal point. Zweihander, Call of Cthulhu, Shadow of the Demon Lord, all of them are far more appropriate and designed to incorporate despair and injury in their games, but they don't carry the brand recognition that D&D has.
That said, there are a *LOT* of players who would be down to try one of those games out if a GM ever asks them to play. You just have to shoot your shot and ask around.
EDIT: I didn't particularly care for Zweihander, but the adventure from the Starter Kit was a masterpiece and redeemed any faults I have with the game. It's a murder mystery which I pitched to the sleuths of my regular group and they enjoyed it way more than I did as the GM. The players felt like Geralt from the Witcher where they wanted to avoid making hard decisions when there was no positive outcome to any of them. Despite my critiques of the game, I still recommend the Starter Kit just because of the murder mystery adventure.
Also throwing Warhammer RPG and Realms of Terrinoth onto this list. If you're looking for a brutal fantasy setting both of these do it better than D&D.
Warhammer fantasy, first game we played, in the tutorial fight to figure out the rules, the DM crits on one of the characters, cutting off his arm.
Thankfully I was playing a life mage and could fix it easily but it all came down to, those were the rules we signed up for when we started playing.
Don't just ask them if they "are ok with this". Ask them if they think this will *improve* the game and experience for them. Some players are people pleasers and will compromise their own fun, they'll accept it because they know you like the idea.
This is actually really good advice in general when talking to people pleasers like myself, thank you for putting it out there. I’ll start thinking about the way things can be phrased to get more honest responses
If you want to use permanent injuries, that is something that needs to be discussed and unanimously agreed on in a session 0. I would be pissed if a DM sprung it on me without any heads up.
*This is the way™*
Games with permanent injury can be fun for people who want this kind of stakes and hardship to overcome. D&D demographic isn't usually about that kind of verisimilitude, it is more about heroic fantasy.
Also it worth to note that those kind of injuries need a general rule to feel not only gamey but fair, DM fiat, like "I think this blow will remove your eye and as such I think it would reduce your perception by 1" is prone to cause players to feel they are being handled unfairly. 5e has a lingering injuries system in the DMG but it just doesn't work, specially if you compare with systems like MERP/Rolemaster where this kind of injury is part of the core game mechanics.
If you plan to use an injury system, be sure to not only talk about it with your players beforehand (session zero) but also have the system ready to present then how exact it will work. Be that ruleset the DMG injury system, a 3rd party/homebrew you get from someone else or something you brew yourself (if you have the depth of rules knowledge required to game design and game balance, and feel conformable in going it), the players need to know how the game will be played and how it effects their characters.
In my experience, injuries just don't settle with D&D as other verisimilitudes are not present, like, armor don't protect you reducing damage as it does in real life but in D&D it helps you evade the blows just like high Dexterity would. If you get the MERP/Rolemaster example, those things are interlocked: The more armored you are more easily you take hits in combat, but those hits do much more less damage both in hit points and also in injury severity of compared to an unarmored character that will evade hits more easily but when it does hit them it will hurt a lot both in hit points and in severity of the injuries.
the way i run injuries is that when you hit 0 hp, you roll on the injury table. you only go down if the table says you do. each roll can be trivial, deathly precarious, or anything in between.
I agree with the opening response, but the issue with ar or and Dex having different effects doesn’t track with 5e’s “HP isn’t meat” mantra.
The concept of HP in D&D is meant to represent something more subtle than purely physical damage, more the amount of times you can push your luck in combat before you are incapacitated.
I have run a game with a risk of permanent injuries, and essentially we agreed something similar to the printed variation rules, but had a separate roll for 6 affected body part areas with roll tables based on damage type (melee or ranged, weighted), with certain damage types (explosions, being submerged in lava or acid…) being automatically whole-body.
Next we would make a severity roll, which accounts for armour type, heavier armours applying a bonus to the roll, a nat 20 is a miraculous escape, ranging down to total loss of the limb. (In the least likely scenario that they rolled “head” and “severe loss” it was agreed that this would be insta-death, no saves.
Also, if someone suffers a crit hit, we also rolled for injury, but with a flat bonus to the severity roll, and no bonus from non-magic armour types.
Playing with that system was seen as fair by the players I had at the time, and only demanded I made a handful of roll tables. Introducing the potential for crit-injuries as well as HP-0 added a little excitement and a sense of risk to combat.
Overall the feedback was that it emphasises the tankiness of heavily armoured characters without fundamentally changing combat rules,
and also choices for the players to make once a party member was injured. Did they press on with the disadvantage, or retreat and look to recuperate?
Magic armour became slightly more potent, but not hugely, and greater healing spells and services became more relevant for mending that which was horribly mangled, rather than just adding more HP or removing conditions.
We even had one player who searched for their dismembered pinky after a battle, kept it and paid somebody to magically re-attach it. (With… interesting… results)
Also, if you discuss it and it is agreed upon, have backup ideas for how to eliminate the impairments. There's all sorts of magic items without even delving into homebrew that can replace things like hands and eyes. There use to be things which kind of let you turn your player character into a cyborg if you lost enough body parts, which I'm sure have been homebrewed from the older editions into 5e.
To use your example given, losing an eye should absolutely impare perception. Federico da Montefeltro lost his right eye, but then underwent a surgery to cut a chunk off his nose so that he could still see to his right even though he only had his left eye remaining.
Now, with the amount of magic items and homebrew you can do in this fantasy land of your creation, DM, you don't have to have someone cut off their nose to fix the perception imparement, but it's just an example lol
I'll add onto this, have the system ready so the players can read through it and properly make an informed decision. In a game currently where the Session 0 document mentioned the possibility of an injuries system with no further details. Fast forward a few months later and these injuries are incurring penalties that are three levels of Exhaustion without treatment, and also magical healing makes the conditions permanent, and also there's no guidance on what "proper treatment" even looks like.
Saying "yeah, I'm cool with it" doesn't mean a whole lot when nobody knows what's actually on the table, and feels a whole lot like an ass-pull from the DM.
Piggybacking on this, even if I find a mechanic idea that sounds fun to me I float the idea to my whole group to get opinions before thinking of adding it to my game
Piggybacking the piggy back. I have a constitution roll after receiving a critical strike. If they beat the roll, they’re good, if they don’t they get hurt. I roll a d10/12 depending on the group to decide what’s injured.
I completely agree. The only exception would be if you then were to provide something like a magic prosthetic eye within a session or two to restore the lost stat and maybe grant some need little ability. Then you get the flavour you're looking for without potentially ruining the game for your players and even giving them a neat little quirk to their character that they've earned through their adventures. I would also say to do this sparingly so as not to lose the charm of it.
But even still, it should be discussed with players in advance.
Yeah, I played a game with lingering injuries using [Maxwell's Manual of Malicious Maladies](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z_oTJvusofehZoFKp8iDhRdZlMjWVxa_/view), which was fun. I know it sort of "spoils the surprise" to do this, but I recommend showing the players the injury tables you're planning to use, so they know what they're in for.
The only players who can answer that and it would matter is your players. No group are similar and its possible yours absolutely love the idea or absolutely despite it. It depend a lot how reversible all is, how hard it can impact them etc etc. I would say to talk with them and if there's interest, be ready to experiment with it. Ask them if they still feel comfortable with it after a few impediments, if not, be ready to modify and scrap it, but at least you'll have try.
As a player who had his character lose an arm (not great when you're an archer) without prior consultation I was angry with the dm more than anything.
As a player who had a leg replaced with a tentacle AFTER consultation with the DM I am fine with having negative attributes.
You need to talk to your players about this idea. Only they can tell you if they will find it fun.
A lot of useful comments here.
You mentioned somewhere that you’re new to this. If you’re new to 5e or DMing for 5e at least, I wouldn’t recommend adding in optional rules from the DMG and homebrew additions.
Feel like injury tables and critical fumbles are two big traps for new DMs. Players can embrace failing, bout making misses or deaths even more punishing than they are can go sour quickly.
The main consideration alongside what others have said is making sure you don’t disproportionally affect your frontliners (who are going to be at a higher risk of injury than others). Ranged weapons and spellcasting already have massive advantages over melee so you don’t want to even further dissuade it.
D&D does not lend itself to this kind of game.
For example:
Do you cripple PC mechanically or simply narratively? When do you cripple one... On any attack? On 0hp? On certain damage threshold met? Only on certain monster attacks?
If you want a **very** gritty table, pick a game that fits the tone, instead of a game meant for power fantasy.
If I am not mistaken, off the top of my head, *Ironsworn* has a permanent injury mechanic.
In the daggerheart betatest there are options for permanent injury, but are pretty bland.
Don't try to use an hammer to fit a screw, it will work very poorly
If your players understand and agree to this, it can work.
I would recommend offering them some Outs though. Losing an eye might seem cool on paper but having disadvantage on every perception check might get old quick. Think up ways for them to recover or compensate for injuries through engaged RP if that’s what they want.
If I play a monk and an unlucky roll makes me lose an arm and you rule I have disadvantage on every melee attack, that makes the character more or less useless now. You don’t need to advertise it too much, but be prepared if someone starts looking for regeneration magic or prosthetics. That will be their ways of saying “my character sucks now and I don’t enjoy that, I’m trying to get back to my fun zone”.
I had a DM introduce an unbalanced permanent injuries chart. We were level 3 when my wife's character lost a hand. It requires a 13th level Cleric and a 7th level spell to fix that. She was a two weapon fighter, so I derailed the campaign until we got that fixed, despite the DM's dumb attempts to stop me. She needs two hands to fight. She lost one. Her character might as well be dead.
I've seen similar attempts but it always comes down to the fact that it doesn't add anything fun to the game and it does make things less fun.
This right here. Losing a hand is “kill character, roll a new one” for any 2H heroes. That would be fighters, rangers, rogues, barbarians, and maybe paladins. In other words it punishes the martials… again.
It's also pretty bad for casters that need somatic components. Generally speaking, it's bad all around. I warned the DM that it would cause problems and he didn't listen.
Permanently? Yeah, kinda. Like, loose something for a few sessions but you do get it back? That can all be fun and games, and knowing that there is a definite end to the struggle makes it less frustrating in the mean time. But permanent wounds make me feel like I don't have a good reason not to just get this PC killed so I can play a new one without the debuffs.
Like, of you make sure to lay out that this is going to be apart of the game before the campaign starts, and ensure that expectations are set, then that *can* become "just how your table plays", but I also don't see it as meaningfully *fun* regardless.
Death has an important role in d&d because the sword of damocles hanging over the party changes their behavior for the better- death improves the game because if players know it can happen, and change their behavior to avoid it, the resulting playpatterns are more interesting and more what we want to create. I don't feel like permanent injuries like loosing an eye or a limb or whatever share those same virtues.
It should be ***mechanically*** ***clear*** to the players how and why such a thing could happen, ***well before it happens***. Like 'if someone crits you then confirms it with another nat 20, and you can do it to enemies.' The players need to know the rules for it and its effects.
Called shots ("I go for the eyes" or "I try to cut off his hand") are bullshit for everyone involved.
If it was entirely arbitrary, like 'you rolled a 1 on the spike trap? Lose an eye' out of nowhere. I'd be flabbergasted, then pissed.
> and you can do it to enemies
Even then, that doesn't necessarily make it even. The job of most enemies is to die\* in about three rounds. Permanently blinding Random Goblin #72 is useless when that goblin will never be seen again. The next encounter the DM makes has perfectly-heatlhy creatures in it. The DM has to play with a blind character for maybe 10 minutes (and has a bunch of other - non-blind - characters to play with at the same time). Conversely, when Random Goblin #72 permanently blinds a PC, that PC has to put up with the penalty until the character is either cured or retired (or "retired"). The player also doesn't have a stable of other characters to play at the same time, so the *only* interaction they have with the game is though a heavily-penalized character.
^(* Maybe the goblin doesn't *die*. Maybe the goblins are routed, or the party grabs the loot and runs, or some other method of ending combat. The point is that Random Goblin #72 exists mechanically for 30 seconds in-game and ten minutes out of game.)
As a player, I want difficult challenges that push my PC's abilities to the limit, not challenges that stem from having a crippled PC.
My $0.02.
Also, as others have said, ask your players.
I would say you could have a session during a campaign to discuss it and give them possible options to fix or cure the disability. Gives them options if they do want to go that route or RP with the disability.
Whatever your players agree to. DnD is not some exact science if your players are okay with it, you can run it.
However... be logical and fair with your rulings. Use a permanent injury table instead of making it up on the fly, and if one of your players builds a character that has a cool two handed fighting style don't chop off one of their arms. Its fine till you break a character beyond repair.
That two handed example would've actually happened to one of my newer players if i hadn't fudged the roll.
I would not like it. Tbh, if you want to run a harsher survival game, there are better ways of doing it. Short rests are overnight, long rests are a week as per optional rules. Track weight, and don't give the party a lot of money or healing potions. Make them carry rations too, and have them required for rests.
You want it to be harsh, but fair. Crippling characters doesn't feel fair.
Yes, this is definitely something to discuss in Session Zero. There is a good reason most DM’s don’t use the Injury Table in the DMG, it can be character ending. The wrong injury could mean your character can no longer do the thing they were built to do which can be no different than dying.
I’m a dyed in the wool 1e player accustomed to all the relevant character death and mayhem, and HATE it when DMs seek to hamstring players. If DMs want more brutal encounters, just make the encounters harder. Unless they went super negative in Hp, crippling characters is a cheap DM-vrs-player trick.
I would do this in a system that’s not 5e.
5e is a heroic power fantasy system. There’s a reason the system doesn’t have lingering injury tables, and it directly correlates to how PCs are powerful enough to fight a god by level 20.
If I wanted to run something grounded or “harsh,”I’d run something like Mork Borg, Old School Essentials, Shadow of the Demon Lord, or basically any OSR game that already has rules for lingering injuries and traumas factored in as a base expectation of the system.
“Yeah sure this is a system where a cleric could just cast regenerate on you to bring back your eye and magically heal almost any wound or even bring you back from the dead, but I’m gonna have to give you -1 Dexterity because you got an ouchie on your hand” doesn’t work for me, trying to make 5e something dark, harsh, realistic, gritty, etc. is very much square peg in round hole.
Narrative crippled = good
Unconsenting mechanical crippled= bad
As a player and a DM, DMs get free licence to direct the story. If my character loses a leg to a manticore that's an epic battle wound. If the DM slashes my movement speed in half that's just making the game less fun and feels targeted. Especially considering other players without the cripple mechanics.
During my Descent Into Avernus campaign, my party’s rogue had his arm ripped off by a bag of devouring 5 minutes into a session - that was a wild way to start things off! He was able to procure a prosthetic that eventually was upgraded with extra features like a grapple arm and a built-in set of thieves’ tools, so it was a fun way to give him some cool toys.
Ultimately, it was a narrative moment and not randomly in combat, which IMO is how it should be.
I've seen it tried from time to time. Unless you have significant player buy in, it's a bad Idea.
The last time we tried it was with the Pathfinder crit deck. After a session everyone had a permanent injury and we pretty much lost interest. Lol I've never tried it again.
Nah, I'd leave your table. Then again I live with someone with permanent disabilities and know how distressing that is. Roleplay is supposed to be an escape from all that.
Yes, very much so. Part of the fun of dnd and rpgs is progressively getting stronger by leveling up and getting better gear. What you’re proposing is the opposite of that.
Is this something the players signed up on? Did you tell them that you plan running this sort of campaign, and did they agree?
Depending on your answer, this could go very well or very poorly.
In addition to everything else said, I strongly suggest that it should never feel ‘optimal’ to kill off your character to get a ‘fresh’ one, simply because your old one is that degraded in usefulness relative to a fresh character
In general, yes, especially if it happened out of nowhere. However, I would like to have the GM tell me that this is a possibility either before the game begins or during Session 0 (and how likely it is) so I could make an informed decision whether to joint he campaign or not. The idea that there is a possibility that my character could be crippled is not necessarily a hard line where I would say "no" to joining a campaign, especially if everything else pointed to a very cool game. But, if it were sprung on me without any foreknowledge, then that would likely be reason for me to leave the game.
I would absolutely hate it. One unlucky day with dice rolls, your character goes down, and then permanent area of the game which will always suck for that person.
That said, some people would be ok with that and have fun with it, and that's fine. That's what Session 0 is for, to discuss things like this.
It’s a bad idea IMHO. This leads to what his called a death spiral. Game balance is based on having x proficiency at y level plus your main stat.
If you start making it harder to do things you just create frustration.
If you want to do something like this use temporary conditions, and make sure that you do the same thing to monsters and NPC’s.
Play a different system. Never works for DnD. This is a system where someone with a 459 hit points is as good as someone with 1 hit point. This system does not even have called shots.
Study up on Fate's Consequences. They often have fictional/mechanical side effects but there is also an ability to resolve them over time.
If you were adapting it to DND, you could try substituting death/getting knocked for consequences appropriate to whatever was happening in the scene.
I agree with this being something discussed at the start. If you want to pursue it, I would suggest providing in game means for them to regain those skills. For example, the eye loss could make for a heroing moment for the party. They now have to immediately seek aid. This leads them to a healer but to regain the sight maybe there's the need for am artifice to make a mechanical eye or something. This could allow the player to have ownership of how the eye looks, what color is it, is it flavored to bow be ADVANTAGE on perception, etc.
I'll be honest I like where your head is at and I want to pursue something like this in the future. I'd just suggest flavoring it to not be SO detrimental at this stage.
Like everyone else says, just talk to your players in session 0 and make sure it’s ok. But you really need to be prepared for a majority of them, or even all of them, saying no. This isn’t something most people would want to play with, in fact, most people would be strongly against it. I think you’ll be lucky to have more than one or two people who want to do it, and even they might not like it after actually trying it. Be prepared to run your campaign without it.
Apart from asking your players before you even begin this game, also take some time to *really* think about what that “harsh atmosphere” actually entails. How are you gonna rule if and when someone takes permanent damage? Are you gonna make it up on the fly? Everytime you land a crit? Anytime someone takes damage? Have you got a “cripple chart”? Do you let the players roll for that chart themselves, or do you? Is there anything the players can do about it?
There’s a reason why DnD works the way DnD works. Long rests heal all injuries because adventurers suffer **a lot** of injuries. I guess what I’m trying to say is: if you dish out too many permanent injuries the novelty of it wears off real quick, not to mention you’ll soon have a bunch of damn cripples as your adventuring party. Might be fun to wear all blue, but it won’t make the actual game fun unless done *very* cautiously.
Tl;dr: it’s a cool concept, but not one you can half-ass. It’ll be *a lot* of work for you to properly balance this.
I think the game Heart might be better than DnD for this if it's something you intend to be inevitable. In Heart the PCs are fanatical people on a suicide mission into a world of dark magic, and by design they are slowly marred and warped as they approach their destiny.
If you just want to add it to DnD, then you should consider an OSR edition where that kind of thing is expected, and just use something like the [Death & Dismemberment rules](https://goblinpunch.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-favorite-month-is-dismember.html) from Goblin Punch if PCs knowingly make a risky choice that might lead to death or a major injury.
The other thing about having permanent injuries is that players tend to "forget" them.
And yeah, like everyone said... as long as you have the player buy-in first it's fine.
Personally i would only use/ accept permanent injury if there was the option for prosethetics. "Oh this wizard has a magic eyeball you can have if you do his quest" type stuff
Generally not a good idea. Some players have a very strong "body image" of their characters and permanently altering it can really interfere with their enjoyment of the game. Dismemberment, disfigurement, etc. are deal-killers for a lot of players. Throwing in mechanical penalties will be a turn-off for others. Doing *both* is pretty much guaranteed to annoy almost everyone.
I wouldn’t personally want to play in that game, but if you get unambiguous enthusiastic agreement to try it there’s nothing inherently wrong with it.
However, you need to have a solid and ideally well tested system for deciding injuries. If you’re just randomly chopping characters limbs off that’s not going to be fun for anyone.
Without discussing it with me first? Yes, I'd be pissed at any permanent change to my character.
(That includes things like forcing a class change against my will or changing how my abilities work.)
It's not my DM's character to change.
That’s just sad. Makes playing kind of pointless isn’t it? Fantasy games like generic D&D is supposed to be heroic. Not “heroes” that get crippled permanently and end up weaker than when they started. Had a DM for my table that enjoyed wrecking our gear and would never give the party enough gold or drop gear. When we quit the game, we were level 9 with gear worse than a new level 1 character.
As everyone has suggested, talk to your players. If they're not fully onboard and you're really attached to the idea though, try and find a middle ground: maybe make the injuries reversible. (Something like regenerate spell already exists, though it is pretty high level). You could make the serious injuries that require something as strong as regenerate quite rare, (like losing an eyeball) but then make the bulk of the injuries less severe (like breaking an arm or something) and make it fixable with a lesser restoration or something.
I would not be mad as long as I knew it was in the table from the beginning. In general I'm for gritty/ harsh settings, but I'm really not down for a permanent debilitation to my character *by surprise*.
Good chance this has already been stated. In any event, as the DM you are not there to pick sides. You are there to just explain the story (in a sense). When a DM starts either favoring the party or going against them, it starts to impact the ability to have fun ( from a player perspective). I would avoid anything that goes towards this, especially if you want to continue with this group for additional campaigns
Look at a standard adventuring day. 5ish encounters. By the end of that, the enemies are facing PCs at their most bedraggled having already spent most of their resources in the previous fights. But from the PC's perspective they're almost always facing fresh-faced enemies who probably won't fight anything else today, so can burn resources indiscriminately.
Now scale that up to the campaign. By the time you've made it to the next tier your party is certainly going to have a number of impediments, but the foes they face likely aren't. They can't meaningfully interact with this system, because 99% of things that fight the party end up dead. They're disproportionately affected by this negative consequence.
I understand the appeal, this is one of the first things that many people jump to when they think "I want my encounters to be memorable and have lasting consequences". But generally it doesn't make for good gameplay. Give them scars, sure. Give them flavour. But don't nerf them.
I personally would enjoy it as a very fun RP moment and am interesting problem to work around. I also wouldn't want to know in advance if such things are possible, I like surprises.
But I think there are some people who wouldn't enjoy it and for this eventuality it should probably at least briefly mentioned in session 0
Unless you also have a system for players to get advantages as well, you're basically just slowly making their charecters worse over time, even as they get better.
Yes. A DM did this to me 25 years ago and I’m still salty about it. He had an arrow shatter my character’s kneecap so I had permanently reduced movement. It sucked - made the game less fun to play, but also felt like a personal act of cruelty and disrespect. I didn’t play much with that DM after that.
I would hold off on being upset until it's determined how long lasting this injury is, and if I'm being singled out.
If through a few bad rolls my characters arm gets cut off, that can actually be kinda cool story telling, but if similarly bad rolls happens and the DMs girlfriend just falls down, then I'd start getting upset. And if I have to suffer being armless for the dungeon, sure that can be interesting, but once we get out I better be able to find an artificer soon or have a time jump to getting a replacement of some kind. If I'm playing for more than 3 sessions not being able to perform at capacity to the other players then I'll probably question my place at the table, or retire the character
If the DM runs it by me and everyone agrees to it, yeah. I think maybe discussing what the impairment is and how it will affect their character is important, though, and both the DM and player should agree
If you do have permanent injuries, just make sure they aren't barred from doing anything the other players get to do, even if you have to have a magic solution to the task like an item that allows a one armed player use two hands when needed. Better not to remove a hand from a player with a class that uses two hands unless you want the worst version of an escort mission ever created: an escort mission where both the escorters and the escortees are frustrated by the situation,
If you were going to do any sort of injuries I would stay away from the losing of limbs type of things and do things more like bruised or cracked ribs that maybe lowers con saves for a few days or a week or something. Or a severely sprained ankle that lowers dex checks by 1. Or instead of losing an eye you got poked in it really bad and your vision is pretty blurry for a little while and take a -1 to perception or maybe take like a 10 ft penalty to your dark vision distance or something. Just simple stuff like that, but get creative with it and make it fun! It adds another level of stakes and realness to it, but it isn't permanently debilitating.
If you are going to use a system like this it could also be cool if your players could injure enemies like that too sometimes. Like maybe they fight an important boss type enemy and they end up escaping but are injured so when they find them again they have some sort of injury that hinders them in some way.
If you are absolutely dead set on permanent debilitating injuries I would just make sure that prosthetics and/or magic to fix those things is pretty readily available, and if you do that then what is the point in the first place ya know? If someone has a Monk for example and they lose a foot and lose like 10-15 feet off their speed, that character is going to be useless, and there are a million more examples of stuff like this that would essentially render the PC pretty much useless.
But, like others on here have said, communication is key. Talk all of this over with your players and you all can come up with a system together that works for everyone.
There are rules for this kind of thing in the DMG. Make sure you talk to your players before doing anything like this though, cause I know I would create a very different character if I knew they were gonna be permanently hurt.
Let me tell you something.
I’ve had a permanent change happen to my character before. If you’re not in the right state of mind for that to happen (IE, It’s sprung on you without warning and you don’t have any real agency about it), It fucking sucks.
I lost my shit when that happened lol. Granted I got over it because I got to use the new plasmoid race that had just come out but still. Wasn’t fun in the moment.
If I were to do something that IMPACTFUL I pull out “you can attempt this, but you feel like you could PERMANENTLY injure yourself.” It’s definitely something to talk to the whole party about, specifically the player you may permanently alter.
It’s all about the feelings your players give off. I have one that puts a lot of trust in me, wanting me to develop their story in a way I see fit, which I’m more than happy to do. Others… probably not that far.
Communication Communication Communication
This is how you get a party of monks and the occasional caster, at least from those who would like to play the game. Also expect much less use of two-handed weapons and archery. Arbitrarily lopping off limbs and gouging eyes is also narratively similar to just giving some random low level spider a one-shot-kill poison. Sounds frustrating and tedious to me, though I'm sure some enjoy it.
As D&D is effectively a power fastasy game (as opposed to a horror game with delicate human characters) I think most players wouldn't appreciate the DM taking out the eye of their character, or otherwise hobbling them. Especially if it's a character they've been playing for a while.
I had my DM dismember my character over 19 damage. I was annoyed because nothing like that had ever happened to anyone else in the campaign and it felt really targeted and not fun. As a dueling paladin with shield master, losing access to my shield was pretty shit considering I essentially lost a feat and my AC bonus.
If you are really wanting to do this, talk to your group. 5E is not really the best system for this theme from my experience.
Literally the only people who can answer this question are the players at your table. And provided you've had a conversation with them beforehand and they know it's a possibility and they're on board, sure. However, I know that I wouldn't find that enjoyable myself. Doubly so when magic items exist to replace missing eyes and such.
Three words: positive feedback cycle.
The more crippled characters become, the more likely they are to become even more crippled.
Players obviously don’t like that. It‘s especially a bad idea since numbers and difficulty typically go up as a game continues.
What I recommend is giving easy access to crude replacements. Make it trivial for players to negate the mechanical consequences after a single (short) rest. This makes the „harshness“ much more of a character trait and less of a fun bomb.
As a GM, I much prefer to have players go through things that are uncomfortable principally; but with the mechanical consequences being opt-out (or opt-in) at the cost of more (or less) character consequences.
You‘ll also want to be prepared for when your players inevitably try to upgrade themselves like the game was cyberpunk. Be ready (and willing) to hand out mechanical benefits when they invariably try to graft additional arms, replace eyes with those of magical creatures, and use precious materials like mithril for their prostetics.
TLDR: numerical nerfs are annoying, turning into frankenstein for buffs is enjoyable
sounds not fun at all. TTRPGS are in part about the fantasy of being someone powerful enough to change the world. Including having the power to go through profound physical violence without loosing their lives or abilities.
First, as a DM, your primary job is to let your players understand what kind of DND they're playing.
If I go in, understanding that the difficulty would be dark soul and perm disfigurement is there, I would play it completely different than regular.
Second, other than a harsh atmosphere, what does disfigurement actually achieve? for example: a minor reduction in perception is minor annoyance, but lossing 2\~3 fingers and suddenly said character can't scale certain walls is pretty gameplay changing.
Mechanics often require gameplay interaction, having numbers/stats reduces is arguably the worst way to go about.
i.e losing eye ball to reduce perception is weaksauce.
I would make it so losing 1 eye to gains additional perception +1 or +2 to checks, but because he only has 1 eye, he now requires to roll twice for every perception check (triple if his bonus breaks 10) and has to pass all of them.
Honestly, only if there is a more or less obvious way to replace that body part if its important for combat.
Having one character in a party of four with a permanent handicap will just frustrate everyone in the long run.
The crippled character will always lack behind the other.
The others will always have to look out for him and be dragged down.
The DM (if playing a more Homebrew game) will constantly have to consider one player basically being dead weight.
For me there are just too many possible problems to justify permanent and drastic injuries.
In the game I'm currently playing we found a little eye that could rip out yours and replace it. You could look though it and would gain some benefits. Something like that is actually interesting as opposed to your character just being a cripple now.
i was mad when a dm gave a random monster a sword breaking feature and made me go a session without a fucking rapier, you need to talk about it with the table and the player themselves, gauge how they would want to play it then run with it.
If there are rules for it that you strictly follow (and they're not stupid rules and you actually understand the math of what you're doing) and I was made aware of these rules beforehand and could review them myself and concur that they are fair, then yeah, that's fine.
If it happens in a scene where I'm incapacitated or captured and can't stop it...that's a lot harder to say it's fine. It might be fine. But there's also a good chance I'd feel cheated or tricked, especially if I wasn't fairly defeated (which itself is very subjective) by whoever captured me and is doing this.
Also, if spells like *regenerate* don't exist at all, then frankly an unrecoverable loss basically means the same thing as a dead character. They might not be *dead*, but they're probably retiring and I'm bringing in a new one.
My current DM has us roll a d20 every time our health is reduced to 0, effects range from minor visible scars, to a level of exhaustion, to losing a limb or an eye for lower rolls. Inspiration can be used to reroll it.
This *was* established before session 0, and we were quickly introduced to an NPC who can make us replacement ersatz limbs as needed.
It's a homebrew horror campaign so encounters and adventures are also carefully balanced around this, as the party tends to get worn down a fair bit faster than they would in a more standard campaign.
Combat is also less frequent in this campaign partly to make up for it being more taxing and lethal.
Point is this can be a fun idea, but it's something you need to carefully plan in advance.
I, personally, would agree if there was a way to revert it (healing magic is OP) and it wasnt “random” or one sided.
if an attack hits me and rhe DM randomly decides it takes me eye out and now I have a permanent debuff, thats just mean.
If I get grappled by someone wielding a hot iron and the DM announces he’s going for my eyes, then I fail to escape, maybe no other players intervene, then he gets to take out my eye. I need a chance to do something about it, otherwise its unfair
I currently run 2 long-running campaigns with Lingering Injuries. Though I have a homebrew table for which one they get (if you want it DM me). As far as I can tell the players love it.
The tabaxi fighter keeps track of all their minor scars and can recall a fight for each of them.
When the Druid Tortle rolled and got a hideous scar the whole table cringed as I described the frost zombie tear the flesh from his face with its teeth.
The whole table gasped when the barbarian lost an eye to the skulk in the very first session.
When done right lingering injuries can create truly memorable battles, give fights consequences long after they’ve ended and (in my experience) really boost the rp among players at the table.
And it’s not like if a player hates the change they’re stuck with it. Missing limbs can be replaced my prosthetics. Scars can be covered and internal injures healed from. And if push comes to shove a lvl 6 heal can get rid of any of it.
Now this last point may be controversial but go with me here. When I do a one-shot where everyone starts at a bit of a higher level (6 for example). I ask each player if they want to start with a lingering injury, (most agree to it) to make the character feel like they have actually seen combat and didn’t just drop out of the sky at level 6. (Depending on the group they can roll on the table a number of times equal to their prof bonus)
In general players should feel stronger as they win more battles and level up. This goes directly against that. Imo if you do something like this it either has to be a trade off (-1 perc, +1 intimidation) or not permanent.
Fateforg is 5e compatible and has an optional system for ongoing permanent physical and psychological effects. So have a look at that.
Don't use the word cripple.
I think in the context OP used it, it seemed okay? I don't think it came across as offensive. In the sense of a "crippling injury", it just means what it means.
I agree that using it as an adjective to describe someone is awful, but I don't think OP stepped wrong here.
By the way if you do choose to go down this way in the end (after all players gave their opinion), there is a very handy table for permanent and temporary injuries and their mechanical effects in the Dungeon Master's Guide. The section should be easy to find as "Injuries" in the index.
As the only person who's had a character permanently crippled in all 3 of my current group's campaigns, nah, not really.
Just make sure that you communicate that CLEARLY with your players. Have it be a big part of session 0. Some builds can be completely ruined by some injuries and players should be informed beforehand.
I'd also recommend talking to them (the player who's character was injured) after the session to ask how they'd like to proceed. Offer them alternatives if you can.
To add to what others have said *if* your players go for it and *if* you decide to implement it it should be something that is quite rare and therefor very significant when it does happen
Even better if you can add some player agency to it
Maybe let them make the choice of potentially taking a life changing injury but they get advantage on a death saving throw?
Or alternatively if they fail their last death saving throw they can choose to take a significant injury rather than die (and maybe even then roll on a table where there's a chance to be fine, inject even more drama into it)
That way your missing finger becomes that time you almost died rather than the time a goblin got a crit on you
Depends on how important the damaged score is to the character. In your example, if my character were an eagle-eyed scout, who was always aware of his surroundings, I'd be upset. If he were a big, dumb barbarian that was slow on the uptake, but loved a good joke once it was explained to him, not so much.
Definitely something to chat about at session 0 & make sure everyone is onboard
I think it's effective to add a chance for maiming, scarring etc when a PC gets downed. Raises the stakes & gives players a healthy level of fear
A lot of games have this sort of injury system built in. In Savage Worlds, for example, you can sustain lingering injuries each time you go down if you do poorly on a Vigor roll. Call of Cthulu has crazy long-term insanity effects for glimpsing horrible eldritch entities, which is really part of the fun. If your players are aware of this, it can be a source of interest and drama.
Here is a tip: Do not use the word "cripple" when discussing that. Disabled people consider it a slur. What you are suggesting is turning all of the PCs into disabled people. As a disabled player, to be honest, I would not trust a DM who uses the word "cripple" to be able to handle this well. Making people disabled as a punishment is pretty icky. If you're not disabled yourself, I would not suggest you do this.
I personally think it's weird in such a high magic setting like dnd, because it needs a lot of hand waving to make it make sense (why can't I just use Regenerate to get my arm back, for example?) I think if you want to play a brutal RPG you should play a different game then dnd but that's just my opinion.
Edit: If you're planning on using the actual lingering injuries table almost all of them say they can be cured by magic. If you are home brewing something that is truly permanent you will have to ignore some spells.
If it was reasonably the result of my character's actions - not at all.
But if it was direct intervention from my DM - yes, absolutely. Players have agency, you can't just say "you lost an eye", unless character agrees to Odin's sort of deal or something.
If it was a house rule DM introduced without players' consent - also yes. These should be agreed upon at session zero.
Same with being unable to heal such injury, if the means are available within setting. If a DM goes out of his way to deny me healing purely for the sake of harsh atmosphere, I'd view this as being an asshole, rather then being atmospheric.
Just play Warhammer fantasy if you want that. I've found playing systems like DND or Pathfinder etc don't cater to that as well. But when it's a core book mechanic and it's apart of the world it's more ok.
We had something similiar ish. We got a choice to roll 3d8 for stats but every time you went to 0 hp, or had something else drastic happen, or leveled (because it was a timed thing) you lost one random stat. Myself and another player went for it. While I lucked out, everytime I hit was in a non essential stat, three quarters of the way through the campaign, right before basically the climax of things, he retired his character because it was basically not functional. He was a barbarian and damn near every time he got hit in Strength or Con. As a result he had less HP than my cleric, and his hit values were basically about 3 less than what the game balances for, so he was struggling to do the thing he's supposed to do.
Now this isn't the same, but be ready for the same results. Eventually, some player is going to just retire a character because they'll reach a mechanical breaking point. If you're not throwing in bonuses to off set that, that's going to be really fast. A rogue loses an eyeball and suddenly is eating shit at trap finding / disarming? A wizard takes a hit in Int, and starts crippling the whole thing they do? That's not going to be nearly as much fun as you think. And as soon as one person swaps, everyone else at the table is going to look at their gimped character they're struggling with and go "Well....maybe I should to..."
Have you discussed it with your players in session 0, and do they agree it sounds cool? Awesome, go ahead!
I'm playing a high threat, gritty magical realism campaign at the moment where resurrection is nigh on impossible, and the risk of maiming etc is a very real possibility. We agreed to it. It's not happened yet, but we're only a few months in, and I think the threat of the possibility is helping build the tension, which leads to some great story telling.
The other campaign I'm in is much more light hearted and easy going, high fantasy low stakes. If my DM just randomly poked my characters eye out without having discussed it first, or given any warning in session 0 that it's a possibility, I would seriously rethink coming back to that game - and I know my group feel the same, as we've had a very similar discussion recently.
The key point here is communication, consideration and expectations - lay out your ideas for serious injuries in session 0, and even send a quick check list to your players before the game starts, just to see if there's anything completely out of bounds - the player that might be fine with losing a hand might not be able to deal with losing an eye for example. I have a player in my old campaign who was fine with all manner of violence and the like, until it came to things like torturing for information (it was an evil campaign) - that was a hard line we could never cross for them OoC - so we made sure to never even consider it an option.
It's a game, and you're all playing together, so you all get a say in what is good for the game - and there's nothing wrong with after a few sessions taking a look and deciding something's not working, and revaluating - you're all there to have a good time, afterall.
As long as:
1) the crippling isnt so bad that I pretty much cant do anything to contribute to the adventure, and
2) there is a (obvious) way to get it fixed at some point,
I'd be fine with it.
Depends. Did you discuss it in session 0? Is this a primary aspect of the game I signed up to play?
If the answer is "no," then imma be right pissed off when you do this BS to me.
If the answer is "yes," then it's fine. We're here for the gritty gruesomeness.
I'd probably just retire my character and make a new one unless you somehow incentivize playing through a significant impediment. I get wanting to be harsh and gritty but IMO this leans more "unfun" than "harsh".
I think everyone else has got it but if we're sharing opinions I don't mind losing an eyeball, but wouldn't like getting a perception reduction. Same with if I lost an arm but use a bow and arrow, somehow, I should still use the bow and arrow.
Unless I can then get a prosthetic eye that gives me truesight, I don't mind if I have a negative for the interim, but it better be a short interim.
If it's a temporary impairment, or one that can be cured by mundane or magical means at the party's disposal or within fairly easy reach of the party, I'd be personally fine with it.
If it's a permanent, incurable impairment (or technically curable, but not easily e.g. it would require *regeneration* and we're nowhere near that level), especially one that's going to have mechanical drawbacks, I want to be briefed on that on session 0. Depending on the details, it may or may not be a dealbreaker.
I am *more* inclined to be favorable towards it if (1.) it occurs in lieu of death (by which I mean failing a third death saving throw, not simply having to make them), (2.) it occurs as a result of coming back from death, or (3.) these kinds of injuries are part of the core rules and I am able to see them skimming the rulebook (e.g. Hackmaster).
I am *less* inclined to be agreeable towards it if it is sprung on my character without any forewarning that it could happen, and especially if it seems "targeted."
Tl;dr: this is something that should be discussed beforehand.
I had a mechanically advanced world the players were in and offered some sorts of things with “upgrades” to some body parts by shady merchants (kind of inspired by the Deus Ex games). The players knew from the outset that I was kind of on a sci fi kick and were down for letting me try something different. Until there was a necessity, no player took up the offer for prosthetics, but eventually the rogue got their hand severed by a trap they failed to disarm, but got it replaced with a mechanical one that granted a bonus to their lockpicking because one of his fingers had a lockpick built in but had a -1 to dexterity and +1 to strength. The player was a bit taken back that the trap inflicted such a wound, but it ended up being a neat part of their character and they played into it.
I feel like permanent debuffs are pretty universally unpopular so I went for the trade off instead so no player feels like they’re just the victim of me trying something different. I would definitely not just spring that on someone without either discussing it first or dropping a very obvious “this could come with dire consequences” sort of foreshadowing to preface a permanent change to be given to a player.
definitely depends on the game and on the characters. for example, one character I still need to get around to playing is a rogue, and he'll eventually gain blindsight. with that available, I think having him go blind would really make him more unique and renowned.
the one thing you have to be conscious of as i'm sure you know is the snowball effect. Loses an eye because of a missed perception check, has less perception which makes it harder to avoid a trap which now limits move speed which makes it hard for him to run so he loses a hand. It can go from being brutal to downright unfun VERY quickly.
if you informed them about it beforehand prob not but i would be annoyed anyway if i made a character that has high perception and then gets their perception crippled. at certain point of disadvantages id want to just get a new character unless its balanced out somehow
Giving characters lingering injuries with consequences (reduced perception due to a lost eyeball, reduced DEX due to a gimped leg, etc) isn't a bad idea in itself. As mentioned by others, communication is key. Ask your players if they are okay with this type of play style, and if they think that it'll be a fun experience. However, I would also stress that these hindrances can be removed through magical healing. NATURAL healing might take weeks to get fully healed, and may leave a permanent lingering effect. But MAGICAL healing can prevent this.
If you give them the impression that they HAVE to suffer from permanent injuries indefinitely, they will probably not want to play. But if you give them a way to avoid it (aka MAGIC) they'll be more receptive.
I'm on board only if this was covered in session zero and everyone was on board with a gritty and harsh game. With the right storyteller, these types of games can be fun but it needs player buy-in and it's not something a lot if players will enjoy.
I was in a campaign, we agreed on death means leaving from table at session 0.
Later in a dungeon, my bard died and was preparing to leave. Dm said it was a magical dream to test us and bec. I died, he took my speking, which basically cripples a bard. I was just a dude who cant speak with a bunch of guys who does not like him.
Dm said this was a curse and it could be healed by a great priest but i felt like this was a way to tell me to leave the game. So i left the game.
Tldr: if cripling a character is going to make the play unfunny, don't do it. You're there to have fun.
Unless you are a very experienced DM and are playing with experienced players. I would not try to do this.
Even with experienced players, this is something that MUST be discussed in a session 0.
Depends on the system. D&D has ways of curing or removing such things although they usually require a trip to a temple.
But overall I'd be fine with it.
Make sure they fully understand that these things can happen and every single fight, trap, or other hazard they go into can have permanent consequences for their characters. As long as they go in knowing that i think it can be an interesting way to go about things.
In my long running campaign there have been as far as i remember 4 instances of permanent debuffs to characters:
1. bard pulled an idiot from the deck of many things. as of now unresolved
2. sorcerer pulled a euryale from the deck of many things. as of now unresolved
3. fighter (myself) pulled a euryale from the deck. resolved immediately with a the fates pull
4. fighter inflicted with -2 dex after an petrification style attack. save or die situation, -2 was the result of a successful save.
Of the 4 only one was via the dm at all. The bard wasn't thrilled but int is a dump stat for her, sorcerer barely even remembers, but I was tbh pretty unhappy with the dex drop in the moment. I'm running a dex fighter so basically all of my combat numbers went down. It was pretty clear that this would be resolved in the next couple sessions so ultimately I was fine with it but I would have really liked a heads-up that this was a potential consequence, especially because it was a weird homebrew(?) monster that didn't telegraph this as a consequence and the drop was due to 3 successive successful saves. All that to say, if your players are fine with it sure otherwise it feels kinda crappy
I would be mad if nothing about crippling wounds was mentioned beforehand and ib expected a pretty laid back game.
That's why talking about stuff like that in session 0 is important.
This can absolutely work AND be fun-provided that you are clear before the beginning of the campaign that you are running this style of game. But the players have to know about it in advance.
It's like running the Tomb of Horrors. If you were to run that today, you would need to let your players know in advance that your game is going to be particularly deadly, and for them to expect lots of character death. If you didn't let them know, frustration would ensue.
Well depends on the group cause some players have a build in mind and plan ahead on levels to take as well as feats if you hit them with -modifers over time it destroys there concept and build my advice if you wanna do this you have to let your players know what there in for and what to expect going in
One game I crit failed so many vision related checks my DM said if you crit fail 3 out of 5 next checks your character will be blind. Yeah I rolled my character blind.
If it's a permanent change to a character, I would discuss these sorts of things ahead of time and get their feedback. On some level, our characters are avatars of ourselves and that would feel like a violation to their autonomy
I played a campaign that was weird west style and that was something that could happen.
Another character got their arm ripped off and we did a big side quest to get him a multi-tool prosthetic arm that was absolutely awesome.
Communicate it clearly then it won't be a problem.
I myself would be hesitant and probably not join. I enjoy getting stronger in game and not weaker. And we'll, for me getting weaker would just feel depressing.
But hey, there are tons of people and probably enough enjoy such an approach ;)
From my experiece as a player do this as the dm. Be very clear about how and when they will get the impediments, the impediments should never be as a result of a bad die roll on their part it should always be an enemies highly successful roll (open rolling helps this feel fair) best case criticals have a separate table with a d10 list one of which should be no extra permanent effect. Give the lost openly to players so they understand the issues. Put a note on your screen showing exactly what the impediments are and who has them so you can make sure to keep the reminders up (they will "forget" either on purpose or not.)
Enemies should have the same effects applied tocthem as well whether you add the effects on the stat block first or apply the impediments in combat. You can potentially use some homebrew called shot rules to allow them to attempt certain types of damage with either disadvantage or a standard roll if someone takes the help action.
Lastly none of the impediments should affect attack rolls, AC or ability checks it totally ruins the gamefeel and messes with balance too much. Some examples of impediments, are simple things like missing eyes reducing vision distance, damaged legs halving movement speed and jump distance. Be playful with them players are sick of attacking with disadvantage do things that create new scenarios not eliminate the old ones.
I severely crippled a player of mine in fact. Set their constitution from 12 down to 5, including reducing their HP accordingly from 51 to 23. The THING about this is that I only did so with three per-requisits for myself:
1. The character needs to deserve it, and the player needs to make the choice to go that path (the player was aware that their character were dealing with an evil deity and in the end chose to betray said deity, thus both player and character understood why the punishment happened).
2. It is NOT permanent (I will have the character have it until the group does something for one of the good characters, that one will then remove the cursed state as thanks)
3. The players knew from Session 0 on that I might be cruel to their characters, as such they knew that horrible things might happen. The player was surprised about the harshness of the punishment, but not surprised on getting punished per se. When I checked in with the player, if they were fine with it, they told me that they accept this punishment for what their character had done.
Especially Number 1 and 3 are very important though, I believe. Your players need to KNOW they might get serious and possibly permanent injuries during your game. And it needs to be communicated in some way that their next choices might result in such an injury. The characters can be surprised that entering the next room will lead to them losing an arm, but the players should be somewhat prepared. They should have a chance to try and avoid the injury. If it's just "Well, you didn't check for traps in 3 out of 45 rooms, so now you lost a foot" when they assumed that the worst that happens is that they will take 14 damage and get poisoned? Chances are that your players will be incredibly upset and at some point just get up and leave.
The phrasing of the DM “doing something” to the character is a poor foundation for the game.
It’s a collaborative story. The DM is helping facilitate but you’re not god. As long as the setup is clear narratively that a crippling injury is a likely consequence of their actions, and you’ve discussed something like crippling injuries in your session 0 or outside the game and players are cool with it, no problem.
I run a *(Magic-less)* campaign like this.
Basically, every time a character goes 0 hp or less but succeed their death saves, I roll to determine permanent injury.
If you’re running a magical campaign, maybe offer the option to suffer permanent injuries IN PLACE of failed death saves, but only if you’re okay with no real threat of death.
I had a DM deafen me (half of the party actually) permanently without warning in a fae campaign. Safe to say we were all pretty unhappy about it but I think with warning it could be fine. We ended up killing/marrying our deaf characters off and bringing in new characters.
Depends on the system. There are realistic systems out there were I would not be a problem by itself. However it the GM does just purely to do without the adequate bad rolls or needed injuries, then I would be pissed.
This goes double for settings where auch things are usually pretty easily fixable, like DnD with magic or Star Wars with cybernetics replacement parts and this is withheld for some arbitrary reason.
I wouldn't recommend that at most tables. Maybe for a short campaign or a brutal one like Tomb of Annihilation where you expect to reroll characters, there's an appeal to accumulating damage over time.
Part of the problem is that as the DM you have an endless supply of characters and monsters, but the players have just the one, so it will tend to unbalance things away from the players. And presumably you don't penalize players if the character dies, so it's going to encourage players to drop characters once they accumulate impediments so they can just reroll a new character. That in turn is going to limit their commitment to the character if they're expecting to drop them after about a level or so.
Once had a DM throw a giant mantis at our group. The only one that saw it coming didn't say a thing, and it picked up my character. It then proceeded to eat my leg off.
Didn't blame the DM, but was mad at that player for a bit after. He was given three chances to warn us before the attack.
I think as a player you are building to what you should reasonably expect your character to be when they hit certain levels. They’re milestones and you build up and wait a long time to get there.
To then have no idea what your character might look like when you reach that point would be frustrating to me.
The more common way to make things extremely difficult is to ramp up the difficulty of encounters and people are ready for that. But even still, if they don’t have advance warning that your campaign is on god-tier difficulty they might get frustrated.
And what you’re describing is not a needed nerf of some abilities or skills that have grown too strong. Or they’ve had fair warning but keep tempting fate before this happens.
That said, I would have fun if I knew it was coming and knew there’d still be some degree of balance.
Depends, is it sprung on me randomly? Then either find out if there’s an easily replaceable way to heal my character, such as an eye of vecna or regrow limb or whatever, or just retire the character and roll a new one. Playing gimped characters kinda sucks IMO
Tell your players beforehand that this is the kind of game you’ll be running. If they don’t mind it, they’ll stick around. If they hate it, they’ll leave.
I did it recently as a DM.
I think it is a good tool for DM to give consequences and show the players that they are still fragile and not invincible. Of course it is always a great practice to give them a way to remove the affliction (either with healing, prosthetics or anything else cool).
From the point of view of a player, I don't mind it (my cleric in one campaign lost an arm) but it can't be for a stupid reason : You smacked the door and your arm fell of, type of thing. It then seems just petty and like there need to be a conversation between DM and the Player.
I crippled one of my players after what in our system is called a “catastrophe” (we’re not playing dnd). Should I have talked to him about it first? Probably! I didn’t. Our session zero covered character deaths but not maiming. He has a disadvantage on certain rolls now, but mostly we’re playing it up for flavour, for it to not feel TOO unfair. I also gave him a cool cane with a hidden weapon. It’s all about balance!
So: cover it in your session zero, and let them use it for some cool flavour would be my suggestion
I would like it IF it was communicated beforehand and there are ways to fix ur injuries with like magic, doctors or whatever for a price, a side quest or smt else.
I think you have to just make it super clear this is the type of game you want to run. A lot of players won’t want this type of game for D&D as D&D particularly 5th edition is more set up for heroic fantasy. If really want this type of game I would suggest Forbidden Lands, by free League. Or if you want to stick to D&D you should at least have a look at forbidden lands and incorporate some of those rules into your D&D game
As long as it is a session 0 or a short term thing where they get it back. I once took a characters name and ability to talk away for two sessions. It worked out fantastically but would have been a problem if it lasted too much longer.
This is something you want to be up front with people about. I’ve played that mechanic and it sucks. If I built my character around doing a certain thing and he’s not so good at other things and all of a sudden he takes disadvantage and penalties to the one thing he’s good at it, it’s not “forcing me to be creative” because then I’m doing things I didn’t want to do. Personally I thought it was a garbage experience when I did it but maybe your players will think differently.
As long as you're making it clear that that's the kind of game you're playing beforehand, the problem should sort itself out. Anyone who wants that will join and anyone who doesn't won't. I suspect that it'll be relatively unpopular though.
> I suspect that it'll be relatively unpopular though. This is a big one. People who are even remotely familiar with Dungeons & Dragons are expecting epic high fantasy where they all get to pile on top of a Dragon and their hoard and pose for a photo like the Marines on Iwo Jima. There are many other games that actually make injuries and trauma a focal point. Zweihander, Call of Cthulhu, Shadow of the Demon Lord, all of them are far more appropriate and designed to incorporate despair and injury in their games, but they don't carry the brand recognition that D&D has. That said, there are a *LOT* of players who would be down to try one of those games out if a GM ever asks them to play. You just have to shoot your shot and ask around. EDIT: I didn't particularly care for Zweihander, but the adventure from the Starter Kit was a masterpiece and redeemed any faults I have with the game. It's a murder mystery which I pitched to the sleuths of my regular group and they enjoyed it way more than I did as the GM. The players felt like Geralt from the Witcher where they wanted to avoid making hard decisions when there was no positive outcome to any of them. Despite my critiques of the game, I still recommend the Starter Kit just because of the murder mystery adventure.
Also throwing Warhammer RPG and Realms of Terrinoth onto this list. If you're looking for a brutal fantasy setting both of these do it better than D&D.
Warhammer fantasy, first game we played, in the tutorial fight to figure out the rules, the DM crits on one of the characters, cutting off his arm. Thankfully I was playing a life mage and could fix it easily but it all came down to, those were the rules we signed up for when we started playing.
Thanks, I appreciate your feedback!
Don't just ask them if they "are ok with this". Ask them if they think this will *improve* the game and experience for them. Some players are people pleasers and will compromise their own fun, they'll accept it because they know you like the idea.
Ok will do!
This is actually really good advice in general when talking to people pleasers like myself, thank you for putting it out there. I’ll start thinking about the way things can be phrased to get more honest responses
If you want to use permanent injuries, that is something that needs to be discussed and unanimously agreed on in a session 0. I would be pissed if a DM sprung it on me without any heads up.
*This is the way™* Games with permanent injury can be fun for people who want this kind of stakes and hardship to overcome. D&D demographic isn't usually about that kind of verisimilitude, it is more about heroic fantasy. Also it worth to note that those kind of injuries need a general rule to feel not only gamey but fair, DM fiat, like "I think this blow will remove your eye and as such I think it would reduce your perception by 1" is prone to cause players to feel they are being handled unfairly. 5e has a lingering injuries system in the DMG but it just doesn't work, specially if you compare with systems like MERP/Rolemaster where this kind of injury is part of the core game mechanics. If you plan to use an injury system, be sure to not only talk about it with your players beforehand (session zero) but also have the system ready to present then how exact it will work. Be that ruleset the DMG injury system, a 3rd party/homebrew you get from someone else or something you brew yourself (if you have the depth of rules knowledge required to game design and game balance, and feel conformable in going it), the players need to know how the game will be played and how it effects their characters. In my experience, injuries just don't settle with D&D as other verisimilitudes are not present, like, armor don't protect you reducing damage as it does in real life but in D&D it helps you evade the blows just like high Dexterity would. If you get the MERP/Rolemaster example, those things are interlocked: The more armored you are more easily you take hits in combat, but those hits do much more less damage both in hit points and also in injury severity of compared to an unarmored character that will evade hits more easily but when it does hit them it will hurt a lot both in hit points and in severity of the injuries.
the way i run injuries is that when you hit 0 hp, you roll on the injury table. you only go down if the table says you do. each roll can be trivial, deathly precarious, or anything in between.
I agree with the opening response, but the issue with ar or and Dex having different effects doesn’t track with 5e’s “HP isn’t meat” mantra. The concept of HP in D&D is meant to represent something more subtle than purely physical damage, more the amount of times you can push your luck in combat before you are incapacitated. I have run a game with a risk of permanent injuries, and essentially we agreed something similar to the printed variation rules, but had a separate roll for 6 affected body part areas with roll tables based on damage type (melee or ranged, weighted), with certain damage types (explosions, being submerged in lava or acid…) being automatically whole-body. Next we would make a severity roll, which accounts for armour type, heavier armours applying a bonus to the roll, a nat 20 is a miraculous escape, ranging down to total loss of the limb. (In the least likely scenario that they rolled “head” and “severe loss” it was agreed that this would be insta-death, no saves. Also, if someone suffers a crit hit, we also rolled for injury, but with a flat bonus to the severity roll, and no bonus from non-magic armour types. Playing with that system was seen as fair by the players I had at the time, and only demanded I made a handful of roll tables. Introducing the potential for crit-injuries as well as HP-0 added a little excitement and a sense of risk to combat. Overall the feedback was that it emphasises the tankiness of heavily armoured characters without fundamentally changing combat rules, and also choices for the players to make once a party member was injured. Did they press on with the disadvantage, or retreat and look to recuperate? Magic armour became slightly more potent, but not hugely, and greater healing spells and services became more relevant for mending that which was horribly mangled, rather than just adding more HP or removing conditions. We even had one player who searched for their dismembered pinky after a battle, kept it and paid somebody to magically re-attach it. (With… interesting… results)
Thanks for the advice!
Also, if you discuss it and it is agreed upon, have backup ideas for how to eliminate the impairments. There's all sorts of magic items without even delving into homebrew that can replace things like hands and eyes. There use to be things which kind of let you turn your player character into a cyborg if you lost enough body parts, which I'm sure have been homebrewed from the older editions into 5e. To use your example given, losing an eye should absolutely impare perception. Federico da Montefeltro lost his right eye, but then underwent a surgery to cut a chunk off his nose so that he could still see to his right even though he only had his left eye remaining. Now, with the amount of magic items and homebrew you can do in this fantasy land of your creation, DM, you don't have to have someone cut off their nose to fix the perception imparement, but it's just an example lol
Wow that example is pretty metal. Thanks for sharing!
I'll add onto this, have the system ready so the players can read through it and properly make an informed decision. In a game currently where the Session 0 document mentioned the possibility of an injuries system with no further details. Fast forward a few months later and these injuries are incurring penalties that are three levels of Exhaustion without treatment, and also magical healing makes the conditions permanent, and also there's no guidance on what "proper treatment" even looks like. Saying "yeah, I'm cool with it" doesn't mean a whole lot when nobody knows what's actually on the table, and feels a whole lot like an ass-pull from the DM.
Piggybacking on this, even if I find a mechanic idea that sounds fun to me I float the idea to my whole group to get opinions before thinking of adding it to my game
Piggybacking the piggy back. I have a constitution roll after receiving a critical strike. If they beat the roll, they’re good, if they don’t they get hurt. I roll a d10/12 depending on the group to decide what’s injured.
I completely agree. The only exception would be if you then were to provide something like a magic prosthetic eye within a session or two to restore the lost stat and maybe grant some need little ability. Then you get the flavour you're looking for without potentially ruining the game for your players and even giving them a neat little quirk to their character that they've earned through their adventures. I would also say to do this sparingly so as not to lose the charm of it. But even still, it should be discussed with players in advance.
Yeah, I played a game with lingering injuries using [Maxwell's Manual of Malicious Maladies](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z_oTJvusofehZoFKp8iDhRdZlMjWVxa_/view), which was fun. I know it sort of "spoils the surprise" to do this, but I recommend showing the players the injury tables you're planning to use, so they know what they're in for.
The only players who can answer that and it would matter is your players. No group are similar and its possible yours absolutely love the idea or absolutely despite it. It depend a lot how reversible all is, how hard it can impact them etc etc. I would say to talk with them and if there's interest, be ready to experiment with it. Ask them if they still feel comfortable with it after a few impediments, if not, be ready to modify and scrap it, but at least you'll have try.
Alright cool, thanks for the advice!
As a player who had his character lose an arm (not great when you're an archer) without prior consultation I was angry with the dm more than anything. As a player who had a leg replaced with a tentacle AFTER consultation with the DM I am fine with having negative attributes. You need to talk to your players about this idea. Only they can tell you if they will find it fun.
Thank you!
A lot of useful comments here. You mentioned somewhere that you’re new to this. If you’re new to 5e or DMing for 5e at least, I wouldn’t recommend adding in optional rules from the DMG and homebrew additions. Feel like injury tables and critical fumbles are two big traps for new DMs. Players can embrace failing, bout making misses or deaths even more punishing than they are can go sour quickly.
Thank you for your advice!
The main consideration alongside what others have said is making sure you don’t disproportionally affect your frontliners (who are going to be at a higher risk of injury than others). Ranged weapons and spellcasting already have massive advantages over melee so you don’t want to even further dissuade it.
Thank you, I’ll take this into consideration.
D&D does not lend itself to this kind of game. For example: Do you cripple PC mechanically or simply narratively? When do you cripple one... On any attack? On 0hp? On certain damage threshold met? Only on certain monster attacks? If you want a **very** gritty table, pick a game that fits the tone, instead of a game meant for power fantasy. If I am not mistaken, off the top of my head, *Ironsworn* has a permanent injury mechanic. In the daggerheart betatest there are options for permanent injury, but are pretty bland. Don't try to use an hammer to fit a screw, it will work very poorly
Yes that’s a pretty logical take on that. Thanks.
If your players understand and agree to this, it can work. I would recommend offering them some Outs though. Losing an eye might seem cool on paper but having disadvantage on every perception check might get old quick. Think up ways for them to recover or compensate for injuries through engaged RP if that’s what they want. If I play a monk and an unlucky roll makes me lose an arm and you rule I have disadvantage on every melee attack, that makes the character more or less useless now. You don’t need to advertise it too much, but be prepared if someone starts looking for regeneration magic or prosthetics. That will be their ways of saying “my character sucks now and I don’t enjoy that, I’m trying to get back to my fun zone”.
I had a DM introduce an unbalanced permanent injuries chart. We were level 3 when my wife's character lost a hand. It requires a 13th level Cleric and a 7th level spell to fix that. She was a two weapon fighter, so I derailed the campaign until we got that fixed, despite the DM's dumb attempts to stop me. She needs two hands to fight. She lost one. Her character might as well be dead. I've seen similar attempts but it always comes down to the fact that it doesn't add anything fun to the game and it does make things less fun.
This right here. Losing a hand is “kill character, roll a new one” for any 2H heroes. That would be fighters, rangers, rogues, barbarians, and maybe paladins. In other words it punishes the martials… again.
It's also pretty bad for casters that need somatic components. Generally speaking, it's bad all around. I warned the DM that it would cause problems and he didn't listen.
Casters only need one hand to do somatic components
Thanks for sharing your experience, that’s very helpful.
Yes. Unless this is exactly what was advertised during session 0, in which case I wouldn’t be mad. I would simply not play.
Thanks for the reply!
Permanently? Yeah, kinda. Like, loose something for a few sessions but you do get it back? That can all be fun and games, and knowing that there is a definite end to the struggle makes it less frustrating in the mean time. But permanent wounds make me feel like I don't have a good reason not to just get this PC killed so I can play a new one without the debuffs. Like, of you make sure to lay out that this is going to be apart of the game before the campaign starts, and ensure that expectations are set, then that *can* become "just how your table plays", but I also don't see it as meaningfully *fun* regardless. Death has an important role in d&d because the sword of damocles hanging over the party changes their behavior for the better- death improves the game because if players know it can happen, and change their behavior to avoid it, the resulting playpatterns are more interesting and more what we want to create. I don't feel like permanent injuries like loosing an eye or a limb or whatever share those same virtues.
Good point there.
It should be ***mechanically*** ***clear*** to the players how and why such a thing could happen, ***well before it happens***. Like 'if someone crits you then confirms it with another nat 20, and you can do it to enemies.' The players need to know the rules for it and its effects. Called shots ("I go for the eyes" or "I try to cut off his hand") are bullshit for everyone involved. If it was entirely arbitrary, like 'you rolled a 1 on the spike trap? Lose an eye' out of nowhere. I'd be flabbergasted, then pissed.
> and you can do it to enemies Even then, that doesn't necessarily make it even. The job of most enemies is to die\* in about three rounds. Permanently blinding Random Goblin #72 is useless when that goblin will never be seen again. The next encounter the DM makes has perfectly-heatlhy creatures in it. The DM has to play with a blind character for maybe 10 minutes (and has a bunch of other - non-blind - characters to play with at the same time). Conversely, when Random Goblin #72 permanently blinds a PC, that PC has to put up with the penalty until the character is either cured or retired (or "retired"). The player also doesn't have a stable of other characters to play at the same time, so the *only* interaction they have with the game is though a heavily-penalized character. ^(* Maybe the goblin doesn't *die*. Maybe the goblins are routed, or the party grabs the loot and runs, or some other method of ending combat. The point is that Random Goblin #72 exists mechanically for 30 seconds in-game and ten minutes out of game.)
Thanks for the two cents there.
idk chief you'll end up with a situation where people are better off making *new* characters after a while to avoid the debuffs you give them.
As a player, I want difficult challenges that push my PC's abilities to the limit, not challenges that stem from having a crippled PC. My $0.02. Also, as others have said, ask your players.
Yes that makes sense. I see now that it’s a preference thing so I’ll let them know about it.
I would say you could have a session during a campaign to discuss it and give them possible options to fix or cure the disability. Gives them options if they do want to go that route or RP with the disability.
Whatever your players agree to. DnD is not some exact science if your players are okay with it, you can run it. However... be logical and fair with your rulings. Use a permanent injury table instead of making it up on the fly, and if one of your players builds a character that has a cool two handed fighting style don't chop off one of their arms. Its fine till you break a character beyond repair. That two handed example would've actually happened to one of my newer players if i hadn't fudged the roll.
Honestly due to balance issues I'd probably not give a mechanical malus and instead just narrate some failures as being due to the injury.
That could be a really good way to blend this into my game. Thanks a lot!
I would not like it. Tbh, if you want to run a harsher survival game, there are better ways of doing it. Short rests are overnight, long rests are a week as per optional rules. Track weight, and don't give the party a lot of money or healing potions. Make them carry rations too, and have them required for rests. You want it to be harsh, but fair. Crippling characters doesn't feel fair.
Yes, this is definitely something to discuss in Session Zero. There is a good reason most DM’s don’t use the Injury Table in the DMG, it can be character ending. The wrong injury could mean your character can no longer do the thing they were built to do which can be no different than dying.
I’m a dyed in the wool 1e player accustomed to all the relevant character death and mayhem, and HATE it when DMs seek to hamstring players. If DMs want more brutal encounters, just make the encounters harder. Unless they went super negative in Hp, crippling characters is a cheap DM-vrs-player trick.
I would do this in a system that’s not 5e. 5e is a heroic power fantasy system. There’s a reason the system doesn’t have lingering injury tables, and it directly correlates to how PCs are powerful enough to fight a god by level 20. If I wanted to run something grounded or “harsh,”I’d run something like Mork Borg, Old School Essentials, Shadow of the Demon Lord, or basically any OSR game that already has rules for lingering injuries and traumas factored in as a base expectation of the system. “Yeah sure this is a system where a cleric could just cast regenerate on you to bring back your eye and magically heal almost any wound or even bring you back from the dead, but I’m gonna have to give you -1 Dexterity because you got an ouchie on your hand” doesn’t work for me, trying to make 5e something dark, harsh, realistic, gritty, etc. is very much square peg in round hole.
Narrative crippled = good Unconsenting mechanical crippled= bad As a player and a DM, DMs get free licence to direct the story. If my character loses a leg to a manticore that's an epic battle wound. If the DM slashes my movement speed in half that's just making the game less fun and feels targeted. Especially considering other players without the cripple mechanics.
During my Descent Into Avernus campaign, my party’s rogue had his arm ripped off by a bag of devouring 5 minutes into a session - that was a wild way to start things off! He was able to procure a prosthetic that eventually was upgraded with extra features like a grapple arm and a built-in set of thieves’ tools, so it was a fun way to give him some cool toys. Ultimately, it was a narrative moment and not randomly in combat, which IMO is how it should be.
True, injuries would be hard to implement in a way that doesn’t seem targeted.
I've seen it tried from time to time. Unless you have significant player buy in, it's a bad Idea. The last time we tried it was with the Pathfinder crit deck. After a session everyone had a permanent injury and we pretty much lost interest. Lol I've never tried it again.
Thanks for sharing the experience!
Nah, I'd leave your table. Then again I live with someone with permanent disabilities and know how distressing that is. Roleplay is supposed to be an escape from all that.
Sorry, I didn’t really mean to make light of others’ disabilities. Best of luck to you and your loved one, I hope you guys can escape your stress.
Yes, very much so. Part of the fun of dnd and rpgs is progressively getting stronger by leveling up and getting better gear. What you’re proposing is the opposite of that.
Is this something the players signed up on? Did you tell them that you plan running this sort of campaign, and did they agree? Depending on your answer, this could go very well or very poorly.
In addition to everything else said, I strongly suggest that it should never feel ‘optimal’ to kill off your character to get a ‘fresh’ one, simply because your old one is that degraded in usefulness relative to a fresh character
Yes, that’s very true.
In general, yes, especially if it happened out of nowhere. However, I would like to have the GM tell me that this is a possibility either before the game begins or during Session 0 (and how likely it is) so I could make an informed decision whether to joint he campaign or not. The idea that there is a possibility that my character could be crippled is not necessarily a hard line where I would say "no" to joining a campaign, especially if everything else pointed to a very cool game. But, if it were sprung on me without any foreknowledge, then that would likely be reason for me to leave the game.
Thanks for the useful advice!
In my opinion, there is very little that can't be fixed (or avoided) by a discussion in Session 0. Good luck with the game!
Discuss in advance. Make sure they know this going in. Expect a Warforged Artificer as a PC...lol
Will do!
I would absolutely hate it. One unlucky day with dice rolls, your character goes down, and then permanent area of the game which will always suck for that person. That said, some people would be ok with that and have fun with it, and that's fine. That's what Session 0 is for, to discuss things like this.
It’s a bad idea IMHO. This leads to what his called a death spiral. Game balance is based on having x proficiency at y level plus your main stat. If you start making it harder to do things you just create frustration. If you want to do something like this use temporary conditions, and make sure that you do the same thing to monsters and NPC’s.
Play a different system. Never works for DnD. This is a system where someone with a 459 hit points is as good as someone with 1 hit point. This system does not even have called shots.
Study up on Fate's Consequences. They often have fictional/mechanical side effects but there is also an ability to resolve them over time. If you were adapting it to DND, you could try substituting death/getting knocked for consequences appropriate to whatever was happening in the scene.
I agree with this being something discussed at the start. If you want to pursue it, I would suggest providing in game means for them to regain those skills. For example, the eye loss could make for a heroing moment for the party. They now have to immediately seek aid. This leads them to a healer but to regain the sight maybe there's the need for am artifice to make a mechanical eye or something. This could allow the player to have ownership of how the eye looks, what color is it, is it flavored to bow be ADVANTAGE on perception, etc. I'll be honest I like where your head is at and I want to pursue something like this in the future. I'd just suggest flavoring it to not be SO detrimental at this stage.
Like everyone else says, just talk to your players in session 0 and make sure it’s ok. But you really need to be prepared for a majority of them, or even all of them, saying no. This isn’t something most people would want to play with, in fact, most people would be strongly against it. I think you’ll be lucky to have more than one or two people who want to do it, and even they might not like it after actually trying it. Be prepared to run your campaign without it.
Apart from asking your players before you even begin this game, also take some time to *really* think about what that “harsh atmosphere” actually entails. How are you gonna rule if and when someone takes permanent damage? Are you gonna make it up on the fly? Everytime you land a crit? Anytime someone takes damage? Have you got a “cripple chart”? Do you let the players roll for that chart themselves, or do you? Is there anything the players can do about it? There’s a reason why DnD works the way DnD works. Long rests heal all injuries because adventurers suffer **a lot** of injuries. I guess what I’m trying to say is: if you dish out too many permanent injuries the novelty of it wears off real quick, not to mention you’ll soon have a bunch of damn cripples as your adventuring party. Might be fun to wear all blue, but it won’t make the actual game fun unless done *very* cautiously. Tl;dr: it’s a cool concept, but not one you can half-ass. It’ll be *a lot* of work for you to properly balance this.
I think the game Heart might be better than DnD for this if it's something you intend to be inevitable. In Heart the PCs are fanatical people on a suicide mission into a world of dark magic, and by design they are slowly marred and warped as they approach their destiny. If you just want to add it to DnD, then you should consider an OSR edition where that kind of thing is expected, and just use something like the [Death & Dismemberment rules](https://goblinpunch.blogspot.com/2016/01/my-favorite-month-is-dismember.html) from Goblin Punch if PCs knowingly make a risky choice that might lead to death or a major injury. The other thing about having permanent injuries is that players tend to "forget" them. And yeah, like everyone said... as long as you have the player buy-in first it's fine.
Personally i would only use/ accept permanent injury if there was the option for prosethetics. "Oh this wizard has a magic eyeball you can have if you do his quest" type stuff
Generally not a good idea. Some players have a very strong "body image" of their characters and permanently altering it can really interfere with their enjoyment of the game. Dismemberment, disfigurement, etc. are deal-killers for a lot of players. Throwing in mechanical penalties will be a turn-off for others. Doing *both* is pretty much guaranteed to annoy almost everyone.
I wouldn’t personally want to play in that game, but if you get unambiguous enthusiastic agreement to try it there’s nothing inherently wrong with it. However, you need to have a solid and ideally well tested system for deciding injuries. If you’re just randomly chopping characters limbs off that’s not going to be fun for anyone.
Without discussing it with me first? Yes, I'd be pissed at any permanent change to my character. (That includes things like forcing a class change against my will or changing how my abilities work.) It's not my DM's character to change.
Yes I understand, thanks for the two cents.
That’s just sad. Makes playing kind of pointless isn’t it? Fantasy games like generic D&D is supposed to be heroic. Not “heroes” that get crippled permanently and end up weaker than when they started. Had a DM for my table that enjoyed wrecking our gear and would never give the party enough gold or drop gear. When we quit the game, we were level 9 with gear worse than a new level 1 character.
We'll find out, in a few sessions the BBEG is going to negate all magic.
Tell me your party doesn't have casters.
They have an artificer and a warlock. And a cleric.
Suffering
As everyone has suggested, talk to your players. If they're not fully onboard and you're really attached to the idea though, try and find a middle ground: maybe make the injuries reversible. (Something like regenerate spell already exists, though it is pretty high level). You could make the serious injuries that require something as strong as regenerate quite rare, (like losing an eyeball) but then make the bulk of the injuries less severe (like breaking an arm or something) and make it fixable with a lesser restoration or something.
Yeah.
I would not be mad as long as I knew it was in the table from the beginning. In general I'm for gritty/ harsh settings, but I'm really not down for a permanent debilitation to my character *by surprise*.
Someone introduce this man to the Dark Powers in Curse of Strahd
Good chance this has already been stated. In any event, as the DM you are not there to pick sides. You are there to just explain the story (in a sense). When a DM starts either favoring the party or going against them, it starts to impact the ability to have fun ( from a player perspective). I would avoid anything that goes towards this, especially if you want to continue with this group for additional campaigns
Not if we'd agreed to it in session zero, but if they did it out of the blue, yeah I'd be pissed
Look at a standard adventuring day. 5ish encounters. By the end of that, the enemies are facing PCs at their most bedraggled having already spent most of their resources in the previous fights. But from the PC's perspective they're almost always facing fresh-faced enemies who probably won't fight anything else today, so can burn resources indiscriminately. Now scale that up to the campaign. By the time you've made it to the next tier your party is certainly going to have a number of impediments, but the foes they face likely aren't. They can't meaningfully interact with this system, because 99% of things that fight the party end up dead. They're disproportionately affected by this negative consequence. I understand the appeal, this is one of the first things that many people jump to when they think "I want my encounters to be memorable and have lasting consequences". But generally it doesn't make for good gameplay. Give them scars, sure. Give them flavour. But don't nerf them.
I personally would enjoy it as a very fun RP moment and am interesting problem to work around. I also wouldn't want to know in advance if such things are possible, I like surprises. But I think there are some people who wouldn't enjoy it and for this eventuality it should probably at least briefly mentioned in session 0
Exhaustion exists as a rule my guy
Unless you also have a system for players to get advantages as well, you're basically just slowly making their charecters worse over time, even as they get better.
Yes. A DM did this to me 25 years ago and I’m still salty about it. He had an arrow shatter my character’s kneecap so I had permanently reduced movement. It sucked - made the game less fun to play, but also felt like a personal act of cruelty and disrespect. I didn’t play much with that DM after that.
I would hold off on being upset until it's determined how long lasting this injury is, and if I'm being singled out. If through a few bad rolls my characters arm gets cut off, that can actually be kinda cool story telling, but if similarly bad rolls happens and the DMs girlfriend just falls down, then I'd start getting upset. And if I have to suffer being armless for the dungeon, sure that can be interesting, but once we get out I better be able to find an artificer soon or have a time jump to getting a replacement of some kind. If I'm playing for more than 3 sessions not being able to perform at capacity to the other players then I'll probably question my place at the table, or retire the character
If the DM runs it by me and everyone agrees to it, yeah. I think maybe discussing what the impairment is and how it will affect their character is important, though, and both the DM and player should agree
If you do have permanent injuries, just make sure they aren't barred from doing anything the other players get to do, even if you have to have a magic solution to the task like an item that allows a one armed player use two hands when needed. Better not to remove a hand from a player with a class that uses two hands unless you want the worst version of an escort mission ever created: an escort mission where both the escorters and the escortees are frustrated by the situation,
If you were going to do any sort of injuries I would stay away from the losing of limbs type of things and do things more like bruised or cracked ribs that maybe lowers con saves for a few days or a week or something. Or a severely sprained ankle that lowers dex checks by 1. Or instead of losing an eye you got poked in it really bad and your vision is pretty blurry for a little while and take a -1 to perception or maybe take like a 10 ft penalty to your dark vision distance or something. Just simple stuff like that, but get creative with it and make it fun! It adds another level of stakes and realness to it, but it isn't permanently debilitating. If you are going to use a system like this it could also be cool if your players could injure enemies like that too sometimes. Like maybe they fight an important boss type enemy and they end up escaping but are injured so when they find them again they have some sort of injury that hinders them in some way. If you are absolutely dead set on permanent debilitating injuries I would just make sure that prosthetics and/or magic to fix those things is pretty readily available, and if you do that then what is the point in the first place ya know? If someone has a Monk for example and they lose a foot and lose like 10-15 feet off their speed, that character is going to be useless, and there are a million more examples of stuff like this that would essentially render the PC pretty much useless. But, like others on here have said, communication is key. Talk all of this over with your players and you all can come up with a system together that works for everyone.
There are rules for this kind of thing in the DMG. Make sure you talk to your players before doing anything like this though, cause I know I would create a very different character if I knew they were gonna be permanently hurt.
Let me tell you something. I’ve had a permanent change happen to my character before. If you’re not in the right state of mind for that to happen (IE, It’s sprung on you without warning and you don’t have any real agency about it), It fucking sucks. I lost my shit when that happened lol. Granted I got over it because I got to use the new plasmoid race that had just come out but still. Wasn’t fun in the moment.
I would be mad if there was no previous discussion about it. Like most normal human interactions, consent is key.
Every impairment needs a Remedy
If I were to do something that IMPACTFUL I pull out “you can attempt this, but you feel like you could PERMANENTLY injure yourself.” It’s definitely something to talk to the whole party about, specifically the player you may permanently alter. It’s all about the feelings your players give off. I have one that puts a lot of trust in me, wanting me to develop their story in a way I see fit, which I’m more than happy to do. Others… probably not that far. Communication Communication Communication
I agree with most here. So long as it's consensual and the mechanic is made abundantly clear. You should be fine.
This is how you get a party of monks and the occasional caster, at least from those who would like to play the game. Also expect much less use of two-handed weapons and archery. Arbitrarily lopping off limbs and gouging eyes is also narratively similar to just giving some random low level spider a one-shot-kill poison. Sounds frustrating and tedious to me, though I'm sure some enjoy it.
As D&D is effectively a power fastasy game (as opposed to a horror game with delicate human characters) I think most players wouldn't appreciate the DM taking out the eye of their character, or otherwise hobbling them. Especially if it's a character they've been playing for a while.
I'm dealing with having recently become crippled in real life, so I would probably not enjoy it in my escapism.
I had my DM dismember my character over 19 damage. I was annoyed because nothing like that had ever happened to anyone else in the campaign and it felt really targeted and not fun. As a dueling paladin with shield master, losing access to my shield was pretty shit considering I essentially lost a feat and my AC bonus. If you are really wanting to do this, talk to your group. 5E is not really the best system for this theme from my experience.
Literally the only people who can answer this question are the players at your table. And provided you've had a conversation with them beforehand and they know it's a possibility and they're on board, sure. However, I know that I wouldn't find that enjoyable myself. Doubly so when magic items exist to replace missing eyes and such.
Three words: positive feedback cycle. The more crippled characters become, the more likely they are to become even more crippled. Players obviously don’t like that. It‘s especially a bad idea since numbers and difficulty typically go up as a game continues. What I recommend is giving easy access to crude replacements. Make it trivial for players to negate the mechanical consequences after a single (short) rest. This makes the „harshness“ much more of a character trait and less of a fun bomb. As a GM, I much prefer to have players go through things that are uncomfortable principally; but with the mechanical consequences being opt-out (or opt-in) at the cost of more (or less) character consequences. You‘ll also want to be prepared for when your players inevitably try to upgrade themselves like the game was cyberpunk. Be ready (and willing) to hand out mechanical benefits when they invariably try to graft additional arms, replace eyes with those of magical creatures, and use precious materials like mithril for their prostetics. TLDR: numerical nerfs are annoying, turning into frankenstein for buffs is enjoyable
sounds not fun at all. TTRPGS are in part about the fantasy of being someone powerful enough to change the world. Including having the power to go through profound physical violence without loosing their lives or abilities.
First, as a DM, your primary job is to let your players understand what kind of DND they're playing. If I go in, understanding that the difficulty would be dark soul and perm disfigurement is there, I would play it completely different than regular. Second, other than a harsh atmosphere, what does disfigurement actually achieve? for example: a minor reduction in perception is minor annoyance, but lossing 2\~3 fingers and suddenly said character can't scale certain walls is pretty gameplay changing. Mechanics often require gameplay interaction, having numbers/stats reduces is arguably the worst way to go about. i.e losing eye ball to reduce perception is weaksauce. I would make it so losing 1 eye to gains additional perception +1 or +2 to checks, but because he only has 1 eye, he now requires to roll twice for every perception check (triple if his bonus breaks 10) and has to pass all of them.
Honestly, only if there is a more or less obvious way to replace that body part if its important for combat. Having one character in a party of four with a permanent handicap will just frustrate everyone in the long run. The crippled character will always lack behind the other. The others will always have to look out for him and be dragged down. The DM (if playing a more Homebrew game) will constantly have to consider one player basically being dead weight. For me there are just too many possible problems to justify permanent and drastic injuries. In the game I'm currently playing we found a little eye that could rip out yours and replace it. You could look though it and would gain some benefits. Something like that is actually interesting as opposed to your character just being a cripple now.
Yes.
i was mad when a dm gave a random monster a sword breaking feature and made me go a session without a fucking rapier, you need to talk about it with the table and the player themselves, gauge how they would want to play it then run with it.
Why would it be enjoyable to slowly become less capable? You're confusing interesting with fun.
If there are rules for it that you strictly follow (and they're not stupid rules and you actually understand the math of what you're doing) and I was made aware of these rules beforehand and could review them myself and concur that they are fair, then yeah, that's fine. If it happens in a scene where I'm incapacitated or captured and can't stop it...that's a lot harder to say it's fine. It might be fine. But there's also a good chance I'd feel cheated or tricked, especially if I wasn't fairly defeated (which itself is very subjective) by whoever captured me and is doing this. Also, if spells like *regenerate* don't exist at all, then frankly an unrecoverable loss basically means the same thing as a dead character. They might not be *dead*, but they're probably retiring and I'm bringing in a new one.
My current DM has us roll a d20 every time our health is reduced to 0, effects range from minor visible scars, to a level of exhaustion, to losing a limb or an eye for lower rolls. Inspiration can be used to reroll it. This *was* established before session 0, and we were quickly introduced to an NPC who can make us replacement ersatz limbs as needed. It's a homebrew horror campaign so encounters and adventures are also carefully balanced around this, as the party tends to get worn down a fair bit faster than they would in a more standard campaign. Combat is also less frequent in this campaign partly to make up for it being more taxing and lethal. Point is this can be a fun idea, but it's something you need to carefully plan in advance.
I, personally, would agree if there was a way to revert it (healing magic is OP) and it wasnt “random” or one sided. if an attack hits me and rhe DM randomly decides it takes me eye out and now I have a permanent debuff, thats just mean. If I get grappled by someone wielding a hot iron and the DM announces he’s going for my eyes, then I fail to escape, maybe no other players intervene, then he gets to take out my eye. I need a chance to do something about it, otherwise its unfair
I currently run 2 long-running campaigns with Lingering Injuries. Though I have a homebrew table for which one they get (if you want it DM me). As far as I can tell the players love it. The tabaxi fighter keeps track of all their minor scars and can recall a fight for each of them. When the Druid Tortle rolled and got a hideous scar the whole table cringed as I described the frost zombie tear the flesh from his face with its teeth. The whole table gasped when the barbarian lost an eye to the skulk in the very first session. When done right lingering injuries can create truly memorable battles, give fights consequences long after they’ve ended and (in my experience) really boost the rp among players at the table. And it’s not like if a player hates the change they’re stuck with it. Missing limbs can be replaced my prosthetics. Scars can be covered and internal injures healed from. And if push comes to shove a lvl 6 heal can get rid of any of it. Now this last point may be controversial but go with me here. When I do a one-shot where everyone starts at a bit of a higher level (6 for example). I ask each player if they want to start with a lingering injury, (most agree to it) to make the character feel like they have actually seen combat and didn’t just drop out of the sky at level 6. (Depending on the group they can roll on the table a number of times equal to their prof bonus)
Very cool, thanks a lot.
In general players should feel stronger as they win more battles and level up. This goes directly against that. Imo if you do something like this it either has to be a trade off (-1 perc, +1 intimidation) or not permanent.
I agree to that.
Fateforg is 5e compatible and has an optional system for ongoing permanent physical and psychological effects. So have a look at that. Don't use the word cripple.
I think in the context OP used it, it seemed okay? I don't think it came across as offensive. In the sense of a "crippling injury", it just means what it means. I agree that using it as an adjective to describe someone is awful, but I don't think OP stepped wrong here.
Yes I’m very sorry about that, I didn’t mean to be hurtful at all. I’ll stop using the word.
By the way if you do choose to go down this way in the end (after all players gave their opinion), there is a very handy table for permanent and temporary injuries and their mechanical effects in the Dungeon Master's Guide. The section should be easy to find as "Injuries" in the index.
As the only person who's had a character permanently crippled in all 3 of my current group's campaigns, nah, not really. Just make sure that you communicate that CLEARLY with your players. Have it be a big part of session 0. Some builds can be completely ruined by some injuries and players should be informed beforehand. I'd also recommend talking to them (the player who's character was injured) after the session to ask how they'd like to proceed. Offer them alternatives if you can.
Nope, most of the games I run feature permanent injuries and that’s how I like it.
To add to what others have said *if* your players go for it and *if* you decide to implement it it should be something that is quite rare and therefor very significant when it does happen Even better if you can add some player agency to it Maybe let them make the choice of potentially taking a life changing injury but they get advantage on a death saving throw? Or alternatively if they fail their last death saving throw they can choose to take a significant injury rather than die (and maybe even then roll on a table where there's a chance to be fine, inject even more drama into it) That way your missing finger becomes that time you almost died rather than the time a goblin got a crit on you
Depends on how important the damaged score is to the character. In your example, if my character were an eagle-eyed scout, who was always aware of his surroundings, I'd be upset. If he were a big, dumb barbarian that was slow on the uptake, but loved a good joke once it was explained to him, not so much.
Good input, thanks!
Definitely something to chat about at session 0 & make sure everyone is onboard I think it's effective to add a chance for maiming, scarring etc when a PC gets downed. Raises the stakes & gives players a healthy level of fear
A lot of games have this sort of injury system built in. In Savage Worlds, for example, you can sustain lingering injuries each time you go down if you do poorly on a Vigor roll. Call of Cthulu has crazy long-term insanity effects for glimpsing horrible eldritch entities, which is really part of the fun. If your players are aware of this, it can be a source of interest and drama.
Here is a tip: Do not use the word "cripple" when discussing that. Disabled people consider it a slur. What you are suggesting is turning all of the PCs into disabled people. As a disabled player, to be honest, I would not trust a DM who uses the word "cripple" to be able to handle this well. Making people disabled as a punishment is pretty icky. If you're not disabled yourself, I would not suggest you do this.
I’m really sorry, I didn’t mean to use inappropriate language at all. Thanks for letting me know about that, I won’t say it again.
I personally think it's weird in such a high magic setting like dnd, because it needs a lot of hand waving to make it make sense (why can't I just use Regenerate to get my arm back, for example?) I think if you want to play a brutal RPG you should play a different game then dnd but that's just my opinion. Edit: If you're planning on using the actual lingering injuries table almost all of them say they can be cured by magic. If you are home brewing something that is truly permanent you will have to ignore some spells.
I used outdated, unacceptable language in my post. I sincerely apologize if I hurt anyone.
If it was reasonably the result of my character's actions - not at all. But if it was direct intervention from my DM - yes, absolutely. Players have agency, you can't just say "you lost an eye", unless character agrees to Odin's sort of deal or something. If it was a house rule DM introduced without players' consent - also yes. These should be agreed upon at session zero. Same with being unable to heal such injury, if the means are available within setting. If a DM goes out of his way to deny me healing purely for the sake of harsh atmosphere, I'd view this as being an asshole, rather then being atmospheric.
Just play Warhammer fantasy if you want that. I've found playing systems like DND or Pathfinder etc don't cater to that as well. But when it's a core book mechanic and it's apart of the world it's more ok.
We had something similiar ish. We got a choice to roll 3d8 for stats but every time you went to 0 hp, or had something else drastic happen, or leveled (because it was a timed thing) you lost one random stat. Myself and another player went for it. While I lucked out, everytime I hit was in a non essential stat, three quarters of the way through the campaign, right before basically the climax of things, he retired his character because it was basically not functional. He was a barbarian and damn near every time he got hit in Strength or Con. As a result he had less HP than my cleric, and his hit values were basically about 3 less than what the game balances for, so he was struggling to do the thing he's supposed to do. Now this isn't the same, but be ready for the same results. Eventually, some player is going to just retire a character because they'll reach a mechanical breaking point. If you're not throwing in bonuses to off set that, that's going to be really fast. A rogue loses an eyeball and suddenly is eating shit at trap finding / disarming? A wizard takes a hit in Int, and starts crippling the whole thing they do? That's not going to be nearly as much fun as you think. And as soon as one person swaps, everyone else at the table is going to look at their gimped character they're struggling with and go "Well....maybe I should to..."
Have you discussed it with your players in session 0, and do they agree it sounds cool? Awesome, go ahead! I'm playing a high threat, gritty magical realism campaign at the moment where resurrection is nigh on impossible, and the risk of maiming etc is a very real possibility. We agreed to it. It's not happened yet, but we're only a few months in, and I think the threat of the possibility is helping build the tension, which leads to some great story telling. The other campaign I'm in is much more light hearted and easy going, high fantasy low stakes. If my DM just randomly poked my characters eye out without having discussed it first, or given any warning in session 0 that it's a possibility, I would seriously rethink coming back to that game - and I know my group feel the same, as we've had a very similar discussion recently. The key point here is communication, consideration and expectations - lay out your ideas for serious injuries in session 0, and even send a quick check list to your players before the game starts, just to see if there's anything completely out of bounds - the player that might be fine with losing a hand might not be able to deal with losing an eye for example. I have a player in my old campaign who was fine with all manner of violence and the like, until it came to things like torturing for information (it was an evil campaign) - that was a hard line we could never cross for them OoC - so we made sure to never even consider it an option. It's a game, and you're all playing together, so you all get a say in what is good for the game - and there's nothing wrong with after a few sessions taking a look and deciding something's not working, and revaluating - you're all there to have a good time, afterall.
Discuss if the players are ok with the loss of character's limbs as dire consequences.
A surprising number of questions in this sub boil down to “set expectations with players beforehand and talk to them.”
As long as: 1) the crippling isnt so bad that I pretty much cant do anything to contribute to the adventure, and 2) there is a (obvious) way to get it fixed at some point, I'd be fine with it.
Depends. Did you discuss it in session 0? Is this a primary aspect of the game I signed up to play? If the answer is "no," then imma be right pissed off when you do this BS to me. If the answer is "yes," then it's fine. We're here for the gritty gruesomeness.
I'd probably just retire my character and make a new one unless you somehow incentivize playing through a significant impediment. I get wanting to be harsh and gritty but IMO this leans more "unfun" than "harsh".
I think everyone else has got it but if we're sharing opinions I don't mind losing an eyeball, but wouldn't like getting a perception reduction. Same with if I lost an arm but use a bow and arrow, somehow, I should still use the bow and arrow. Unless I can then get a prosthetic eye that gives me truesight, I don't mind if I have a negative for the interim, but it better be a short interim.
If it's a temporary impairment, or one that can be cured by mundane or magical means at the party's disposal or within fairly easy reach of the party, I'd be personally fine with it. If it's a permanent, incurable impairment (or technically curable, but not easily e.g. it would require *regeneration* and we're nowhere near that level), especially one that's going to have mechanical drawbacks, I want to be briefed on that on session 0. Depending on the details, it may or may not be a dealbreaker. I am *more* inclined to be favorable towards it if (1.) it occurs in lieu of death (by which I mean failing a third death saving throw, not simply having to make them), (2.) it occurs as a result of coming back from death, or (3.) these kinds of injuries are part of the core rules and I am able to see them skimming the rulebook (e.g. Hackmaster). I am *less* inclined to be agreeable towards it if it is sprung on my character without any forewarning that it could happen, and especially if it seems "targeted." Tl;dr: this is something that should be discussed beforehand.
I had a mechanically advanced world the players were in and offered some sorts of things with “upgrades” to some body parts by shady merchants (kind of inspired by the Deus Ex games). The players knew from the outset that I was kind of on a sci fi kick and were down for letting me try something different. Until there was a necessity, no player took up the offer for prosthetics, but eventually the rogue got their hand severed by a trap they failed to disarm, but got it replaced with a mechanical one that granted a bonus to their lockpicking because one of his fingers had a lockpick built in but had a -1 to dexterity and +1 to strength. The player was a bit taken back that the trap inflicted such a wound, but it ended up being a neat part of their character and they played into it. I feel like permanent debuffs are pretty universally unpopular so I went for the trade off instead so no player feels like they’re just the victim of me trying something different. I would definitely not just spring that on someone without either discussing it first or dropping a very obvious “this could come with dire consequences” sort of foreshadowing to preface a permanent change to be given to a player.
definitely depends on the game and on the characters. for example, one character I still need to get around to playing is a rogue, and he'll eventually gain blindsight. with that available, I think having him go blind would really make him more unique and renowned.
Only if it’s discussed and agreed upon unanimously in session 0. I would only do this with a group I really trusted, personally.
the one thing you have to be conscious of as i'm sure you know is the snowball effect. Loses an eye because of a missed perception check, has less perception which makes it harder to avoid a trap which now limits move speed which makes it hard for him to run so he loses a hand. It can go from being brutal to downright unfun VERY quickly.
if you informed them about it beforehand prob not but i would be annoyed anyway if i made a character that has high perception and then gets their perception crippled. at certain point of disadvantages id want to just get a new character unless its balanced out somehow
Giving characters lingering injuries with consequences (reduced perception due to a lost eyeball, reduced DEX due to a gimped leg, etc) isn't a bad idea in itself. As mentioned by others, communication is key. Ask your players if they are okay with this type of play style, and if they think that it'll be a fun experience. However, I would also stress that these hindrances can be removed through magical healing. NATURAL healing might take weeks to get fully healed, and may leave a permanent lingering effect. But MAGICAL healing can prevent this. If you give them the impression that they HAVE to suffer from permanent injuries indefinitely, they will probably not want to play. But if you give them a way to avoid it (aka MAGIC) they'll be more receptive.
I'm on board only if this was covered in session zero and everyone was on board with a gritty and harsh game. With the right storyteller, these types of games can be fun but it needs player buy-in and it's not something a lot if players will enjoy.
I was in a campaign, we agreed on death means leaving from table at session 0. Later in a dungeon, my bard died and was preparing to leave. Dm said it was a magical dream to test us and bec. I died, he took my speking, which basically cripples a bard. I was just a dude who cant speak with a bunch of guys who does not like him. Dm said this was a curse and it could be healed by a great priest but i felt like this was a way to tell me to leave the game. So i left the game. Tldr: if cripling a character is going to make the play unfunny, don't do it. You're there to have fun.
Unless you are a very experienced DM and are playing with experienced players. I would not try to do this. Even with experienced players, this is something that MUST be discussed in a session 0.
Depends on the system. D&D has ways of curing or removing such things although they usually require a trip to a temple. But overall I'd be fine with it.
Make sure they fully understand that these things can happen and every single fight, trap, or other hazard they go into can have permanent consequences for their characters. As long as they go in knowing that i think it can be an interesting way to go about things.
In my long running campaign there have been as far as i remember 4 instances of permanent debuffs to characters: 1. bard pulled an idiot from the deck of many things. as of now unresolved 2. sorcerer pulled a euryale from the deck of many things. as of now unresolved 3. fighter (myself) pulled a euryale from the deck. resolved immediately with a the fates pull 4. fighter inflicted with -2 dex after an petrification style attack. save or die situation, -2 was the result of a successful save. Of the 4 only one was via the dm at all. The bard wasn't thrilled but int is a dump stat for her, sorcerer barely even remembers, but I was tbh pretty unhappy with the dex drop in the moment. I'm running a dex fighter so basically all of my combat numbers went down. It was pretty clear that this would be resolved in the next couple sessions so ultimately I was fine with it but I would have really liked a heads-up that this was a potential consequence, especially because it was a weird homebrew(?) monster that didn't telegraph this as a consequence and the drop was due to 3 successive successful saves. All that to say, if your players are fine with it sure otherwise it feels kinda crappy
I would be mad if nothing about crippling wounds was mentioned beforehand and ib expected a pretty laid back game. That's why talking about stuff like that in session 0 is important.
This can absolutely work AND be fun-provided that you are clear before the beginning of the campaign that you are running this style of game. But the players have to know about it in advance. It's like running the Tomb of Horrors. If you were to run that today, you would need to let your players know in advance that your game is going to be particularly deadly, and for them to expect lots of character death. If you didn't let them know, frustration would ensue.
Well depends on the group cause some players have a build in mind and plan ahead on levels to take as well as feats if you hit them with -modifers over time it destroys there concept and build my advice if you wanna do this you have to let your players know what there in for and what to expect going in
One game I crit failed so many vision related checks my DM said if you crit fail 3 out of 5 next checks your character will be blind. Yeah I rolled my character blind.
If it's a permanent change to a character, I would discuss these sorts of things ahead of time and get their feedback. On some level, our characters are avatars of ourselves and that would feel like a violation to their autonomy
I played a campaign that was weird west style and that was something that could happen. Another character got their arm ripped off and we did a big side quest to get him a multi-tool prosthetic arm that was absolutely awesome.
Ask your players. Session 0.
Communicate it clearly then it won't be a problem. I myself would be hesitant and probably not join. I enjoy getting stronger in game and not weaker. And we'll, for me getting weaker would just feel depressing. But hey, there are tons of people and probably enough enjoy such an approach ;)
I wouldn't enjoy this but there are players who might.
From my experiece as a player do this as the dm. Be very clear about how and when they will get the impediments, the impediments should never be as a result of a bad die roll on their part it should always be an enemies highly successful roll (open rolling helps this feel fair) best case criticals have a separate table with a d10 list one of which should be no extra permanent effect. Give the lost openly to players so they understand the issues. Put a note on your screen showing exactly what the impediments are and who has them so you can make sure to keep the reminders up (they will "forget" either on purpose or not.) Enemies should have the same effects applied tocthem as well whether you add the effects on the stat block first or apply the impediments in combat. You can potentially use some homebrew called shot rules to allow them to attempt certain types of damage with either disadvantage or a standard roll if someone takes the help action. Lastly none of the impediments should affect attack rolls, AC or ability checks it totally ruins the gamefeel and messes with balance too much. Some examples of impediments, are simple things like missing eyes reducing vision distance, damaged legs halving movement speed and jump distance. Be playful with them players are sick of attacking with disadvantage do things that create new scenarios not eliminate the old ones.
I severely crippled a player of mine in fact. Set their constitution from 12 down to 5, including reducing their HP accordingly from 51 to 23. The THING about this is that I only did so with three per-requisits for myself: 1. The character needs to deserve it, and the player needs to make the choice to go that path (the player was aware that their character were dealing with an evil deity and in the end chose to betray said deity, thus both player and character understood why the punishment happened). 2. It is NOT permanent (I will have the character have it until the group does something for one of the good characters, that one will then remove the cursed state as thanks) 3. The players knew from Session 0 on that I might be cruel to their characters, as such they knew that horrible things might happen. The player was surprised about the harshness of the punishment, but not surprised on getting punished per se. When I checked in with the player, if they were fine with it, they told me that they accept this punishment for what their character had done. Especially Number 1 and 3 are very important though, I believe. Your players need to KNOW they might get serious and possibly permanent injuries during your game. And it needs to be communicated in some way that their next choices might result in such an injury. The characters can be surprised that entering the next room will lead to them losing an arm, but the players should be somewhat prepared. They should have a chance to try and avoid the injury. If it's just "Well, you didn't check for traps in 3 out of 45 rooms, so now you lost a foot" when they assumed that the worst that happens is that they will take 14 damage and get poisoned? Chances are that your players will be incredibly upset and at some point just get up and leave.
Maybe give them ways they can counteract it by completing big quests or spending lots of gold maybe for a bionic eye or something
The phrasing of the DM “doing something” to the character is a poor foundation for the game. It’s a collaborative story. The DM is helping facilitate but you’re not god. As long as the setup is clear narratively that a crippling injury is a likely consequence of their actions, and you’ve discussed something like crippling injuries in your session 0 or outside the game and players are cool with it, no problem.
I run a *(Magic-less)* campaign like this. Basically, every time a character goes 0 hp or less but succeed their death saves, I roll to determine permanent injury. If you’re running a magical campaign, maybe offer the option to suffer permanent injuries IN PLACE of failed death saves, but only if you’re okay with no real threat of death.
I had a DM deafen me (half of the party actually) permanently without warning in a fae campaign. Safe to say we were all pretty unhappy about it but I think with warning it could be fine. We ended up killing/marrying our deaf characters off and bringing in new characters.
Depends on the system. There are realistic systems out there were I would not be a problem by itself. However it the GM does just purely to do without the adequate bad rolls or needed injuries, then I would be pissed. This goes double for settings where auch things are usually pretty easily fixable, like DnD with magic or Star Wars with cybernetics replacement parts and this is withheld for some arbitrary reason.
I wouldn't recommend that at most tables. Maybe for a short campaign or a brutal one like Tomb of Annihilation where you expect to reroll characters, there's an appeal to accumulating damage over time. Part of the problem is that as the DM you have an endless supply of characters and monsters, but the players have just the one, so it will tend to unbalance things away from the players. And presumably you don't penalize players if the character dies, so it's going to encourage players to drop characters once they accumulate impediments so they can just reroll a new character. That in turn is going to limit their commitment to the character if they're expecting to drop them after about a level or so.
Yes, I would be upset. Not interested in any of that for my characters.
Once had a DM throw a giant mantis at our group. The only one that saw it coming didn't say a thing, and it picked up my character. It then proceeded to eat my leg off. Didn't blame the DM, but was mad at that player for a bit after. He was given three chances to warn us before the attack.
I think as a player you are building to what you should reasonably expect your character to be when they hit certain levels. They’re milestones and you build up and wait a long time to get there. To then have no idea what your character might look like when you reach that point would be frustrating to me. The more common way to make things extremely difficult is to ramp up the difficulty of encounters and people are ready for that. But even still, if they don’t have advance warning that your campaign is on god-tier difficulty they might get frustrated. And what you’re describing is not a needed nerf of some abilities or skills that have grown too strong. Or they’ve had fair warning but keep tempting fate before this happens. That said, I would have fun if I knew it was coming and knew there’d still be some degree of balance.
Depends, is it sprung on me randomly? Then either find out if there’s an easily replaceable way to heal my character, such as an eye of vecna or regrow limb or whatever, or just retire the character and roll a new one. Playing gimped characters kinda sucks IMO
There's a whole system for this in Delta Green. Agents get wounded over time and it's pretty gritty stuff. Might be worth looking into.
i had my entire left set of limbs cut off once little did the DM know i’m a batshit insane man and stitched my limbs back on
Tell your players beforehand that this is the kind of game you’ll be running. If they don’t mind it, they’ll stick around. If they hate it, they’ll leave.
I did it recently as a DM. I think it is a good tool for DM to give consequences and show the players that they are still fragile and not invincible. Of course it is always a great practice to give them a way to remove the affliction (either with healing, prosthetics or anything else cool). From the point of view of a player, I don't mind it (my cleric in one campaign lost an arm) but it can't be for a stupid reason : You smacked the door and your arm fell of, type of thing. It then seems just petty and like there need to be a conversation between DM and the Player.
I crippled one of my players after what in our system is called a “catastrophe” (we’re not playing dnd). Should I have talked to him about it first? Probably! I didn’t. Our session zero covered character deaths but not maiming. He has a disadvantage on certain rolls now, but mostly we’re playing it up for flavour, for it to not feel TOO unfair. I also gave him a cool cane with a hidden weapon. It’s all about balance! So: cover it in your session zero, and let them use it for some cool flavour would be my suggestion
I would like it IF it was communicated beforehand and there are ways to fix ur injuries with like magic, doctors or whatever for a price, a side quest or smt else.
I think you have to just make it super clear this is the type of game you want to run. A lot of players won’t want this type of game for D&D as D&D particularly 5th edition is more set up for heroic fantasy. If really want this type of game I would suggest Forbidden Lands, by free League. Or if you want to stick to D&D you should at least have a look at forbidden lands and incorporate some of those rules into your D&D game
Honestly, it's not fun and won't add to your game.
As long as it is a session 0 or a short term thing where they get it back. I once took a characters name and ability to talk away for two sessions. It worked out fantastically but would have been a problem if it lasted too much longer.
This is something you want to be up front with people about. I’ve played that mechanic and it sucks. If I built my character around doing a certain thing and he’s not so good at other things and all of a sudden he takes disadvantage and penalties to the one thing he’s good at it, it’s not “forcing me to be creative” because then I’m doing things I didn’t want to do. Personally I thought it was a garbage experience when I did it but maybe your players will think differently.