# New Article: Death and Dying



## Chris_Nightwing (Feb 4, 2008)

It's up!

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080201a&authentic=true

[sblock]Character death is one of the ultimate threats in any RPG, and D&D is no exception. Besides the obvious, um, “inconveniences” that death might cause your character and his allies in both the short and long term—inconveniences which vary based on your level, the current situation, and of course your attachment to that particular character—death is a mark of failure. In some hard-to-explain but very real way, a dead character symbolizes that you just “lost” at D&D. That can prove a bitter pill for many players, and in my experience is even more frustrating than paying for a resurrection.
What We Hated

Early in the design process, Rob, James, and I identified a number of ways that we were unsatisified with D&D’s current death and dying rules. For example, we strongly disliked the inability of 3rd Edition D&D’s negative-hit-point model to deal with combat at higher levels—once the monsters are reliably dealing 15 or 20 points of damage with each attack, the chance of a character going straight from “alive and kicking” to “time to go through his pockets for loose change” was exceedingly high; effectively, the -1 to -9 “dying” range was meaningless. Ask any high-level fighter whether he’d prefer the second-to-last attack from a monster to leave him at 1 hp or -1 hp; I’d put odds on unconsciousness, and how lame is that?

Among other problems, this also meant that characters effectively had no way to “lose” a combat except by being killed. This removes a lot of dramatic possibilities for the story—for instance, the classic scene of the characters being captured and thrown in a cell from which they have to escape using only their wits and a pack of chewing gum (or whatever).

On top of all that, the game added a complex state of being at exactly 0 hp, which wasn’t quite like being fully capable but also wasn’t quite dying. Honestly, though, how often does any character actually get reduced to exactly 0 hp? Why did the game need a condition that existed at exactly one spot on the big, broad range of hit point possibilities?
What We Wanted

We wanted a death and dying system that added fun and tension at the table, scaled well to any level of play, and created the threat of PC mortality (without delivering on that threat as often as 3rd Edition did).

Characters had to feel that death was a possibility in order for combat to feel meaningful. If it seems impossible to be killed, much of the tension of combat disappears. However, if the majority of combats result in death (as is the case for a lot of high-level play in previous editions), the game is forced to reclassify death as a trivial obstacle in order to remain playable. 3rd Edition accomplished this with popular spells such as close wounds, delay death, and revivify—mandatory staples of any high-level cleric’s arsenal due purely to the commonality of death. But that removes the tension, and now what’s the point of death at all?

The system also had to be simple to remember and adjudicate at the table. Being able to keep the rule in your head is important, because you don’t want to be bogging the game down flipping through a book when a character is clinging to life by a thread—that should be high-tension time, not slowdown time!

Finally, it had to be believable within the heroic-fantasy milieu of D&D. (Believability isn’t the same thing as realism—an error which has ruined more games than I can count.) Put another way, it had to feel like D&D—one of those tricky “you know it when you see it” things.
What We Did About It

Back in 2005, this was obviously a much lower priority than, say, creating the new model for how classes and races worked, so we put it on the back burner to simmer. As the months passed, we and other designers proposed various models that tried to solve the conundrums set out above, varying from exceedingly abstract to witheringly simulationist. We playtested every model, from death tracks to life points, each time learning something different about what worked or didn’t work. A few times, we even temporarily settled on a solution, claiming that the playtesters only needed time to get used to our radical new ideas.

Side note to all those would-be game designers out there: When you hear yourself making that claim, you might be in danger of losing touch with reality. Sometimes you’re right, and your innovative game design concept just needs a little time to sink in. (The cycling initiative system used by 3rd Edition D&D is a good example of that—back in 1999, some very vociferous playtesters were convinced that it would ruin D&D combat forever. Turned out that wasn’t exactly true.) But every time you convince yourself that you know better than the people playing your game, you’re opening the possibility of a very rude (and costly) awakening.

Thankfully, our awakening came well before we released the game (or even before widescale playtesting began, for that matter). Despite some quite elegant concepts, none of our radical new ideas met all the criteria necessary, including simplicity, playability, fun, and believability.

The system had to be at least as simple to remember and at least as easy to play as what already existed. For all their other flaws, negative hit points are pretty easy to use, and they work well with the existing hit-point system.

It had to be at least as much fun as what already existed, and it had to be at least as believable as what already existed. In ideal situations, negative hit points create fun tension at the table, and they’re reasonably believable, at least within the heroic fantasy milieu of D&D, where characters are supposed to get the stuffing beaten out of them on a regular basis without serious consequences.

Every one of our new ideas failed to meet at least one of those criteria. Maybe they were playable but too abstract to feel fun or believable, or they were believable but too complicated to remember. Nothing worked, and I admit we experienced a couple of freak-out moments behind closed doors.
The Breakthrough

Eventually we got it through our heads that there wasn’t a radical new game mechanic just waiting to be discovered that would revolutionize the narrow window between life and death in D&D. What we really needed to do was just widen the window, reframe it, and maybe put in an extra pane for insulation. (OK, that analogy went off the tracks, but its heart was in the right place.)

Characters still use a negative hit point threshold to determine when they move from “unconscious and dying” to “all-the-way-dead,” but now that threshold scales with their level (or more specifically, with their hit point total). A character with 30 hit points (such as a low-level cleric) dies when he reaches -15 hit points, while the 15th-level fighter with 120 hp isn’t killed until he’s reduced to -60 hit points.

That may seem like an unreachable number, but it’s important to remember that monsters, like characters, aren’t piling on as many attacks on their turn as in 3rd Edition. At 15th level, that fighter might face a tough brute capable of dishing out 25 or 30 points of damage with its best attack… or nearly twice that on a crit. The threat of “alive-to-negative-everything” on a single hit remains in play, but it’s much less common than in the previous edition. That puts that bit of tension back where it belongs.

The new system also retains the “unconscious character bleeding out” concept, but for obvious reasons speeds it along a bit. (There’s not really any tension watching that 15th-level fighter bleed out at a rate of 1 hp per round for 30 or 40 rounds.) Thanks to some clever abstractions, the new system also removes the predictability of the current death timer. (“OK, Regdar’s at -2 hp, so we have 8 rounds to get to him. Yawn… time for a nap.”)

It’s also less costly to bring dying characters back into the fight now—there’s no “negative hit point tax” that you have to pay out of the healing delivered by your cure serious wounds prayer. That helps ensure that a character who was healed from unconsciousness isn’t in an immediate threat of going right back there (and you’ll never again have the “I fed Jozan a potion of healing but he’s still at negative hit points” disappointment).

Monsters don’t need or use this system unless the DM has special reason to do so. A monster at 0 hp is dead, and you don’t have to worry about wandering around the battlefield stabbing all your unconscious foes. (I’m sure my table isn’t the only place that happens.) We’ve talked elsewhere about some of the bogus parallelism that can lead to bad game design—such as all monsters having to follow character creation rules, even though they’re supposed to be foes to kill, not player characters—this is just another example of the game escaping that trap. Sure, a DM can decide for dramatic reasons that a notable NPC or monster might linger on after being defeated. Maybe a dying enemy survives to deliver a final warning or curse before expiring, or at the end of a fight the PCs discover a bloody trail leading away from where the evil warlock fell, but those will be significant, story-based exceptions to the norm.

Oh, and speaking of zero hit points? You’re unconscious and dying, just like every new player expects it should be. It’s not as harsh as the “dead at 0 hp” rule of the original D&D game, but it’s still not a place you want to be for long!
Try It Now!

If you want to try out a version of this system in your current game, try the following house rule. It’s not quite the 4th Edition system, but it should give you an idea of how it’ll feel.

1) At 0 hp or less, you fall unconscious and are dying.
Any damage dealt to a dying character is applied normally, and might kill him if it reduces his hit points far enough (see #2).

2) Characters die when their negative hit point total reaches -10 or one-quarter of their full normal hit points, whichever is a larger value.
This is less than a 4th Edition character would have, but each monster attack is dealing a smaller fraction of the character’s total hit points, so it should be reasonable. If it feels too small, increase it to one-third full normal hit points and try again.

3) If you’re dying at the end of your turn, roll 1d20.
Lower than 10: You get worse. If you get this result three times before you are healed or stabilized (as per the Heal skill), you die.
10-19: No change.
20: You get better! You wake up with hit points equal to one-quarter your full normal hit points.

4) If a character with negative hit points receives healing, he returns to 0 hp before any healing is applied.
In other words, he’ll wake up again with hit points equal to the healing provided by the effect—a cure light wounds spell for 7 hp will bring any dying character back to 7 hp, no matter what his negative hit point total had reached.)

5) A dying character who’s been stabilized (via the Heal skill) doesn’t roll a d20 at the end of his turn unless he takes more damage.[/sblock]


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 4, 2008)

Not bad.  Hard to be amazed, as it really isn't very different, but nice.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 4, 2008)

Hmm. Some variant of "Dead at -hit points or -Con" is a pretty common house rule, so it's surprising it took them so long to get it. I like they address one of the problems with similar systems in other games (like GURPS 3e) where it can take a long, long, time to kill a powerful character after he's knocked out.

"Gets worse three times" is interesting. I like that it solves the "He's got nine rounds, no bigs" problem, and also that it makes being a -1 out of -21 just as risky as being at -20 (out of -21). Wanna bet there's feats to improve post-mortem stabilization?

I usually do track stabilization/negative HPs for monsters, because there's always players who want to cast a Cure on a dying orc so the can question him -- or heroic types who won't let even an enemy die if they can help it. Usually, though, at high levels, damage blows right past -10 so it's a moot point, as the article noted.

As for 0 hit points...yes, it was rare, but when it did happen, it was a very dramatic sort of thing, with characters risking all to strike that one, final, blow and then drop to -1.


----------



## Beckett (Feb 4, 2008)

Thanks for pointing it out.

Sounds very workable. And I appreciate that we get a "Play 4E Now" sidebar. I might have to give this a try at my next session.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Feb 4, 2008)

Yes.  It's very interesting.  I think the rolling a d20 and looking at the chart will take some getting used to; I already remember it, but rolling 10% every round has become _ingrained_.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 4, 2008)

Its...better...

It uses the "new saving throw" we have been seeing here and there for various conditions. (roll a 20 sider, 10 or less bad, higher good). That is something pretty easy to remember, if its used enough.


----------



## Voss (Feb 4, 2008)

Meh.
Hey, this NPC isn't dead!  He must be important to the plot!  
They're really taking the 'monsters and PCs don't work the same way' thing way too far.  Between this, the thing with crits and some of the magic item stuff, it just feels clumsy and awkward.  It fails the believablity test that he mentions.

I can also see why several of the PCs during the playtests are bouncing from out to upright repeatedly, like a yo-yo.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 4, 2008)

Awesome! No more negative HP tax! No more healthy to dead in a single hit at high level!

And the play 4e now sidebar is cool, oops, I mean totally spectacular! I hope they have more of those play 4e now sidebars.

The more I hear about 4e the more I think this will truly be the best edition of D&D ever!


----------



## Thaumaturge (Feb 4, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> It uses the "new saving throw" we have been seeing here and there for various conditions. (roll a 20 sider, 10 or less bad, higher good). That is something pretty easy to remember, if its used enough.




That's a good point.  If the same mechanic permeates the system, then it becomes easy to use and consistent.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Imban (Feb 4, 2008)

(cross-posted from RPG.net)

I think this one's pretty interesting, and look forward to seeing how it works in practice. I've been playing by "for (most) monsters, zero HP is dead" since my first 3e game, the exceptions being when monster healing is present. (Since with fast healing/regeneration, a monster in the unconscious range will almost always recover above 0 at the very start of its turn in the initiative order, and I don't want to "cheat" NPC healers out of the ability to use their abilities to the fullest.)

I'll probably play it the exact same way in 4e, except - especially noticing the large amount of HP a successful stabilization check can return - adding NPC face characters to the list of people who use the expanded unconsciousness system.

Of course, if all of the enemies are unconscious in front of the party, they're all dead.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Feb 4, 2008)

> Honestly, though, how often does any character actually get reduced to exactly 0 hp?




Honestly?  Practically every single session (below level 12 or so).  The last time it happened was this past session.  And then it happened the last session I was at and the one before that!  It happens all the time for our group.

Maybe our group is the exception that proves the rule.


----------



## Ian O'Rourke (Feb 4, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I can also see why several of the PCs during the playtests are bouncing from out to upright repeatedly, like a yo-yo.




Someone used a pheonix feather on them on their turn, obviously.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Feb 4, 2008)

Meh. I'm not thrilled with it, but it doesn't suck.

The only cheese I smell is mysteriously waking up with 1/4 HP.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 4, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Meh.
> Hey, this NPC isn't dead!  He must be important to the plot!
> They're really taking the 'monsters and PCs don't work the same way' thing way too far.




This is EXACTLY how 3e works now.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Feb 4, 2008)

Ian O'Rourke said:
			
		

> Someone used a pheonix feather on them on their turn, obviously.



Chuckle.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 4, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> The only cheese I smell is mysteriously waking up with 1/4 HP.




Since HP are abstract and don't necessarily correspond to actual physical damage, I have no problem with it.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 4, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> This is EXACTLY how 3e works now.




Besides, you should be aware of the plot-critical NPCs anyway, since they're the ones who get detailed, do all the talking, have names instead of 'Orc Guard 17", etc...


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 4, 2008)

"Finally, it had to be believable within the heroic-fantasy milieu of D&D. (Believability isn’t the same thing as realism—an error which has ruined more games than I can count.)"
Hearing that from a designer sold me completely, I can now wait peacefully for 4E.
Thank you.


----------



## Xyl (Feb 4, 2008)

I generally have monsters die at 0 hp in my game, too.

I'm curious what the difference between the "use it now" rules and the actual 4e rules are. Obviously they changed it from -1/2 to -1/4. I'm guessing that the roll d20 thing is actually a saving throw every round (fail = worsen, succeed = stay the same, 20 = return to consciousness), with most saving throws requiring a 10 or better to succeed.


----------



## Grymar (Feb 4, 2008)

Interesting.  I think the -hp total is far too large to kill someone, but I guess I need to see how attacks scale to really make that call.  I like how heals reset you to zero before being applied, but dislike the "on a 20 you get better" rule for stabilization.  

A mixed bag, for me.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Feb 4, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Hearing that from a designer sold me completely, I can now wait peacefully for 4E.
> Thank you.




Agreed.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 4, 2008)

Interesting.  Gets the job done.  Gives you a lot of rounds to lay on the ground and moan, though- at the point you drop into the negatives, you can expect about 5 rounds before you die.

Of course, it may also be harder for the cleric to go rescue you in a game where multiple enemy combats are the norm.  Its easier to disengage from one foe than twelve.


----------



## Victim (Feb 4, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I can also see why several of the PCs during the playtests are bouncing from out to upright repeatedly, like a yo-yo.




That seems pretty much like the story of our 3.5 dark elf rogue.  For a while, she had so few points - and our favored soul was so good at healing - that she'd be at full, take one round's worth of attacks and get knocked out, then get healed back to up near full (plus temp HP).


----------



## A'koss (Feb 4, 2008)

Hmmm.... an interesting spin on the fairly common expanded neg. HP solution with the "3 strikes and yer out" caveat. That's not bad...

Another thing that caught my eye is the 15th level fighter with 120 HP. If this is the average and Fighters start with ~30 HP, then he's gaining roughly 6.5 HP/level. I was curious how HPs were handled, I was actually expecting a little bit less than this.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Feb 4, 2008)

I like the idea of 1/2 total HP equals the maximum negative HP a player can have. However, it once again delves right back into the old addages of 2nd edition (negative numbers).

Hmm. Still not entirely satisfying, but I'll houserule something similar once 4th edition comes out (unless a better version is introed in the rules).


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Feb 4, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Since HP are abstract and don't necessarily correspond to actual physical damage, I have no problem with it.



Abstract or not, 25% is a signifigant number.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 4, 2008)

Well, I have to say this is pretty much definately an improvement, for my money.

It's not "WOW!", but it's clearly a system that is simple, fun, quick and still tense. I'm not sure if I like the whole "three strikes and yer out" thing and it bugs me a tiny bit that Regdar on negative 69 HP is going spring up on full healed value HP just like Mialee on -2 HP, and that his saves are just as easy, but hey, it's better than 2E. I'll certainly steal it if I run a 3.5E game before 4E comes out.

I do wonder if, given how LARGE the negative values are, whether you need them at all. I mean, why not just have it so you have a "dying" state when knocked below 1hp, which would be very similar but prevent any fiddling with negative numbers? The article didn't seem to touch on that, other than to say you might get hit for enough to go from low-HP to perma-dead (sure, but it seems unlikely, frankly, and they just explained how that wasn't particularly fun).


----------



## Imban (Feb 4, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... an interesting spin on the fairly common expanded neg. HP solution with the "3 strikes and yer out" caveat. That's not bad...
> 
> Another thing that caught my eye is the 15th level fighter with 120 HP. If this is the average and Fighters start with ~30 HP, then he's gaining roughly 6.5 HP/level. I was curious how HPs were handled, I was actually expecting a little bit less than this.




That's equivalent to a 15th-level 3e Fighter, without any equipment, with 14 Constitution. (12 HP at 1st level + average 7.5 HP/level for 14 levels = 117 HP)


----------



## ehren37 (Feb 4, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Meh.
> Hey, this NPC isn't dead!  He must be important to the plot!




Agreed. I'm not a fan of rail roading DM'ing by fiat. If an NPC is important to your oh so precious plot, keep them out of combat with the PC's.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 4, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> Abstract or not, 25% is a signifigant number.




Agreed. 

I'm ok with it, though. I'm known for being "generous" with HP in my game. 

But I like the 4e approach so much that at this point I don't see any need for houseruling. Granted I haven't seen and played the final product yet.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 4, 2008)

Looks very cool fun interesting!

This might remove the necessity of _yet another_ of my D&D house rules. 

(Normally when I run D&D, a character cannot die without the player's consent. So while this rule is apparently more 'sim' than I'd prefer---I am willing to see how this rule works before tinkering with it)


----------



## A'koss (Feb 4, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> That's equivalent to a 15th-level 3e Fighter, without any equipment, with 14 Constitution. (12 HP at 1st level + average 7.5 HP/level for 14 levels = 117 HP)



Yup, but we still need to know how 4e arrived at those numbers - Static HPs? Die? Do Con bonuses factor in?


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Feb 4, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I do wonder if, given how LARGE the negative values are, whether you need them at all. I mean, why not just have it so you have a "dying" state when knocked below 1hp, which would be very similar but prevent any fiddling with negative numbers? The article didn't seem to touch on that, other than to say you might get hit for enough to go from low-HP to perma-dead (sure, but it seems unlikely, frankly, and they just explained how that wasn't particularly fun).



Good point.  Depending on how the system works, this may be my first 4e houserule.  

The only reason I can see for having it is that high level monsters (who do more damage) will be able to one-hit kill low leve PCs.  Depending on your game style, that may or may not be desireable.


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 4, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> The only cheese I smell is mysteriously waking up with 1/4 HP.



I think that's only for the 3E House Rule. In 4E it's gonna be "wake up with 1/2 HP", if it uses the same logic from the #2 in the Try It Now part. Who knows?


----------



## Storminator (Feb 4, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Interesting.  Gets the job done.  Gives you a lot of rounds to lay on the ground and moan, though- at the point you drop into the negatives, you can expect about 5 rounds before you die.
> 
> Of course, it may also be harder for the cleric to go rescue you in a game where multiple enemy combats are the norm.  Its easier to disengage from one foe than twelve.




I foresee enemy Defenders standing over fallen comrades...   

PS


----------



## Peter LaCara (Feb 4, 2008)

Reminds me of Final Fantasy Tactics.

This is a very, very good thing, by the way.


----------



## Grog (Feb 4, 2008)

This rule will probably also scale pretty easily. If you want a more lethal game, reduce the -HP threshold to 1/4 of the character's max HP or something. If you want a less lethal game, increase it to 3/4 or whatever. There may even be an optional rule to that effect included.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Feb 4, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> Its...better...
> 
> It uses the "new saving throw" we have been seeing here and there for various conditions. (roll a 20 sider, 10 or less bad, higher good). That is something pretty easy to remember, if its used enough.




and it's more of a Luck Roll than anything else


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 4, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I do wonder if, given how LARGE the negative values are, whether you need them at all. I mean, why not just have it so you have a "dying" state when knocked below 1hp, which would be very similar but prevent any fiddling with negative numbers? The article didn't seem to touch on that, other than to say you might get hit for enough to go from low-HP to perma-dead (sure, but it seems unlikely, frankly, and they just explained how that wasn't particularly fun).




Maybe some characters will have powers that let them fight even when they have negative HPs.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Feb 4, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> I think that's only for the 3E House Rule. In 4E it's gonna be "wake up with 1/2 HP", if it uses the same logic from the #2 in the Try It Now part. Who knows?



Oh, yeah well that's... even worse.  :\


----------



## Lizard (Feb 4, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Meh.
> Hey, this NPC isn't dead!  He must be important to the plot!




And this is different from normal gaming how? 

Even in Champions, 99% of villains don't get Recovery after they're unconscious.

Most of the time, I assume any monster knocked to less than 0 hp is dead. It's grossly unheroic for PCs to slit throats, and it's tedious to check Stabilization rolls on a half-dozen orcs. If I really want an NPC to live, then, I will track the negative HPs and roll for them to stabilize, but, otherwise, it's up to the PCs.

For example, at one point, the PCs encountered the villains right after (offscreen) the villains had gutted a friendly tavern owner. One player rushed off to try to save the NPC, heedless of the fact the big bads were pounding on the rest of the party. So I quickly retconned, figured average damage to death, how far negative the barkeep would be, and how many rounds had passed, then rolled stabilization checks. Turned out the PC was one round too late.. 

ISTM a lot of the "Not for NPCS!" rules are intended to avoid crushing newbie DMs with details which they don't yet know instinctively they don't need, while increasing mechanical complexity for PCs without increasing the burden on DMs. These rules are an inevitable consequence of the increase in PC capability -- either everyone is as complex, in which case the DM is overwhelmed, or PCs are 3-d color CGI images and NPCs are paper stick figures. Given their original design goals, gross oversimplification of NPCs is unavoidable to still have a playable game.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Feb 4, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:
			
		

> Meh. I'm not thrilled with it, but it doesn't suck.
> 
> The only cheese I smell is mysteriously waking up with 1/4 HP.



It sounds like 4e is trying to make a natural 20 be a really big deal.  I guess I don't feel like it's any cheesier than doing more damage when rolling an attack roll.  Much like rolling a 20 on an attack roll, the PC manages to tap into some inner resource that helps him shake off the pain.  *shrug*


----------



## A'koss (Feb 4, 2008)

FabioMilitoPagliara said:
			
		

> and it's more of a Luck Roll than anything else



Which are ripe for feats and class abilities to modify...


The "Wake up with 1/4 HPs" thing strikes me as a _cinematic_ recovery, where the hero suddenly wakes up after a drubbing, scowls and immediately proceeds to kick everyone's ass.


----------



## Peter LaCara (Feb 4, 2008)

FabioMilitoPagliara said:
			
		

> and it's more of a Luck Roll than anything else



Although if you get a bonus to Saves (which I imagine are rare, but extremely significant when they show up), that makes a character much tougher.

Hey, here's an idea. What if there are feats that provide you with bonuses to saves, but only against certain things? Like a Dwarven racial feat that provides a +2 bonus to saves to recover from poison, or a Hard to Kill feat that gives you a +2 bonus on saves to stabilize.

Man. I was a little wary of the new save mechanic at first, but I'm really liking it the more I think about it.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 4, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> Good point.  Depending on how the system works, this may be my first 4e houserule.
> 
> The only reason I can see for having it is that high level monsters (who do more damage) will be able to one-hit kill low leve PCs.  Depending on your game style, that may or may not be desireable.



It also gives a standard for handling monsters who are liable to attack a fallen character.  Animalistic monsters looking for a meal might keep biting a character with negative hit points, and in my view of things, goblins would rather stab the dead guy then go fight the living one.


----------



## BarkingDeathSquirrel (Feb 4, 2008)

It's pretty good, but I think I still like the mechanics used in AE for Death/Dying more (especially since it increased the range in which being Disabled/Staggered occurred, rather than just outright remove it  ).

After my RAW test of 4e (ie: H1), I'll probably switch to a mix between the two (no "negative hit point tax" being one definite change).


----------



## Grog (Feb 4, 2008)

The one thing I really don't like about this rule is that it doesn't seem to matter how far below 0 HP you are; you have the same chance of dying regardless. This could lead to silly situations like a character getting stabbed in the toe by a halfling and dying three rounds later, while a character whose skull was bashed in by a titan pops back up the next round and goes on fighting.

Still, on balance, I think it's a good rule. I just hope those corner cases don't happen very often.


----------



## epochrpg (Feb 4, 2008)

Rouse-Tastic!

THIS is the kind of article that would make someone think the DDI will actually be worthwhile!  By far THE BEST Design & Development article made yet.  The rest teased you with "if only you could see how cool this is"  This one ACTUALLY EXPLAINED how the new mechanic would work, AND how to do it at home in a 3.5 game.  I hope they continue along this path in making their articles and that they do this for the Grapple rules soon!  Remember, WoTC-- the reason so many people bought 3e was BECAUSE of how much they knew (and liked) about it before it came out-- so by all means, keep sharing, and more of us may be buying!

As to the mechanic itself, I think it is great.  I would have 1st level PCs die at Negative CON score instead of -10 though (always how we house-ruled it), and then change to a quarter Max HP later on.  I like that there is no "HP Tax" and that it only takes 3 failed checks to die.  I'd rather have 3 50% chances to live (odds of failure of all= 12.5%) than 10 10% chances. (Odds of failing them all = 90%)  

I like that you can "get better" on your own, and be healed up to 25%.  It simulates the character who was knocked out in a monster movie showing up and saving someone else later on, sporting a 2x4 and a bump on the head. 

Something I didn't like is that if you stabalize w/ a Heal check, you don't get worse-- but because  you aren't rolling it seems you don't get better either...  I would say that a person who is stabalized still rolls, but only on a natural 20 do they have any change (they get better).


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 4, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I do wonder if, given how LARGE the negative values are, whether you need them at all. I mean, why not just have it so you have a "dying" state when knocked below 1hp, which would be very similar but prevent any fiddling with negative numbers?



Essentially, that's how I do things now. 

'Unconsious' is the default condition when you go under 1 hp, while 'dying' is the state you pass into if you take damage while unconsious. 

At the end of the encounter/scene, unconscious characters wake up, dying character die. Naturally, action/drama points can be spent to bump you up from dying to unconscious to 'awake'.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 4, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I do wonder if, given how LARGE the negative values are, whether you need them at all. I mean, why not just have it so you have a "dying" state when knocked below 1hp, which would be very similar but prevent any fiddling with negative numbers? The article didn't seem to touch on that, other than to say you might get hit for enough to go from low-HP to perma-dead (sure, but it seems unlikely, frankly, and they just explained how that wasn't particularly fun).




From what we've seen, 4e is big on DOTs and area effects. This means your corpse will keep taking damage round after round, more so than in 3e -- so you may well burn through that reserve before you've hit '3 strikes'.


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 4, 2008)

Article said:
			
		

> 5) A dying character who’s been stabilized (via the Heal skill) doesn’t roll a d20 at the end of his turn unless he takes more damage.



There is a problem here. The character is stabilized, but what does that means? Is he conscious or not? Being stabilized prevents you from rolling a 20 and get 1/4 hit pts!


----------



## Lizard (Feb 4, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Which are ripe for feats and class abilities to modify...
> 
> 
> The "Wake up with 1/4 HPs" thing strikes me as a _cinematic_ recovery, where the hero suddenly wakes up after a drubbing, scowls and immediately proceeds to kick everyone's ass.




I keep thinking of Ahr-nuld in Terminator II.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Feb 4, 2008)

Peter LaCara said:
			
		

> Although if you get a bonus to Saves (which I imagine are rare, but extremely significant when they show up), that makes a character much tougher.
> 
> Hey, here's an idea. What if there are feats that provide you with bonuses to saves, but only against certain things? Like a Dwarven racial feat that provides a +2 bonus to saves to recover from poison, or a Hard to Kill feat that gives you a +2 bonus on saves to stabilize.
> 
> Man. I was a little wary of the new save mechanic at first, but I'm really liking it the more I think about it.



this would make for very different characters
you have the standard defense and then a generic Luck roll that you can "personalize" with the right feat
I think you got it


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 4, 2008)

Victim said:
			
		

> That seems pretty much like the story of our 3.5 dark elf rogue.  For a while, she had so few points - and our favored soul was so good at healing - that she'd be at full, take one round's worth of attacks and get knocked out, then get healed back to up near full (plus temp HP).




I played in a really high-level game once in which the party's ranger/scout died twice in the course of a single battle, and ended the fight at full hit points.

3.5E combat gets pretty wacky at level 18+...


----------



## Peter LaCara (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> The one thing I really don't like about this rule is that it doesn't seem to matter how far below 0 HP you are; you have the same chance of dying regardless. This could lead to silly situations like a character getting stabbed in the toe by a halfling and dying three rounds later, while a character whose skull was bashed in by a titan pops back up the next round and goes on fighting.
> 
> Still, on balance, I think it's a good rule. I just hope those corner cases don't happen very often.



This depends entirely on how you visualize HP. A 2 hp attack from a halfling is not a stab in the toe if the fighter only has 1 hp left. That's the halfling shanking the fighter in the gut as he's still dazed and exhausted from parrying that ogre's massive club attack (that really just did 30 damage to him). ANY hit that drops a PC to zero should be described as potentially lethal regardless of if it does 1 damage or 100.


----------



## epochrpg (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> The one thing I really don't like about this rule is that it doesn't seem to matter how far below 0 HP you are; you have the same chance of dying regardless. This could lead to silly situations like a character getting stabbed in the toe by a halfling and dying three rounds later, while a character whose skull was bashed in by a titan pops back up the next round and goes on fighting.
> 
> Still, on balance, I think it's a good rule. I just hope those corner cases don't happen very often.




An easy way to handle this would be to, despite the damage roll, role-play any attack that takes someone to negative HP to be of equal seriousness.  The halfling didn't stab your toe-- they made a pinhole in a major arterie.  The titan didn't bash-in your skull (that would be if you died) he bashed in some ribs instead...  You may have punctured a lung (and then die) or it may have looked worse than it was (if you get up).  Same goes for the arterial halfling strike-- you bled out & died, or the wound clotted & closed itself...


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Feb 4, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> The "Wake up with 1/4 HPs" thing strikes me as a _cinematic_ recovery, where the hero suddenly wakes up after a drubbing, scowls and immediately proceeds to kick everyone's ass.




And that is exactly how I want it.

The 'cinematic' part.

Well... I want my PC to kick ass as well.

So yeah...  that is exactly how I want it.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 4, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> From what we've seen, 4e is big on DOTs and area effects. This means your corpse will keep taking damage round after round, more so than in 3e -- so you may well burn through that reserve before you've hit '3 strikes'.




Hmmm. I'm not sure keeping track really adds anything, though. The damage will ensure you're not getting stabilized, or if you are, you're keeping going back to dying, and three strikes will get you in six rounds, usually. I guess it means if you keel over right in front of the angry dragon, you're in even more trouble, but meh, again, not sure if that ADDS to the game.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Feb 4, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> The "Wake up with 1/4 HPs" thing strikes me as a _cinematic_ recovery, where the hero suddenly wakes up after a drubbing, scowls and immediately proceeds to kick everyone's ass.



At least at 1/4 hit points, the character is still bloodied (do we know if there are any penalties associated with that particular condition?)


----------



## Sitara (Feb 4, 2008)

Hoo boy.

I am NOT thrilled. I was hoping negative hp's, a silly and annoying subsytemic mechanic would be done with now that they had 'second wind', and since SAGA did away with it.

Not good. Though I do like the play 4e now side bar! Hope to see these in every article now.


----------



## mhensley (Feb 4, 2008)

Yay!  They removed one of the last mechanics in the game that doesn't use a d20- the roll for stability.  I hope they got rid of all percentile-based rolls.  

Let's look at the odds of dying.  I ran this thru a quick javascript simulation with 100,000 tests and got:

Saved=27215 (0.27215)
Killed=72785 (0.72785)

So when using the table in the article, you have over a 70% chance of dying if nobody comes to your aid.  That's seems nasty enough to me.


----------



## Peter LaCara (Feb 4, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> There is a problem here. The character is stabilized, but what does that means? Is he conscious or not? Being stabilized prevents you from rolling a 20 and get 1/4 hit pts!



Well, I've rule that being at negative hp even in 3e doesn't mean that you're unconscious. It means that you're lying on the ground, desperately trying to hold your intestines in and screaming for your mother just as often as it means you're lying face down unconscious with blood pouring from your messy head wound.

It's true, someone making a heal check to stabilize you prevents you from rolling a natural 20 and potentially getting back into the fight, but so does rolling a 10-19 to stabilize normally. We know that the Heal skill can provide you with "healing reserves", so if someone uses Heal to stabilize you one round, they can possibly use Heal the next round to get you back into the fight.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 4, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> Though I do like the play 4e now side bar! Hope to see these in every article now.



Hear, Hear!

That is the kind of thing I've been hoping to see in these preview articles. Nicely done.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Feb 4, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> So when using the table in the article, you have over a 70% chance of dying if nobody comes to your aid.  That's seems nasty enough to me.




Thank you for the breakdown.  Very cool.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 4, 2008)

Yeah, I am viewing healing as the actual physical-act of being bandaged up, brought back from the brink. Then pulled out of the front-lines to be fully patched up.

This may take longer but it is a safer way to get back in the fight.

The recovery-method of rolling a 20. I view as simply your character either wakes up, or manages to push himself back on his feet, and continues to fight. Though he is still injured; I imagine Boromir after he went down after the first-barrage of arrows then got back up, rolled a 20.


----------



## Sadrik (Feb 4, 2008)

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> Yes.  It's very interesting.  I think the rolling a d20 and looking at the chart will take some getting used to; I already remember it, but rolling 10% every round has become _ingrained_.
> 
> Thaumaturge.



This is the new "savings throw". So it is ingrained in the system in more than just here.


----------



## A'koss (Feb 4, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> At least at 1/4 hit points, the character is still bloodied (do we know if there are any penalties associated with that particular condition?)



Good question, I don't think they've said one way or the other. Being the target of many "bloodied-activated" abilities of your enemies is probably penalty enough...


----------



## Stormtalon (Feb 4, 2008)

Hmmm, seems to be a bit of misinterpretation here on what 10-19 means.  

The Table again:



> If you’re dying at the end of your turn, roll 1d20.
> Lower than 10: You get worse. If you get this result three times before you are healed or stabilized (as per the Heal skill), you die.
> 10-19: No change.
> 20: You get better! You wake up with hit points equal to one-quarter your full normal hit points.




Note that 10-19 doesn't say _stabilize_ -- it says "no change."  That means you're still in the same condition as last time and you keep rolling.  You roll until one of two things happen:  3 results of "get worse" OR a Nat 20, "HAH!  It was just a flesh wound after all!"  There is no middle ground "stabilize."


----------



## Grog (Feb 4, 2008)

Also, here's another pretty absurd corner case:

A fighter has 200 hit points at maximum, and is down to 5 HP. An orc stabs him for 6 points of damage, taking him down to -1. The next round, the fighter rolls a 20, and pops back up with 50 HP. So the orc just healed the fighter for 45 points by stabbing him in the gut.

I know that hit points are abstract, but that's pretty ridiculous.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 4, 2008)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> Hmmm, seems to be a bit of misinterpretation here on what 10-19 means.
> 
> The Table again:
> 
> ...




Good point. Knowing that there could be as few as three rounds until death will force PCs to act quickly to heal a dying partner. (Of course, from what we've seen of 4e, this basically means using any of a number of "I do random action X and this heals an ally" powers, none of this messy trying to run to his aid and taking a round off from attacking stuff...I swear, sometimes it looks like every time you sneeze in 4e, someone gains back half their hit points...)


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 4, 2008)

Ah finally the players will not have to spend a few rounds killing their helpless foes.

And it certainly makes an interesting death system to create feats for.


----------



## borc killer (Feb 4, 2008)

Man!  I want 4e right now!


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Also, here's another pretty absurd corner case:
> 
> A fighter has 200 hit points at maximum, and is down to 5 HP. An orc stabs him for 6 points of damage, taking him down to -1. The next round, the fighter rolls a 20, and pops back up with 50 HP. So the orc just healed the fighter for 45 points by stabbing him in the gut.
> 
> I know that hit points are abstract, but that's pretty ridiculous.




Jack McFighter's allies had all fallen. The castle was overrun. Beset on all sides by his foes, one finally brought him down- a sword through the chest. Jack stared down at it as he fell to the ground, life leaking away, watching as the enemy found the civilians taking refuge in the cellars and began their conquest. NO! Thought Jack. It cannot end this way! With great strength of will Jack rises to his feet...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Feb 4, 2008)

A solid system.

I would have liked an expanded staggered range, but overall that rule is quite nice.

Monsters dying at 0 hp. Thats ok... they always did when reduced to negative, and did one last bite and died afterwards if they were exactly at 0.

NPCs they die if I want them to die. I never tracked their HP. With the new rules, even if you assume they fail every single save, an enemy healer can cure them for the next two rounds. And how low their HP total actually is doesn´t play any role.


----------



## A'koss (Feb 4, 2008)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> Hmmm, seems to be a bit of misinterpretation here on what 10-19 means.
> 
> Note that 10-19 doesn't say _stabilize_ -- it says "no change."  That means you're still in the same condition as last time and you keep rolling.  You roll until one of two things happen:  3 results of "get worse" OR a Nat 20, "HAH!  It was just a flesh wound after all!"  There is no middle ground "stabilize."



My guess is that it's just poorly worded and that you do stabilize if you roll between 10-19.


----------



## Sitara (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Also, here's another pretty absurd corner case:
> 
> A fighter has 200 hit points at maximum, and is down to 5 HP. An orc stabs him for 6 points of damage, taking him down to -1. The next round, the fighter rolls a 20, and pops back up with 50 HP. So the orc just healed the fighter for 45 points by stabbing him in the gut.
> 
> I know that hit points are abstract, but that's pretty ridiculous.




Hmm.  Now that is silly.  I hope that wont be possible due to some mechanic (bloodied??) we don't know about. 

lol...I can just see the ways that could be abused...


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Also, here's another pretty absurd corner case:
> 
> A fighter has 200 hit points at maximum, and is down to 5 HP. An orc stabs him for 6 points of damage, taking him down to -1. The next round, the fighter rolls a 20, and pops back up with 50 HP. So the orc just healed the fighter for 45 points by stabbing him in the gut.
> 
> I know that hit points are abstract, but that's pretty ridiculous.




Cinematically, thats the fighter wiping the blood off his lips, giving a Bruce Lee scream and then kicking everyone's butt!

Remember also the fighter needs a natural 20 for this to happen.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Also, here's another pretty absurd corner case:
> 
> A fighter has 200 hit points at maximum, and is down to 5 HP. An orc stabs him for 6 points of damage, taking him down to -1. The next round, the fighter rolls a 20, and pops back up with 50 HP. So the orc just healed the fighter for 45 points by stabbing him in the gut.
> 
> I know that hit points are abstract, but that's pretty ridiculous.





It does allow for cinematic action in the game.  

There Lord dark is dead and all his henchmen too. Oh no watchout lord Dark is moving again...


----------



## Roman (Feb 4, 2008)

I like this mechanic. It is a nice tweak of the negative buffer system that has been used hitherto.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Also, here's another pretty absurd corner case:
> 
> A fighter has 200 hit points at maximum, and is down to 5 HP. An orc stabs him for 6 points of damage, taking him down to -1. The next round, the fighter rolls a 20, and pops back up with 50 HP. So the orc just healed the fighter for 45 points by stabbing him in the gut.
> 
> I know that hit points are abstract, but that's pretty ridiculous.




well, first of all the orc have one free action before the fighter can roll

and we don't know if you can roll normally while being beaten up


----------



## Peter LaCara (Feb 4, 2008)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> Hmmm, seems to be a bit of misinterpretation here on what 10-19 means.
> 
> The Table again:
> 
> ...



Hmm. I'd missed that. I don't think it's right to visualize the natural 20 as "Just a flesh wound." I think it's more appropriate to visualize it like Inigo Montoya in the Princess Bride, stabbed in the gut and on the verge of death, but pulling through with sheer force of will and fighting on.

And honestly, now that I think about it, how often do you hear of people who were mortally wounded recovering when left completely on their own, but not enough for them to get up and stagger around a bit or get back into the fight? Pretty much everyone, either in fiction or in real life needs medical attention to not die.

This makes Heal much more integral to combat, but with the way the skill system works, everyone will at least get some sort of decent bonuses to Heal checks even without any training.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Feb 4, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Good point. Knowing that there could be as few as three rounds until death will force PCs to act quickly to heal a dying partner. (Of course, from what we've seen of 4e, this basically means using any of a number of "I do random action X and this heals an ally" powers, none of this messy trying to run to his aid and taking a round off from attacking stuff...I swear, sometimes it looks like every time you sneeze in 4e, someone gains back half their hit points...)




I hope unconscious characters are not considered allies for such inspiring abilities.


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Also, here's another pretty absurd corner case:
> 
> A fighter has 200 hit points at maximum, and is down to 5 HP. An orc stabs him for 6 points of damage, taking him down to -1. The next round, the fighter rolls a 20, and pops back up with 50 HP. So the orc just healed the fighter for 45 points by stabbing him in the gut.
> 
> I know that hit points are abstract, but that's pretty ridiculous.



Another one for your repertoire:
If the Second Wind works the same way as they do in SWSE, a character with 1/2 HPs +1 couldn't activate Second Wind, but then he bites his tongue to deal himself 1 point of damage and heals up lots of HPs.


----------



## Grog (Feb 4, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Jack McFighter's allies had all fallen. The castle was overrun. Beset on all sides by his foes, one finally brought him down- a sword through the chest. Jack stared down at it as he fell to the ground, life leaking away, watching as the enemy found the civilians taking refuge in the cellars and began their conquest. NO! Thought Jack. It cannot end this way! With great strength of will Jack rises to his feet...



I know what the rule is supposed to model; I'm just saying that mechanically, it's going to lead to some pretty silly things on rare occasions.

Now, the excitement at the table of a player rolling a 20 and getting to rejoin a battle may be worth those rare moments of ridiculousness. I suppose I'll have to use the rule for a while to find out.


----------



## Imban (Feb 4, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> Hmm.  Now that is silly.  I hope that wont be possible due to some mechanic (bloodied??) we don't know about.
> 
> lol...I can just see the ways that could be abused...




That is annoyingly silly, but hard to abuse - it relies on getting that 27% chance of not dying and instead ending up with 25% of your maximum HP back from inflicting negative HP upon yourself, and that's a crappy gamble.

EDIT: Best "abuse" I could see would be if you had limited-resource healing your party didn't want to use, and were at very low HP, or already unconscious - waiting to see if you stabilize might be more effective in some cases than immediately moving in with healing.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Also, here's another pretty absurd corner case:
> 
> A fighter has 200 hit points at maximum, and is down to 5 HP. An orc stabs him for 6 points of damage, taking him down to -1. The next round, the fighter rolls a 20, and pops back up with 50 HP. So the orc just healed the fighter for 45 points by stabbing him in the gut.
> 
> I know that hit points are abstract, but that's pretty ridiculous.




That last scratch was just enough to send the fighter down.  To let him know "this orc isn't the push over I thought he was going to be."  After he snapped out of it (rolled the 20) the fighter woke up and realised that he's actually going to have to start fighting "for real".  The fighter then gets back on his feet and growls "You just made me angry.  You aren't going to like me when I'm angry!"

Much orc slaughter commences.

I don't really see a problem here.


----------



## reezel (Feb 4, 2008)

I'd be willing to bet once you get to 4th edition you can spend an action point to stabalize/recover as well, similar to Star Wars.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Feb 4, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Good point. Knowing that there could be as few as three rounds until death will force PCs to act quickly to heal a dying partner. (Of course, from what we've seen of 4e, this basically means using any of a number of "I do random action X and this heals an ally" powers, none of this messy trying to run to his aid and taking a round off from attacking stuff...I swear, sometimes it looks like every time you sneeze in 4e, someone gains back half their hit points...)



That brings up another question: if, say, the Warlord has some sort of battle cry ability, for example, that boosts the hit points of everyone in the party, does it affect you if you’re not conscious to hear it?  Perhaps bringing a character around that’s gone negative should require direct contact?


----------



## A'koss (Feb 4, 2008)

There has to be some way to self-stabilize, if it's not rolling 10-19, it's going to be some other way.


----------



## Greg K (Feb 4, 2008)

I was hoping they would have ditched negative hit points and gone with the Death and Dying rules from Unearthed Arcana.


----------



## Stormtalon (Feb 4, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> My guess is that it's just poorly worded and that you do stabilize if you roll between 10-19.




Can't be.  That means that dying would actually be far more infrequent than in the current system.  Stating simply "no change" is really precise:  you don't get better this time around, but you also don't get worse.  It's not stabilized, it's just delaying the (potentially) inevitable.  Otherwise, there's no real point to the "three strikes, you're dead" mechanic, as more often than not, you'll get one 10-19 before you get 3 1-9s.

I'm reasonbly certain that the only "stabilize" in this system is the Nat 20 "I think I'll go for a walk!" result.  This certainly explains the actions of the Paladin in the last Biggie Smalls playtest report as he kept bouncing back up after the bugbears smacked him on the bean.


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Now, the excitement at the table of a player rolling a 20 and getting to rejoin a battle may be worth those rare moments of ridiculousness. I suppose I'll have to use the rule for a while to find out.



Whent this happens try this:
The orc really "healed" the fighter. Since in 4E HPs are also some kind of moral meter, consider that being beaten up buy a lousy orc activated the fighter's inner resourcers of adrenaline and self-preservation, bringing him back to fight even more dangerous.

A wounded cornered tiger can be much more dangerous than a healthy tiger just hunting its daily prey.

"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine"


----------



## Lackhand (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Also, here's another pretty absurd corner case:
> 
> A fighter has 200 hit points at maximum, and is down to 5 HP. An orc stabs him for 6 points of damage, taking him down to -1. The next round, the fighter rolls a 20, and pops back up with 50 HP. So the orc just healed the fighter for 45 points by stabbing him in the gut.
> 
> I know that hit points are abstract, but that's pretty ridiculous.



Neh, the fighter's dirt nap was very invigorating 

You don't want to hit some people, you'll just make them angry.

See also: Boromir.


----------



## Peter LaCara (Feb 4, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> There has to be some way to self-stabilize, if it's not rolling 10-19, it's going to be some other way.



There is. You roll a natural 20. You only have a 5% chance to self-stabilize instead of a 10% chance, but self-stabilization comes with extra bennies, so that's nice.


----------



## Grog (Feb 4, 2008)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Neh, the fighter's dirt nap was very invigorating
> 
> You don't want to hit some people, you'll just make them angry.
> 
> See also: Boromir.



Yes, I get what happened from a flavor standpoint.

But there's no getting around the fact that, from a mechanics standpoint, the orc just healed the fighter of a good chunk of HP by stabbing him in the gut.

That bothers me (but, again, I'll have to use the rule for a while to find out how much of a problem it actually is).


----------



## Lizard (Feb 4, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> There has to be some way to self-stabilize, if it's not rolling 10-19, it's going to be some other way.




You roll a 20, you get healed, or you die. A roll of 11-19 is "stable for the moment".


----------



## A'koss (Feb 4, 2008)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> Can't be.  That means that dying would actually be far more infrequent than in the current system.  Stating simply "no change" is really precise:  you don't get better this time around, but you also don't get worse.  It's not stabilized, it's just delaying the (potentially) inevitable.  Otherwise, there's no real point to the "three strikes, you're dead" mechanic, as more often than not, you'll get one 10-19 before you get 3 1-9s.



It's possible, but as I said in my last post I'm sure that if it's not 10-19, there'll be some other way to stabilize yourself (other than a N20, which seems too small a chance).



> I'm reasonbly certain that the only "stabilize" in this system is the Nat 20 "I think I'll go for a walk!" result.  This certainly explains the actions of the Paladin in the last Biggie Smalls playtest report as he kept bouncing back up after the bugbears smacked him on the bean.



I took the Paladin example as being stunned for one round, not actually being knocked out.


----------



## Gryffyn (Feb 4, 2008)

Combine these rules with most or all classes having some sort of healing in 4e -- I'm wondering if death is going to be almost impossible for PCs now.


----------



## Grog (Feb 4, 2008)

Gryffyn said:
			
		

> Combine these rules with most or all classes having some sort of healing in 4e -- I'm wondering if death is going to be almost impossible for PCs now.



Did you actually read the article? Andy Collins specifically stated that the threat of death still exists in 4E.


----------



## rkanodia (Feb 4, 2008)

I don't get why they need to keep in negative hit points. Seems like extra bookkeeping, especially since they count towards dying but not towards healing. Why not just have any damage inflicted on a dying PC force another 'save versus death'?


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Feb 4, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Yay!  They removed one of the last mechanics in the game that doesn't use a d20- the roll for stability.  I hope they got rid of all percentile-based rolls.
> 
> Let's look at the odds of dying.  I ran this thru a quick javascript simulation with 100,000 tests and got:
> 
> ...




If you calculate the probabilities of surviving/dying from each of the three strikes, it works out as follows (from raising the matrix of transitional probabilities to an infinite power):

State / Recovery / Death

Down / 0.271 / 0.729
1 Strike / 0.190 / 0.810
2 Strikes / 0.100 / 0.900


----------



## Sir Brennen (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Yes, I get what happened from a flavor standpoint.
> 
> But there's no getting around the fact that, from a mechanics standpoint, the orc just healed the fighter of a good chunk of HP by stabbing him in the gut.
> 
> That bothers me (but, again, I'll have to use the rule for a while to find out how much of a problem it actually is).



Perhaps thinking more of the character's condition rather than the exact numeric value of his hit points will help. Don't worry about how many points rolling that 20 gives him compared to what he had when the orc took him down - the fighter is still bloodied and in pretty bad shape.


----------



## Grog (Feb 4, 2008)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> I don't get why they need to keep in negative hit points. Seems like extra bookkeeping, especially since they count towards dying but not towards healing. Why not just have any damage inflicted on a dying PC force another 'save versus death'?



Because then you could easily end up with a situation where it's better to be unconscious than conscious when you're hit for a large amount of damage.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 4, 2008)

Negative Hit Points: Essentially, having these allows for the case where one massive blow can kill someone outright. Even if its a small chance.  (Can a 15th level brute do 65+ points of damage on a crit, I am guessing they could). I am also wondering about "kicking the corpse": if the monster takes a few stabs at the down charecter, then negative HPs accounts for it. 

Though, I am still not 100% convinced they are needed.


----------



## Imban (Feb 4, 2008)

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> If you calculate the probabilities of surviving/dying from each of the three strikes, it works out as follows (from raising the matrix of transitional probabilities to an infinite power):
> 
> State / Recovery / Death
> 
> ...




Thanks for doing this math - seems like if you have resource-based healing you'd rather conserve, it'd worth it to fall on your sword and see if you recover or take two strikes first if you're below 4.75% of your maximum hit points. Of course, we don't know if this sort of resource-based healing is present in 4e, and it very well may not be.

(By which I mean, if your party healer has a Wand of Cure Light Wounds and wants to zap you up to full, it behooves you to fall on your sword if you are at 9/200 or less HP, because over infinite repetitions you'll gain more HP from stabilizing up to 50 than the additional healing being at 0 instead of 1-9 will cost the healer.)


----------



## mhensley (Feb 4, 2008)

Chris_Nightwing said:
			
		

> If you calculate the probabilities of surviving/dying from each of the three strikes, it works out as follows (from raising the matrix of transitional probabilities to an infinite power):
> 
> State / Recovery / Death
> 
> ...




Thanks, I'm glad to see that the math backs up my brute force method.


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 4, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> Negative Hit Points: Essentially, having these allows for the case where one massive blow can kill someone outright. Even if its a small chance.  (Can a 15th level brute do 65+ points of damage on a crit, I am guessing they could). I am also wondering about "kicking the corpse": if the monster takes a few stabs at the down charecter, then negative HPs accounts for it.
> 
> Though, I am still not 100% convinced they are needed.



There may be some abilities that allow characters to fight even when they have negative HPs.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Feb 4, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Thanks, I'm glad to see that the math backs up my brute force method.




Well, here's some more for you! If you go down in combat, these are your chances over the course of the following rounds:

Time / Recovered / Died

3 rds later / 0.143 / 0.091
4 rds / 0.181 / 0.228
5 rds / 0.211 / 0.365
6 rds / 0.232 / 0.478
7 rds / 0.246 / 0.564
8 rds / 0.256 / 0.624
9 rds / 0.262 / 0.664
10 rds / 0.266 / 0.689

And so on..


----------



## Voss (Feb 4, 2008)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Agreed. I'm not a fan of rail roading DM'ing by fiat. If an NPC is important to your oh so precious plot, keep them out of combat with the PC's.





Hmm.  That's kind of the opposite of what I meant.  One, no NPC should be plot critical to the point that killing them off ruins the game.  Second, keeping them out of combat requires just as much (if not more) annoying fiat.  Its more the feel that the game is providing big giant signs for the players in combat.  If an opponent goes down during combat but is still twitching, the game is essentially pointing it out to the players with a big sign that says 'A clue!' 

I also just don't like the set up that PCs are super-duper special guys that operate in the world according to completely different rules.  If 3rd level fighter Mike and 3rd level brute Bob jump off a cliff, Bob is dead and Mike is just out of it if someone is there to heal him, or just hits the 5% 'spontaneously regenerates' roll


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Also, here's another pretty absurd corner case:
> 
> A fighter has 200 hit points at maximum, and is down to 5 HP. An orc stabs him for 6 points of damage, taking him down to -1. The next round, the fighter rolls a 20, and pops back up with 50 HP. So the orc just healed the fighter for 45 points by stabbing him in the gut.
> 
> I know that hit points are abstract, but that's pretty ridiculous.




Is it? Given the 15th-level sample fighter has 120 hp, one with 200 is probably about 25th-level, or more. Consider this example, which you _might_ recognize. Any similarity to real fictional characters is wholly intentional. 

Two swashbucklers are engaged in a running duel. The first (let's call him "Indigo") has pursued the second (who we'll call "Baron Rungen") down a corridor, but unknown to Indigo, Baron Rungen took the rogue training feat and is waiting in ambush. Indigo charges into the room, and Rungen throws his dagger into Indigo's gut, getting a critical hit and doing max damage on his sneak attack. We'll assume Indigo is 7th-level with about 72 hp, so this bloodies him but he doesn't die. He does however, slump against the wall.

Indigo: "Sorry father. I tried."
Baron Rungen: "You must be that spanish brat I taught a lesson to all those years ago. Have you been chasing me your whole life only to fail now? That's the worst thing I've ever heard. How marvelous."
[Indigo is bloodied but not dead. He uses his Second Wind, pulls out the knife and stands.]
Rungen:  Good heavens. Are you still trying to win? 
[Indigo falls back against the wall.]  
Rungen:You've got an overdeveloped sense of vengeance. It's going to get you into trouble someday. 
[Rungen draws his sword and lunges at Indigo who then forces the blade to his left shoulder. Again Rungen lunges at Indigo and the blade is deflected to Indigo's right arm. Now Indigo loses more hp, plunging him to -1 hp and dying. He falters.]
[Indigo rolls a 20 on his recovery action. He now has 18 hp. He's still bloodied, but very much alive.]
[Rungen swings his sword but Indigo blocks it and then begins advancing.] 
Indigo: [weakly] Hello. My name is Indigo Montalvo. You killed my father prepare to die. 
[Falling on a table, Indigo uses his Extra Second Wind. He now has 36 hp.]
[Rungen attacks and Indigo blocks four times before he continues to advance on Rungen.] 
Indigo Montalvo: [Louder] Hello. My name is Indigo Montalvo. You killed my father prepare to die. 
[Now Rungen attacks five times and Indigo blocks every single one.] 
Indigo Montalvo: [Shouting!] Hello. My name is Indigo Montalvo. You killed my father prepare to die. 
Baron Rungen: Stop saying that! 

And the fight continues. And ends with Rungen's death. Indigo's injury, while seemingly deadly at first, doesn't, in the end, seem that bad.

How is that NOT what we're trying to duplicate?


----------



## Voss (Feb 4, 2008)

@johnsnow- maybe thats what you're trying to duplicate.  Slapstick comedy action cliches are really my personal bag o' tea, however.



@Dragonblade & Lizard.  You are both incorrect.  There is nothing in the 3.5 rules that suggests npcs and monsters die at 0 hit points.  They follow the staggered/dying/dead rules just like PCs.  Several monsters (like boars) even have special rules that take advantage of this fact.


----------



## Goobermunch (Feb 4, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Jack McFighter's allies had all fallen. The castle was overrun. Beset on all sides by his foes, one finally brought him down- a sword through the chest. Jack stared down at it as he fell to the ground, life leaking away, watching as the enemy found the civilians taking refuge in the cellars and began their conquest. NO! Thought Jack. It cannot end this way! With great strength of will Jack rises to his feet...




"Hello, my name is Jack McFighter.  You killed my allies, prepare to die."

--G


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 4, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> @Dragonblade & Lizard.  You are both incorrect.  There is nothing in the 3.5 rules that suggests npcs and monsters die at 0 hit points.  They follow the staggered/dying/dead rules just like PCs.  Several monsters (like boars) even have special rules that take advantage of this fact.




Yeah, but in actual play, that's a needless increase in complexity, headache, and boredom, so no one bothers.



> "Hello, my name is Jack McFighter. You killed my allies, prepare to die."




Yes, _exactly_. 

I like this rule. 4th is very slowly warming my heart. Admittedly this is mostly because I'm playing 3.5th right now and it isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be. Admittedly this is because I'm only playing.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 4, 2008)

*Huge beaming smile* If my PCs can pull off an encounter half as good as Princess Bride, I will be so happy


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 4, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I also just don't like the set up that PCs are super-duper special guys that operate in the world according to completely different rules.  If 3rd level fighter Mike and 3rd level brute Bob jump off a cliff, Bob is dead and Mike is just out of it until someone can come along and heal him.  Thats... goofy.



Personally, I have no problem with main characters playing by different rules than the supporting cast. If Ensign Bob's name ain't on the opening credits, he shouldn't be jumping off any cliffs. 

But then again, I think we just have different expectations of just what an RPG should be accomplishing.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 4, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> @Dragonblade & Lizard.  You are both incorrect.  There is nothing in the 3.5 rules that suggests npcs and monsters die at 0 hit points.  They follow the staggered/dying/dead rules just like PCs.  Several monsters (like boars) even have special rules that take advantage of this fact.




Thats certainly possible. I can't look anything up right now, but I have played that way since 3e came out 8 years ago. I also played with a couple of different groups in that time period and no one ever played it differently. I always assumed that enemies die at zero was the actual rule. I'll dig out my books tonight after work and take a look.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 4, 2008)

The article may help to explain the following from this playtest:

Within moments, the bugbears surrounded Baredd and commenced beating him like a rug. One skull-thump from a mallet the size of a cornie-keg and the paladin's knees wobbled, his eyes rolled back, and he dropped flatter than Sister Agnes. As everyone knows, a bugbear in the presence of a prone figure can't resist kicking it in the ribs. By all accounts, that's their chief joy. No matter if the unlucky creature is the bugbear's grandmother; she's in for a stomping, as was Baredd.

A few swift kicks brought him around again, and Baredd gamely popped back onto his feet. Our relief was premature, because the still-woozy paladin was an easy target for a second smack on the bean. Down he went again, and out came the feet for a second round.

Biggie was confident that Baredd's ribs could stand up to a pretty severe punting. He even wondered whether this was some clever ploy by Baredd to keep the bugbears' attention focused on himself and away from the squishier types (Baredd would later try to confirm this but under notably self-serving conditions).​


----------



## heirodule (Feb 4, 2008)

Boars should always use the PC option


----------



## Voss (Feb 4, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Personally, I have no problem with main characters playing by different rules than the supporting cast. If Ensign Bob's name ain't on the opening credits, he shouldn't be jumping off any cliffs.
> 
> But then again, I think we just have different expectations of just what an RPG should be accomplishing.




I don't necessarily think of major villains and NPCs as supporting cast though.  Even for the supporting cast, making them two dimensional cutouts depreciates the experience.  

This is just another one of the 4e changes that makes me think of Order of the Stick, where the actual characters are aware of the game rules, and are metagaming every loophole for their own benefit.  Except they aren't using loopholes anymore, but the game itself is being built for the characters (as well as the players) to exploit the metagame.


----------



## Stormtalon (Feb 4, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Thats certainly possible. I can't look anything up right now, but I have played that way since 3e came out 8 years ago. I also played with a couple of different groups in that time period and no one ever played it differently. I always assumed that enemies die at zero was the actual rule. I'll dig out my books tonight after work and take a look.




Well, undead and constructs are destroyed at zero HP, and it's stated such that it's a specific exception from the normal -10 rules, iirc.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 4, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I also just don't like the set up that PCs are super-duper special guys that operate in the world according to completely different rules.  If 3rd level fighter Mike and 3rd level brute Bob jump off a cliff, Bob is dead and Mike is just out of it if someone is there to heal him, or just hits the 5% 'spontaneously regenerates' roll




In any heroic narrative, the heroes of the story operate under "completely different rules" than the rest of the characters in it. If you're not comfortable with that, may I suggest that a different rules system, such as _Warhammer,_ might be more to your taste.

I don't understand the theory that says "I only want my character to be a _hero_ (i.e. exceptionally lucky) if I the player am also lucky." Bob the brute _could_ survive the fall if he rolls low on his hit point damage. With Mike the PC, we just have rules that give him a certain amount of "script immunity" so that the player doesn't have to _rely entirely on luck_ for his character's survival.

Aragorn going over a cliff in _The Two Towers_ anyone? I know it wasn't in the books, but it makes for great drama in the film version. Did you find his survival "unrealistic?"


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Yes, I get what happened from a flavor standpoint.
> 
> But there's no getting around the fact that, from a mechanics standpoint, the orc just healed the fighter of a good chunk of HP by stabbing him in the gut.
> 
> That bothers me (but, again, I'll have to use the rule for a while to find out how much of a problem it actually is).




It works better if you consider hit points in 4E to be about ten percent actual physical toughness and ninety percent will to live.  A lot of the "healing" effects seem to be less about healing per se, and more about a sort of "heroic surge."  This would presumably be one of those.  The orc didn't heal the fighter, he just triggered a new surge of energy.

If this happened regularly, I'd be more concerned about it, but since you have to roll a natural 20 I'd say it's okay.


----------



## heirodule (Feb 4, 2008)

Lets rename Hit Points "Hero Points"


----------



## Scribble (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Also, here's another pretty absurd corner case:
> 
> A fighter has 200 hit points at maximum, and is down to 5 HP. An orc stabs him for 6 points of damage, taking him down to -1. The next round, the fighter rolls a 20, and pops back up with 50 HP. So the orc just healed the fighter for 45 points by stabbing him in the gut.
> 
> I know that hit points are abstract, but that's pretty ridiculous.




Eh... I kind of see it as emulating that scene in almost every action movie... The one that comes to mind quickly is The Matrix...  Neo and Smith fight in the train station... Neo at one point gets the snot kicked out of him... looks like he's down for the count... But after a moment, he slowly gets up... shakes off a bit... cracks his various joints... then does the come here motion...


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 4, 2008)

heirodule said:
			
		

> Lets rename Hit Points "Hero Points"



I'd be all for it.

"Plot points" would serve as well.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 4, 2008)

Clint Eastwood gets nearly beaten to death in A Fistfull of Dollars, but recovers enough to drag himself away. He heals up in a mine and comes back to kill everyone....


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 4, 2008)

The reason though why it is emulated in most action movies is because it works. In a good action movie, you can't help but smile when your hero gets back up on his feet and continues to kick-ass.

Or in cases where it is last act of being alive, you can't help but feel that character has such a will to live or see his cause through that you got to feel for him.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 4, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> The reason though why it is emulated in most action movies is because it works. In a good action movie, you can't help but smile when your hero gets back up on his feet and continues to kick-ass.




And this is less applicable in D&D?  I can already envision the situation where the last party member is going down, it looks like a TPK, and then one of his companions rolls that natural 20 and pulls it out... that would make for an extremely cool gnarly session.


----------



## Toryx (Feb 4, 2008)

I've always played enemies as following the same -10 death rule as the PCs, and I like it that way. I like being able to find a dying bad guy and bring him back to question. I like the possibility of a particularly irritating enemy getting the crap kicked out of him and then somehow pulling himself away from death and getting away. That makes the next confrontation more exciting and raises the stakes (particularly if he comes back with more levels and better magic items).

Bringing villains into the campaign who are every bit as determined to live and are tough to put down just raises the game to a higher level for me. Removing that and making them dead as soon as they drop to 0 is simply unappealing to me.

From the other posts, however, it seems I'm in the minority there. Oh well.

As far the Nat 20 stabilize and heal bit, I hope that's not entirely the case in reality. I'd rather a downed pc who rolls a 20 getting a chance to use a second wind to pop himself back up. From the sounds of it, that'll never bring the guy back to the bloodied threshold, but at least it'll get him back on his feet. 

And the 11-19 roll being no change? Love it. Getting knocked down to dying will actually mean something and yet give your allies a chance to save your butt. Works for me.


----------



## Michele Carter (Feb 4, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> I can already envision the situation where the last party member is going down, it looks like a TPK, and then one of his companions rolls that natural 20 and pulls it out... that would make for an extremely cool gnarly session.




This actually happened in one of Chris Perkins' games. The party was trapped in a room, snakes and nagas and poison everywhere, oh my! Everyone was down to single digit hit points and taking ongoing damage. My warlord's turn came up, she took damage and fell over...and I rolled a 20 on the saving throw. That was just enough to stand rearguard as the rest of the party got the doors open and escaped. If I hadn't rolled that 20, the others wouldn't have been able to work on the door and I'm fairly sure we would have had more than one casualty. So yeah, it was wicked cool gnarly.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 4, 2008)

Toryx said:
			
		

> Bringing villains into the campaign who are every bit as determined to live and are tough to put down just raises the game to a higher level for me. Removing that and making them dead as soon as they drop to 0 is simply unappealing to me.




You can still do that, though, at the DM's discretion. What this means is you don't have to keep track of that stuff for J. Random Orc. And, for god's sake, people, if the PC's say, "Hey, is there one we could heal up and interrogate?"

Just say yes! So what if he hit 0 hit points? You're only not bothering with the -HP stuff because it's a headache, not because J. Random Orc doesn't take some time before he bleeds out.

Just say yes, for chrissakes...


----------



## Gryffyn (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Did you actually read the article? Andy Collins specifically stated that the threat of death still exists in 4E.




Yes, I read the article.  Thanks for condescending, though.  I'm simply pointing out that Collins' assertion doesn't exactly fit with the mechanics we know about.  This is why I posted -- something's missing, and I'm wondering what it is.

In 3e, negative hit points rarely lead to death, since a cleric is almost always available to cast a cure spell before -10, or another party member is nearby to do a Heal skill check, or the character rolls the magic 10% stabilization chance.  The main threat of death was when a character was in low positive hit points, and the enemies were able to dish out enough to reduce the character to -10 in a single shot (or a "save or die" effect).

In 4e, the threat of insta-kill at low hit points seems like it will be much much lower.  If the "three strikes" rule is actually in 4e, then negative hit points has a minimum three round grace period, no matter how low the negative HP are.  (I suspect this is what we don't know -- instead of "three strikes," you lose a larger number of HP each round, or something).  So, with three rounds to save someone, more classes that can heal, and the chance of self-stablization, being in negative hit points would seem to be less of a threat than it is in 3e.

So, save or die is gone; insta-kills from hits at low hit points are much reduced; negative hit points is less of a threat.  Can you see now why I would wonder if PC death in 4e might be, as I carefully put it in my original post, "nearly impossible?"


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Feb 4, 2008)

*My thoughts*

While I can see the Orc damaging the fighter only to cause him to heal problem as a bit silly, it's a really unlikely scenario.

What 200 HP (26th level or so) character is going to fight an orc who can only do 6hp of damage? Even the Pit Fiend so many people seem to think did low damage for it's level would be doing a minimum IIRC of about 50 damage to him in a round. (Most of which didn't even require a role.)

So yeah, if mr 200 HP gets hit by Piddles the Orc he'd go "Hit me, byotch!?" (if he's lucky enough to roll a 20, otherwise he'd gurgle and spurt)

Unlikely pseudo-problems aside, I think it looks great.

Not only is the recovery a Saving Throw, but the negative HP limit is exaclty the same number as Bloodied (only negative) IE, should be written on your sheet anyway.

As far as those arguing about the PCs and monsters not getting the same deal, well, it's really easy to not only give the important NPCs or big baddies the same chance to live, you could randomly audit the occasional bad guy, whenever it seems important to you for whatever reason.

"Oh, the PC's left that goblin for dead! Let's see if he lived to sneak off and tell the Necromancer they're coming!" <roll roll roll> Otherwise, you can let the rabble die.

FItz


----------



## Ant (Feb 4, 2008)

I really liked the presentation of this article.  Very interesting and informative.

Unfortunately I'm very disappointed with the actual content.  They've taken away the cool thinks about 3.5 and left in enough other things to make it look like a bit of a sad, house-ruled rehash.  Not impressed.

I'm also not liking the fact that PCs are now starting to reach super-hero level.  Yes, yes ... realism isn't what this is about and whatnot.  I get it.  I still find the power creep disturbing.

5th edition will either be, "Bugger it!  Who are we kidding, guys?  Look ... no-one likes dying so PCs just don't die anymore, OK?" or "Bugger it!  Super-mondo PCs are so cliched.  Realism and grittiness is way cooler and where it's at.  Let's bring back some excitement!  PCs die at 0hp!"


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 4, 2008)

I don't get it.  Maybe it's the writing.  Take this example:



> That may seem like an unreachable number, but it’s important to remember that monsters, like characters, aren’t piling on as many attacks on their turn as in 3rd Edition.




Yes, it does seem like an unreachable number, give that monsters aren't piling on as many attacks on thier turn as in 3rd edition.  Perhaps the author meant to say that it seems like a 'reachable number'?  It's hard to know what the design goal was based on that sentence.

My guess from the rest of the article is that it is to make PC's virtually invulnerable.  The goal is to have PC's that can have 'the stuffing beaten out of them without serious consequence'.  (Pardon me for thinking that's what hit points themselves did.)

Notice first that the writer is worried that the audience might find these too rules too harsh:



> This is less than a 4th Edition character would have, but each monster attack is dealing a smaller fraction of the character’s total hit points, so it should be reasonable. If it feels too small, increase it to one-third full normal hit points and try again.




The writer doesn't even hint that he thinks you are supposed to find these rules too lenient.

Secondly, notice that being at -1 hitpoint is functionally the same as being at -60.  No matter how close you are to death, no matter how badly you've been mangled, you are one instant from up and at 'em again.  This rather discourages monsters trying to finish a character off.  If you've dropped a 200 hit point character to -1, the next 98 damage you do to that character is meaningless.  There is also a small chance of dropping unconscious and then gaining hitpoints: "I feel much better now."

I for one have never been disappointed to feed a mortally wounded character a potion of cure _light_ wounds, and find that they don't immediately leap to thier feet.  I always figured that they were for curing _light_ wounds.

And finally, they hammer the 'NPC's aren't PC's' point again.


----------



## Warbringer (Feb 4, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Besides, you should be aware of the plot-critical NPCs anyway, since they're the ones who get detailed, do all the talking, have names instead of 'Orc Guard 17", etc...



 and have skills


----------



## Toryx (Feb 4, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> You can still do that, though, at the DM's discretion. What this means is you don't have to keep track of that stuff for J. Random Orc. And, for god's sake, people, if the PC's say, "Hey, is there one we could heal up and interrogate?"
> 
> Just say yes! So what if he hit 0 hit points? You're only not bothering with the -HP stuff because it's a headache, not because J. Random Orc doesn't take some time before he bleeds out.




I guess my point, which was rather poorly made now that I think about it, is that I don't like to be in fight after fight with mindless automatons. I like the enemies to be more developed than that, and even if the majority of the monsters are cannon fodder for the leader, at least someone in that battle is going to be more than a damage dealing cardboard figure waiting to get killed so the pcs can get their experience points.

To me, giving all the npcs and monsters death at 0 automatically consigns them to the cardboard figures. But then, maybe I'm just not playing the same game as everyone else.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 4, 2008)

Toryx said:
			
		

> I guess my point, which was rather poorly made now that I think about it, is that I don't like to be in fight after fight with mindless automatons. I like the enemies to be more developed than that, and even if the majority of the monsters are cannon fodder for the leader, at least someone in that battle is going to be more than a damage dealing cardboard figure waiting to get killed so the pcs can get their experience points.
> 
> To me, giving all the npcs and monsters death at 0 automatically consigns them to the cardboard figures. But then, maybe I'm just not playing the same game as everyone else.




You aren't. I can't see any logic to your statements. Your point is, frankly, nonsensical.

EDIT: I'm entirely serious. How is "Dead at 0" somehow automatically removing anything interesting from an NPC? How is a "Dead at -10" npc any more developed than a "Dead at 0" NPC?

There's no connection there. It makes no sense.


----------



## Toryx (Feb 4, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> There's no connection there. It makes no sense.





Well if that's the case, then there's no point in my continuing this discussion with you any further.



			
				FitzTheRuke said:
			
		

> As far as those arguing about the PCs and monsters not getting the same deal, well, it's really easy to not only give the important NPCs or big baddies the same chance to live, you could randomly audit the occasional bad guy, whenever it seems important to you for whatever reason.




You're right, of course. I guess ultimately, what bothers me is that the way they're ruling it suggests to me that the designers aren't interested in designing the game with the level of sophistication I was hoping for. Leaving DMs to decide to give important NPCs or big baddies something to distinguish them from the random monster outside of the rules simply disappoints me. I understand that they are aiming toward a new generation of gamers, but if their method of doing so is to lower the bar of the gaming experience (in my mind at least) it's too bad.

It's not a big deal...I can still run it the way I want as you suggest, I just wonder how far this kind of thinking is going in the overall design of the new edition.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Feb 4, 2008)

WotC_Miko said:
			
		

> This actually happened in one of Chris Perkins' games. The party was trapped in a room, snakes and nagas and poison everywhere, oh my! Everyone was down to single digit hit points and taking ongoing damage. My warlord's turn came up, she took damage and fell over...and I rolled a 20 on the saving throw. That was just enough to stand rearguard as the rest of the party got the doors open and escaped. If I hadn't rolled that 20, the others wouldn't have been able to work on the door and I'm fairly sure we would have had more than one casualty. So yeah, it was wicked cool gnarly.





Sold!

I can't tell you how many of my TPKs could have used this dynamic to good effect.


----------



## Voss (Feb 4, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Aragorn going over a cliff in _The Two Towers_ anyone? I know it wasn't in the books, but it makes for great drama in the film version. Did you find his survival "unrealistic?"




yes. Yes I did.  Unrealistic and the worst sort of melodramatic palp.  One of several inserted scenes in that script that actually worked against the grain of the story.

But back to D&D.  A group RPG isn't the same as a movie. Different requirements and very different elements make it 'good'.  Scripted hack melodrama isn't one of those things.


@phobos- here's the thing.  By default, you can't interrogate your defeated enemies now.  They're dead.  Automagically dead.  No prisoners, no interrogation, no trying to convince them to help you or change sides.  Just dead.   That helps contributes to the cardboard cutout feel.
Again, its failing to be believable.



> This actually happened in one of Chris Perkins' games. The party was trapped in a room, snakes and nagas and poison everywhere, oh my! Everyone was down to single digit hit points and taking ongoing damage. My warlord's turn came up, she took damage and fell over...and I rolled a 20 on the saving throw. That was just enough to stand rearguard as the rest of the party got the doors open and escaped. If I hadn't rolled that 20, the others wouldn't have been able to work on the door and I'm fairly sure we would have had more than one casualty. So yeah, it was wicked cool gnarly.




Ouch. Between the automatic poison damage and the '20 saved us all', this sounds more bad than good.  I'd much rather see something about 'So and so's ability or clever idea saved us all' than 'a single die roll determined our fate'.


----------



## frankthedm (Feb 4, 2008)

First part of 4E I utterly hate. Luck, heroics, daring-do is all fine when someone is up and about dodging blows, but when someone goes down, all they are is soft yielding tissue as entitled to death as any other member of their race. It even goes against all of wotc claims of what a 4E character’s HP represents.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Feb 4, 2008)

hmmh the death at -10 hp was a houserule in ADnD introduced in some adventrures IIRC... (one of them is Night Below... right here by my side) called hover at deaths door.

As I read it, there is absolutely no rule which states, a NPC is always dead at 0 hp. It is: An NPC is usually dead at 0 hp if he is of no importance. As already said: Random ORC who knows where the hidden camp is is actually important. 

But a clever party should try different tricks to get him alive instead of: "lets hack on all enemies and look who survives".
If the PCs are attacked, and they suspect something/one behind it, they should have a better plan to make prisoners. (Spells/sap/net)


----------



## Lackhand (Feb 4, 2008)

Toryx: I'm not sure I get your point, either.

The gap for me is between "I'm dead at 0 hp" and "I've got no tactics or personality". I really don't see how you're getting from one to the other at all.

I appreciate your complaint that telling the DM "use the PC death mechanics when you feel like it!" doesn't do a lot for the game. But I'm pretty sure it's the best of all possible worlds:

* Use this mechanic always! This leads to a throat slitting game, where it's usually better to slit a foe's throat, or else you wouldn't have knocked them down in the first place. There are, of course, exceptions; there are also exceptions to those exceptions, and under the default assumption, making Heroes into Throatslitters is not cool. Besides, it means the DM has to keep track of enemies of which only 1 in 20 will 'matter' again. 

* Use this mechanic never! Well, some DMs will complain, since it gives a lot of boost to the PCs, destroys a lot of verisimilitude, and makes it so that returning villains don't. If there's a healer in the fight, he can't make his friends bounce back up, but the players can. I don't think that that's so bad. As long as the healer reaches his friends before 3 rounds have passed, they're not dead yet. Just assume they always fail. Voila.

* Use this mechanic when appropriate! Sure, you need a guide for what 'appropriate' means, but it's the best of all possible worlds; most NPCs kick the bucket easily, when you care about it, they don't. Like magic!


----------



## Stormtalon (Feb 4, 2008)

I like the mechanic, myself, and am planning on instituting the "play it now" next time I DM, but my snarky, silly side has this observation....

Sure as heck sounds like a Chumbawamba song....


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 4, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> @phobos- here's the thing.  By default, you can't interrogate your defeated enemies now.  They're dead.  Automagically dead.  No prisoners, no interrogation, no trying to convince them to help you or change sides.  Just dead.   That helps contributes to the cardboard cutout feel.
> Again, its failing to be believable.




No, no they're not. They're dead only if no one wants to interrogate one, at which point- boom! Hey look, there's an Orc over there still bleeding out! His name is Dorngan! He's only here in human lands to search for his sister, lost in an attack on an orc colony...

Ten seconds ago he was J. Random Orc 15. And if no one had ever bothered to look into him more deeply, that's how he would have stayed. Just because mooks are abstract doesn't mean they stay that way.

_Just say yes._ DM's discretion is exactly for this sort of thing. The rules default to abstraction designed for ease-of-play. If the situation requires that abstraction be provisionally extrapolated to something more detailed, _just do it._ 

It's not hard. It'll make your game a thousand times better. On another thread there are people talking about how there are no rules in 3e for blocking an attack with a grabbed opponent. This implies that they think 3e can not already handle this situation. That terrifies me. Of course it can! You have a Strength attribute, right? Rules for grappling? What more do you need?


----------



## Lizard (Feb 4, 2008)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> I like the mechanic, myself, and am planning on instituting the "play it now" next time I DM, but my snarky, silly side has this observation....
> 
> Sure as heck sounds like a Chumbawamba song....




We do that song in our 3e game, where there is a constant "Drop to -5...get zapped with a heal..." routine.


----------



## rkanodia (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Because then you could easily end up with a situation where it's better to be unconscious than conscious when you're hit for a large amount of damage.



I do see the point that, under the system I had proposed, a character would rather take three small hits, go unconscious, and then take a big hit, than to take the big hit, go unconscious, and then take three small hits.  It is a problem.  But any system is going to have weaknesses.  For instance, imagine a fight with a big ogre brute and then a bunch of kobold minions.  The ogre lands a big hit, knocking the fighter down but only a little bit into the negatives.  Now, it's the cleric's turn.  Under the system proposed in the article, the fighter would prefer it if the cleric would wait, and let the kobolds spend their turn kicking him while he's down, and then cast a healing spell, since he can easily 'soak up' the negative hit point damage which will suddenly vanish when he gets the healing spell.  That doesn't seem right to me.

I'm not saying that my proposal would be better in all situations.  I just think that the advantages and disadvantages are kind of a wash, so you might as well go for the one with less bookkeeping.



			
				TerraDave said:
			
		

> Negative Hit Points: Essentially, having these allows for the case where one massive blow can kill someone outright. Even if its a small chance. (Can a 15th level brute do 65+ points of damage on a crit, I am guessing they could). I am also wondering about "kicking the corpse": if the monster takes a few stabs at the down charecter, then negative HPs accounts for it.
> 
> Though, I am still not 100% convinced they are needed.



'Massive blow -> instant death' could be done without recording negative hitpoints.  For instance, if the blow that drops the player reduces him to less than -1/2 of his max HP, he dies outright; otherwise, he goes to zero. Likewise, a blow that hits him for 1/2 of his max HP when he is already down kills him outright; otherwise, it adds an extra 'save versus death'.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 4, 2008)

i myself do not like this i find the whole -87 hp bit just a little to much then im like-25 or 30 50 or 100 even and 1d8 heal will get me right back up and going ......i have a system to play super heros in. i do not need another.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 4, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> No, no they're not. They're dead only if no one wants to interrogate one, at which point- boom! Hey look, there's an Orc over there still bleeding out! His name is Dorngan! He's only here in human lands to search for his sister, lost in an attack on an orc colony...




Another way to do it - the PCs make a Heal check to see if they can stabilize one of the orcs, and if not, they're all dead.


----------



## Zimri (Feb 4, 2008)

Toryx said:
			
		

> I guess my point, which was rather poorly made now that I think about it, is that I don't like to be in fight after fight with mindless automatons. I like the enemies to be more developed than that, and even if the majority of the monsters are cannon fodder for the leader, at least someone in that battle is going to be more than a damage dealing cardboard figure waiting to get killed so the pcs can get their experience points.
> 
> To me, giving all the npcs and monsters death at 0 automatically consigns them to the cardboard figures. But then, maybe I'm just not playing the same game as everyone else.




So after every post of yours that I read I went back and checked the article to make sure what I thought I understood was ,well for lack of a better term, what I thought I understood. Here is the pertinent text (in my humble or not so humble opinion) 



			
				article said:
			
		

> Monsters don’t need or use this system *unless the DM has special reason to do so*. A monster at 0 hp is dead, and you don’t have to worry about wandering around the battlefield stabbing all your unconscious foes. (I’m sure my table isn’t the only place that happens.) We’ve talked elsewhere about some of the bogus parallelism that can lead to bad game design—such as all monsters having to follow character creation rules, even though they’re supposed to be foes to kill, not player characters—this is just another example of the game escaping that trap. *Sure, a DM can decide for dramatic reasons that a notable NPC or monster might linger on after being defeated.* Maybe a dying enemy survives to deliver a final warning or curse before expiring, *or at the end of a fight the PCs discover a bloody trail leading away from where the evil warlock fell, but those will be significant, story-based exceptions to the norm.*




Bolded emphasis mine 

So if there is a significant NPC (not even the big bad maybe a henchman who needs to survive to get info to the big bad, or some street thug who has friends or will get friends and become an ongoing plot device) then this new system can work to your advantage. especially once the PCs learn they no longer need to waste time slitting throats. The npc you want to save made 100 10-19s in a row and the party didn't wait to see if he got up they just assumed he was dead.. or he rolled a 20, sensed they were still there and stayed down, or slithered off while they were cleaning up the mooks.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 4, 2008)

> To me, giving all the npcs and monsters death at 0 automatically consigns them to the cardboard figures. But then, maybe I'm just not playing the same game as everyone else.




I do sort of sympathize, but I can rationalize this fairly okay under the current rules. PC's, left to their own devices, eventually, most of the time, bleed out. I can basically assume that monsters do the same. They're not dead at 0 hp, they're just no longer a threat and basically will continue to be dying until they actually are dead. Much like in current 3e games where, unless I have a healer running around, I don't worry about monsters below 0 hp.

It's a minor point, but it's important to me, flavor-wise. It's not that the monsters are any more dead than the PC's at 0 hp, it's just that the monsters don't usually have the healing that will restore them the way the PC's do, and I can assume, for expedience of play, that they basically never roll a 20 on that save (unless I really want 5% of them to come back, I suppose).


----------



## S'mon (Feb 4, 2008)

" If a character with negative hit points receives healing, he returns to 0 hp before any healing is applied."

I hate this kind of rule, it's the same thinking that gave us 3.5e's "save every round to break Hold Person".  It gives the enemy a huge incentive to finish off dying PCs before they pop back into the fight, or the GM has to play the enemy as idiots. 

A well-designed dying rule IMO should aim for the exact opposite - the incapacitated PC should be clearly *out of the combat*, giving the enemy no reason to keep attacking him.  And bleeding out should be slow - minutes, not seconds.  That way, if the PCs win and avoid a TPK, he'll survive.


----------



## A'koss (Feb 4, 2008)

Um, I hate to be the one pointing out the obvious, but if you're so worried about taking prisoners why not just strike for non-lethal damage, grapple them or subdue them with a spell. Hacking them down like a tree with a great axe, you get what you get - firewood.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 4, 2008)

FitzTheRuke said:
			
		

> Not only is the recovery a Saving Throw, but the negative HP limit is exaclty the same number as Bloodied (only negative) IE, should be written on your sheet anyway.




Ooh, I like that a lot.  It divide's a characters HPs into 3 equal areas: Fine, Bloodied, and Dying.  I love the symmetr.... oh, right.


----------



## Toryx (Feb 4, 2008)

Lackhand: You're right. Either way, players and DMs are going to do their own thing. 

I suspect that I'm guilty of looking at a hidden meaning in the death rules where there may not be any. I was thinking that if they're going to trivialize (in my view) NPCs and monsters by making it so that once they're down they can never get up again, where else are they simplifying things? But I have no evidence either way, so I'll just have to wait and find out.

Ultimately, as a player I like not knowing if the evil bad guys are actually dead unless I make sure, and I like as a DM forcing the players to deal with the consequences of a enemy who isn't dead yet. When I run the game it'll continue to be that way (assuming the players are willing). As a player, I'm going to have to hope that the DM is willing to house rule it that way as well.


----------



## Warbringer (Feb 4, 2008)

Peter LaCara said:
			
		

> And honestly, now that I think about it, how often do you hear of people who were mortally wounded recovering when left completely on their own, but not enough for them to get up and stagger around a bit or get back into the fight? Pretty much everyone, either in fiction or in real life needs medical attention to not die.




A lot less frequently than we hear they took a busride to the the morgue


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 4, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> @Dragonblade & Lizard. You are both incorrect. There is nothing in the 3.5 rules that suggests npcs and monsters die at 0 hit points. They follow the staggered/dying/dead rules just like PCs. Several monsters (like boars) even have special rules that take advantage of this fact.




Ah. I see. So you actually spend 5-10 rounds rolling a d20 check for every NPC and monster in your campaign to see if they stabilize on their own? That's an impressive dedication to "equal treatment."

Given a DM like that, I'd make sure never to play a character that was _too_ heroic. Because my PC would be the one who walked around after every fight slitting the throats of all the dead monsters, "just to be sure."

That may be to your tastes, but it doesn't work for mine.



			
				Voss said:
			
		

> But back to D&D.  A group RPG isn't the same as a movie. Different requirements and very different elements make it 'good'.  Scripted hack melodrama isn't one of those things.




But individuals can have very different opinions about what makes for a 'good' game. In my world, I like there to be a relatively large buffer between the PCs and the events of the world. What you call "scripted hack melodrama," I call the "life of a hero." When I play D&D, I don't want to replay _The Dirty Dozen,_ _The Magnificent Seven_, or any of dozens of other movies where half the heroes are dead at the end, I want _Silverado,_ or _Star Wars_ where the good guys get to ride off into the sunset, at least _most of the time._ (More on this below, as I realize even the movies I mention here don't reflect the possibility of random death at any time.)

While "realistic" death may be what you're after, I certainly don't want my D&D games to look like the opening scenes of _Saving Private Ryan_, without the player knowing whether he's Tom Hanks or "Extra #6" when the party hits the beach at Normandy.

There's nothing wrong with heroic sacrifice, but the death should be heroic, damnit, not random. Even in _The 13th Warrior_, where most of the "heroes" die, some of them live. Even most of the characters in _The Dirty Dozen_ and _The Magnificent Seven_ live until the climactic scene. They aren't killed off by "Desperado #4" in the second scene. That's because the characters who die randomly in an action movie aren't the main characters. They are, for the most part, extras. Or you've created a situation where most of the characters dying is key to setting the right "tone." I submit that while stories like that might make for very good movies, they usually make for crappy games, since the player whose PC dies in Scene 2 is out of the rest of the adventure (without the contrivance of a "replacement character" joining the party everytime a hero dies). Which is, IMO, usually way more cheesy than just having the original PC survive.

Wait a sec. I just had a thought. Are you one of those DMs who thinks "attrition-based adventuring" is "fun?"


----------



## Grog (Feb 4, 2008)

Ant said:
			
		

> Unfortunately I'm very disappointed with the actual content.  They've taken away the cool thinks about 3.5 and left in enough other things to make it look like a bit of a sad, house-ruled rehash.  Not impressed.



Are you serious? The -10 rule wasn't one of the cool things about 3.5. It was a holdover from 1E that didn't work very well in 3E. In 1E, the -10 threshold almost always meant something, because even the more powerful monsters often didn't hit for very much damage in a swing. But in 3E, the -10 threshold basically didn't exist at high levels where monsters routinely do 30+ damage with a single attack.

It was definitely time for an overhaul.


----------



## Kesh (Feb 4, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> A well-designed dying rule IMO should aim for the exact opposite - the incapacitated PC should be clearly *out of the combat*, giving the enemy no reason to keep attacking him.  And bleeding out should be slow - minutes, not seconds.  That way, if the PCs win and avoid a TPK, he'll survive.




Except that your way isn't much fun. If I get a nasty hit and go down, then spend the next 10 minutes sitting there while everyone else fights, I'm left with… well, nothing. Besides, what would be the alternative? No healing until combat is over?


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 4, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> _Just say yes._ DM's discretion is exactly for this sort of thing. The rules default to abstraction designed for ease-of-play. If the situation requires that abstraction be provisionally extrapolated to something more detailed, _just do it._
> 
> It's not hard. It'll make your game a thousand times better. On another thread there are people talking about how there are no rules in 3e for blocking an attack with a grabbed opponent. This implies that they think 3e can not already handle this situation. That terrifies me. Of course it can! You have a Strength attribute, right? Rules for grappling? What more do you need?




This is the problem with 3E's attempt to make up rules for everything.  You can't actually have rules for everything, but by attempting to do so, you give the impression that anything not covered under the rules is impossible.  DMs and players soon settle into the comfortable mental channels provided them by the seemingly all-encompassing ruleset, and are less and less inclined to bust out of it.  I've noticed that in 3E games, it's the newbie players who try all the wacky, crazy stunts that blow the rules out of the water.  Experienced players are too comfortable within the system.

For all its myriad flaws, 2E didn't have this particular problem.  Every 2E DM knew that the rules were not all-encompassing... the idea was laughable.  If your players ventured into territory not covered by the rules, it didn't throw you off balance; you just winged it and went from there.

4E seems to be trying to reclaim a bit of that mindset.  It will be interesting to see how and if it succeeds.


----------



## Grog (Feb 4, 2008)

Gryffyn said:
			
		

> So, save or die is gone; insta-kills from hits at low hit points are much reduced; negative hit points is less of a threat.  Can you see now why I would wonder if PC death in 4e might be, as I carefully put it in my original post, "nearly impossible?"



Well, they _have_ said that they want character death to happen less often than it did in 3E. That's a 4E design goal - make it harder to die, and harder (or impossible) to be resurrected after you die.

However, they have not said it's nearly impossible.


----------



## Benimoto (Feb 4, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I don't get it.  Maybe it's the writing.  Take this example:
> 
> 
> > That may seem like an unreachable number, but it’s important to remember that monsters, like characters, aren’t piling on as many attacks on their turn as in 3rd Edition.
> ...



What I got out of it is that since the monsters aren't making as many attacks, their attacks will typically do more damage than any single attack did in 3rd edition.  Also, although it's not mentioned specifically in the article, I think that PCs will have less total HP at higher (10+) levels than they did in 3rd edition, what with +con items being gone.

What I got from the article is that it will be rare but remotely possible that a single hit will bring a character from alive to dead.  The character will nearly always move to a "dying" stat first.  Area of effect attacks or just a particularly spiteful monster might kill off a dying character though.  Since the character can spring back up alive, you'll always want to keep track of where the character fell, and so a dying character will always be vulnerable.

They said right in the article that they wanted outright death to be less frequent in 3rd edition, and I can say that with the death at -10 hp rule currently in 3rd edition, I would have a death nearly every session if it weren't for spells like "delay death".  I feel as though the change is a good way to fend off spells like that, which I think add more to the feeling of PC invincibility than this system will.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 4, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> This is the problem with 3E's attempt to make up rules for everything.  You can't actually have rules for everything, but by attempting to do so, you give the impression that anything not covered under the rules is impossible.  DMs and players soon settle into the comfortable mental channels provided them by the seemingly all-encompassing ruleset, and are less and less inclined to bust out of it.  I've noticed that in 3E games, it's the newbie players who try all the wacky, crazy stunts that blow the rules out of the water.  Experienced players are too comfortable within the system.
> 
> For all its myriad flaws, 2E didn't have this particular problem.  Every 2E DM knew that the rules were not all-encompassing... the idea was laughable.  If your players ventured into territory not covered by the rules, it didn't throw you off balance; you just winged it and went from there.
> 
> 4E seems to be trying to reclaim a bit of that mindset.  It will be interesting to see how and if it succeeds.




Yes, well said. As a player, if I try something off the wall, not in the rules, and the GM says: "You can't do that, it's not in the rules." I don't have fun. That's anti-fun. I don't mind trying something and failing, but not being able to try? That's boring.

If I'm a GM, and I introduce something off-the-wall, not in the rules, and a player says, " You can't do that! It's not in the rules!" then he can get up and walk away for all I care. That's anti-fun. I don't mind later extending the same exception to the PCs if they acquire it, but not being able to do anything new? That's boring.

Rules only go so far. These games are played with actual people for a reason. If I wanted unbreakable rules in a rigidly defined world, I'd go play WoW.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 4, 2008)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Except that your way isn't much fun. If I get a nasty hit and go down, then spend the next 10 minutes sitting there while everyone else fights, I'm left with… well, nothing. Besides, what would be the alternative? No healing until combat is over?




I find losing a PC much less fun than watching the other players fight for a few minutes.   Ten minutes is nothing compared to having to roll up a new PC, and seems to me like a reasonable punishment for failure - whereas I find Classic D&D's dead-at-0 overly harsh.

Alternative: I liked 1e's approach; a PC reduced to negative hp is incapacitated for a week, no matter how many cure lights he gets.


----------



## Zimri (Feb 4, 2008)

Toryx said:
			
		

> Lackhand: You're right. Either way, players and DMs are going to do their own thing.
> 
> I suspect that I'm guilty of looking at a hidden meaning in the death rules where there may not be any. I was thinking that if they're going to trivialize (in my view) NPCs and monsters by making it so that once they're down they can never get up again, where else are they simplifying things? But I have no evidence either way, so I'll just have to wait and find out.
> 
> Ultimately, as a player I like not knowing if the evil bad guys are actually dead unless I make sure, and I like as a DM forcing the players to deal with the consequences of a enemy who isn't dead yet. When I run the game it'll continue to be that way (assuming the players are willing). As a player, I'm going to have to hope that the DM is willing to house rule it that way as well.




But which enemy the 56 henchmen in robes or the evil vizier masquarading as the benevolent if doddering old priest ? I for one don't like the minutiae of making the party make 57 coup de gras roles and turning them from the saviors of the town into the throat slitting saviors of the town (we'll even put aside what this could mean for a paladin as we don't know the rules for them yet) 

"Okay we loot the vizier dicker over his loot and move on to the *miscellany the mooks were carrying" 

"Is that what everyone is doing"

party "yes"

when they are done counting the lucre

"Role a perception check please"

"hmmm seems something is amiss the vizier's body is not where you left it a trail of blood leads to a curtained off passage that ends abruptly." 

*miscellany being the coinage, jewelry, and anything that might be used as a disguise, any notes etcetera


----------



## Warbringer (Feb 4, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> In any heroic narrative, the heroes of the story operate under "completely different rules" than the rest of the characters in it. If you're not comfortable with that, may I suggest that a different rules system, such as _Warhammer,_ might be more to your taste.




Or, maybe even 3.5!


----------



## Warbringer (Feb 4, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Clint Eastwood gets nearly beaten to death in A Fistfull of Dollars, but recovers enough to drag himself away. He heals up in a mine and comes back to kill everyone....




After learning to shoot with his other hand; and after a long period of time that is left unclear.

He doesn't jump up and run off to the mines unaffected by his near death experience


----------



## S'mon (Feb 4, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Because my PC would be the one who walked around after every fight slitting the throats of all the dead monsters, "just to be sure."




I just assume that happens off-camera, like going to the toilet it's one of life's necessities better not dwelled on.  When I had basic (British) army training, a lot of it focused on how to safely finish off enemy wounded/incapacitated/bodies, with various drills depending on the position of the body etc.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Feb 4, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> How is that NOT what we're trying to duplicate?



Oh, is that EVER not what I am trying to recreate.


----------



## Raith5 (Feb 4, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> In any heroic narrative, the heroes of the story operate under "completely different rules" than the rest of the characters in it. If you're not comfortable with that, may I suggest that a different rules system, such as _Warhammer,_ might be more to your taste.
> 
> I don't understand the theory that says "I only want my character to be a _hero_ (i.e. exceptionally lucky) if I the player am also lucky." Bob the brute _could_ survive the fall if he rolls low on his hit point damage. With Mike the PC, we just have rules that give him a certain amount of "script immunity" so that the player doesn't have to _rely entirely on luck_ for his character's survival.?"




Well said. But while I appreciate what you are saying, I cant help but fear the "different rules" are too advantageous to the PC hero and actually (in a way) demean what it means to be a hero.

I would rather special rules (via feats or action points for example) that enable choices. Advantages for heroes to do extra crit dam with magic weapons or have extra benefits when below 0, make the game easier for PCs but dont actually allow heroic choices to me made.

We wont know till all the rules are known but I do have a small fear that the designers may have gone to far on these types of rules.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Feb 4, 2008)

You know, the easy way to do this is to just add a number of extra HP equal to the player's Fortitude defense and state that players can only make one standard action at a -5 or 1/2 movement until they reach 0 (and are therefore dead).

If you use the 4th edition Fortitude defense, it continually rises as you level (therefore, you gain more "dying" HP and can sustain longer periods of battle).

Super simple and eliminates the need for negative HP.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Feb 4, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Clint Eastwood gets nearly beaten to death in A Fistfull of Dollars, but *recovers enough to drag himself away. He heals up in a mine and comes back to kill everyone*....



Pretty big difference from what we're seeing here.


----------



## Gundark (Feb 4, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> There is a problem here. The character is stabilized, but what does that means? Is he conscious or not? Being stabilized prevents you from rolling a 20 and get 1/4 hit pts!




Maybe when you're stabilized you get 1/4 of your HP


----------



## Corinth (Feb 4, 2008)

The designers had a chance to remove one of the genuine flaws of 3.X, but instead they had to compound the error instead with this lame rule.  Such epic failures of judgment are not allowed to go by without vigorous criticism and demands for rectification.

If it truly was the goal of the 4.0 team to simplify the rules to make them easier to run, then the first thing you is build an elegant and simple ruleset that all players adhere to; this rule regarding death and dying does neither, as it makes PCs into sanctioned cheaters through having separate standards from NPCs and it does so through a far more complicated Death's Door rule than all previous editions.  Far, far better to make the rule of "0 HP = Dead" universally applied and require incapacitation to require rolls against Fortitude Defenses.


----------



## Warbringer (Feb 4, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Aragorn going over a cliff in _The Two Towers_ anyone? I know it wasn't in the books, but it makes for great drama in the film version. Did you find his survival "unrealistic?"




DnD already has a mechanic for that. Also, there is the whole mysticism that Arwen Undómiel reaches out and brings him back..

But, that said, there is a wonderful opportunity for subplots where some 'power' has taken an interest in the hero... in the immortal words of Juba as he brings Maximus Decimus Meridius back from the brink "you will meet them again, but not yet..."


----------



## JDJblatherings (Feb 4, 2008)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> Can't be.  That means that dying would actually be far more infrequent than in the current system.  Stating simply "no change" is really precise:  you don't get better this time around, but you also don't get worse.  It's not stabilized, it's just delaying the (potentially) inevitable.  Otherwise, there's no real point to the "three strikes, you're dead" mechanic, as more often than not, you'll get one 10-19 before you get 3 1-9s.
> 
> I'm reasonbly certain that the only "stabilize" in this system is the Nat 20 "I think I'll go for a walk!" result.  This certainly explains the actions of the Paladin in the last Biggie Smalls playtest report as he kept bouncing back up after the bugbears smacked him on the bean.





I figured it meant 1 hp a round to start, 1-10  bleedign at the rate set, 11-18 bleed 1 hp more a round, 19-20 snap out of it.

so the 1st roll of 11-18 you are now bleeding 2hp a round, 2nd roll of 11-18 you are now bleeding 3hp a round, 3rd roll...gack, sputter, rattle..dead.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 4, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> You can still do that, though, at the DM's discretion. What this means is you don't have to keep track of that stuff for J. Random Orc. And, for god's sake, people, if the PC's say, "Hey, is there one we could heal up and interrogate?"
> 
> Just say yes! So what if he hit 0 hit points? You're only not bothering with the -HP stuff because it's a headache, not because J. Random Orc doesn't take some time before he bleeds out.
> 
> Just say yes, for chrissakes...



I think we can characterize it as "abusive" if the players demand that every last orc, goblin, and grick is tracked to -10 with stabilization rolls for all.  It's a pain in the butt, and who cares anyway?  If it matters that an NPC might or might not survive, by all means, roll to stabilize every round.  Otherwise, there's no point.

...three days later, goblin #34 woke up with 1 HP.  He swore revenge, tracked down the PCs, and was killed in one round because they had gained six levels in the intervening time period.

Woo yeah!


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 4, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Alternative: I liked 1e's approach; a PC reduced to negative hp is incapacitated for a week, no matter how many cure lights he gets.







			
				Grog said:
			
		

> Are you serious? The -10 rule wasn't one of the cool things about 3.5. It was a holdover from 1E that didn't work very well in 3E. In 1E, the -10 threshold almost always meant something, because even the more powerful monsters often didn't hit for very much damage in a swing. But in 3E, the -10 threshold basically didn't exist at high levels where monsters routinely do 30+ damage with a single attack.
> 
> It was definitely time for an overhaul.




I don't know where you guys got these rules. In 1e, 0 hp meant dead.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 4, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I think we can characterize it as "abusive" if the players demand that every last orc, goblin, and grick is tracked to -10 with stabilization rolls for all.  It's a pain in the butt, and who cares anyway?  If it matters that an NPC might or might not survive, by all means, roll to stabilize every round.  Otherwise, there's no point.




Abusive to the DM, maybe.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 4, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I just assume that happens off-camera, like going to the toilet it's one of life's necessities better not dwelled on.  When I had basic (British) army training, a lot of it focused on how to safely finish off enemy wounded/incapacitated/bodies, with various drills depending on the position of the body etc.




I submit that any DM who objects to the "just dead" rule _wants_ to dwell on it. He's salivating as he waits for the one time the _players_ forget to say "we slit the throats of our downed enemies."

If it happens "off camera" as you say, what's the problem with saying the enemies "just die?" Do you think "heroes" should have to go about the grisly task of finishing off all their downed adversaries? Do you want to force that flavor decision on everyone's game? Besides, in the real world, sometimes people are just dead, no dying, no saving throw, no slowly bleeding out. They're just _dead._ Heroes, and sometimes villains, are different. It's a narrative device, nothing more. Orc #3 bleeds out before he recovers because he's not important to the narrative, so what happens to him _can be glossed over._ By contrast, Bob's PC Fighter IS important, and so the rules offer him some extra "padding." That might hold true for Baron McEvil too, or even his top henchmen, but it doesn't have to hold true for every single minion.

Moreover, what happens if the PCs "don't have time" to complete the grisly task of finishing off all their downed adversaries (putting aside for the moment whether that's a problematic act for "good" characters)?


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Feb 4, 2008)

An even simpler option:
Zero equals unconcious for players, NPCs and monsters.

Roll a d20 every round with the roll modified by Constitution bonus + 1/2 level. If you don't beat a DC 20 you die. You lay unconcious a number of hours equal to the amount of damage you took.

For lower level characters, it means zero is no longer regarded as (I think I can hold out for another X rounds, since I bleed until -10). It brings the danger of combat back into the metagamer's mind.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 4, 2008)

Another good house rule would be to simply ignore negative damage altogether. At 0 hitpoints you are considered dying and follow the rules as written in the article. Make your save every round. Therefore, if you get healed you start at 0 hp per the article.

Just once you are dying you basically cease taking damage and thus don't even bother tracking negative hp. Essentially you would only die as a result of a coup de grace, or by failing your three saves without being stabilized.

I guess the drawback is if your body is at fireball ground zero, some people may not find it "realistic" that your body isn't further damaged. Hence the desire to actually track negative hp. But for a little less bookkeeping you get essentially the same system.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Feb 4, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I submit that any DM who objects to the "just dead" rule _wants_ to dwell on it. He's salivating as he waits for the one time the _players_ forget to say "we slit the throats of our downed enemies."
> 
> If it happens "off camera" as you say, what's the problem with saying the enemies "just die?" <snip>



As much as I disagree with pretty much everything JS has said in this thread, here he is absolutly right.

0 = dead. 'Unless the PCs have reason to interact with a fallen foe.'

Is exactly the same as:
It is assumed the PCs slit the throats of the fallen. 'Unless they have reason to interact with a fallen foe.'


----------



## Grog (Feb 4, 2008)

Corinth said:
			
		

> If it truly was the goal of the 4.0 team to simplify the rules to make them easier to run, then the first thing you is build an elegant and simple ruleset that all players adhere to; this rule regarding death and dying does neither, as it makes PCs into sanctioned cheaters through having separate standards from NPCs



Which many if not most gamers already did anyway. Did you seriously keep track of the negative hit points for every single orc the PCs dropped in a big fight, and make stabilization rolls for each of them every round? If so, I think you're in a pretty small minority.



			
				Corinth said:
			
		

> and it does so through a far more complicated Death's Door rule than all previous editions.



How is rolling a d20 every round more complicated than rolling a d10 every round?


----------



## Grog (Feb 4, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I don't know where you guys got these rules. In 1e, 0 hp meant dead.



Are you sure? I'm pretty sure it was in 1E. I think it was in the DMG somewhere, though it might have been an optional rule.

Regardless, it was a holdover from either 1E or 2E.


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 4, 2008)

I never roll for NPCs to stablize unless it is necessary. I've always given them -1 hp per round unless the party (or someone on their side) heals them. It is simulationist enough for my purposes, without a lot of extra die rolling. I imagine that I will do the same in 4e (i.e. assuming that they fail their stabilization rolls every round).

On the subject of NPC clerics/warlords healing their fellow party members, I can't see why it wouldn't work the same way it does for PCs. If they get healed, they're hp total equals the amount of healing done. I wouldn't let NPCs roll for the heroic autostable + heal unless they were dramatically important to warrant it. In this case, I would probably assume they make it (especially if it happens when no one is looking and it give them a chance to get away).

Since all GMs are free to treat their NPCs just like PCs, I fail to see why other posters are so upset. Keep doing what you are doing. You don't have to houserule anything. That method is supported by the rules now - it's just not the default. 

I personally like to make a qualitative difference between PCs and NPCs. I've been doing so for years. IMC the PCs are like the main characters of a book or movie. They can die, whether it be heroic or by mishap or a lucky shot. I like to emphasize the former and limit the frequency of the latter. I'm happy the 4e rules appear to support this style without a lot of house ruling.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 4, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Um, I hate to be the one pointing out the obvious, but if you're so worried about taking prisoners why not just strike for non-lethal damage, grapple them or subdue them with a spell. Hacking them down like a tree with a great axe, you get what you get - firewood.




Uhm...yeah.

Not to risk being thrown out of the He-Man 4e Haters Club, but this set of rules does fix issues with 3x while not introducing any grevious new flaws that I can see. In my games, if the PCs want to take prisoners, they use non-lethal damage, because one cgood whack can take the orc from 1 hp to -11...


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Are you sure? I'm pretty sure it was in 1E. I think it was in the DMG somewhere, though it might have been an optional rule.
> 
> Regardless, it was a holdover from either 1E or 2E.




It was not in 1e in any of the rule books. I don't think it was in 2e either. It sounds very much like a house rule.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 4, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I don't know where you guys got these rules. In 1e, 0 hp meant dead.




Sorry, but that's just not true. I was looking through the 1e DMG a couple weeks back, and characters in 1e were unconscious when they hit 0 hp and dying when their total went negative. They died when they reached -10 hp.

On the other hand, you are correct that in OD&D and early editions of Basic/Expert D&D, you were dead at 0 hp. And of course, since we lived without a DMG for 2 years when First Edition AD&D came out, many people just used the previous rules. But they _were_ changed when the DMG came out.

However, like many things in the 1st Edition _Dungeon Master's Guide_, the rule was so hard to find that not many people noticed it.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 4, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I for one have never been disappointed to feed a mortally wounded character a potion of cure _light_ wounds, and find that they don't immediately leap to thier feet.  I always figured that they were for curing _light_ wounds.



You know what I always thought was funny about cure light wounds?  It doesn't.

You're a 2nd level fighter.  You are fighting another 2nd level fighter.  You are stabbed in the arm by a sword.  You sustain a light (5 hp) wound.  You drink your CLW potion and get back 5 hp.

You're a 20th level fighter.  You are fighting another 20th level fighter.  You are stabbed in the arm by a sword.  You sustain a light (40 hp) wound.  You drink your CLW potion and get back 5 hp.

The wound is identical.  The magnitude of total HP is (arguably, although I pulled the numbers out of my butt) identical.  Assuming a character's HP represents their ability to soak/avoid damage, they should be injured to a similar degree.  The stronger you are, the better at avoiding damage you are, the tougher you are, the less you benefit from healing magic.


----------



## Primal (Feb 4, 2008)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Except that your way isn't much fun. If I get a nasty hit and go down, then spend the next 10 minutes sitting there while everyone else fights, I'm left with… well, nothing. Besides, what would be the alternative? No healing until combat is over?




But there will be "healing flowing from the Leader-types to their allies every round". And we've also seen playtest reports mentioning Clerics being able to heal their allies as they cause damage in combat. I also wonder if it becomes a trend to viciously beat up your fallen (Dying) buddy after combat? (I gathered that this would also "trigger" a roll?)

My biggest problem with this sort of "miraculous recovery system" is that while it's probably much more "fun", it may be an overkill as they've already increased HPs (for the PCs) and toned down Crits and damage/round-potential in the game. It may also have an impact on the storytelling:

DM: "So the Pit Fiend caused you 75 points of damage, dropping you to -50? Alright, so you've got one round left to live, correct? Sheesh... alright, he shattered your whole ribcage with the last mighty blow and your feel your innards being ruptured as you fall down, vomiting blood."
Player: "Uh-oh! Damn, we're out of healing! Get me rezzed as soon as you can!"
* Next Round*
Player: "Holy moley! I rolled a Natural 20! I get better! My ribcage and my innards are mystically healed!"
DM: "Uh... erm... ah, let's just say that it was a group hallucination, shall we? So you're back in the fight and the blow just knocked you out.... or something."

I guess it's a lot safer to drop all combat descriptions in 4E and just stick to "You fall down -- let's see whether you get up or not"-type of comments, hey?


----------



## Grog (Feb 4, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> It was not in 1e in any of the rule books. I don't think it was in 2e either. It sounds very much like a house rule.



No, it was definitely in 2E (EDIT: and according to John Snow, it _was_ in the 1E DMG). You may be thinking of BECMI, where characters did die at 0HP.


----------



## Grog (Feb 4, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> You know what I always thought was funny about cure light wounds?  It doesn't.



True, there was always that quirk to the D&D rules. A 1st level character could be opened top to tails, and a Cure Light Wounds spell would fix him completely. But a 10th level character could just have a few bruises, and that same spell wouldn't even fix them all.

I guess you're always going to end up with these sorts of issues when designing an abstract system.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 4, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> " If a character with negative hit points receives healing, he returns to 0 hp before any healing is applied."
> 
> I hate this kind of rule, it's the same thinking that gave us 3.5e's "save every round to break Hold Person".  It gives the enemy a huge incentive to finish off dying PCs before they pop back into the fight, or the GM has to play the enemy as idiots.




Except that there are 3 or 4 other PCs present, each capable of sending the enemy to the big dirtnap, who would make much better targets than the guy with a 5% chance per round of getting sort of better, and a 50% chance per round of getting worse.

Monsters should finish off the fallen after they drop the ones who are trying to stab them.  Otherwise, they really are acting like idiots.


----------



## Peter LaCara (Feb 4, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> You know what I always thought was funny about cure light wounds?  It doesn't.
> 
> You're a 2nd level fighter.  You are fighting another 2nd level fighter.  You are stabbed in the arm by a sword.  You sustain a light (5 hp) wound.  You drink your CLW potion and get back 5 hp.
> 
> ...




Yeah, except we don't know how things like potions of healing work yet. Maybe a potion doesn't give back 5 hp at 20th level, but gives you a healing surge which restores a certain percentage of your hp.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> No, it was definitely in 2E (EDIT: and according to John Snow, it _was_ in the 1E DMG). You may be thinking of BECMI, where characters did die at 0HP.




Since I didn't have my books handy, I did some quick perusing on the internet with a Google search. I turned up a legal document filed by TSR against Games Workshop that mentions negative hit points. Here's the relevant part of the text, which included page number citations:



> The optional rule mechanic...is derived from a similar *rule regarding negative hit points* in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (page 105); the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (pages 82 and 227); and the AD&D 1st ed. MM (page 11).




I haven't had time to check the page numbers myself, but I imagine they're accurate.

That proof enough?


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> No, it was definitely in 2E (EDIT: and according to John Snow, it _was_ in the 1E DMG). You may be thinking of BECMI, where characters did die at 0HP.




I would love to see a citation for it being in the 1e DMG. I ran the game for years. I never saw it. I never played BECMI until after 3e came out.


----------



## Corinth (Feb 4, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Which many if not most gamers already did anyway. Did you seriously keep track of the negative hit points for every single orc the PCs dropped in a big fight, and make stabilization rolls for each of them every round? If so, I think you're in a pretty small minority.



Yes, I did, and not just in D&D.  Every game I run, everyone plays the same game and adheres to the same rules.  This makes system mastery easier to attain, since you need only do it once, and since I record what NPCs I create for later reference I never encounter the phantom menace of "excessive stats".  (For everything else, there's print and online resources such as the d20 NPC Wiki that I can access as I require.)  Once you know the patterns, everything becomes easy.


> How is rolling a d20 every round more complicated than rolling a d10 every round?



Multiple results to track makes it more complicated; with 3.X, just one result it's binary- either you stabilize or you don't.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 4, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I would love to see a citation for it being in the 1e DMG. I ran the game for years. I never saw it. I never played BECMI until after 3e came out.




Look up. Pull out your 1e books and check the page numbers.

If you don't have yours handy, I'll pull mine and give you the exact quote when I get home from work later.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 4, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Abusive to the DM, maybe.



Yes.  That's the point.  How many fallen characters does a player have to track?  One.  How many does the DM need to track?  Hundreds.  Why should he?


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Feb 4, 2008)

Corinth said:
			
		

> If it truly was the goal of the 4.0 team to simplify the rules to make them easier to run, then the first thing you is build an elegant and simple ruleset that *all players adhere to;* ...




All players do adhere to this rule.  

NPCs are not players.  It's in their name: "*Non-Player* Character."

The DM is a unique class of player.  DM's have always opperated under special rules.  Nothing new here.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 4, 2008)

Corinth said:
			
		

> Yes, I did, and not just in D&D.  Every game I run, everyone plays the same game and adheres to the same rules.  This makes system mastery easier to attain, since you need only do it once, and since I record what NPCs I create for later reference I never encounter the phantom menace of "excessive stats".  (For everything else, there's print and online resources such as the d20 NPC Wiki that I can access as I require.)  Once you know the patterns, everything becomes easy.




And in games like that, as I said above, I shelve my preferred playstyle of "gloss over the problem" and just go around and coup de grace every NPC until he's D-E-A-D. If the DM insists that I roll, I'll roll, and keep rolling until I do enough damage to know the bastards *won't come back.*

It's a pain in the neck, but it's a lot less troublesome than worrying if goblin #5 will become a serious threat later.

I'd rather gloss over it, but if the DM is going to insist on a silly adherence to rules designed to enable PC survival being applied to NPCs, one has to be thorough.


----------



## Reynard (Feb 4, 2008)

Interesting article.

On the one hand, it certainly frees up the Dm from feeling guilty (if he suffers from that tragic flaw) from going all out with the enemies.  Given lower damage outputs and bigger buffers and better healing, PCs that buy it bought it on sale and they deserve it.

On the other hand, it sure seems to enforce one particular playstyle over any others -- "action movie" getting bandied about in this thread is a good indicator of that -- and I don't much like being told how to have fun.

Then there's the fact that no mention is made of what the actual consequences of death are -- which I was really hoping they would clarify, given the indications in W&M -- because those consequences should have a major impact on how death/dying rules are received.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 4, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Yes.  That's the point.  How many fallen characters does a player have to track?  One.  How many does the DM need to track?  Hundreds.  Why should he?




Yep. One of my biggest problems with the idea that "Everyone plays by the same rules" is that not everyone has the same obligations, responsibilities and requirements.

Players have to run one character. That character (for D&D purposes) has all kinds of options and tricks and stuff to make running one character interesting.

Now, most players, like most DMs, could probably keep track of PC-level complexity characters in numbers greater than one. But not by a very large number.

Many posters here argue that if NPCs aren't run by the same rules as PCs, it is unfair. I would argue that it is unfair if they _are_. A GM has so many demands on his time and attention already, refusing to allow him time-saving options with regard to the mechanics is downright cruel. 

Part of the reason there are more players than there are DMs is because DMing is hard and time-consuming. You're often in charge of managing, scheduling and hosting the game sessions. You've got to know the rules and world well enough to explain it to new players. You've got to prepare adventures. You've got to run adventures. You've got to make sure everyone has fun. 

If you put a lot of work into an adventure, the PCs can (and will) go completely outside the bounds of what you thought likely to occur you won't have anything prepared, and they'll hate you for it. Or you rail-road them back to stuff you have prepared, and they hate you for it. Or you try and improvise, and they hate you for it because your stories or characters aren't consistent and you're obviously making stuff up as you go. 

The more complex the rules, and the more rigidly the DM is expected to adhere to them in matters not directly pertaining to the PCs, the more work he has to do. 

And I, and many other players my age, do not have the time. We get maybe four spare hours a week to game. We want a lot to occur in that time- multiple combats, multiple scenes, lots of stuff happening. We don't want to have to do a lot of prep work to get ready for it, because we don't have the time. 

I will take "simple and fast, but requires discretion" over "slow and complex, but has all the answers for you" any day of the week.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 4, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I would love to see a citation for it being in the 1e DMG. I ran the game for years. I never saw it. I never played BECMI until after 3e came out.




It's definitely in the 1e DMG. Alas, I don't have my copy at me at present, but it's around page 80, IIRC.

Cheers!


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 4, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Since I didn't have my books handy, I did some quick perusing on the internet with a Google search. I turned up a legal document filed by TSR against Games Workshop that mentions negative hit points. Here's the relevant part of the text, which included page number citations:
> 
> I haven't had time to check the page numbers myself, but I imagine they're accurate.
> 
> That proof enough?




When you're (or in this case I) wrong, you're wrong. I could have sworn that the rule about -10 hp had come from a Dragon article, but it is there in black letter on page 82 of the DMG.

I don't think that I, or anyone I knew, ever used the rules about long term incapacity.


----------



## kennew142 (Feb 4, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> And in games like that, as I said above, I shelve my preferred playstyle of "gloss over the problem" and just go around and coup de grace every NPC until he's D-E-A-D. If the DM insists that I roll, I'll roll, and keep rolling until I do enough damage to know the bastards *won't come back.*
> 
> It's a pain in the neck, but it's a lot less troublesome than worrying if goblin #5 will become a serious threat later.
> 
> I'd rather gloss over it, but if the DM is going to insist on a silly adherence to rules designed to enable PC survival being applied to NPCs, one has to be thorough.




I agree completely. I've been in games where the GM insisted that these unsavory details be played out in excruciating detail. They were not games I chose to return to.

IMO, PCs are the main characters of the story. Since a good story should be constructed around the PCs (their wants, desires, reputations, history, backgrounds, successes, failures, etc...), it can be a campaign killer to have them dying off with great frequency. A story written around the PCs will fall apart, if the PCs die. The hooks and backgrounds of the story no longer have relevance.

The system as presented for 4e will limit death by happenstance, but will still allow for characters to die in dramatic ways (such as when fighting climactic battles). The former will not be ruled out. Players can still be unlucky. Dying characters can still be caught in area of effect spells, or eaten by ghouls while unconscious, dragged off by animals or monsters, etc... This rule simply makes it less likely.

IMO, the nice thing about limiting the frequency of character death is that it makes Raise Dead (and similar magics) less necessary. Death, when it occurs, can be more permanent. Players whose characters aren't dying constantly due to happenstance, are often more sanguine about character death when it occurs.


----------



## Corinth (Feb 4, 2008)

Loincloth of Armour said:
			
		

> All players do adhere to this rule.
> 
> NPCs are not players.  It's in their name: "*Non-Player* Character."
> 
> The DM is a unique class of player.  DM's have always operated under special rules.  Nothing new here.



That's the problem.  The GM should be held to the same standard as the other players at the table.  It's one of the biggest turn-offs for outsiders because it's seen as sanctioned cheating; the solution isn't to make special cases for the GM, but to make the standard ruleset universally fair and elegant.  It's not like it hasn't been done.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Feb 4, 2008)

Peter LaCara said:
			
		

> Although if you get a bonus to Saves (which I imagine are rare, but extremely significant when they show up), that makes a character much tougher.
> 
> Hey, here's an idea. What if there are feats that provide you with bonuses to saves, but only against certain things? Like a Dwarven racial feat that provides a +2 bonus to saves to recover from poison, or a Hard to Kill feat that gives you a +2 bonus on saves to stabilize.
> 
> Man. I was a little wary of the new save mechanic at first, but I'm really liking it the more I think about it.




Probably already been said, but this is already present in the Pit Fiend stats: he has +2 to "saving throws," IIRC, which is presumably this roll.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 4, 2008)

Corinth said:
			
		

> That's the problem.  The GM should be held to the same standard as the other players at the table.  It's one of the biggest turn-offs for outsiders because it's seen as sanctioned cheating; the solution isn't to make special cases for the GM, but to make the standard ruleset universally fair and elegant.  It's not like it hasn't been done.




But the DM has a different job and responsibilities. I could not function as a GM operating under the same 'restrictions' as the players. Couldn't do it, wouldn't want to do it.


----------



## JamesM (Feb 5, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> It's definitely in the 1e DMG. Alas, I don't have my copy at me at present, but it's around page 80, IIRC.



Page 82, 1E DMG: "When any creature is brought to 0 hit points (optionally, as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is _unconscious_. In each of the next succeeding rounds 1 additional (negative) point will be lost until -10 is reached and the creature dies."


----------



## Grog (Feb 5, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> But the DM has a different job and responsibilities. I could not function as a GM operating under the same 'restrictions' as the players. Couldn't do it, wouldn't want to do it.



Further, I doubt there's any player out there who would consider it cheating for the DM to rule that enemy mooks die at 0 hit points, rather than make a bunch of pointless stabilization rolls every round. Indeed, as a player, I'd probably be pissed if he _did_ make the rolls, since he'd be wasting valuable gaming time we could be using for something that actually mattered.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Feb 5, 2008)

Corinth said:
			
		

> That's the problem.  The GM should be held to the same standard as the other players at the table.




Keep in mind is one of the design goals is to make DMing easier, one of the largest complaints about 3e being the difficulty DMing.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Feb 5, 2008)

Corinth said:
			
		

> That's the problem.  The GM should be held to the same standard as the other players at the table.  It's one of the biggest turn-offs for outsiders because it's seen as sanctioned cheating; the solution isn't to make special cases for the GM, but to make the standard ruleset universally fair and elegant.  It's not like it hasn't been done.




But it's not a problem unless the DM is trying to "win" against the players.

A correction to my previous post.  A DM is *not* a player.  He/she is a referee, a rules-interpreter, a set designer, a moderater of events, a guide for the players, a game-world builder.  

A player has none of these powers.  A player is concerned about how their avatar --the PC-- interacts with the world.  That's it.  Nothing else.

A DM is responsible for everything else.  

Because of their limited interaction, a player has a vested interest in the longevity of their PC.  It is their way of playing the game.  When the PC dies, they can no longer affect the game.  _They are no longer playing the game._  The loss of a PC ends the player's involvement, *until the DM says "You can bring in a new character now."*

Kill a DM-NPC and guess what?  *The DM is still playing.*


To suggest that these two should follow exactly the same rule set --which is to suggest the two are playing the same kind of game-- seems to me a weird way of looking at the game.

Common rules where interaction between PC an NPC is necessary so everyone knows what to expect... but make no mistake: this is a _serious_ difference between the game needs of a player and the game needs of the DM.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 5, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> Also, here's another pretty absurd corner case:
> 
> A fighter has 200 hit points at maximum, and is down to 5 HP. An orc stabs him for 6 points of damage, taking him down to -1. The next round, the fighter rolls a 20, and pops back up with 50 HP. So the orc just healed the fighter for 45 points by stabbing him in the gut.
> 
> I know that hit points are abstract, but that's pretty ridiculous.




<returns to conciousness and forces his hand inside his gut wound, sealing it shut with pressure>
"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

Sounds perfectly alright to me.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 5, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> True, there was always that quirk to the D&D rules. A 1st level character could be opened top to tails, and a Cure Light Wounds spell would fix him completely. But a 10th level character could just have a few bruises, and that same spell wouldn't even fix them all.
> 
> I guess you're always going to end up with these sorts of issues when designing an abstract system.



Well, what if all healing restores some fraction of your max HP?  Second wind reputedly gives you back 1/4 of your max.  It appears that all healing occurs through healing boosts, and healing boosts are triggered through different methods, including clerical abilities.  However, if they're all the same effect--get back X% of your HP--then the Cure X Wounds problem goes away.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 5, 2008)

Peter LaCara said:
			
		

> Yeah, except we don't know how things like potions of healing work yet. Maybe a potion doesn't give back 5 hp at 20th level, but gives you a healing surge which restores a certain percentage of your hp.



Heh.  Exactly.  This is what I'm hoping.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 5, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I don't think that I, or anyone I knew, ever used the rules about X.



For anyone who never played 1st edition, the above quote summarizes the experience quite handily.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 5, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Heh.  Exactly.  This is what I'm hoping.




In keeping with the self-scaling of many powers, and the presumed reduction in total powers per class (since rogues, fighters, etc, now get as many as wizards and clerics, we can assume wizards and clerics get fewer or the PHB will be the size of the Manhattan White Pages), I think we'll see "Heroic Heal", "Paragon Heal" and "Epic Heal", as well as some conditional heals, i.e, something that brings you to 75% health as long as you weren't bloodied, or the like.


----------



## Stalker0 (Feb 5, 2008)

I'm seeing a lot of people suggest that instead of the 3 saves and your out there should be some fortitude mechanic.

Here are a few reasons that's a bad idea:

1) Double dependence on the con stat for survivability. Currently, con provides you hit points, which also provides you an extended death's door. Con already has a strong correlation to survivability. If you add in a fort save, then your also adding in another dependenace on con. It makes people with lots of con exponentially more survivable than those without it.

Con is the second most important stat to every class in 3e, its often considered suicidal to have a low con. I would love it if 4e made con an important stat, but one not critical to everyone just to stay alive.

2) Scalability. Fort Saves scale. So not only do high level characters have a ton more hitpoints AND the extended death's door, but then they have strong fort saves. It makes it even tougher to kill them, while low level characters become more frail.

4e is attempting to stop the rapid increase in power with levels, to smooth things out. That's why I think the static d20 roll is a good idea.


In general, I think this new mechanic is pretty neat. The one thing I don't like is that there's only a 55% chance to roll 1-10 and get a death strike. Considering you always have a least 3 rounds before you bite it, I would much rather make it 1-15. 3 rounds is long enough imo.

I do like the roll a 20 and get back up with 1/4 hitpoints. I do wonder if 1/4 hitpoints is too many, but the idea of allowing a player to have some excitement even while unconscious is a great idea!!


Finally, I like the death's door mechanic, but I wonder if 1/2 your max in negatives is too much. I mean -60 is a big window!!! From what monster's we've seen it doesn't feel like monsters will be racking up that much damage per round. I wonder if every PC will just be knocked out.

However, that's an easy houserule, making it 1/3 of max hitpoints of 1/4 could fix that easily if it becomes a problem.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 5, 2008)

The new rules look good. Negative 10 was definitely an issue that needed fixing. PC death has probably been my biggest problem in 3e. It's fairly easy to die and very time consuming creating a new PC, particularly at high level. One of these had to change. They're keeping the character complexity so the death rate had to go down.

It might be better if there was a clear division in the rules between NPCs that die at zero hp ie mooks and those that don't (other than whether it has a name, though I admit that's really the key determinant).

I'm really intrigued by these alternate death and dying mechanics they tried. Hopefully we'll see some in 4e's version of Unearthed Arcana.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Feb 5, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> <returns to conciousness and forces his hand inside his gut wound, sealing it shut with pressure>
> "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
> 
> Sounds perfectly alright to me.



Additionally, getting back up probably isn't the best idea: 4E encounters will usually involve more creatures. Even if the orc stabs you and you feel better than before, his buddies see you, see that you're hard to kill and pile up on you.

That higher tolerance and ability to "push through" also prevent PCs from being gimped too hard by the sheer number of actions opponents may get through their number.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Remathilis (Feb 5, 2008)

Corinth said:
			
		

> That's the problem.  The GM should be held to the same standard as the other players at the table.  It's one of the biggest turn-offs for outsiders because it's seen as sanctioned cheating; the solution isn't to make special cases for the GM, but to make the standard ruleset universally fair and elegant.  It's not like it hasn't been done.




Here Here! No more of this "The DM doesn't have to tell you what your saving against" or "the DM doesn't have to declare the NPC is scrying on them, or casting charm person on them". Heck, why does he need that cardboard screen? My character sheet is in the open, as is my die rolls. His map, notes and die rolls should be as well!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 5, 2008)

Corinth said:
			
		

> Every game I run, everyone plays the same game and adheres to the same rules.



NPCs in 3e don't use the same rules as PCs. For example: NPC classes, different wealth levels, standard or nonelite array for ability scores.


----------



## Ipissimus (Feb 5, 2008)

Now THIS is more like it! -applauds the article and the mechanics-

This handles things more elegantly, though it certainly requires a shift in thought particularly for DMs. Reading this thread, I think you can see how combat flavor needs to be re-packaged for the new paradigm (and that most of the problems are rooted in metagame thought).

For example, the 200hp fighter on 5hp who gets stabbed for 6 by an orc, then makes his save and goes back to 50hp. Sure, if you look at it from a metagame standpoint, he's just been healed by being stabbed. As some people pointed out, the better way is to look at it as 'the orc simply ticks the fighter off and (most likely) subsequently gets mauled'. The point is that all rules are just numbers, pretty dull and lifeless if you look at them as they are, it takes some creative packaging to make hit points and combat exciting, and I've found it to be that way since 1e. What it means exactly to have 25% hp is pretty nebulous anyway, we've never had mechanics for broken bones or internal injuries and we really don't want to start down that path now for DnD. If you want excrutiating detail, play GURPS.

Of course, as someone said above, you can't just say 'the blow caves in your ribcage' anymore, since the PCs have a chance to get up again. Rather than gristly descriptions of death, you've got to play up the unknown angle. "You see the dragon's tail arc towards you a moment before it slams into your chest, knocking you aside! You think you hear your bones pop and crackle under the blow." Now, the PC will either die, remain stable until someone heals him (somehow) or pick himself up to fight on and you've left the avenue open for that to happen.

For those who want a more realistic bent to explain why a character gets back up, what about self treatment? Who said that being down negative hp meant being unconscious, necessarily? Yet another action movie trope is the hero that pulls the bullet out, patches himself up by tearing up his shirt to bind the wounds, maybe cauterizes the wounds with some fire and a knife, then goes back into the fray.

DnD's always been more cinematic than realistic, that's one if its strengths in the market. I'm afraid that realism in RPGs is a niche market, if you want it DnD isn't for you, you'd be happier playing something that uses condition monitors instead.

Now, I think the two things that are missing from the article (not a complaint, more of an observation) are the rules for Healing (mundane and magical) and the rules for Coup de Grace. The article doesn't mention specifically that Coup de Grace is gone, and that might take care of the problems with monsters who want to finish off characters.

Of course, I'd question the sanity of anyone who ignored the alive and well people with the big pointy things trying to kill them to make sure that the one that was down and not fighting was really dead. But then, not all NPCs are sane.

The problem without Coup de Grace is the same as the previous editions, only amplified since everyone has more negative hp. If an evil cleric of Tharizdun decides he's going to slit the throat of the downed Paladin (definitely in character for the NPC), it doesn't make much sense for it to take several rounds since the downed player can't effectively struggle (and when you're bleeding out, struggling to retain your grip on reality, you can't). When we learn what they've done with Coup de Grace, I think this hole will be plugged.


----------



## Henry (Feb 5, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> NPCs in 3e don't use the same rules as PCs. For example: NPC classes, different wealth levels, standard or nonelite array for ability scores.




I'm of similar mind, myself. Coming from an AD&D background, DMs in our groups have never completely adhered to the same rules as characters, because of their natures as referees. Different DMs have different styles, mind you (some roll in the open, some always roll in secret, some roll in the open for climax battles only, etc.) but all I've known have always had some rules fiat going on, to speed a slow game, or to help a group of hard-charging players down on their luck, or to correct a "tough" encounter that turned out to be a cakewalk, etc.


----------



## Fifth Element (Feb 5, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> For anyone who never played 1st edition, the above quote summarizes the experience quite handily.



Dr. Awkward coming in late for the win! And it's funny _because_ it's true.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 5, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I'm seeing a lot of people suggest that instead of the 3 saves and your out there should be some fortitude mechanic.
> 
> Here are a few reasons that's a bad idea:
> 
> ...



I think it's worth noting that already a lot of people have started writing their own house rules regarding this mechanic.  Normally I'm a "just wait and see" sort of guy, but I think that in this case, it's a good thing.  This is a mechanic that can be customized.  If you don't like the death's door rules, you can alter the window, the amount you heal when you roll a 20, the spread of results on the d20, and a few other aspects of the rule, to make it as deadly or as forgiving as you like.  Gritty or heroic--lethal or safe.  I hope that there are a lot of places that, like these rules, provide switches and dials for house ruling to taste.


----------



## Grazzt (Feb 5, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> hmmh the death at -10 hp was a houserule in ADnD introduced in some adventrures IIRC... (one of them is Night Below... right here by my side) called hover at deaths door.




Actually, I think it first popped up in the 1e DMG, page 82.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 5, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> <returns to conciousness and forces his hand inside his gut wound, sealing it shut with pressure>
> "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
> 
> Sounds perfectly alright to me.





Excellent example.  Dramatic and exciting.  Wonderful way to end an epic adventure.

That being said, if this kind of thing--characters popping up from devastating damage like punching bags--happens too often in combat, I think it has the potential to diminish drama and become rather ridiculous.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Feb 5, 2008)

I actually like this a lot.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Feb 5, 2008)

I think the fun part will be rolling desperatly for that 20 and with each roll risking another step beyond the Death's door


----------



## S'mon (Feb 5, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Moreover, what happens if the PCs "don't have time" to complete the grisly task of finishing off all their downed adversaries (putting aside for the moment whether that's a problematic act for "good" characters)?




In that case a bunch of enemy wounded recover and will be a threat later.  If as usual I'm not rolling stabilisation chances I'd probably give them a 50% chance.  Anyway I'm not forcing you to play it the way I play it.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 5, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> In that case a bunch of enemy wounded recover and will be a threat later.  If as usual I'm not rolling stabilisation chances I'd probably give them a 50% chance.  Anyway I'm not forcing you to play it the way I play it.




But the point is that this isn't then something like going to the bathroom that happens but we just never talk about. In your games, it happens _every time you have dead NPCs_, and if anything prevents it from happening, they come back.

Which means you have to explain why (i.e. talk about it) the first time that happens.

PC: "What? I thought we killed those guys."
DM: "Well, you didn't have time to slit their throats before you were chased off."

All I can say is "thank goodness I don't have to play it the way you play it.

By the way, 50% is an awfully generous survival rate. Most people die if they pass out from blood loss and don't get any medical attention. And by the rules, at least 75% of them should kick it, at least at low levels.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 5, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Except that there are 3 or 4 other PCs present, each capable of sending the enemy to the big dirtnap, who would make much better targets than the guy with a 5% chance per round of getting sort of better, and a 50% chance per round of getting worse.
> 
> Monsters should finish off the fallen after they drop the ones who are trying to stab them.  Otherwise, they really are acting like idiots.




My point was in relation to how *healing magic* works better on PCs at negative and how the system incentivises foes finishing them off before they're healed.  Not the 1 in 20 rule.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 5, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> When you're (or in this case I) wrong, you're wrong. I could have sworn that the rule about -10 hp had come from a Dragon article, but it is there in black letter on page 82 of the DMG.
> 
> I don't think that I, or anyone I knew, ever used the rules about long term incapacity.




I used it - it was only for a week, and it didn't happen very often.  Usually in 1e if things were going so badly that PCs were being dropped to negative the PC party was going to lose anyway, and the wounded would be killed by the victorious enemy, or bleed out.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 5, 2008)

JamesM said:
			
		

> Page 82, 1E DMG: "When any creature is brought to 0 hit points (optionally, as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is _unconscious_. In each of the next succeeding rounds 1 additional (negative) point will be lost until -10 is reached and the creature dies."




Rereading it now, I think it meant that if reduced from positive to negative you died immediately.  Optionally, only if reduced to -4 did you die immediately.  It's not clear though.  
An alternative reading is that you can't be reduced below -3 from 1 blow!
I always ignored that bit and just did incapacitated at 0, death at -10.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 5, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> But the point is that this isn't then something like going to the bathroom that happens but we just never talk about. In your games, it happens _every time you have dead NPCs_, and if anything prevents it from happening, they come back.
> 
> Which means you have to explain why (i.e. talk about it) the first time that happens.
> 
> ...




I'll talk about going to the bathroom in-game if it becomes an issue: "OK, so you're holing up in that dungeon room for three days?  It's going to get pretty nasty in there..."

Likewise, I'll talk about finishing off the wounded (or not) if it becomes an issue.  But I'm certainly not going to roll a bunch of times for CDG Fort saves or whatever (anyway I run C&C now, not 3e - in C&C at 0 through -6 you're unconscious but stable, -7 to -9 dying).

50% survival rate assumes the enemy wounded are tended to by their comrades.  If not tended to I'd probably have them all die, or give a 1 in 10 survival chance.

BTW I ran Classic D&D a while back, the PCs brought a bunch of 1st level NPC soldiers (1d8 hp) with them on a 3rd-4th level adventure.  I used Classic's 'dead at 0' for the NPCs and the PC healer was annoyed that the soldiers died at 0, giving him nobody to heal.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 5, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> All I can say is "thank goodness I don't have to play it the way you play it.




I like a fairly gritty game.  You don't.  I don't see the problem.  I'm still highly abstracting it. 

I guess if I ran a realistic-simulation game like Twilight: 2000 or similar I probably would make the PCs deal with the need to finish off the enemy wounded, or deal with the consequences - like listening to the Russian soldier slowly dying from a sucking chest wound, or screaming for hours with his guts spewed out.  I don't do that in D&D.  I just say "OK, you finish off the goblins and catch your breath.  In their pouches you find 3sp..." etc.


----------



## Peter LaCara (Feb 5, 2008)

S'mon said:
			
		

> My point was in relation to how *healing magic* works better on PCs at negative and how the system incentivises foes finishing them off before they're healed.  Not the 1 in 20 rule.



Actually, what it incentivises is for the monsters to focus on the healer before he can revive his downed companions. Because there's no "healing tax," if the monsters fail to kill the PC before the cleric or warlord get their turn (not unlikely, given the large hp buffer), then all their attacks have been wasted.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 5, 2008)

On the issue of healing on a natural 20: a comment from another poster on another thread (in CircvsMaximvs) led me to realize that the hit point recovery on a natural 20 is only in the "Try It Now!" section. The actual 4e rule might be that on a natural 20, the character actually stabilizes (no further rolls needed) and may use a second wind, if he has any left.

Of course, if you don't like the idea of second wind in the first place, you're not going to like this any better, but otherwise, it's no longer an opponent "healing" a character by wounding him - it's the character being able to draw on his inner reserves and recover enough to keep on fighting despite having being knocked unconscious earlier.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 5, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> On the issue of healing on a natural 20: a comment from another poster on another thread (in CircvsMaximvs) led me to realize that the hit point recovery on a natural 20 is only in the "Try It Now!" section. The actual 4e rule might be that on a natural 20, the character actually stabilizes (no further rolls needed) and may use a second wind, if he has any left.
> 
> Of course, if you don't like the idea of second wind in the first place, you're not going to like this any better, but otherwise, it's no longer an opponent "healing" a character by wounding him - it's the character being able to draw on his inner reserves and recover enough to keep on fighting despite having being knocked unconscious earlier.



A good point. 

I got the impression a lot of healing is based on the Second Wind abilities of 4E - possibly even all. If there is also only a limited amount of times you can use this ability per day, this might mean: 
- It doesn't matter how many powers can enable you use it. You can't exceed your limit.
- It doesn't matter how you got your second wind, there is no "better" way to get up.
This specifically removes the problems of combat-related abilities to enable a second wind. You don't have to decide "let's pick up a mock fight so we can get our HP back with our per encounter powers". Outside of combat, you probably always have an option to activate Second Wind, and using that is probably easier (and feels less stupid) then any attempt to create a fake encounter...


----------



## delericho (Feb 5, 2008)

Well, it's okay.

Two things I don't like:

1) Death at negative _half_ hit points. Better, IMO, to have death at negative full hit points, rule that any attack on a dying character is an automatic critical hit, and double the bleeding damage per round.

2) Monsters are dead at 0 hit points, unless they've been predetermined as being important to "the plot". So, I guess PCs now can't nurse one of those goblins back to positive hit points in order to pump him for information, then?


----------



## Bagpuss (Feb 5, 2008)

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> Yes.  It's very interesting.  I think the rolling a d20 and looking at the chart will take some getting used to....




You really need to look at a chart to remember 20 great, 10+ okay, 9- oh dear.

I doubt anyone needs to look at a chart unless they are the sort of person that has trouble remembering their own name.


----------



## BeauNiddle (Feb 5, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> 2) Monsters are dead at 0 hit points, unless they've been predetermined as being important to "the plot". So, I guess PCs now can't nurse one of those goblins back to positive hit points in order to pump him for information, then?




As has been pointed out previously the instant the players start looking for a surviving goblin they become important to the plot. Either calculate how long it's been for each goblin and have them all roll stabilisation rolls OR roll for the last 2 or 3 goblins downed OR handwave it.

Do you want to reward the players for thinking about questioning the goblins or punish them for not using subdual damage? or do you want the dice to determine it?

Anyway Speak With Dead has been a staple of D&D for years for a reason


----------



## Steely Dan (Feb 5, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> So, I guess PCs now can't nurse one of those goblins back to positive hit points in order to pump him for information, then?





Actually, that used to annoy me, players trying to smack things within -1 and -10 hp so they could revive them after the battle and "interrogate” them (meta-playing crap)."


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 5, 2008)

By the way: There is an important reason why PCs still count their negative hit point total: 
They can still accumulate damage - imagine being dropped inside the Pit Fiends Fire aura - if your comrades can't hope to stabilize you, they might at least want to get you out of the heat.

You also don't want Wizards fireballing an enemy group when there is still a PC lying around (unless, well, you don't care or have no other choice, off course).


----------



## Spatula (Feb 5, 2008)

voss said:
			
		

> Meh.
> Hey, this NPC isn't dead! He must be important to the plot!
> They're really taking the 'monsters and PCs don't work the same way' thing way too far.





			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> This is EXACTLY how 3e works now.



Monsters die at zero hp in 3e right now?  Must have missed that bit in the rules...


----------



## MerricB (Feb 5, 2008)

Just realised this rule sort of already exists... in Advanced Squad Leader.

When you almost... but not quite... kill a tank, you place a Shock token on it.

Next round, you roll a die. On a 1 or 2, the token is removed and the tank may act as normal. On a 3-6, the token is flipped to its Unconfirmed Kill side.

The round after, you roll a die again. On a 1-3, the UK counter is removed. On a 4-6, the tank is killed (and flipped to its wreck side).

Designer note: "Another common occurrence was an AFV's crew being killed, injured, or stunned - with no visual effect of this apparent to the firer. In such an instance, the firer, not knowing if the target was out of action, usually continued to pump rounds into it until satisfied that it was indeed knocked out."

Ok, it's not a great analogy. I've just been spending far too much time with the ASL rules recently... 

Cheers!


----------



## Spatula (Feb 5, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I haven't had time to check the page numbers myself, but I imagine they're accurate.
> 
> That proof enough?



PHB pg 105: "If any creature reaches 0 or negative hit points, it is dead."  Only mention of negative hp on the page.

EDIT: someone already got the DMG quote, which (surprise!) directly contradicts the PHB one... Ah, AD&D.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Feb 5, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Actually, that used to annoy me, players trying to smack things within -1 and -10 hp so they could revive them after the battle and "interrogate” them (meta-playing crap)."





Beating the heck out of something/someone and trying to revive them to interrogate them isn't metagaming.


----------



## Derren (Feb 5, 2008)

I wonder if with this rule "kill healing" would be feasible like in some team online shooter games.
In those games the medic sometimes kills a badly wounded teammate and then revive him because that uses less energy than to heal him.

In D&D that means that someone high level/HP whos current HP are below 10 is killed by the team and now has 2 turns to roll a 20 to heal 1/4 of his HP for free before the party stabilizes him and heals him normally (maybe just 1 point to kill him again for another chance of a free 25% healing).

But depending on how healing works in 4E this might not be necessary as the PCs might be able to heal up after every combat automatically. Still, in 3E using this rules it seems like a good strategy to save some cure serious wounds spells.


----------



## Steely Dan (Feb 5, 2008)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> Beating the heck out of something/someone and trying to revive them to interrogate them isn't metagaming.




Read my post again.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> I wonder if with this rule "kill healing" would be feasible like in some team online shooter games.
> In those games the medic sometimes kills a badly wounded teammate and then revive him because that uses less energy than to heal him.
> 
> In D&D that means that someone high level/HP whos current HP are below 10 is killed by the team and now has 2 turns to roll a 20 to heal 1/4 of his HP for free before the party stabilizes him and heals him normally (maybe just 1 point to kill him again for another chance of a free 25% healing).
> ...



I suspect that most healing will be based on the "Second Wind" mechanic, which means that it doesn't matter whether you get healing from the healer or you get healing from rolling a 20 on your "stabilization" rule. The end result is always the same. The only thing that matters is the timing - you can't count on rolling a 20, but you can count on the healers heal spell working (barring special circumstances, off course). 

Implementing this rule in 3.x creates artifacts that should not appear in 4E.


----------



## eleran (Feb 5, 2008)

Corinth said:
			
		

> That's the problem.  The GM should be held to the same standard as the other players at the table.  It's one of the biggest turn-offs for outsiders because it's seen as sanctioned cheating; the solution isn't to make special cases for the GM, but to make the standard ruleset universally fair and elegant.  It's not like it hasn't been done.





Your attitude is precisely why a lot of players, myself included really dislike DMing in 3.x.  

I prefer to use Phobos advice of "Just say yes" when the PCs ask if anyone on the battlefield is left alive to interrogate.  It seems pretty simple to me.

PCs: We will check the bodies to see if anyone is still alive.
DM:  Orc #5 seems to be barely hanging on, his breathing is shallow, but it is breathing.
PCs:  We tie him up and try to stabilize him with a heal check.
etc.

Why does that bother anyone?  It gets the job done insofar as providing someone for them to interrogate, rescue, whatever.  And it keeps me from making endless rolls to and taking endless notes to keep track of whomever might have survived.  If they don't ask then no one survived, unless for the sake of the story I want someone to survive.  Then I can either have the PCs notice some groaning as they are lotting the bodies or whatever, or have someone crawl off the battlefield after the PCs have left.


----------



## HP Dreadnought (Feb 5, 2008)

I like it.


----------



## Grazzt (Feb 5, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Monsters die at zero hp in 3e right now?  Must have missed that bit in the rules...




Only Constructs and Undead I believe.


----------



## Stalker0 (Feb 5, 2008)

One thing I think would be good to add is that if you roll a 1 on the die, you get 2 strikes against you.

Then you have a nice 2-7 round spread of unconsciousness, and then you can really never take unconsciousness for granted.

As it stands, you will always have a few rounds, and you will often have a lot more than that.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Feb 5, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> 2) Monsters are dead at 0 hit points, unless they've been predetermined as being important to "the plot". So, I guess PCs now can't nurse one of those goblins back to positive hit points in order to pump him for information, then?




Nah, if the PC's want to pump one for information, then he automatically becomes important to the plot, yes?


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 5, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Nah, if the PC's want to pump one for information, then he automatically becomes important to the plot, yes?



That's how I'd play it.


----------



## Imban (Feb 5, 2008)

I still have "3e goggles" on in this case, obviously, but I see it as a simplification of the system rather than different rules. For most monsters, 0 HP = never going to take an action again = dead. When it is important that this is not the case, such as when it's a PC and it actually matters big time if they die, or healing is in the picture, or prisoner-taking is an issue, the simplification is pushed aside in favor of the full rules.

I would be dissatisfied if, in a hypothetical identical-team mirror match, the NPC team's healers were dramatically less effective than the PC team's healers because the PCs bounce back from 0 HP multiple times during battle while the NPCs stay down permanently.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Feb 5, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> You really need to look at a chart to remember 20 great, 10+ okay, 9- oh dear.
> 
> I doubt anyone needs to look at a chart unless they are the sort of person that has trouble remembering their own name.




Well, as I said _in the part of the sentence you didn't quote_...


> I already remember it, but rolling 10% every round has become ingrained.




It isn't difficult to remember, but if this is the only time it shows up in the system, it will be odd.  It looks like it is used elsewhere in the system as the new "saving throw", so as I said four posts later:



> If the same mechanic permeates the system, then it becomes easy to use and consistent.



It appears not only can I remember my own name, I can remember my own posts, and I agree the mechanic, if it permeates the system, is a simple one.

My concern, very likely unfounded, is if the mechanic is rarely used elsewhere in the system.  In 3e, turning checks aren't all that complicated, but they are so different seeming from the rest of the system, they become harder to remember.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Just Another User (Feb 5, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> *Huge beaming smile* If my PCs can pull off an encounter half as good as Princess Bride, I will be so happy




The question is, how happy will you be if ALL the encounters will look like that?

That is my big worry about 4e, sure, powers and mechanics seems cool, a fight where  half the Pc go down and then go back fighting seems fun... but if all the fights have PCs that go up and down like yo-yos it will be still fun? and when the fighter/warlord/wizard use his "cool" power for the 250th time... it will be still cool? or it will just look like cheesy?

People keep mentioning action movies, but the "hero half dead jump back into fight" while happen in every movie it usually happen just once for movie, can you immagine a good action movie where in evey single fight the hero is nearly beated to death and at the last moment jump up and win the fight, and again in the following fight,and again, and again, until it defeat the BBEG (obviously not before he is nearly beat to death by him)? Would you still call it a good movie? or more a MST3K candidate? (which admitedly is always a good movie, if for totally different reasons)


----------



## Just Another User (Feb 5, 2008)

Zimri said:
			
		

> But which enemy the 56 henchmen in robes or the evil vizier masquarading as the benevolent if doddering old priest ? I for one don't like the minutiae of making the party make 57 coup de gras roles and turning them from the saviors of the town into the throat slitting saviors of the town (we'll even put aside what this could mean for a paladin as we don't know the rules for them yet)
> 
> "Okay we loot the vizier dicker over his loot and move on to the *miscellany the mooks were carrying"
> 
> ...




of course do you know perfectly well what will happen at the end of the next fight,and of every following fight.

"to avoid another "vizier incident" we cut the throat of every "dead" enemy, better sure than sorry."


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 5, 2008)

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> My concern, very likely unfounded, is if the mechanic is rarely used elsewhere in the system.  In 3e, turning checks aren't all that complicated, but they are so different seeming from the rest of the system, they become harder to remember.




This is a valid concern. However, rest assured, these dying rules are identical to the new 4e saving throw mechanic that adjudicates whether you can throw off ongoing effects. In 4e, if you are affected by an ongoing effect such as poison, paralysis, etc. you roll d20

1-9 - No change
10-19 - You shake off the effect
Natural 20 - You shake off the effect you were rolling for and all other affects that are affecting you at the same time.

I could see some interesting synergy if "dying" is treated like any other ongoing effect. Roll a natural 20 and not only are you back to 1/4 HP, you are also no longer burning, poisoned, etc. Talk about coming back with a vengeance. Also if you are rolling a save to overcome poison and are dying, does a natural 20 cure your "dying" also?

Still so much we don't know.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 5, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> People keep mentioning action movies, but the "hero half dead jump back into fight" while happen in every movie it usually happen just once for movie, can you immagine a good action movie where in evey single fight the hero is nearly beated to death and at the last moment jump up and win the fight, and again in the following fight,and again, and again, until it defeat the BBEG (obviously not before he is nearly beat to death by him)?




Well, I'd argue that a long-running campaign is more like a TV series than a movie. The analog to the movie (or TV episode) is probably a single adventure. So the question you should ask is: how likely is it this will happen to each and every PC in each and every fight in one adventure?

I think it's pretty unlikely. It might happen to one PC in every fight, or it might happen to one PC in some fights, none in others, and more than one in a big knockdown, drag-out fight with the BBEG. The best comparison I can give is to look at an action adventure series like, say, _Firefly, Stargate: SG-1, Buffy: The Vampire Slayer, The Magnificent Seven_ or even _Star Trek_. The chances of a dramatic recovery happening a couple times an episode is pretty high. And it usually goes up when more heroic characters are involved.

I don't think PCs will be routinely plunging to negative hit points, but it could happen. And when it does, there's a 5% chance that they'll bounce back. So in other words, 1 time in 20 when a PC actually hits negative hit points, he's gonna "pull an Inigo Montoya."

Personally, I can live with probabilities like that.


----------



## Just Another User (Feb 5, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> You know what I always thought was funny about cure light wounds?  It doesn't.
> 
> You're a 2nd level fighter.  You are fighting another 2nd level fighter.  You are stabbed in the arm by a sword.  You sustain a light (5 hp) wound.  You drink your CLW potion and get back 5 hp.
> 
> ...




no, it is not. that same wound on a 1st level commoner would kill him a dozen times, as an experienced fighter you were able to take it in a less lethal point (but if it was 5cm on the left it could have hit your heart) also as an experienced fighter you are used to get wounded and to the pain, a lesser fighter would be already panicking and/or collapsing just from how much it hurt, but you? you 've seen worse, you know that this wound while serious is far from lethal for you, and that you could take another half dozen like it before to begin to worry, so you push down the pain, gnash your teeth and keep fighting. but even so a simple 1st level spell is not enough to close a gash like it.

Or, at least, this from my view of hit points, a 20% "meat" (that Con Bonus must count for something), a 30% luck, experience (you moved just enough so that heart wound hit you on the arm") and the rest "guts" or spirit ("You are bleeding" "I've got no time to bleed")


----------



## Spatula (Feb 5, 2008)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> Only Constructs and Undead I believe.



Of course, PC constructs and undead are also dead zero hit points.

This new system is interesting, and it does fix the problem of the negative hp buffer not scaling with damage, which is definitely an issue at higher levels in 3e.  It doesn't fix the issue of knowing how long you have to rescue a downed PC (still at least 3 rounds), and certainly seems to produce some wonky results.  I'm left wondering how one actually dies in an actual group combat situation at mid levels and beyond.  Foes can choose to try and finish off someone who's downed... but if you can't do it in one round (likely), any sort of healing will completely undo your efforts.  And everyone can heal.


----------



## Just Another User (Feb 5, 2008)

someone can explain this



> At 15th level, that fighter might face a tough brute capable of dishing out 25 or 30 points of damage with its best attack… or nearly twice that on a crit.




my impressionn is that he is talking about 4e in this part (because else the sentence would make no sense), but 4e crits maiximize damage not double it, so what's happen? Are 15 level "brute" monsters rolling 10d6 or something similiar for damage? I thought they wanted to remove randomness.

but at least this time are not saying how much previous edition sucked, maybe they are learning.   

And no "cool" word, hell just froze over.  

Still "meh" though.


----------



## Just Another User (Feb 5, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I don't think PCs will be routinely plunging to negative hit points, but it could happen. And when it does, there's a 5% chance that they'll bounce back. So in other words, 1 time in 20 when a PC actually hits negative hit points, he's gonna "pull an Inigo Montoya."
> 
> Personally, I can live with probabilities like that.




I don't think only to the rolling 20, even to any other kind of healing, There was a playtest, in a fight against some goblins (I eman, Goblins!) in different moments four PCs went down and, during the fight, were brought up again with various methods, it can be fun for one fight, but even fi the average rate is one temporary death for fight it get boring pretty quick.


----------



## med stud (Feb 5, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> someone can explain this
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The text said "capable" of dealing 25-30 damage. I interpret that to mean the max damage is 25-30. I would guess that monster has an ability that modifies critical hits or is just a mistake.

That wasn't the point of the post, though. The point was that 0 to -10 is to small an interval for high levels.


----------



## Just Another User (Feb 5, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> The text said "capable" of dealing 25-30 damage.




yes, "and almost the double on a crit",so you think they've have already forgot how their new crits work? not exactly encouraging, at least for DDI articles quality.



> I interpret that to mean the max damage is 25-30. I would guess that monster has an ability that modifies critical hits or is just a mistake.
> 
> That wasn't the point of the post, though. The point was that 0 to -10 is to small an interval for high levels.



Hey, one take his chunks of 4e where he can.

There was also the part about a 15 fighter get 120 hp, but someone already mentioned it.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 5, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> I don't think only to the rolling 20, even to any other kind of healing, There was a playtest, in a fight against some goblins (I eman, Goblins!) in different moments four PCs went down and, during the fight, were brought up again with various methods, it can be fun for one fight, but even fi the average rate is one temporary death for fight it get boring pretty quick.




To be fair, the Battle of Pelennor Fields in _Return of the King_ was mostly against "some goblins." As, for the most part, was the battle in Moria where Frodo was nearly gutted.

Goblins don't have to be pathetic foes.

And "one temporary death per fight" is pretty much par for the course in 3e. Unless you're just always taking on monsters where the odds are 4:1 in your favor. Which hardly seems all that heroic to me.

I'd rather have characters constantly being nearly taken out than have them constantly taking part in lame fights against inferior opponents in some weird "attrition-based" endurance test.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 5, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> no, it is not. that same wound on a 1st level commoner would kill him a dozen times, as an experienced fighter you were able to take it in a less lethal point (but if it was 5cm on the left it could have hit your heart)



It's the same wound.  If the 2nd level fighter was hit for 40 HP of damage, it means something different than the same number on a 20th level fighter.  If the 20th level fighter loses 20% of his HP, it's an identical wound to a 2nd level fighter losing 20% of his HP.  He's messed up to exactly the same degree, regardless of what HP are supposed to stand for, whether it be toughness, morale, or luck.  So while the 20th level fighter gets nicked by something that would eviscerate a 2nd level fighter, by virtue of his superior ability to avoid damage and demoralization, if the 2nd level fighter is also nicked, the same spell should be capable of repairing a nick on either character.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 5, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> someone can explain this
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, there's a lot of ways to get an average of ~30 hp of damage. Here's one:

Damage: 4d8 + 12.

Avg: 28-32 hp
Max: 44 hp.

If there's powers that add damage on a crit, that could creep higher. Honestly, there's no way to evaluate this statement without the full system.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 5, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Nah, if the PC's want to pump one for information, then he automatically becomes important to the plot, yes?



This pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 5, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> It's the same wound.  If the 2nd level fighter was hit for 40 HP of damage, it means something different than the same number on a 20th level fighter.  If the 20th level fighter loses 20% of his HP, it's an identical wound to a 2nd level fighter losing 20% of his HP.  He's messed up to exactly the same degree, regardless of what HP are supposed to stand for, whether it be toughness, morale, or luck.  So while the 20th level fighter gets nicked by something that would eviscerate a 2nd level fighter, by virtue of his superior ability to avoid damage and demoralization, if the 2nd level fighter is also nicked, the same spell should be capable of repairing a nick on either character.




The tradition (and, IMO, wholly unsatisfactory) explanation is that the spell is also restoring some of the fighter's "heroic luck," or "divine protection." So, since the 20th-level fighter is more infused with that than the 2nd-level fighter, it takes a mightier spell to fully restore him.

The real (gamist) reason is that, with spell slots, allowing an inconsequential resource like a 1st-level spell to heal 40 hp wreaks havoc with game balance. So they came up with the above (ridiculous) justification.

With spell slots being gone, I think Fourth Edition will dispatch this incongruence with a "bullet in the head."


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 5, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> To be fair, the Battle of Pelennor Fields in _Return of the King_ was mostly against "some goblins." As, for the most part, was the battle in Moria where Frodo was nearly gutted.
> 
> Goblins don't have to be pathetic foes.
> 
> ...




Same here, which is why I am basing my combat mainly off, very heavy-strikes by enemies. Followed by quiet lapses, but with the chance of another fight (rolling for encounters). 

With a couple run-and-gun scenarios thrown in too, mhmm... Can't wait till my PCs are being chased by Aboleth-controlled humans across rooftops during a lightning storm, such fun awaits


----------



## med stud (Feb 5, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> yes, "and almost the double on a crit",so you think they've have already forgot how their new crits work? not exactly encouraging, at least for DDI articles quality.
> 
> Hey, one take his chunks of 4e where he can.
> 
> There was also the part about a 15 fighter get 120 hp, but someone already mentioned it.



It might just be a mind slip. From the "taking chunks of 4e where he can" comment it looks like you have something personal against the new edition which doesn't seem very constructive.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 5, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> When you're (or in this case I) wrong, you're wrong. I could have sworn that the rule about -10 hp had come from a Dragon article, but it is there in black letter on page 82 of the DMG.
> 
> I don't think that I, or anyone I knew, ever used the rules about long term incapacity.



My group did. And there was a 3rd level Cleric spell in UA (Death's Door) that alleviated that incapacity - very popular with my group's clerics.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 5, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The tradition (and, IMO, wholly unsatisfactory) explanation is that the spell is also restoring some of the fighter's "heroic luck," or "divine protection." So, since the 20th-level fighter is more infused with that than the 2nd-level fighter, it takes a mightier spell to fully restore him.
> 
> The real (gamist) reason is that, with spell slots, allowing an inconsequential resource like a 1st-level spell to heal 40 hp wreaks havoc with game balance. So they came up with the above (ridiculous) justification.
> 
> With spell slots being gone, I think Fourth Edition will dispatch this incongruence with a "bullet in the head."



Yes, I understand this.  It's something we've put up with because of the Vancian spell system, but hopefully it's being chucked in favour of a more level-independent healing system.


----------



## Oldtimer (Feb 5, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> There was also the part about a 15 fighter get 120 hp, but someone already mentioned it.



What about that part? Do you see that number as unreasonable?


----------



## Steely Dan (Feb 6, 2008)

Also, IIRC, didn't Aragorn have a nap in the middle of the fight with the cave-troll (in the film), and then bounce up after a few Zs and get back into the action?


----------



## Just Another User (Feb 6, 2008)

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> What about that part? Do you see that number as unreasonable?



no, but it was already mentioned and discussed, so I didn't becase there was nothing new to say.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 6, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> yes, "and almost the double on a crit",so you think they've have already forgot how their new crits work? not exactly encouraging, at least for DDI articles quality.




If you roll, say, 1d12 for damage, you average 6.5.

If you crit in 4E, you do automatic max damage.  Max damage on 1d12 is 12.

12 is "almost double" 6.5.


----------



## Imban (Feb 6, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> If you roll, say, 1d12 for damage, you average 6.5.
> 
> If you crit in 4E, you do automatic max damage.  Max damage on 1d12 is 12.
> 
> 12 is "almost double" 6.5.




For any amount of dice, yeah, maximum is going to be "about" double the average, getting closer as the dice type gets bigger. This isn't true of static plusses, however, and our Pit Fiend statblock shows this: 1d6+11 damage averages 14.5 and caps at 17, an approximately 17.2% gain in damage.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 6, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> For any amount of dice, yeah, maximum is going to be "about" double the average, getting closer as the dice type gets bigger. This isn't true of static plusses, however, and our Pit Fiend statblock shows this: 1d6+11 damage averages 14.5 and caps at 17, an approximately 17.2% gain in damage.




True, but we aren't talking about the pit fiend.  We're talking about an unspecified 15th-level "brute" monster:



> At 15th level, that fighter might face a tough brute capable of dishing out 25 or 30 points of damage with its best attack… or nearly twice that on a crit.




So the monster might be more dice than static bonuses (though that seems unlikely given current trends), or it might have a special ability that boosts its crit damage.  My point is that "nearly twice that on a crit" does not have to mean the monster is using the 3.5E double-damage rule.


----------



## frankthedm (Feb 7, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> 1) Death at negative _half_ hit points. Better, IMO, to have death at negative full hit points, rule that any attack on a dying character is an automatic critical hit, and double the bleeding damage per round.



I say negative half HP is way too many. These are humaniod bodies, heroicly avoiding attacks and rolling with the punches went bye bye at 0 HP. I'll agree any hit should be an autocrit.


			
				delericho said:
			
		

> 2) Monsters are dead at 0 hit points, unless they've been predetermined as being important to "the plot". So, I guess PCs now can't nurse one of those goblins back to positive hit points in order to pump him for information, then?



Quite fair, if those gobbos were alive and dying, every round 5% would be getting back up with 1/4 HP.


----------

