Death and Dying

Sylrae · Jan 21, 2009

Kerrick mentioned that the death and dying rules suck, especially if you're making due without a cleric.

I've had a bunch of games with nobody choosing a spellcaster (I don't make them have balanced parties, I adjust according to the group setup).

So anyways,

Here is my rule (from memory, I'll check the actual document when I'm at home). I may have it a bit wrong.

Okay. Simplified version

Fortitude Save, with effect based on amount of success.

This of course means that it gets easier to Stabilize as you gain levels.

1-9: Player gets worse. Take 1d4 damage
10-19: No Change.
20: Stabilize

When you stabilize, you heal 1 hit point per round until conscious.
You don't bleed to -10, you bleed to -Con score.

Variants:
Bleed Value:
1. For longevity, use a fraction of your hp. In my games that's bad, but that's because I give bonus hit points at level 1 (9 + 1/2 Con)...
2. You could add your Fort Save to the amount of -hp you can bleed.
3. You could make the amount you can bleed be equal to 10 + Fort.

DC:
1. You could up the DC's of the Fort Save, which would make people stabilize less often.
2. You could base the DC on their current negative HP.

Damage:
Die Type: Change the die type to speed up/slow down death.

-----

What do you guys think? Which variant Ideas do you think should be used?

Kerrick · Jan 22, 2009

This is almost exactly how I do it. My version goes something like this:

0 hit points, you're disabled.

-1 hp, you're dying.

at negative Con score (death threshold), you're dead.

If you're dying, make a DC 10 Constitution check. If you succeed by 4 or less, there's no change. If you succeed by 5 or more, you stabilize (go to 0 hp, but still unconscious). If the check fails by any amount, you lose 1 hit point; three failures or a natural 1 means you die.

If you're stable, you have a 10% chance each hour of regaining consciousness on your own (1 hp). If you recover (either on your own or by being healed), you're staggered for 1 minute (though a heal spell or better will obviate this). [The staggered thing was something I stole from a Neverwinter Nights PW I played in; I thought it was quite appropriate - you shouldn't go from "dying" to "alive" without SOME kind of penalty.]

If a character takes damage while dying, it has no effect unless it is greater than his (unadjusted) Con score, in which case he must make an immediate DC 15 Con check or die. Even if the check succeeds, he takes another step toward death (this could easily result in death anyway for someone on his second step, as a third failed roll means instant death).

----

The problem with using Fort save instead of Con check (though "problem" is probably relative) is that it IS better as you gain levels - I don't really see why a L20 wizard should have an easier time recovering from a mortal blow than a L1 fighter, when logic would dictate that it would probably be the other way around (the fighter would likely be in better shape, physically). Basing it on Con instead of Fort gives everyone a more or less equal chance of survival, instead of heavily favoring fighter-types.

The "heal 1 hp/round until conscious" is also something the NWN PW used; if you stabilized, you'd recover on your own and could stagger away if you actually regained consciousness. I might use that instead of going straight to 0 hit points on a successful Con check.

Knight-of-Roses · Jan 23, 2009

Funny that this comes up now, I was just thinking of how I was going to change stabilization in my next campaign (when I have a next campaign).

While I am going with the AE-based Disabled at 0 to -Con modifier HP and Dead at -10 or Con score HP (whichever is higher).

I have decided to simplify the stabilization rules, they are now: You stabilize. Full stop. No roll, no save, you stabilize.

Why? It is simply no fun to have a character die from a set of bad dice rolls that you have no way to influence and the cleric is webbed (or whatever) and cannot get to you. Sure, it is not 'realistic' but neither is any part of the D&D combat system so I do not see this as a problem.

When healing characters at negative HP, the first point of healing brings them to 0 HP and goes from there. (One of the things that 4e got right, it always was annoying to heal someone "So, you can walk now?" "Nope, still at -2." "OK, I use another healing potion.")

Sylrae · Jan 27, 2009

Ah, Well, I like bleeding out,but one way to make healing less of a pain in th ass, is to do this:

When applying magical healing to a bleeding character, the hitpoints they hal start at 0, not at a negative number.

Knight-of-Roses · Jan 28, 2009

Whatever works best for you and your group.

I just like a more heroic style of play. (And continuing damage remains a threat, such as original 3.0 Wounding weapons or acid arrow damage.)

UncleSquirrel · Dec 4, 2009

I just posted this under the HP discussion, but it seems relevant here:

UncleSquirrel said:
Great conversation. Thought I'd mention one approach I've used:

- Players are disabled at 0 to -9 hit points (previously at 0 hp only)
- Players are dying at -10 to -19 hit points (previously -1 to -9 hp)
- Players are dead at -20 hit points (previously -10 hp)

...where definitions of disabled, dying, and dead are otherwise unchanged (PH3.5 pg 145, PH3.0 pg 129). All other rules pertaining to death and dying (including stability, etc.) apply accordingly.

The net result is that all characters effectively gain an additional 9 hp or so buffer (which benefits 1st level characters most and decreases in relevance as levels increase), albeit at limited functionality. Low-level characters are still bloodied (disabled) easily, but tougher to kill.

It can also serve to create opportunities for gameplay, i.e. a hit-point window in which PCs and NPCs can escape, surrender, be captured, or make a last ditch effort toward victory. Also, psychologically-speaking, players' max hit points aren't numerically higher, and "going negative" does seem to lend a sense of gravity that simply adding 10 more hit points to PCs' totals probably wouldn't convey (not to mention the ill effects of being disabled). Which makes players overall still feel wary, but die less. And near-death is generally much more fun than death.

Lastly, this is a "minimally invasive" and easily conveyed rules change, in the sense that players still write the same number on their sheets and everything still deals the same damage (no significant reformulation); it's only the special death & dying "edge case" that is technically being modified.

Separate from this, I also happen to give max hp for PC hit dice (only), in certain gaming groups. While this effectively devalues damage dealt by non-renewable sources (such as spells), in the case of NPCs this is easily rebalanced any number of ways (more or more powerful enemies or encounters, etc). For PvP / PC vs. PC, this is somewhat counteracted by virtue of our house-rule spell system (Clerics/Druids/Paladins/Rangers/Wizards cast spontaneously as Sorcerers; Sorcerers/Bards use a spellpoint system to retain their flavor and flexibility).

cheers,
-sq

p.s. The above modification (changing disabled/dying/dead thresholds) would also work with some of the Con-based suggestions posted in this thread, e.g.:

- Players are disabled at 0 to (1 - Con) hit points
- Players are dying at -Con to (1 - 2xCon) hit points
- Players are dead at -2xCon hit points

Note that the intent of the original post was to discuss player HP and various ways to increase them (4e-style) without unbalancing the universe.

Death and Dying

Sylrae

First Post

Kerrick

First Post

Knight-of-Roses

Historian of the Absurd

Sylrae

First Post

Knight-of-Roses

Historian of the Absurd

UncleSquirrel

First Post

Similar Threads