Deathbed Speeches

[STARP_Social_Officer]

Thing is, under current rules, you can't make 'em.
Once you drop to 0hp, you're alive but basically helpless. If you go down one more, you're unconcious and dying. You can't be dying while you're still concious.
Does anybody have any alternate rules to allow you to be awake while the life ebbs away from you?
My idea is simply to have a Fortitude Save to stay concious every round, with a DC of 10 plus one for every hit point you are below 0 (11 for -1hp, 17 for -7) etc. If you succeed, you remain awake and aware, though you can't do anything remotely strenuous, such as moving. If you do, you lose another hp and have to make another save. Obviously, you can speak and say some witty last words.
Anybody have any similar ideas about how to go about this concept?

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

While it hasn't needed to happen yet, I ran this idea by my group: If you go from alive (>1 Hp) to dead (-10 hp or worse) in one hit, if you have a Charisma Modifier of +0 or better, you may give one 'round' of a death-bed speech, plus one round per point of charisma bonus. During this time, no mortal magic can save you. If you take any 'death-bed speech rounds', you forfeit rights to any resurrection magic short of divine intervention. (Assumed to have said everything you wanted to say, you are at peace and accept your afterlife)

Why even bother with the Charisma mechanics? Because I also allowed them to take actions during their 'last moments' with every possible applicable penalty.

 

[TonyTempest]

I would just say that, "if you have something to say" when the battle is over, "you can say it, but no one can stop you from dying during this period, this is a deathbed speech".

Don't need a rule, just do it.

david

 

[Drowbane]

...Don't need a rule, just do it...

QFT

You don't need a rule for everything.

 

[Li Shenron]

I would just say that, "if you have something to say" when the battle is over, "you can say it, but no one can stop you from dying during this period, this is a deathbed speech".

Don't need a rule, just do it.

Quoted, making a rule for this is plain wrong also because some players may want to do the little speech and others may not, and guess who of them will make the right roll?

The deathbed speech is what movie/novel characters do when basically already dead. So if the player wants to have fun at that, I certainly have no problem allowing him to speak when at -10 or below.

But eventually I wouldn't mind introducing a single Fort save to remain conscious the first time you drop below 0hp (NOT every round when it's already boring enough to roll for stabilizing...). As long as this doesn't change the fact that you cannot do anything useful = take any action other than normal speech, it would have zero impact on the game balance.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Don't need a rule, just do it.

QFT again. In D&D, don't let RULES get in your way. EVER.

 

[phindar]

I agree with the "screw the rules" crowd, but this is the way AE does it. You're disabled when between 0 and -CON Bonus, and dead at -CON Score. So a character with a 16 CON is conscious but disabled between 0 and -3, and dead at -16.

Personally, I don't mind changing the unconscious part of being at negatives to just being unable to act.

 

[STARP_Social_Officer]

I absolutely agree with the people who say "screw the rules". Don't get me wrong here - of course you don't need a rule for everything.
But if you had my players...
"You can't heal him. Let him male a deathbed speech."
"But he's still alive. Why can't I heal him?"
"Because he's making his deathbed speech."
"But that's stupid. I can save him. I'll just cast a cure minor wounds..."
"Look, he's dead."
"So he's on -10?"
"Yes."
"So how can he still be speaking? He's dead."

Et cetera. My players don't get 'good narrative' all the time (except when it benefits them). They want to be able to do whatever they want, which includes saving dying characters when they want them alive.
If it was a villain, going "I'll be back" or something, of course, they wouldn't have a problem. Which is why I want a rule, just so there's some consistency.

However, "screw the rules" is a perfectly good response to my question.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

But if you had my players...

The statement, "He is conscious, but dying irrevocably and CANNOT be saved," is all the rule you need. If they say, "But there's no rules for that!" your response is, "I JUST stated the rule." The DM is there to adjudicate in the absence of, or inadequacy of rules.

 

[eamon]

The statement, "He is conscious, but dying irrevocably and CANNOT be saved," is all the rule you need. If they say, "But there's no rules for that!" your response is, "I JUST stated the rule." The DM is there to adjudicate in the absence of, or inadequacy of rules.

Sure... but consistency is a nice thing... getting into a story is much easier if you can suspend your disbelief and that's easier if what's happening makes some kind of sense.

Frankly, narrative which requires changes to the rules of the game is either bad narrative or either those changes are internally consistent and consistently applied - say, a "house rule" . Joking aside, of course you don't always need to worry about making those rules explicit but it's not a bad idea either. An explicit rule, even if your players don't know about it, is easier to follow.

I also like it when player's think out of the box. When something is happening that shouldn't be possible, I like it when they figure out why and how. I like it when they're able to pick up on subtle cues without needing to second guess "oh that was just the DM being dramatic". If a villian gives a deathbed speech, and I'm NOT using some sort of house-rule, then I want them to think - hey... how is this possible! It keeps em paranoid, and often leeds to great situations, and maintains the fantasy that the "world" we're playing in is real.