My Hit Point and Dying Rules, are they too easy?

[phoenixgod2000]

My Group is going through the Red hand of Doom. They are below the average party level required for the module, but there are 8 of them so I figured what the heck. So the group gets into a dangerous fight and one character dies and most drop to near death levels. I realized later that the only reason why most of the party didn't die was because of my house rules.

For dying, people don't croak at -10, instead they die at a negative number equal to their con score to reflect hardy people cling to life longer than those frail elderly wizards.

Secondly, if a class rolls below half their max hp, then they get half so that you don't ridiculously low hp.

But I think those two things together might conspire to make my campaign too lenient. I want my group to fear the reaper and I'm not so sure that they do.

What do you think? Should I change one or both of my rules?

 

[Korak]

Well, if your players really want to roll their hp, then, they should take the bad with the good. Allowing them to reroll 1's would be a lot less imbalancing than just giving them half if they roll low. My group always plays with max at first and then half+1 the rest of the way. We occasionally use your other houserule though, about dying at -con instead of -10. That's a solid idea. At higher levels characters are less and less likely to become disable or dying. They pretty much always go from up to dead in one shot.

 

[frankthedm]

The Negative con is not too bad. As long as foes come back from the brink as well and the party has to take the morale burden of finishing off the dying, it sounds fine. This does make Diehard really stong for High con monsters. Make sure to use that feat for them.

Instead of roll and guarenteed half of max, I say let them choose to take the high average or risk whatever roll they get. But as long as you do the same for the monsters this too is fine.

I HATE 'reroll ones' on HP. It rewards those who roll the worst while still hosing those who roll two's {other than wizards]

 

[Eloi]

"..one character dies and most drop to near death levels."

That would be a definite clue to the party that this is Dangerous. If that happened to a party I was in, I'd be getting mighty cautious about how many foes to take on at once, where's my escape route, etc. And the Healers aren't going to be standing any watches.. I want them good and rested.

I don't think your house rules for Hit Points and Dying are the problem. Might be a lack of teamwork and common sense distribution.. Is there more than one healer? What are the healers doing, firing crossbows? Are the players letting themselves get flanked by Rogues?

 

[phoenixgod2000]

the fight in Question

Contains spoilers for Red Hand of Doom...









....This is the fight at the skull Gorge Bridge with the green dragon. There are eight characters

5th Paladin of the Red Knight
3/1 Shade Rogue/Ranger
4th Catfolk Ranger
2nd Half Ogre Barbarian
Gestalt Elan Psion/Beguiler 3/3 +2LA
Gestalt Monk/Cleric 3/3 +2LA
4/1 Draconic human fighter/Cleric
3/3 Gnome Invoker/MasterSpecialist

There are no major healers and most of their healing comes from potions and a couple of wands of cure light wounds. they used poor tactics and bunched up allowing the dragon to breath on them multiple times. the Gnome attempted to drop the dragon with fire and lightning, but underestimated the dragon who swooped down and savaged him while the party was otherwise engaged. the gnome dropped to something like -13 in two rounds. after about a minute of combat, the gnome was up again at about 3, the fighter was fine, the cleric/monk was dead, the barbarian was alive until he stopped raging, the elan was at one and out of power points.

the only one who was fine was shade because his fast healing and evasion kept him at full almost the entire fight.

The dragon was finally killed when the catfolk archer, at zero and taking partial actions, crited the dragon for almost max damage and killed it. A hero moment for a player who doesn't always get the most respect from the group.

the party had a plan but the wizard wasn't paying attention to it and screwed it up. with almost a total lack of healing this crippled the party.

on the other hand my group loves near TPKs that they manage to pull back from and all of them told me that this the best fight they had had in years.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

the party had a plan but the wizard wasn't paying attention to it and screwed it up. with almost a total lack of healing this crippled the party.

i agree. Until they do get healer (claric or dragon shamen or druid lvl7), the will stay crippled.

 

[BASHMAN]

I don't see what's wrong with this. A lot of people use those very same rules, and their campaigns are completely lethal.

 

[hong]

My Group is going through the Red hand of Doom. They are below the average party level required for the module, but there are 8 of them so I figured what the heck. So the group gets into a dangerous fight and one character dies and most drop to near death levels. I realized later that the only reason why most of the party didn't die was because of my house rules.

For dying, people don't croak at -10, instead they die at a negative number equal to their con score to reflect hardy people cling to life longer than those frail elderly wizards.

Secondly, if a class rolls below half their max hp, then they get half so that you don't ridiculously low hp.

But I think those two things together might conspire to make my campaign too lenient. I want my group to fear the reaper and I'm not so sure that they do.

What do you think? Should I change one or both of my rules?

None of this will save someone when they roll a 1 against finger of death, or when the axe-wielding giant rolls a critical.

 

[Diirk]

Secondly, if a class rolls below half their max hp, then they get half so that you don't ridiculously low hp.

While at first it sounds like a good idea, there are a few flaws. Firstly normally the average hp per level is (half max roll + 0.5). ie. 4.5 for a d8 class etc. Rerolling only low rolls means that you're gaurenteed to raise the average hitpoints, as you get rid of all the low rolls, but keep the high ones.

Secondly, this actually benefits the high hp classes far more than the low hp ones. A wizard normally can get 1, 2, 3 or 4 hitpoints per level (+con) for an average of 2.5. Under your system, he can get 2, 2, 3 or 4 for an average of 2.75 hp per level, a gain of 0.25 which is somewhat negligeable.

However then consider the barbarian; instead of equal odds 1 - 12 (avg 6.5), under your system he'll get 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. This works out to an average of 7.75... 1.25 extra hp per level. Likewise its 1hp extra for d10, 0.75 extra for d8 etc.

 

[the Lorax]

For dying, people don't croak at -10, instead they die at a negative number equal to their con score to reflect hardy people cling to life longer than those frail elderly wizards.

We've been using Stabilization is a DC 20 Fort Save for a while (somthing snatched from D20 Modern iirc). Keeps the -10 cut off, and allows the hardy to survive where the frail would not. I like it. Dead at -(Con) does the trick too, but doesn't help the stabilization issue. Not a reall a big issue.

Secondly, if a class rolls below half their max hp, then they get half so that you don't ridiculously low hp.

I really believe that point build system for stats and fixed HP is the way to go.
I'm actually intending to use the 3 Dragon Ante character generation method for my next game. Minimum half the die is generous but probably not game breaking, you are only talking about giving out an average of around 15 HP across 20 levels (rough average, lower for smaller HD, larger for bigger HD).

All said, your house rules make the characters slightly more durable than average, but dont make a real signifigant change in their power level. Which is fine. Now if you and the players aren't happy with how its working then change it, but neither of those rules are having a big, game changing effect on play.