We Used the new death and dying rules and it saved our ninja

ardisian

First Post
shock

actually the abstraction of hp and taking time to die after unconciousness does make sense. Most people don't die from bleeding out unless a major blood vessel is severed. Most will die from shock. Also, unless you get decapitated you normally do not die instantly.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Thyrwyn

Explorer
Wolfspider said:
But D&D involves heroes, and I just can't find it in my imagination to think that Conan the Cimmerian has the same chance to die from his wounds as Little Miss Muffet. :p
He doesn't - Miss Muffet dies when her HP hit 0 (unless she is crucial to the story). The death and dying rules only work for PCs and "relevant" NPCs.
 


ruleslawyer

Registered User
KarinsDad said:
I'm glad that these rules might work for your game. They don't work for me. I do not think that they are well thought out at all and will be a common source of 4E house rules. Several of the new WotC rules are bad rules. ...

And trust me, if a rule is good, I'll give it it's due praise. I really really appreciate good rule design. So far, we haven't seen a lot of good rules out of the solid rules we know.
Can you give an example of what might be a *good* rule to cover death and dying? Your criticism of the current rule is presumably informed by the idea that there's a better option, and I'd like to see it.
 

Wolfspider

Explorer
ruleslawyer said:
Can you give an example of what might be a *good* rule to cover death and dying? Your criticism of the current rule is presumably informed by the idea that there's a better option, and I'd like to see it.

Interesting fallacy there. :)

Just because he hasn't come up with a better system yet doesn't mean that the current system is beyond critique.
 

Wormwood

Adventurer
Wolfspider said:
Just because he hasn't come up with a better system yet doesn't mean that the current system is beyond critique.
Gotta go with Wolfie on this one.

I don't need to know how to cook before I send crap food back to the kitchen.
 

ruleslawyer

Registered User
I was responding directly to this sort of thing in his statements:
KarinsDad said:
Quite frankly, WotC appears to adding quite a few inferior rules, just for the sake of simplicity when there are other rules just as simple that they could use, but do not have nearly as many issues with them.
If you're sending food back to the kitchen because you don't like it, whether or not you can cook, that's one thing. When you send your sauteed skate wing back with the injunction that the wing should have been prepared using one of several other methods, I'd consider it within the chef's right to wonder which other preparation you were thinking of.
 

Stalker0

Legend
The only complaints I have with the new rules is this:

1) The negative range seems too wide. Again this is from 3e glasses, but judging from the monsters we've seen now it doesn't look like there will every be a time at high levels when a character will go from conscious to dead, it will always be up to unconscious. So the only way for a dm to kill a character is to beat the unconscious body, and then he looks like an ass:(

2) I actually think the 3 rolls are TOO predictable!! 3 rounds is a long time!!

However, the nice thing about these new mechanics is that they are easily customizable. For example, if half hitpoints into the negatives seems like too much, I can always try 1/3 or 1/4.

For the second, I have the idea where if you roll a 1 on the stabilization save, you take 2 strikes. This means there's a very low but possible chance of a character dying in 2 rounds, adding some more urgency.


But overall I think the mechanics model well what we generally want. Players don't die randomly, the heroic surge is there, and the sense of unconscious urgency is there. So I'm very pleased in general.
 

pukunui

Legend
DarenCommons said:
and everyone liked it. It only came up once but it was more fun than counting to ten.

We've already decided to house rule that the Die Hard feat will give a fourth roll....
I was actually thinking that the Die Hard feat would allow you to keep going in the negatives but you've still got to make your three rolls, and if you fail, you suddenly drop dead.
 

KarinsDad

Adventurer
Fifth Element said:
In 3E we know precisely how long it will take a character to die if he does not stabilize, based on his negative hit points reaching -10. In 4E there will be uncertainty, though there will be a minimum of 3 rounds, as you point out. Why is one metagamey but not the other?

Pretty typical situation in 3E:

"What are you at, Bob?"
"-5 hit points."
"Cool. The cleric has time to heal me first before heading over to stabilize you. You have five more rounds."

Funny, I think this is a prime example of metagaming and invalid table talk.

In our game, this situation goes;

Player: "What are you at, Bob?"
DM: "You do not get to know that. What are you doing?"

The players do not know where a PC is. The only player who knows this is the player of the PC who is unconscious.

This adds suspense that does not exist with this 4E rule.

EVERY player knows that they have at least 2 rounds to get the Fighter stabilized or healed in 4E. There is no urgency. That is why it is a bad rule. IMO.
 

Remove ads

Top