D&D 5E D&D Next Blog - A Close Call with Negative Hit Points

[billd91]

Huh, can't comment on the post for some reason. Anyway...

My main problem with "count up from zero" is the way it incentivizes the cleric to wait until a PC actually drops before dishing out the healing. Let's say the cleric has a healing spell worth 10 hit points. If I get that spell when I'm at 5, it works as advertised. But if I get that spell when I'm at -5, I gain 15 hit points! I have often seen healers hold off on using their abilities for this exact reason.

I can certainly see that as a potential problem. It could encourage exploiting the metagame in ways that the PCs shouldn't be able to perceive or comprehend, particularly in a system with a large depth of negative hit points to exploit. If the limit were -10 like earlier editions, at least they'd run the risk of missing that window of exploitability and the PC is just dead.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Regardless of mechanism, I like the idea that dropping to zero is always bad. Not just because you risk death, but that even surviving it has consequences.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You are incorrect. Failed death saves reset after a short rest (and extended).

PHB p. 263, rest rules make not mention whatsoever of resetting death saves.

PHB section on death and dying, no mention of when death saves reset.

As near as I can tell, the Rules Compendium sectons are identical.

So now I'm thinking it was a ruling shortly after launch that said death saves reset each day. Did they change this in errata or in a later ruling, and can you point to it?

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I happen to have it handy.

4E Player's Handbook pg. 295, left column, under the results for Death Saving Throw:

Lower than 10: You slip one step closer to death. If you get this result three times before you take a rest, you die.

My copy is the first printing, though, so any errata hasn't been accounted for.

 

[Kynn]

PHB p. 263, rest rules make not mention whatsoever of resetting death saves.

PHB section on death and dying, no mention of when death saves reset.

As near as I can tell, the Rules Compendium sectons are identical.

So now I'm thinking it was a ruling shortly after launch that said death saves reset each day. Did they change this in errata or in a later ruling, and can you point to it?

You're not reading the full rules then. It's in "Death and Dying" in the online compendium, and says exactly:

"Lower than 10: You slip one step closer to death. If you get this result three times before you take a rest, you die."

Whenever they say "a rest" it means "a short rest or extended rest" unless they specifically call it out. They didn't here, so it means either short or extended.

They didn't change the rules, or else it would be reflected in the Compendium online. The rule has always been "a rest" and not "an extended rest."

 

[Rechan]

Tieing any sort of death save mechanical limit to resting would result in more incentive for the 15 minute work day. "Sorry man, I failed a death save, let's go take a nap."

And while A DM can put more pressure on a group to move forward, the system is giving them incentive to not do so. I'd rather the system not reward that mentality if possible.

 

[Izumi]

I think character should die at 0, and negative hit points shouldn't exist. When your skill is overcome you should be described as taking a wound so severe even magic can't save you in time. However, that's an easy house rule.

 

[boredgremlin]

Tieing any sort of death save mechanical limit to resting would result in more incentive for the 15 minute work day. "Sorry man, I failed a death save, let's go take a nap."

And while A DM can put more pressure on a group to move forward, the system is giving them incentive to not do so. I'd rather the system not reward that mentality if possible.

Make them track food and weight. Nap too many times in the dungeon and you die of thirst. No save.

 

[Rechan]

Here's suggestion:

You get one round while below 0 HP. No death saves, no negative hit points. There's only two ways to keep you from dying.

1) Magical healing. This is the only way you can get up off the floor.

2) An ally needs to administer a heal check to stabilize you. When you're stabilized, you're unconscious and stay that way until magical healing is applied or the fight ends. While in this state, if you are hit, you die.

Fail to get stabilized or receive magical healing when you're below 0 HP, and you die.

A less brutal version would permit a single save. However. This save would 1) be success or death, and 2) the DC would increase by x each time you have been below 0 HP. So the more times you've dropped in your career, the more likely you are to die.

Reasoning: I'm sick of people dawdling when an ally goes down. They want to wait out the death saves while continuing to fight. When an ally goes down, the party should do one of two things: drop everything to save them, or keep fighting and let the ally die. I also strongly dislike 4e's middle ground of "Ok I didn't fail the save, but I didn't hit a 20, have to roll again".

This is why I like non-fragile PCs. I don't want below 0 to happen a lot, but when it does, it should be serious business. When someone goes to 0, I want everyone at the table to stop, then decide what to do on the spot. None of this Waiting.

 

[KidSnide]

A house rule I like is: Once you hit 0 hp, you start taking damage to your Con. This damage doesn't effect your bonus or penalty, but if you hit 0, you're dead.

If you are healed, you heal from 0, because your hp never drops below 0, but you don't get your Con back, except by resting (or Spell X).

I've liked this kind of wound/vitality system (with your Con subbing in for a separate pool of "would points") aesthetically. The side effect of this is that you end up with two tracks of healing magic: proper healing magic that heals Con and light "hp-only" magic that improves stamina.

But maybe this is a good thing? Cure Light Wound might heal 1d8+x hit points and a single point of Con damage. That would actually be a "light" wound!

-KS