D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5e] Making stabilizing a Fort save

[buzz]

Okay, in d20 Modern stabilizing is handled by making a Fort save vs. DC20.

I think that this is pretty much the coolest idea since sliced bread, and when I first read it, I was hoping that it would find its way into the D&D revision (like the new version of Jump did).

Unfortunately, it didn't.

Can anyone give me a reason why incorporating this into a straight-up D&D3.5e game might be a bad idea? I want to believe that Andy & Co. had a reason for not including it.

 

[jlhorner1974]

I wonder why they did this in d20 Modern...

The mechanic makes logical sense for sure -- much more than a flat 10% chance. And I don't mind at all that it benefits healthier characters more than weaker ones. A Wizard may only have a 5% chance of making it, while a high-Con fighter may have easily a 30-40% chance to make it (14+ Con, Good Fort save, Great Fortitude).

While a 30% chance of stabilizing doesn't seem so great, look at these numbers:

For example, consider how many rounds it takes for 50% of people to stabilize (stop losing HP each round). With a 10% chance of stabilizing, 50% of people will stabilize after 7 rounds. With a 15% chance, it is only 5 rounds, with 20% chance it is 4 rounds, 25% chance is 3 rounds, 30-45% is 2 rounds, and >= 50% is only 1 round.

So if you tinker with the stabilization chance even a little bit, it has a dramatic effect. As long as you can succeed at one stabilization roll, you will probably last long enough for your companions to help you, and that is what the numbers above reflect. Of course, you have to make 2 stabilization rolls to recover completely if unattended, but in most cases, this isn't needed.

The thing I worry most about it though that it can be almost impossible for a 1st level character to make (5% in some cases), but a high level character could easily have a 95% chance to make it. A Monk with 18 Con, +12 base Fort save, Great Fortitude, and a +3 cloak or protection would do it.

I think the 3E designers did the math and picked a % chance that was balanced (not too easy to make, but not too hard either). At a flat 10% chance, it is right about at the "sweet spot" for this.

 

[buzz]

Interesting analysis, jlhorner1974.

I dunno. I never really liked the idea that no matter what level you were, no matter what your Con was, you always had the same chance to stabilize. Even if adding in the Fort save makes it too easy for high-level PCs to stabilize (which kind of makes sense, though, seeing as, well, they're HIGH LEVEL), I'd still want to factor in the PC's Con modifier.

Not to mention, despite the percentages you cite, I don't think I've ever managed a stabilization roll, so I like the idea of possibly improving my odds.

 

[jlhorner1974]

Well, like I said, I don't mind the idea of healthier characters having a better chance, either. I just think that if the chance to stabilize gets much higher than the 30-40% range, it's a bit too much. But YMMV -- it is your campaign, so do what you like.

Other possible ideas:

Instead of a Fort save, how about something like:

(Con score) %
10% + 2% * (Con Mod)
10% + 3% * (Con Mod)
(10 + Con score) %

All of these allow Con to factor into the chance while keeping it from getting out of control.


Jason.

 

[buzz]

Instead of a Fort save, how about something like:

(Con score) %
10% + 2% * (Con Mod)
10% + 3% * (Con Mod)
(10 + Con score) %

SInce d20 seems to abhor probability increments of less than 5%, I could see doing something like:

10% + (Con modifier * 5)%

Even the really high Con scores are still int he 30-40% range you mention.

Of course, negative Con modifiers really ger screwed. You might simply have to say that the chance can never get below 10%.

Or, I could just leave everything as-is...

 

[anon]

Alternate version

Make the Fort Save DC = 10 + number of points below 0.

Then combine this with Dying down to Con Score below 0.

The farther you slip away the harder it is to come back.

 

[Doppleganger]

The whole idea about rolling percentile dice in a d20 game full of dc's is a bit nuts, especially for an simple & invariable number like "ten percent".

We use a DC 19 "Stabilization" check, modified by nothing; basically that's the same thing as the book, but using a 20-sided die instead.

At DM's discretion, you could toss in a small "circumstance" modifier for something like being "very high level" or "super-tough" without varying very far from the core rules.

 

[Inez Hull]

How 'bout a Con Check DC19?

 

[jlhorner1974]

Hey, now there's an idea.....

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I've taken to allowing it as a Concentration check with the DCs as listed in the Stabilize Self skill in the Psionics Handbook. (I combined the two skills.)