Astrosicebear
First Post
A new blog is up, A Close Call with Negative Hit Points.
Raises some very interesting thoughts on dying characters and healing.
Raises some very interesting thoughts on dying characters and healing.
D&D 5E D&D Next Blog - A Close Call with Negative Hit Points
- Thread starter Astrosicebear
- Start date
"Negative hit points shouldn't exist, but characters shouldn’t die outright at 0."
Seems like the best option to me, for whatever reason, I never found negative hit points likable. The death saving throw mechanic in 4E was a improvement, but I would like a better system to be implemented.
EDIT:
An example of how I would like to handle death is that a character has to keep making death saving throws until they fail 3. Once you fail 3, you're dead. If an enemy tries to finish off a character, if they (very likely) hit, the dying character fail an additional saving throw (a way around not having negative hit points). A heal check (a minor action in 4e terms) by an ally can stabilize a character.
Seems like the best option to me, for whatever reason, I never found negative hit points likable. The death saving throw mechanic in 4E was a improvement, but I would like a better system to be implemented.
EDIT:
An example of how I would like to handle death is that a character has to keep making death saving throws until they fail 3. Once you fail 3, you're dead. If an enemy tries to finish off a character, if they (very likely) hit, the dying character fail an additional saving throw (a way around not having negative hit points). A heal check (a minor action in 4e terms) by an ally can stabilize a character.
Last edited:
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Given the choices, I'd favor unconciousness at 0, with any healing done "stabilizing" the character and bringing them to either a minimum of hit-points(like 1 or 2), or 0. In 4e good healer and a character with a nice con score can often wind up going from -10 to +40. I think that's a little bit excessive.
But wasting everyone's trying to save they dying just makes the continuing combat even more difficult and more likely to be lost.
I dunno, I think 4e got a little silly in it's healing, but I don't want a system that kills my players too easy. I WANT to make them work for their achievements, but likewise I don't want to wholesale slaughter my party every other night.
But wasting everyone's trying to save they dying just makes the continuing combat even more difficult and more likely to be lost.
I dunno, I think 4e got a little silly in it's healing, but I don't want a system that kills my players too easy. I WANT to make them work for their achievements, but likewise I don't want to wholesale slaughter my party every other night.
Agreed. I'd do away with negative hit points and just have death saves.
TwinBahamut
First Post
I'd like to get rid of negative hitpoints. They are one of the roots of the reasons that D&D's death and serious injury rules are so frustratingly bad... Death at zero hitpoints might be worse, but there are certainly better solutions.
am181d
Adventurer
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).
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).
In a game where the healer can add their Wis modifier to the healing, I am not concerned the healing won't be enough. Even at 1st level, using a 1st level spell, the minimum healed should be 4. So, start healing from the negative number. You can't remove every unfortunate occurrence from the game, nobody want to play the Nerf version of D&D.
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
I wrote the following as a comment there, but I'll repeat it here:
If hit points don't represent wounds, but represent your ability to turn a serious blow into a lesser blow or shrug off minor damage, then hit point loss doesn't represent serious injury but is more a form of combat awareness and stamina.
This means two things. First, that dropping to zero hit points means that a strike got through your defenses and caused a serious wound. Second, that most magical healing isn't really healing wounds (at least not major ones), but is instead refreshing the character's stamina and battle awareness.
So, when you drop to zero hit points, you're wounded, staggered, and bleeding out. You should also have to make a save to stay conscious.
Magical healing should stabilize you, and give you back hit points, but not remove your wounds.
I don't know if negative hit points are the best way to represent wounds and bleeding or not. But for the sake of discussion I'll use them.
If you take six points of negative hit point damage and are healed for twelve points, then you should have twelve hit points AND six points of negative damage. You should probably also still be staggered unless you take a feat that lets you ignore wounds.
Only natural recovery or very powerful magic should be able to heal negative hit point damage.
* * *
Now I want to add just bit to what I wrote above.
What I wrote is my preference, and I think that it opens up a lot of options as to what you can do with wounds, the staggered condition, and damage types. If a sword drops you, you've been impaled. A mace has broken your bones. A fireball has burned your flesh.
It also provides a more consistent opportunity for a character to be staggered. To fight on even when you can barely move and you're bleeding to death. Sure, this might require a save every round to stay conscious, but it's cool.
Still, the biggest advantage with what I posted above is that it can be modular.
If hit points don't represent wounds, but represent your ability to turn a serious blow into a lesser blow or shrug off minor damage, then hit point loss doesn't represent serious injury but is more a form of combat awareness and stamina.
This means two things. First, that dropping to zero hit points means that a strike got through your defenses and caused a serious wound. Second, that most magical healing isn't really healing wounds (at least not major ones), but is instead refreshing the character's stamina and battle awareness.
So, when you drop to zero hit points, you're wounded, staggered, and bleeding out. You should also have to make a save to stay conscious.
Magical healing should stabilize you, and give you back hit points, but not remove your wounds.
I don't know if negative hit points are the best way to represent wounds and bleeding or not. But for the sake of discussion I'll use them.
If you take six points of negative hit point damage and are healed for twelve points, then you should have twelve hit points AND six points of negative damage. You should probably also still be staggered unless you take a feat that lets you ignore wounds.
Only natural recovery or very powerful magic should be able to heal negative hit point damage.
* * *
Now I want to add just bit to what I wrote above.
What I wrote is my preference, and I think that it opens up a lot of options as to what you can do with wounds, the staggered condition, and damage types. If a sword drops you, you've been impaled. A mace has broken your bones. A fireball has burned your flesh.
It also provides a more consistent opportunity for a character to be staggered. To fight on even when you can barely move and you're bleeding to death. Sure, this might require a save every round to stay conscious, but it's cool.
Still, the biggest advantage with what I posted above is that it can be modular.
- Pulp Rules: If your group doesn't want to deal with long-term wounds, then negative hit points simply disappear with any magical healing.
- Lethal Rules: If you want something more lethal, add a injury chart with some lethal options.
- Grittier Rules: If you want wounds to happen more regularly, add a massive damage save.
Last edited:
Tony Vargas
Legend
Or, they could go with the 4e system as presented in the article, but because -bloodied can be such a big number, layer on a second 'dying' mechanic. A three-strikes kind of thing. Call it a 'Death Save.'
If it were tracked on a daily basis, instead of just by encounter, or just until you're back up, that'd go a long way towards making up-from-0 seem less 'realistic.' Even when you're cure-wounds'd or warlord-shouted up from -lots to 0+surge, if you've failed a death save, you are still closer to death next time.
If it were tracked on a daily basis, instead of just by encounter, or just until you're back up, that'd go a long way towards making up-from-0 seem less 'realistic.' Even when you're cure-wounds'd or warlord-shouted up from -lots to 0+surge, if you've failed a death save, you are still closer to death next time.
Oni
First Post
"Negative hit points shouldn't exist, but characters shouldn’t die outright at 0."
This is what I picked, I was a little surprised to see that it was a popular choice though.
If I'm keeping things simple, I like to treat 0HP not necessarily as dead (though it could be) but rather the point when you lose narrative control of your character. Letting the players know 0 is not something you want to go to, you might get knocked out or something, but you might just as well have a limb hacked off or be decapitated. I might allow a saving throw to distinguish between majorly inconvenient fates (like being dead or dismembered) and minor inconveniences (like getting knocked out or being shoved into a river and swept downstream or whatever). I think doing something like this can allow for a greater range of more organic outcomes. Now your adventurer can actually earn his eyepatch in play.
This is what I picked, I was a little surprised to see that it was a popular choice though.
If I'm keeping things simple, I like to treat 0HP not necessarily as dead (though it could be) but rather the point when you lose narrative control of your character. Letting the players know 0 is not something you want to go to, you might get knocked out or something, but you might just as well have a limb hacked off or be decapitated. I might allow a saving throw to distinguish between majorly inconvenient fates (like being dead or dismembered) and minor inconveniences (like getting knocked out or being shoved into a river and swept downstream or whatever). I think doing something like this can allow for a greater range of more organic outcomes. Now your adventurer can actually earn his eyepatch in play.
TarionzCousin
Second Most Angelic Devil Ever
Have you used this house rule in play? If so, how did it go? Did players like it?
The ramifications of being "fully healed" but being at 6 Con (for example) are interesting to me.
Herremann the Wise
First Post
Indeed!
In fact, the modularity here derives from simply answering the question: what happens when a character hits zero hit points?
Simple - Unconscious with Death Saves
Complex - Wounds (extended possibly into even a critical hit table or critical hit deck ala Pathfinders excellent card system). The wound received determines what status the character "enjoys".
There is no need for negative hit points, but in the more complex system, you need a way of judging when a character is dead (most likely by tracking "wound points" in relation to a character's constitution score). I think such a system would cater towards the majority of tastes.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
Crazy Jerome
First Post
My understanding is that death saves in 4E are on a daily basis. They don't reset until you take an extended rest.
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 would be okay with "count up from zero" if it came with a rule that She Who Goes Below Zero Hit Points Is Messed Up. For Real. No jumping up and rushing back into the fray as good as new. If you go down, you go down hard, and the consequences don't wear off for a good while.
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 would be okay with "count up from zero" if it came with a rule that She Who Goes Below Zero Hit Points Is Messed Up. For Real. No jumping up and rushing back into the fray as good as new. If you go down, you go down hard, and the consequences don't wear off for a good while.
dangerous jack
First Post
"Negative hit points shouldn't exist, but characters shouldn’t die outright at 0."
Copying my comment from the blog, this is something my 4e table already does:
Like 4e:
* reduced to 0hp, make a death save each round
* 3 failed death saves and you die
Unlike 4e:
* negative hps don't exist
* if a critical hit reduces you to 0hp, you get an automatic failed death save
* if you are hit by an attack while at 0hp, you automatically fail your next death save. if its a crit, you get another automatic failed death save right away.
A variant would be that healing will get rid of a failed death save, but won't recover any hit points unless you don't have any failed death saves.
Copying my comment from the blog, this is something my 4e table already does:
Like 4e:
* reduced to 0hp, make a death save each round
* 3 failed death saves and you die
Unlike 4e:
* negative hps don't exist
* if a critical hit reduces you to 0hp, you get an automatic failed death save
* if you are hit by an attack while at 0hp, you automatically fail your next death save. if its a crit, you get another automatic failed death save right away.
A variant would be that healing will get rid of a failed death save, but won't recover any hit points unless you don't have any failed death saves.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
Well, if you are losing a point of Con every time you hit zero, you'd get the opposite dynamic once someone crossed the threshold, even if you can get them back up.
Cleric: "Hold on, heal on the way ..."
Fighter: "Don't heal me, bro!"
Cleric: "Whaaaat?"
Fighter: "Then that demon will smack me again and I'll lose another point of Con."
Cleric: "Fine, what do you suggest I do while you lay there and play dead?"
Fighter: "Charge the demon, of course."
Cleric (looking at wizard and rogue): "Do I heal him, then we run, or do we just run now?"
You are incorrect. Failed death saves reset after a short rest (and extended).
I see that as a feature, not a bug.
