Death and Dying: Annoying new subsystem reduces fun.

[Sitara]

Ok, in order for this to make sense you need to have read the Death and Dying update (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=218343 )

Now, this thread is discuss a certain aspect of this: the fact that this basically adds in an annoying subsystem which increases bookeeping instead of increasing fun.

For instance, what if a pc party is facing an npc party (all of whom have heroic levels). They fight; now all of them have negative hitpoints, all of them have tomake stabilizing rolls, the results of each could vary wildly.

To me this adds in a lot of uneeded complexity. I had hoped they would do away with negative hp, so when a pc/npc (with heroic class levels) goes to 0 there is no need to start keeping track of another set of numbers (negative hp!)

Thoughts?

 

[Professor Phobos]

Didn't that article specifically say you aren't expected to keep track of this for NPCs unless you deem it necessary?

If they're all important, named NPCs and it actually matters how long it takes for them to die, just pick an arbitrary number of rounds they stay stable before dying. Assume that they won't roll a 20.

Done.

 

[HeinorNY]

When characters have negative HPs they are uncounsious, pretty much like 3rd Edition, and they need to make stabilizing rolls every round, pretty much like 3rd edition.
There is nothing really new from that point of view.
I don't understand your point.

 

[Stomphoof]

I have never held NPC's to the same standards as PC's.

Even when I had an NPC with class levels I considered him "dead" at 0HP not -10HP like a player.

 

[Wormwood]

I think you missed a part here:

Monsters don’t need or use this system unless the DM has special reason to do so. . . Sure, a DM can decide for dramatic reasons that a notable NPC or monster might linger on after being defeated.

Ergo, simply adding heroic levels to an NPC doesn't mean they automatically have negative hit points.

 

[Walking Dad]

Ok, in order for this to make sense you need to have read the Death and Dying update (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=218343 )

Now, this thread is discuss a certain aspect of this: the fact that this basically adds in an annoying subsystem which increases bookeeping instead of increasing fun.

For instance, what if a pc party is facing an npc party (all of whom have heroic levels). They fight; now all of them have negative hitpoints, all of them have tomake stabilizing rolls, the results of each could vary wildly.

To me this adds in a lot of uneeded complexity. I had hoped they would do away with negative hp, so when a pc/npc (with heroic class levels) goes to 0 there is no need to start keeping track of another set of numbers (negative hp!)

Thoughts?

1.) The npc party are "monsres" even if they have "heroic class levels". Use the rule on them only if you really want.

2.) Did you make stabilizing rolls for every NPC in your game in 3.5? If not, why start now?

 

[Wormwood]

[tangent]
ainatan, you .sigged Andy Collins about one minute before I was going to. Curses!
[/tangent]

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Thoughts?

My thought is that you're directly ignoring what's said in the article (about ignoring this rule for NPCs) in order to make a point using an extreme and unlikely example, and it's not terribly convincing.

If you really want to keep track and view this system as "too complex", then just say they die six rounds after they hit 0 HP.

 

[Irda Ranger]

For instance, what if a pc party is facing an npc party (all of whom have heroic levels). They fight; now all of them have negative hit points, all of them have to make stabilizing rolls, the results of each could vary wildly.

To me this adds in a lot of uneeded complexity. I had hoped they would do away with negative hp, so when a pc/npc (with heroic class levels) goes to 0 there is no need to start keeping track of another set of numbers (negative hp!)

Thoughts?

I'll assume you saw the part that said that "bad guys die at 0 HP" and are assuming that you want the chance to save these people "for story reasons." Because if you did miss that, go back and read it.

Assuming that I wanted to model the chance to save NPCs I would probably just assume that NPCs die 6 rounds after falling below 0 HP (assuming they're not knocked to below negative max HP, in which case they're already dead). On the very rare occasions this wasn't good enough, I don't see it adding that much complexity to make these rolls for that one special guy.

 

[AZRogue]

There are other issues with 4E (as we know it so far). I don't see this as one of them. I've never given NPCs or Monsters negative hit points. Easier to just rez them off screen later as needed. Or have them come back for dramatic effect in a combat. It's not something you have to do or do often.

I do like players going to -1/2 their hit point total, though.