Death and Dying: Annoying new subsystem reduces fun.

[Gundark]

appears to be a better system overall. I hope that Resurrections are harder to come by.

I like it when death is permanent.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I seem to recall that one of the early designer blogs said that at one point in the playtest, PCs were hellishly difficult to kill.

So apparently this issue has come up, and been dealt with.

I dont understand how this has been dealt with.

Early playtests the PC's are hard to kill.

Now with this Des & Dev article it's shown that they are still hard to kill.

Again, I dont understand how this issue has been dealt with. I'm interested in how you'd explain this.

 

[Rechan]

I dont understand how this has been dealt with.

Early playtests the PC's are hard to kill.

Now with this Des & Dev article it's shown that they are still hard to kill.

It has? So, you've played with these rules or seen them in action and have empirical evidence that it, in fact, is?

Because what you're looking at is the rules on paper. Sort've like how when everyone looked at 3rd edition for the first time, Monks were CLEARLY overpowered, and everyone was just going to take their first level in Rogue for all those skill points.

And that's how it turned out, exactly like it looked on paper. Right?

If they roll 1-10 three times in a row, they die. Period. That's an easy way to be killed, right there.

Meanwhile, in the playtests, we've had dead PCs. But I thought they were really hard to kill?

 

[Zaruthustran]

Important NPCs should be the equals of the heroes. That is at least how I have always seen it in my game table. When my players get to face the other adventuring party that is trying to ransack the Lost Temple of Zehir that adventuring party will be fleshed out with all the rules in the PHB and will use the same death and dying rules because they matter too much. After all they are the most likely to interact with the players and might even join them in combat. If the NPCs defender is helping my characters, why should he not be able to be stabilized by a heal check or brought back from the bring while at negative hit points?

Well, he can be. The *default* is that monsters die at 0hp, but there's also a provision--right there in the rules, no "rule zero" required--that if you as DM would prefer NPCs follow the PC rules, they can.

I really like this trend of the PHB & DMG listing core rules, but also codifying common exceptions. I've seen new or inexperienced DMs stick explicitly to the Rules As Written with religious devotion. It's good to see the core rules themselves saying "hey, relax; the play's the thing."

Yeah there was always rule zero, but it looks like 4E is going a step further and actually providing clear signposts for when rule zero should be considered.

 

[Nymrohd]

The paragon campaign we know off seems to have had 2 deaths in 2 sessions. . .

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

From the article:

Yes, but that's from the implementation for 3E, not the actual 4E system (4E might be the same, or different; we won't know till later).

- 1/2 hp seems very generous, but we'll have to see the rest of the system to fully judge.

Personally I'd like to see Con score be a factor in a character's ability to recover (just as I've always used the -Con house rule to give tougher characters more negative hp). Throg the big tough barbarian should be able to bounce back from being knocked out quickly, while Thironna the wimpy bard gets a light tap and is out for a couple of hours.

 

[Nymrohd]

Well, he can be. The *default* is that monsters die at 0hp, but there's also a provision--right there in the rules, no "rule zero" required--that if you as DM would prefer NPCs follow the PC rules, they can.

I really like this trend of the PHB & DMG listing core rules, but also codifying common exceptions. I've seen new or inexperienced DMs stick explicitly to the Rules As Written with religious devotion. It's good to see the core rules themselves saying "hey, relax; the play's the thing."

Yeah there was always rule zero, but it looks like 4E is going a step further and actually providing clear signposts for when rule zero should be considered.

Oh I agree with you. I was just mentioning an example of how the system can on occasion be useful when running certain NPCs. And yes the noticeable thread of promoting DM fiat is certainly good for certain DMs and their players. 3E's attempt to codify everything certainly made people feel that if something was not codified it was not possible. Still I certainly hope the final product goes for a middle ground cause regrettably there are occasion when some DM-proofing is required.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

appears to be a better system overall. I hope that Resurrections are harder to come by.

I like it when death is permanent.

Perhaps, and this is not a slam against this part of the new system, but IMHO being really hard to kill is just as "unrealistic" as having the revolving door of death. It should be noted that I dont really mind RAISE DEAD spells in my game, because these things usually come with a cost. Not to mention the difficulty of finding, much less meeting with a Cleric of high enough level to cast such a spell. Then there's the problem of convincing the Cleric to cast the spell on said PC. I'd think that for something like that the Cleric would have to commune with is deity to see if thats such a good idea and even if the Cleric is allowed to cast the spell there's still the small matter of procuring the 5,000gp in diamond dust (IIRC) that's needed to cast the spell.

Now at higher levels that may not be such a big deal, but at lower levels that's a lot of hoops to jump through. I mean there are people here who are going to go on the attack and say that those are hurdles that I as a DM put in the way of the PC's, but to me these are things that would make a certain type of sense in the game world, where the wealthy and influential might be able to come back from the dead (Vassal: "I thought Lord Varrick was dead?" Varrick's Major Domo: "Well, yes he was very NEAR death. But not quite dead") but Shleppy the farmer is so far down ladder of influence that he's not even aware that something like that is available.

Anyway, back to what I was saying. These new rules make the PC's REALLY hard to kill and honestly I dont mind that. In fact, I plan on implementing some of these rules in my 3.5 game. But these new rules in no way make things more "realistic" it basically just turns the PC's into Warner Brother's cartoon characters in terms of being able to survive the worst kind of beatings.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

It has? So, you've played with these rules or seen them in action and have empirical evidence that it, in fact, is?

Because what you're looking at is the rules on paper. Sort've like how when everyone looked at 3rd edition for the first time, Monks were CLEARLY overpowered, and everyone was just going to take their first level in Rogue for all those skill points.

And that's how it turned out, exactly like it looked on paper. Right?

If they roll 1-10 three times in a row, they die. Period. That's an easy way to be killed, right there.

Meanwhile, in the playtests, we've had dead PCs. But I thought they were really hard to kill?

This is the second time that you've responded to a post of mine in such a snarky manner. All I did was ask a question, based on your post and the rules as I perceived them.

There was no need to respond to me like that.

Once again, as I said to last time we got into it: if you have a specific beef let's take it to e-mail.

 

[Greg K]

But these new rules in no way make things more "realistic" it basically just turns the PC's into Warner Brother's cartoon characters in terms of being able to survive the worst kind of beatings.

This summed up my reaction after reading the article.