Death and Dying: Annoying new subsystem reduces fun.

[Mistwell]

It's not biased to title your thread with the opinion of your post. Would say "Game rules are not the physics of the game world" is biased? How about I want 4E NOW!?

Calling a thing annoying is an invitation to controversy. If you want an honest discussion of the issue, I think calling it annoying in a thread title isn't the best way to do it.

I am not saying it's against the rules, just that I think it's counter productive.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

IIRC, King Arthur speared Mordred through the stomach, but Mordred pushed himself UP Arthur's spear so he could hack the king with his sword.

In the Vietnam war, the VC were even more of a threat when they were mortally wounded, because then they just tried to take everyone with them.

Off-topic: Bullet Tooth Tony?

Mordred was surprisingly tough. When he and about 13 other knights (one, Agravaine, was named) ambushed a naked Lancelot, Lancy killed each of them, one by one, with one blow. Mordred was the last attacker, but he was only wounded. (Mordred had Tough levels.)

 

[LEHaskell]

Off-topic: Bullet Tooth Tony?

Snatch: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0208092/

Bullet Tooth Tony: Boris the Blade? As in Boris the Bullet-Dodger?
Avi: Why do they call him the Bullet-Dodger?
Bullet Tooth Tony: 'Cause he dodges bullets, Avi.

 

[Lurker37]

I wonder how coup de grace works now, or if its even still around...

I like the change, but I would still like coup de grace to be do-able.

As I recall, one of the playtests reports mentions that changes to the coup de grace rules were recommended based on how they were abused by the playtestersduring the session.

From that I infer that coup de grace rules are indeed still in 4E.

So as I read this, the increased number of -ve hit points before death seems to only come into play if you're trying to work out if that last blow while the character was still conscious was instantly fatal, or if the character is 'merely' dying. After that the player rolls a d20 each round and hopes to roll a natural 20 (or a party member stabilises them) before they roll that third 1-10, and furthermore hopes their party keeps the monsters from finishing their character off with a coup de grace.

And I don't think having constitution affect this roll could be done without it seriously unbalancing the system. It seems to me that even a Con bonus of +3 (not unreasonable for a mid-level fighter) would have a disproportional impact on that character's chances to not roll 1-10 before help arrived.

 

[pemerton]

NPC's and PC's have to be treated differently, except arbitrarily when they don't.

Not arbitrarily. There is a well-motivated reason for drawing the distinctions. It's just that it's a metagame reason and not an ingame reason.

 

[Hussar]

Never mind that NPC's and PC's have always been treated differently. NPC's get 1/2 wealth by 3e rules. Why?

How often do you as the DM roll someone's chance of stabilizing? I certainly don't.

NPC's have always been treated differently than PC's. This isn't anything new. The only difference is that now the DM is being empowered by the rules to allow close enough to be good enough.

 

[Rechan]

Never mind that NPC's and PC's have always been treated differently. NPC's get 1/2 wealth by 3e rules. Why?

When was the last time you rolled your NPC's ability scores?

 

[Mistwell]

How often do NPCs have some spells already cast, or save spells for future castings, when fighting a party (PCs do both all the time)?

How often do NPCs have feats or skills or other choices they have made which are sub-optimal purely because it is a prerequisite for something they plan on taking in the future (PCs do this all the time)?

How often do NPCs have a full adventuring pack, and have their encumbrance checked based on the items they typically carry as opposed to just their armor?

And as pointed out, how often do you roll for their ability scores or give them full PC treasure?

NPCs are inherently different than PCs. It's appropriate to treat them different, and to give them their own sub system of doing things that is different than the PC sub system.

 

[pemerton]

NPCs are inherently different than PCs. It's appropriate to treat them different, and to give them their own sub system of doing things that is different than the PC sub system.

Agreed. And as long as we recognise that this difference is at the metagame level, and not ingame, immersion/verisimilitude need not be affected.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Just because the article said it doesn't mean it isn't stupid.

What if the NPCs have healing abilities? Are the NPCs all automatically able to be healed, get up and keep fighting? Or do they die instantly, never having a chance to do the healing? That's a pretty big change in the challenge that a group of NPCs will present.

How about non-opponent NPCs? When the young noble scion the party is protecting gets whacked down to -9, does he die instantly? Does he last as long as it takes for the PCs to get to him?

How about for monsters with fast healing or regeneration surges? (Assuming that such mechanics exist in 4e--though if they don't someone will add them in by the time the second wave of expansions hits).

What it comes down to is this: You're going to have to go through the death and dying subroutine for every NPC/monster that you bother to resolve dead/dying status for in 3.x. (I don't know anyone--no matter how strictly they interpret the rules that keeps the party in initiative and rolls out every stabilization check for a monster who has no source of healing and no way to get back up in 3.x). And since the article seems to indicate that the status chart is more complex in 4th edition, it will be more complex and cumbersome.

And, to dignify the "going through the battlefield and stabbing downed enemies" line with a response, PCs will still be doing that. Absolutely and certainly. Why? Because NPCs might still survive using PC rules on the basis of "the DM deems it necessary." And the creatures that the DM is most likely to deem necessary are: A. the ones who are really annoying and dangerous to fight (again), B. the ones whose survival will have an impact on the plot, C. the ones who are the DM's pet NPCs--in short, all the monsters/NPCs any sane/rational players bothered to stab/coup de grace in 3.x.

That they've come up with a system where the mid-high level window is good enough that being left alive at 1hp is not a death sentence is a good thing. (In my Wednesday night home game, we've adopted a different solution to the same problem: death occurs at - (10+character level)). That the 3.x version of the system posted is unnecessarily cumbersome and inelegant is not a good omen.

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.