Death and Dying: Annoying new subsystem reduces fun.

[Sitara]

Umm, monsters diea at 0. HEROIC classed NPC's follow the same rules as c's. We are assuming we're playing by the book, and not implementing houserules (no matter how intuitive they may be)

And it was annoying and stupid in 3e; it will be even more so now becuase unlike 3e, you don't keep track of just -10hp; you now keep track of upto -100+ hp.

That could become annoying...

 

[Wormwood]

Umm, monsters diea at 0. HEROIC classed NPC's follow the same rules as c's.

The article in question states that *any* character run by the DM (be it a kobold minion or Baron Von Badass the Epic Warlord) follows the 0-HP death rule unless the DM wishes otherwise.

If I missed something, please let me know.

 

[HeinorNY]

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

That's a memorable statement that deserves to be sigged!

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Really, I think you're making a fuss over nothing, it's really not complex at all. Heroic classed NPCs -can- die at zero. They specifically mention that only those monsters/npcs that the DM considers worthy, important or dramatic get the chance of recovery.

 

[Eridanis]

We are assuming we're playing by the book, and not implementing houserules (no matter how intuitive they may be)

OK. Before this thread goes off the side of the cliff and blows up in an impressive fireball, may I suggest you (all) remain polite and considerate of others' points of view? Pulling out the "it's a houserule" hammer for a game that's six months from release seems extreme.

As for the merits of the original question, I think if the DM makes clear - either OOC or by evidence in-game - that a particular NPC is super-special and will have negative hps, but most will die at 0hp, then all's well. As with many things, communication is the key...

 

[Rugger]

Umm, monsters diea at 0. HEROIC classed NPC's follow the same rules as c's. We are assuming we're playing by the book, and not implementing houserules (no matter how intuitive they may be)

I never saw that explicitly mentioned...I would suspect that NPC's die at 0 HP unless the DM (or the players?) want/need a prisoner.

Even if the rules end up saying classed NPCs have negative HP, this is DnD. Simply rule otherwise as needed by the plot... a concept folks seem to have a hard time with when talking about 4th Ed...

- Rugger

 

[Darrell]

There are other issues with 4E (as we know it so far). I don't see this as one of them.

I agree. I also agree with the OP that it's an "annoying subsystem," but I'd say it was an annoying subsystem in 3.X edition as well.

I've never given NPCs or Monsters negative hit points.

I've never given PCs negative hit points, either. IMC, basically, 0 hp = dead.

Regards,
Darrell

 

[mudbunny]

Umm, monsters diea at 0. HEROIC classed NPC's follow the same rules as c's. We are assuming we're playing by the book, and not implementing houserules (no matter how intuitive they may be)

Ummm, no.

Monsters don’t need or use this system unless the DM has special reason to do so. A monster at 0 hp is dead, and you don’t have to worry about wandering around the battlefield stabbing all your unconscious foes. (I’m sure my table isn’t the only place that happens.) We’ve talked elsewhere about some of the bogus parallelism that can lead to bad game design—such as all monsters having to follow character creation rules, even though they’re supposed to be foes to kill, not player characters—this is just another example of the game escaping that trap. Sure, a DM can decide for dramatic reasons that a notable NPC or monster might linger on after being defeated. Maybe a dying enemy survives to deliver a final warning or curse before expiring, or at the end of a fight the PCs discover a bloody trail leading away from where the evil warlock fell, but those will be significant, story-based exceptions to the norm.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Demigonis]

Umm, monsters diea at 0. HEROIC classed NPC's follow the same rules as c's.

Pretty sure in this instance by "monsters" they mean any NPCs controlled by the DM.

This new system sounds great to me, death and dying scales for high level play and with the new rolls it'll be much less predictable. I'm all for it.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Umm, monsters diea at 0. HEROIC classed NPC's follow the same rules as c's. We are assuming we're playing by the book, and not implementing houserules (no matter how intuitive they may be)

Upon what are you basing this assumption? Have you read the book?

I haven't either, but it sure seems to me that "monster" in 4E is a generic term for "antagonist", whether it be a straight-up Orc from the MM or a custom-designed NPC. Monsters generally die at 0hp, unless you as DM prefer they live (for story reasons).

Seems like a good rule. And, as you point out, much better than "requiring" you to keep track of negative HPs for every foe on the battlefield, as you have to do in 3e.

So: 4e requires *less* bookkeeping, not more.

Also, you mention NPCs that are "heroic classed". I see no direct evidence that an enemy human warlock has to follow the PC rules for human warlocks. It's a monster. When it reaches 0hp, it dies--just like any other monster.

And it was annoying and stupid in 3e; it will be even more so now becuase unlike 3e, you don't keep track of just -10hp; you now keep track of upto -100+ hp.

That could become annoying...

Only players need to worry about it. And trust me, keeping track of the system that determines whether your character lives or dies isn't annoying, or boring.