Death & Dying - a better (and simple!) system.

[DiceGolem]

I really like your idea, eamon, but I think I'm going to mutilate it a little...

A death check: Fortitude save vs. death, DC (half of your negative hit points). No success consequences.

As a quick example:
1) A character is dropped to negative hit points and is dying.
2) The character makes an immediate death check.
3) The character's initiative count changes to just after his/her attacker.
4) Not including the first round spent dying, the character makes a death check on his turn.
5) If the character is still not dead after (a number, say 4) death checks, that character stabalizes naturally.

If another character uses the standard action of Heal to stabalize the dying character, the dying character must use the healer's total skill check instead of the normal Fortitude bonus in the next round. Success means stabalization, but a failure forces a normal death check without the aid of the healer's skill. For every 5 the Healing check fails, the dying character also takes 2 damage.

Edit: As an assumption on my part, and not in my post previously, the damage dealt from the horrifically failed Heal check applies before the second death check. Meaning a bad Heal check increases the DC of the death check required for failing the Heal check.

I find it about as simple as death is going to get, and still be viable. I like the idea of the save not scaling up as you go unless your healer royally screws up. The fact that it doesn't normally scale lends to the idea that "dying" doesn't mean "losing hit points," but instead means "viable chance of death."

Of course, you could have been killed by a Wounding attack; in which case you're bleeding and dying!

I'd choose 4 saves in a row, personally. With the chance to die completely unaided and ignored, as Obergnom calculated, at a nice 19%, it means that players have to make some touch judgement calls as to whether to try and finish the enemy off or take pains to help falled allies. I like it.

Like suggested, Diehard would require some reworking:

Diehard
When reduced to negative hit points, only a roll of a natural 1 on your death check will result in your death. All other rolls are treated as if you succeeded on your death check. Also, you can choose to be disabled instead of dying, as per the standard Diehard feat, but the damage you take for strenuous action is 5 instead of 1.

The extra damage from a strenuous action may seem extreme, but remember that it doesn't really matter, because only a 1 will result in your character's death. It's really just an arbitrary number of how much damage you'll needed healed after the battle is over, meaning that an over-enthusiastic barbarian may have an angry PC cleric to deal with afterwards.

At first I was worried about a powerful spellcaster taking this Diehard and throwing cataclysmic AoE's everywhere, but if a spellcaster is gonna take two feats to do it they might as well enjoy it. With all the Complete books full of useful spellcasting enhancing feats, a Diehard mage would be a good option for, say, a Rage Mage.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Anything I missed?

 

[Obergnom]

I think your system is good so far, but at least my players could not really be bothered with that die hard feat, because most of the time, the save stays at "don't roll a 1" level for most characters, except the very fragile ones.
I think Die Hard should be a good feat for the though heroes at the frontline, who are much more likely to get the huge amounts of damage. I was thinking about something like Steadfast Determination from PHB2 (That Feat gives you your wis mod on will saves and you do not automaticaly fail fort saves on a natural one)
But that feat really raises the bar, as it has the same prereq as Die Hard (endurance) and I thought the ability not to fail a fort save on a natural one would be good enough for a feat.

Maybe something like this:

Die Hard
You gain a +4 bonus to saving throws vs. Death, including those made to stabilize when dropped below 0 HP.
You do not automatically fail saving throws agianst death on a roll of natural 1.

I would remove the bonus to saves if Steadfast Determination is not in your game.

 

[eamon]

It seems many people (at least those considering changing the normal dying mechanic) still find this version too complex.

The even simpler version does away with the 1/2 neg hitpoints rule and the losing of hitpoints each round to become:

Whenever you drop to negative hitpoints, you start dying. A dying character must immediately make a saving throw vs. the DC of his negative hitpoints, or die. For the next three rounds on the initiative count on which he was dropped, the character must repeat the save. If, after these four saving throws the character is still alive, he stabilizes.

I'd be careful with the diehard feat removing failure on natural 1, as it makes certain risks very easy to take - for instance, being in melee with an opponent that can't do more than your fort-save bonus in damage at once. I guess it depends on the level your playing at, but my players are mostly in mortal danger when they've just had a bit of bad luck - say; a crit against them, or a spellcaster casting scorching ray and hitting with all rays. Under these circumstances, damage easily exceeds the "natural 1" region (as it should), so it's not like only the most fragile of characters can be so deep in the negative that the save is failed on more than just a natural 1. The diehard feat giving the option of remaining standing remains valuable. If you want to be most close to the original diehard feat, which instantly stabilizes, you can simply let that be the additional benefit - instant stabilization, right after the first saving throw. It is a little boring though, it's true.

 

[Obergnom]

Yep, but as I said, there is allready a feat allowing you not to automaticaly fail a Fort when rolling a natural 1. Otherwise I would not do that either. (Or maybe with a, you do not automaticaly fail on a nat 1, but loose 10hp instead of 2hp)

In my campaign, just last session, the 8th Level Goliath Fighter Barbarian was hit down to -30 hp in a single blow (Great Horn Minotaur Critical Hit... 3d6+10 x4... devasting).

 

[DiceGolem]

Staying true to the original Diehard feat is probably for the best, changing it to allow stabalization after the first saving throw. And as far as Steadfast Determination goes, now it has a true death-defying purpose! I mean, as long as you took Endurance anyway, you might as well be gearing towards both feats. Why change Diehard to do both? Heck, if you think the bonus is too much, make Diehard a prerequisite for Steadfast Determination!

I guess the 1/2 vs. full negative hit point DC argument is really up for each specific DM's death threshold. By taking half, there's a much larger amount of damage someone can unluckily take before really worrying about a good chance of death. Whereas, by taking full, even a blow to -10 becomes dire for a low level character, or even a low Fort character.

[b]   DC    | Fort +0 | Fort +6 | Fort +12[/b]
---------------------------------------------
  DC 1   |    5%   |   5%    |   5%
  DC 3   |   10%   |   5%    |   5%
  DC 5   |   20%   |   5%    |   5%
  DC 7   |   30%   |   5%    |   5%
  DC 9   |   40%   |  10%    |   5%
  DC 11  |   50%   |  20%    |   5%
  DC 13  |   60%   |  30%    |   5%
  DC 15  |   70%   |  40%    |  10%
  DC 17  |   80%   |  50%    |  20%
  DC 19  |   90%   |  60%    |  30%
  DC 20  |   95%   |  70%    |  40%

For new characters, and those with abysmally low Fortitude saves, the chance of death is almost certain at DC 15 and higher. Going with the Half rule, that's at -30 hit points. With the Full rule, that's only a -15. For much more normal characters, with around average Fortitude saves, the chance of death is only dire closer to DC's 19 and 20 (-40 HP / -20 HP). The chance of death is still a probability at DC's closer to 11 (-22 HP/ -11 HP).

Looking at it from the perspective of whittling down PC's into the negatives, the Full DC option appears better, with a small margin between possibly dying and nearly dying favoring the same small margin of damage. However, with the consideration in mind for some monster landing a massive critical, the Half DC does better, allowing for a much larger margin of numbers to accomidate for such a massive amount of damage unloaded at once.

I guess it really comes down to how often you honestly want your PC's do die. If you feel a huge amount of damage should completely obliterate a PC (or mob) then stick with the Full DC rule. But, if you feel that a PC shouldn't just fall down dead after some enemy caster gets lucky with an evocation spell, go with the Half.

 

[Warbringer]

OK here's mine

When a character takes damage they move through four stages on their way to death. Assume the character has a 15 CON and 50 hps.

Light: at 30% hp total the character is lightly wounded (15-29 hps)
Severe: at 60% (30-44 hps: -1 on all checks)
Critical*: at 90% (45-54 hps: -2 on all checks)
Dying**:100% + Con/3 (55-65 hps: -5 all checks, partial actions only*)
Dead: -(Con+1) Dead at 66 hps (-16hp)

*A character that is critical is now bleeding out (1hp). If the character takes no action they may attempt to stabilize (1-3 on d10). If the character takes any action (move, standard, full round) they take d3 hps and may not attempt to stabilize. A stabilized character that takes an action takes d3 hps and starts to bleed again (losing his stabilized condition)

** A character that is dying may only take partial actions as they bleed out. If they take no action they may attempt to stabilize (only 1 on a d10) - representing that the worse the wound the harder it is to stabilize. If they take a partial atction they take d3 hps and may not attempt to stabilize.

This allows characters to continue battling through death, though bleeding starts at an earlier point, and death at a later point.

As a further option, I apply the following:

A character that is critically injured maintains his penalities (-2) until he has received at least a cure moderate spell or has rested for a number of hours for each point of damage taken beyond the serious threshold.... so at 50 hps he needs to rest for 15 hours.

A character that is 'Dying', they maintain the -5 penalty and partial action penalty until they have received at least a Cure Critical Wounds spell, or rested for one hour for each point of damage taken beyond critical threshold... so, if the hero described above had taken 57 points of damage, he would have to rest for 12 hours (57-15) to remove the penalities or receive cure critical healing...

These overlap, so at 57 damage he needs to rest for 12 hours to remove the -5 penalty and partial move penality; until he receives a total of 27 hours to remove the -2 that applies fro the critical wound.

This is a little gritty for some, but a day's full rest for when no healing is available is still very low. But, the rule is easily discarded.

 

[Archade]

I'm trying for the same effect as you, but less extreme.

Instead of a stabilization roll, I have a DC20 Fortitude save, so a little harder for 1st level non-fighters to stabilize, but it gets easier as they go up in level.

If they make the save, no hp loss and stabilized. If they fail, they lose 1 hp. If they fail by 5 or more they lose 2 hp.

I am tempted to add in on a natural 1 they lose 5 hp.

Thoughts?

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Here's what I use in my Iron Heroes game, it's based on something I found on this board, I think:

At 0 or fewer hit points, you are Disabled. If you are at 0 or fewer hit points and not Stable, you are Dying.
Every round, you lose 1d4 hit points and then must make a Fort save DC is equal to 10 + your negative hit points.
If the Fortitude save succeeds by 10 or more, you automatically become stable without assistance. A character who becomes stable is no longer dying.
If the Fortitude save succeeds by 9 or less, you are still dying. You continues to lose hit points, but survive for a short while longer.
If the Fortitude save fails by 9 or less, you fall unconscious and can take no actions. You continue to lose hit points, but survive for a short while longer.
If the Fortitude save fails by 10 or more, you die.
if you take more damage, such as getting hit again (not the 1d4 from failing to stabilize), immediately make a new save.
You make the first Fortitude save instantly when you go to or below 0 hit points
You can perform First Aid on yourself, but it counts as strenuous activity if you fail, causing 1d4 damage.

We've had a few characters staggering around at negative hit points, one that passed out, and a couple of attempts to patch someone up in combat while trying to avoid AoOs, but we've only had one death so far, and that was probably just bad luck (caught out in the open by a volley of 3 arrows, max damage on each, then a natural 1 on his DC 32 Fort save.)

We used to have it at 10 + half your negative hit points, but it was too easy to just keep fighting.

 

[Herzog]

I'm going to try out the full neg hp DC in my campaign.

However, I don't like the auto-stabilize option, so I came up with:

1. At negative hp, you are dying. Make a Fortitude save equal to your neg hp.
2. If you fail, you die.
3. If you succeed by 5 or more, you are stable.
4. Normal methods of stabilizing (cure spells, Heal checks) work as normal.
5. If you succeed by less than 5, you lose 1 hp.
6. On your next turn, if you are not stable, you are still dying. (see 1.)

Herzog

 

[Noumenon]

. At best, you still have a 1 in 4 chance of dying if unaided, even if you can only fail on a natural 1.

So did you balance this system to give roughly equal chances of dying (hard to do in all cases), or is it generally less lenient? I started up a spreadsheet to check but it seemed like a lot of work and it crashed.