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

[eamon]

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.

How do you mean equal? The more damage you have, the more likely you are to die quickly with this system (and of course, if your fort save is lower, you'll die faster too).

I'm going on vacation; I won't respond the next two weeks. Have fun!

 

[Noumenon]

How do you mean equal?

Roughly equal chance of surviving as with the RAW death save system. I realize there are many variables of party behavior and HP but I thought you might have aimed for it to be the same in the most common cases.

 

[scars_of_carma]

I think these rules make sense and I agree pc's shouldn't be exactly sure when their characters might die. I've never actually tried to think of a way to keep them guessing like this it's cool.

I've already made many extensive changes to combat in my house rules so this version won't fit mine as nicely but I will try and think of a version of it that will.

Cool idea

 

[eamon]

Roughly equal chance of surviving as with the RAW death save system. I realize there are many variables of party behavior and HP but I thought you might have aimed for it to be the same in the most common cases.

In the base RAW system, a first level character has a very large HP buffer. He will almost never die due to a single strike of a normal monster since the 10 hp "buffer" is larger that the average strike.

By contrast, by level 10 and higher, each strike deals so much damage that the chance of actually hitting a number between 0 and -10 are very very low. The more HP you have, the less likely the entire rule system is likely to be invoked in the first place. So, there's this anachronistic system in a d20 game which works with an entirely different mechanic that only ever kicks in under the rarest of circumstances as levels rise. Particularly ridiculous is the situation at precisely 0 hitpoints - that's truly unlikely to ever matter.

The, if per RAW you know the amount of negative hitpoints you have, you can rest secure for generally several rounds - you have 0% chance of dying and eventually 100%. Even if you don't know the amount of negative hitpoints (your allies, say), then the chance of someone dying is generally quite low (10%) and since 3e combats are fast, that means that it's often OK to ignore fallen allies quite safely. Especially if you know the player well, and you instinctively recognize real danger from a close call.

So... if I'd try to match the chance of dying in this system with the RAW system; well, then I'd import RAW's whole problem. Rather, I tried to simplify RAW: no more anachronistic non-d20 stuff, and appropriate level scaling so that the probability of death makes sense across a wider level range (and higher hitpoint tanks with higher fort saves are safer than wimpy wizards). Also, I wanted to ensure that no-one is ever really safe; you always need to try to save characters that drop.

So, unaided, the chance of surviving is somewhere between 0% and 75%, depending on the amount of damage and your fort save.

 

[Kerrick]

Holy thread necromancy, Batman! (Sorry, I had to say it. )

Okay, here's what I did:

Everyone has a death threshold (DT). Your DT = 0 minus your Con score. For example, Herne has 16 Con; his DT is -16.

At 0 hp, you're disabled (still conscious, can take a single move/standard action). If you get healed above 0 hp, you can act normally, but you're staggered for 1 minute.

At -1 hp, you're unconscious and dying. each round, you make a DC 10 Constitution check; if the result is DC +0 to +4, there's no change. If you succeed by +5 or more, you become stable (0 hit points) but remain unconscious. If the check fails, you lose 1 hit point. Three failures, or a natural 1 on any roll, and the character dies. This roll should be made in secret by the DM so as to keep tension in the game. (Note: This system does not require consecutive saves or failures - as long as you're below 0 hp, you continue to roll until you stablize or accumulate 3 failures.)

If you're stable, you have a 10% chance per hour of regaining consciousness (1 hit point). As above, you're staggered for 1 minute but can act normally otherwise.

If you take damage while dying, it has no effect unless it is greater than your Con score, in which case you must make an immediate DC 15 Con check or die. Even if the check succeeds, you take another step toward death (this could easily result in death anyway for someone on his second step, as a third failed roll means instant death).

All healing applied to a dying person has only half the normal effect, except for the heal spell, which works normally and removes the staggered condition.

---

Thus, no one but the DM knows exactly how long the PC has to live (though a Heal check could determine how close he is to death's door). Survivability is based on your health instead of a random chance, and being dropped to bleeding actually has an effect on PCs.

 

[Noumenon]

Holy thread necromancy, Batman! (Sorry, I had to say it. )

It's in his sig, that made it seem current (compared to reaching a thread with Google, then you expect that it's old). I knew I'd get an answer if I posted. Besides, my question uncovered some very relevant information for someone deciding whether to use this rule or not:

a first level character has a very large HP buffer. He will almost never die due to a single strike of a normal monster since the 10 hp "buffer" is larger that the average strike.

By contrast, by level 10 and higher, each strike deals so much damage that the chance of actually hitting a number between 0 and -10 are very very low. The more HP you have, the less likely the entire rule system is likely to be invoked in the first place.

Now I know what effect implementing the system will have. I could tell I liked the mechanic better than death saves, but now I know whether it will make death more or less likely. By replacing a system that is easy on low-level characters but doesn't help high-level, it should make low-level characters die more and high-level characters die less. With a secondary effect of making everyone die less because they will be more careful about hitting negative HP.

Since I don't want life to get more deadly for low-level characters, maybe I could phase this system in by using it just when it's needed most -- when you going below -10 in one hit. Then I could make the Fort save equal to negative HP, like some people wanted, because it would still be less deadly than the outright death from the RAW.

Conceptually, I am convinced that the old system is as weird as eamon says it is, I just don't want to replace it with a system that has major effects on whether my players die or not.

 

[Mark Chance]

Here's what I use:

Effects of Hit Point Damage
You function as disabled between 0 and negative hit points equal to your Constitution bonus. You are unconscious and dying at one more negative hit points than your Constitution bonus down to a negative value equal to your Constitution score. One more point into the negatives and you are dead.

Moshup has a 14 Constitution. He is disabled from 0 to -2 hit points, unconscious and dying from -3 to -14 hit points, and dead at -15 hit points or lower.

Stable Characters and Recovery
On their next turn after a character is reduced to unconscious and dying, he must make a stabilization check. A stabilization check is a Fortitude save (DC 10 + the character’s negative hit point total).

A successful check means the character stabilizes and is no longer dying. If he doesn’t stabilize, he loses 1 hit point and must attempt another stabilization check on his next turn. (A character who’s unconscious or dying can’t use any special action that changes the initiative count on which his action occurs.)

 

[Ashtagon]

The approach I've been considering until recently has been to have a greatly expanded negative hp buffer, up to as much as 20% of max hp (or Con, whichever is greater). This didn't remove the hp timer meta-gaming, and even my idea of making the hp loss a random number couldn't remove that.

If you're going to make a Fort-based "death save", you shouldn't apply the Con modifier to the DC number, since the Con modifier is built into the Fort save bonus.

I think a save to avoid unconsciousness, made every round, is in order. NPCs will generally fail these automatically by GM fiat. Major villains who fail this save can make a "death exposition" and then drop.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Effects of Hit Point Damage
You function as disabled between 0 and negative hit points equal to your Constitution bonus. You are unconscious and dying at one more negative hit points than your Constitution bonus down to a negative value equal to your Constitution score. One more point into the negatives and you are dead.

Moshup has a 14 Constitution. He is disabled from 0 to -2 hit points, unconscious and dying from -3 to -14 hit points, and dead at -15 hit points or lower.

So ... you chose to ignore the high-level characters going from "fine" to "dead" problem? Because a hypothetical -26 hp buffer (while better than the RAW) is not really survivable when the Barbarian at 27 hp (of 406) takes 78 damage and instantly dies.

 

[Kerrick]

It's in his sig, that made it seem current (compared to reaching a thread with Google, then you expect that it's old). I knew I'd get an answer if I posted. Besides, my question uncovered some very relevant information for someone deciding whether to use this rule or not:

Ah.

Now I know what effect implementing the system will have. I could tell I liked the mechanic better than death saves, but now I know whether it will make death more or less likely. By replacing a system that is easy on low-level characters but doesn't help high-level, it should make low-level characters die more and high-level characters die less. With a secondary effect of making everyone die less because they will be more careful about hitting negative HP.

And that's always a good thing.

Since I don't want life to get more deadly for low-level characters, maybe I could phase this system in by using it just when it's needed most -- when you going below -10 in one hit. Then I could make the Fort save equal to negative HP, like some people wanted, because it would still be less deadly than the outright death from the RAW.

Random chance of survival sucks. I'm honestly unsure why they didn't go with some kind of save (Con or Fort) instead of a 10% chance. That's pretty much a death sentence for anyone cut off from his friends.

Conceptually, I am convinced that the old system is as weird as eamon says it is, I just don't want to replace it with a system that has major effects on whether my players die or not.

Yeah, there is that.

So ... you chose to ignore the high-level characters going from "fine" to "dead" problem? Because a hypothetical -26 hp buffer (while better than the RAW) is not really survivable when the Barbarian at 27 hp (of 406) takes 78 damage and instantly dies.

You're going to have that problem with just about any system, unless you make the death threshold equal to max hit points (which would make most PCs practically unkillable except for SoD effects).

You could rule that anyone dropped to below his death threshold with one hit gets a free Fort save on the next round; if the save fails, he dies, and if it succeeds, he remains unconscious but dying. As long as he keeps making successful saves, he remains hovering on death's door (call it "clinging to life") - since he's below his normal threshold, he can't stabilize on his own, but this gives the others a chance to save him. The first save he fails, though - boom, he's dead.