Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Death & Dying - a better (and simple!) system.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5071583" data-attributes="member: 51942"><p>I like the mechanic - it's a great way to enable the disabled condition without adding extra checks or other unnecessary gameplay roadbumps. Part of the reason I leave that kind of stuff out is that it makes the thread easier to read - this kind of detail is something every group needs to choose for themselves (kind of like massive damage saves...).</p><p></p><p>I particularly like the way you make stabilization random, <em>except </em>for the first saving throw - that's nice, because what you don't want is that people immediately save and then the rest of the party focuses on the bad guys cause "he's safe anyhow". If someone immediately passes by 20 or more he's disabled instead...</p><p></p><p>What happens when a disabled creature takes an action? I don't think it's reasonable to have him receive 1 damage and <em>therefore</em> make another save and possibly instantly die. He should just becoming dying, otherwise disabled characters are very rarely going to risk taking an action (there might be a save to stay disabled).</p><p></p><p>Anyhow, that kind of complexity is why I though I'd keep it out of the basic house-rule, even though it's quite possibly fun and reasonable.</p><p></p><p>Minor simplifying detail: I think it'll work fine as is, but you could choose to remove the clause "If a dying creature succeeds on its Fortitude save for five consecutive rounds since it last suffered damage, the creature stabilizes." I added that to the original to give people a <em>chance</em> to survive on their own, but you already have that with the "succeed by 10 or more" bit. Probably, succeeding by 10 or more is actually more likely than surviving for 5 rounds for most scenario's anyhow. Only if you really can't save by 10 or more is this new method bad for survival; and frankly, if you can't save by 10 or more, your save chance in the old system was virtually nil anyhow (if your first save needed an 11 to succeed, overall survival chance was less than 1% anyhow). To cut a long story short, that clause really doesn't do much anymore, you don't need it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="eamon, post: 5071583, member: 51942"] I like the mechanic - it's a great way to enable the disabled condition without adding extra checks or other unnecessary gameplay roadbumps. Part of the reason I leave that kind of stuff out is that it makes the thread easier to read - this kind of detail is something every group needs to choose for themselves (kind of like massive damage saves...). I particularly like the way you make stabilization random, [I]except [/I]for the first saving throw - that's nice, because what you don't want is that people immediately save and then the rest of the party focuses on the bad guys cause "he's safe anyhow". If someone immediately passes by 20 or more he's disabled instead... What happens when a disabled creature takes an action? I don't think it's reasonable to have him receive 1 damage and [I]therefore[/I] make another save and possibly instantly die. He should just becoming dying, otherwise disabled characters are very rarely going to risk taking an action (there might be a save to stay disabled). Anyhow, that kind of complexity is why I though I'd keep it out of the basic house-rule, even though it's quite possibly fun and reasonable. Minor simplifying detail: I think it'll work fine as is, but you could choose to remove the clause "If a dying creature succeeds on its Fortitude save for five consecutive rounds since it last suffered damage, the creature stabilizes." I added that to the original to give people a [I]chance[/I] to survive on their own, but you already have that with the "succeed by 10 or more" bit. Probably, succeeding by 10 or more is actually more likely than surviving for 5 rounds for most scenario's anyhow. Only if you really can't save by 10 or more is this new method bad for survival; and frankly, if you can't save by 10 or more, your save chance in the old system was virtually nil anyhow (if your first save needed an 11 to succeed, overall survival chance was less than 1% anyhow). To cut a long story short, that clause really doesn't do much anymore, you don't need it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Death & Dying - a better (and simple!) system.
Top