Pathfinder 1E Disabled, Unconscious and Dying (in Pathfinder)

[Roman]

I would recommend changing the rules for characters that are disabled, unconscious and dying. This is an area that is subject to frequent house rules and I would like to present my already playtested house rule for consideration:

My aims for this rule were to:

1) Increase the disabled range, the uncionscious range and the negative hit point buffer in general to reduce the lethality of single attacks (particularly helps lower level characters)
2) Provide uncertainty in terms of the precise timing of death and thus increase the urgency of healing intervention
3) Bring the rules for stabilization closer in-line with other sub-systems of the game (the 10% chance to stabilize was an anomaly - I use Fortitude saves instead)

Without further ado, here is the rule I have been using/playtesting and which I would recommend for the Pathfinder RPG:

Characters become disabled at 0 and remain disabled until they reach -(10 + Constitution bonus) hit points at which point they are unconscious and dying. Characters die when they reach -(20 + 2 x Constitution bonus) hit points. When disabled, characters taking a strenuous action lose 1d6 hit points. Upon reaching unconsciousness, a character begins to die an therfore loses 1d6 hit points per round until stabilized (or dead). A character can stabilize on his own (Fortitude save, DC 10 + current number of hit points below zero), or can be stabilized by somebody else using the heal skill (Heal check, DC 10 + current number of hit points below zero) or using healing magic (automatic stabilization).

I should probably note that I chose such high DCs for self-stabilization, so that it is possible but difficult to pull of and thus to give an incentive to the party to hurry to help their ailing comrade. I was thinking of using lower DCs, such as '5 +current number of hit points below zero' or even just 'current hit points below zero', but ultimately settled on the above.

 

[Treebore]

I kind of do the same thing. I allow them to go CON score + CON bonus into the negative range before dying, with -10 being the default minimum. They don't "bleed out" unless they are below -6 HP. IT does a nice job of having fewer deaths.

I also use luck/action points from Unearthed Arcana (WOTC), and they can permanently burn one to avoid dying and be a -6 instead. Has definitely decreased the number of deaths in the campaign.

 

[Mark Hope]

I use the method from Arcana Evolved: disabled from 0 to -Con modifier, dying down to -Con. It doesn't make a huge difference at higher levels, but it saved the bacon of a couple of characters in my low-level game the other night.

 

[Roman]

I use the method from Arcana Evolved: disabled from 0 to -Con modifier, dying down to -Con. It doesn't make a huge difference at higher levels, but it saved the bacon of a couple of characters in my low-level game the other night.

Arcana Evolved is a very good game.

I kind of do the same thing. I allow them to go CON score + CON bonus into the negative range before dying, with -10 being the default minimum. They don't "bleed out" unless they are below -6 HP. IT does a nice job of having fewer deaths.

Yep, the principle of increasing the negative hit point buffer is the same. I prefered not to use the Constitution score, because essentially nothing in the rules uses scores any more - almost everything is bonus-based, so I felt that using the score does not fit the spirit of the rules as well as using 10 + bonus, but ultimately it works out almost the same.

I also needed to create a bigger buffer for the unconscious and dying range, due to the characters losing d6 hit points per round rather than merely 1 hit point, which I changed because I wanted to decrease the rate of determinism ("he has 6 rounds left before he dies, let's not worry about him for now"...) at which death occurs.

I also use luck/action points from Unearthed Arcana (WOTC), and they can permanently burn one to avoid dying and be a -6 instead. Has definitely decreased the number of deaths in the campaign.

I also use luck points, but I use my own system for them, which would be for another discussion altogether.

In any case, I do think disabled/unconscious/dying rules are subject to so much house-ruling that it would make change to just change the rule. Almost all the house rules I have seen (and certainly all that I have seen in this thread thus far) for this are better than the default rule...

 

[WhatGravitas]

...they reach -(20 + 2 x Constitution bonus) hit points.

Con-bonus = (Con score - 10)/2
=> -(20 + 2 x Con bonus) ~= -(10 + Con score)

...if you ignore the rounding. Is easier to write and memorize.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Roman]

Con-bonus = (Con score - 10)/2
=> -(20 + 2 x Con bonus) ~= -(10 + Con score)

...if you ignore the rounding. Is easier to write and memorize.

Yes, as I mentioned it does work out similarly (not exactly the same though, even overlooking rounding, for example 18 Con score would provide a buffer to -18hp under the -Con system, whereas 18 Con score would provide a buffer to -14hp under the -(10+Con bonus) system). Also, the usage of ability scores in and of themselves is not really part of the 3.X edition mechanics (e.g. spell DCs are also done by adding an ability score modifier to 10, although using just Intelligence or Wisdom or Charisma would yield similar numbers, at least for ability scores not far removed from the mean).

 

[WhatGravitas]

...not exactly the same though, even overlooking rounding...

Huh? Your formula:
-(20 + 2 x Constitution bonus)

Plugging in the 18:
-(20 + 2 x (+4)) = -28.

Using mine:
-(10 + Con score)

Plugging in the 18:
-(10 + 18) = -28.

For 19, my method gives an advantage of one point (and for odd values in general). Since odd values often have no real benefit, if you're not intend to improve it further, it's a nice freebie.

And for the fact that D&D usually doesn't use ability scores (opposed to stats) - it determines your maximum spell level and for determining carrying capacity. They're corner cases... but dying is (sort of) also a own subsystem.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Roman]

Huh? Your formula:
-(20 + 2 x Constitution bonus)

Plugging in the 18:
-(20 + 2 x (+4)) = -28.

Using mine:
-(10 + Con score)

Plugging in the 18:
-(10 + 18) = -28.

For 19, my method gives an advantage of one point (and for odd values in general). Since odd values often have no real benefit, if you're not intend to improve it further, it's a nice freebie.

Ok, I misinterpreted what you meant. I thought you are comparing the -(Con score) to -(10 + Con bonus) for the disabled-->unconscious/dying threshold. Yes, if this is what you were suggesting than it does work out the same way.

And for the fact that D&D usually doesn't use ability scores (opposed to stats) - it determines your maximum spell level and for determining carrying capacity. They're corner cases... but dying is (sort of) also a own subsystem.

Yes, disabled, unconscious and dying do form their own subsystem that is somewhat anomalous with respect to the main body of the ruleset, using a fixed negative hp threshold from dying, using a fixed stabilization die... I wanted to bring it more into line. But yes, ultimately the difference between using a -(10 + Con Score) or -(20 + 2 x Con bonus) for the new is indeed merely semantics and using the Con Score system has a somewhat simpler notation.

 

[Nifft]

IMC, "dead" happens at -(10 + HD), for PCs and monsters alike.

"Disabled" happens at 0 (only), but if a PC would be reduced to negative HP, he can spend a Fate Point to instead be reduced to exactly 0. So it is still a relevant state, even at high levels.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Roman]

IMC, "dead" happens at -(10 + HD), for PCs and monsters alike.

"Disabled" happens at 0 (only), but if a PC would be reduced to negative HP, he can spend a Fate Point to instead be reduced to exactly 0. So it is still a relevant state, even at high levels.

This is pretty interesting. It makes the negative hit point buffer more relevant at higher levels.