D&D 4E Is character death acceptable in 4e? If so, how often?

[Akaiku]

Hit points are not part of PC knowledge.

There is no mystical Heal skill that imparts knowledge to the PCs that another PC has failed two Death Saving Throws.

There is a non-mystical heal skill though. Although it seems that your point is that is is NOT within a players insight or perception to know which of 2 people they can see IC is worse off. I would be pressed to believe that if I was playing a field medic class (leader). Although, why would a player know if they made the death saves? Or how much hp they have left? You want to add drama, don't let players roll their own death saves, roll them hidden and tell them when they go from needing a cleric to needing a grave. Better yet, don't. Just have them be surprise when someone tries to heal the corpse and fails.

Also, I disagree that being able to tell that one person is more bloodied then another is more gamist then having fixed states of health. Also, in your statment of "This character has 3 and this has 5 left" they are BOTH horrible off. The distinction is not terribly necessary. If it were 5 hp and oh 40 cause it's high epic, they are both bloodied, but one is way more injured. This should be noticable.

 

[Eric Finley]

Players - not characters - have much more complete information about the state of their own statistics. The same argument - that PCs can't "read hit points" - would apply equally validly to their own PCs. Therefore the DM should keep track of these numbers and let the players know roughly how damaged they themselves are, right?

The quoted passage refers to information the DM has and the players do not. Clearly not the case here.

If there were any intent that players should be forbidden to tell one another about their hit points, in numerical terms, I'd like to see the rules support for that. If you wish to play that way, then by all means do so - but it's a house rule, not a requirement.

To use a little jargon, to propose that players should only be able to operate on information their characters possess is called "Character stance". It's a valid mode of play... but so are several others. In "Actor stance" the players make decisions for their characters based on outside considerations as well. It is equally legitimate and often necessary, and it does not require that inter-player mediation happen only in abstract and non-numerical terms.

Sure, counting HP "down to the penny" is crass. But that's a table-chatter and mood thing. And not one that anyone is advocating, either. But "he's noticeably closer to death than this other guy" is a perfectly legitimate conclusion to reach in-character, and it is a perfectly reasonable style of play to have the player play his character coming to this conclusion on the basis of hard numbers which the player knows in full. The character doesn't have a medscanner... luckily, the character doesn't need one either, to do his job.

 

[Regicide]

Hit points are not part of PC knowledge.

Yes, they are. Players know how many healing surges they have, they know that the next magic potion they drink just won't work even though they haven't had any today or they've had 8 already etc. 4E rules require explicit PC knowledge of just about everything. It's just part of the edition change. Their world just does not work the way ours does, you can't try to make it or you'll be a simulationist.

Granted, a certain amount of this information is inevitable. But, explicitly allowing players to ask metagaming questions of this nature across the table does not match the DM guideline on page 26 of the DMG.

That guideline basically boils down to "tell your players what they need to know (about opponents and the environment)." Nowhere does it say "don't let your players tell each other what they want to know."

Considering what a pain in the butt it is to track conditions and stuff in 4E, I'm not going to also take on the job of speech monitor, ban note passing and force players to use player advantage codes to sneak information to each other.

 

[KarinsDad]

Also, I disagree that being able to tell that one person is more bloodied then another is more gamist then having fixed states of health. Also, in your statment of "This character has 3 and this has 5 left" they are BOTH horrible off. The distinction is not terribly necessary. If it were 5 hp and oh 40 cause it's high epic, they are both bloodied, but one is way more injured. This should be noticable.

Should be noticable? According to what rules or guidelines?

Fixed states of health like bloodied and not bloodied are in the guidelines of what is observable. On page 27 of the DMG.

But, hit points are not observable:

Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character's skill, luck, and resolve- all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation.

How exactly do PCs make Perception rolls to notice that one PC is more out of luck and skill and resolve and physical endurance than another?

PC: "Mr. DM, is Bob more out of luck, or is Sally more out of luck?"

One cannot have it both ways. Either Hit Points are damage and only damage and that damage can be noticed via Perception, or they are a bunch of non-tangible factors which cannot be noticed.

Bloodied can be noticed because it is explicitly stated in the DMG that it can be noticed.

You are adding rules or guidelines which are not there whereas the guideline in the DMG does limit player knowledge of things in the PC's environment (including other PCs) to PC knowledge.


The best guideline is to allow it for what the game allows and then talk with your players for game mechanics that are not mentioned.

Do you know that a +2 sword is a +2 sword until you take a short rest? Do you know that an NPC has temporary hit points up? Do you know the exact AC of your foe? The exact Reflex Defense? How many hit points the NPC has? Where does one draw the line?

 

[jbear]

I guess each DM draws the line around the shape he wants his game to take. The players learn to adapt to the style and make decision based on their reading of the information given to them.

Either Frank saying: 'I'm bloodied and down to 18 HP, I'm going to need some healing'

Or in Karin's Dad's game: K Dad describes the near miss (which took away 16 HP and left the PC near death) of the enemies viscious blow, after a series of viscious attacks that has the PC unbalanced and under serious pressure. The PC cries out as a free action: 'Get this beast off me, I can't hold him off any longer...? PCs react (or not) accordingly, aware that their ally is in serious danger.

Both seem like valid and fun options from where I'm standing. Both completely doable with the 4e system. It seems like a question of preference. If your players don't enjoy a game without explicit metagame information they wouldn't be playing with you. And viceversa.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yes, they are. Players know how many healing surges they have, they know that the next magic potion they drink just won't work even though they haven't had any today or they've had 8 already etc. 4E rules require explicit PC knowledge of just about everything. It's just part of the edition change. Their world just does not work the way ours does, you can't try to make it or you'll be a simulationist.

No, players know that. PCs do not.

That guideline basically boils down to "tell your players what they need to know (about opponents and the environment)."

Other PCs are not part of the environment?

 

[Regicide]

No, players know that. PCs do not.

PCs DO know that. Yours would be the only game where you force characters to drink healing potions to see if they're out of surges yet or not.

Other PCs are not part of the environment?

No, they're not. If there is one change in 4E that is it. PCs are handled differently than everything else in the game. They are a thing apart.

They also have a huge advantage over the environment, they talk to each other.

 

[KarinsDad]

PCs DO know that. Yours would be the only game where you force characters to drink healing potions to see if they're out of surges yet or not.

PCs do not know about healing surges. Maybe their ears turn green so that they know that healing potions will no longer work.

Obviously, this is metagaming information that changes player decisions and in turn affects PC decisions. And when that is forced, it's not a big deal.

But, saying that because one metagaming piece of data that is player knowledge means that all metagaming pieces of data, especially about other PCs, is not solid logic.

No, they're not. If there is one change in 4E that is it. PCs are handled differently than everything else in the game. They are a thing apart.

So, one PC cannot see another PC because the second PC is not part of the environment?

Does the PC have the word "PC" stamped on his forehead?

That's an extremely strange way to roleplay.

 

[Akaiku]

Should be noticable? According to what rules or guidelines?

The 'should' part is an opinion of mine.

How exactly do PCs make Perception rolls to notice that one PC is more out of luck and skill and resolve and physical endurance than another?

PC: "Mr. DM, is Bob more out of luck, or is Sally more out of luck?"

One cannot have it both ways. Either Hit Points are damage and only damage and that damage can be noticed via Perception, or they are a bunch of non-tangible factors which cannot be noticed.

The slowing of one's blows and the lack of hope in their eyes are good givaways for skill and morale. Also, if you are going to go straight definition, it says more than physical endurance. It either includes physical endurance or the only wound anyone actually takes is the one that kills them. Most people make it inclusive, and say they take wounds as well as morale and skill damage. And luck? Perhaps they are dodging just a bit closer than they were? Luck is observable, hense we call it luck. Therefore, the lack of it would also show up. Or not per taste.

 

[Akaiku]

But, saying that because one metagaming piece of data that is player knowledge means that all metagaming pieces of data, especially about other PCs, is not solid logic.

Actually, which piece of information on a player's character sheet does the player not get to know? Any of it?

It's more that since a player knows ALL bits of metagame data about their character and the rule on player knowledge only applies to the gm giving information, that they can freely distribute that data to make more sound tactical decisions. Sliding scale of wargame vs survival.

Does the PC have the word "PC" stamped on his forehead?

Actually, they have it stamped on their character sheet, making them fundamentally different from every other entity in the game and making them work under a totally different ruleset. They are specificly cool like that.