New Article: Death and Dying

[Professor Phobos]

Bringing villains into the campaign who are every bit as determined to live and are tough to put down just raises the game to a higher level for me. Removing that and making them dead as soon as they drop to 0 is simply unappealing to me.

You can still do that, though, at the DM's discretion. What this means is you don't have to keep track of that stuff for J. Random Orc. And, for god's sake, people, if the PC's say, "Hey, is there one we could heal up and interrogate?"

Just say yes! So what if he hit 0 hit points? You're only not bothering with the -HP stuff because it's a headache, not because J. Random Orc doesn't take some time before he bleeds out.

Just say yes, for chrissakes...

 

[Gryffyn]

Did you actually read the article? Andy Collins specifically stated that the threat of death still exists in 4E.

Yes, I read the article. Thanks for condescending, though. I'm simply pointing out that Collins' assertion doesn't exactly fit with the mechanics we know about. This is why I posted -- something's missing, and I'm wondering what it is.

In 3e, negative hit points rarely lead to death, since a cleric is almost always available to cast a cure spell before -10, or another party member is nearby to do a Heal skill check, or the character rolls the magic 10% stabilization chance. The main threat of death was when a character was in low positive hit points, and the enemies were able to dish out enough to reduce the character to -10 in a single shot (or a "save or die" effect).

In 4e, the threat of insta-kill at low hit points seems like it will be much much lower. If the "three strikes" rule is actually in 4e, then negative hit points has a minimum three round grace period, no matter how low the negative HP are. (I suspect this is what we don't know -- instead of "three strikes," you lose a larger number of HP each round, or something). So, with three rounds to save someone, more classes that can heal, and the chance of self-stablization, being in negative hit points would seem to be less of a threat than it is in 3e.

So, save or die is gone; insta-kills from hits at low hit points are much reduced; negative hit points is less of a threat. Can you see now why I would wonder if PC death in 4e might be, as I carefully put it in my original post, "nearly impossible?"

 

[FitzTheRuke]

My thoughts

While I can see the Orc damaging the fighter only to cause him to heal problem as a bit silly, it's a really unlikely scenario.

What 200 HP (26th level or so) character is going to fight an orc who can only do 6hp of damage? Even the Pit Fiend so many people seem to think did low damage for it's level would be doing a minimum IIRC of about 50 damage to him in a round. (Most of which didn't even require a role.)

So yeah, if mr 200 HP gets hit by Piddles the Orc he'd go "Hit me, byotch!?" (if he's lucky enough to roll a 20, otherwise he'd gurgle and spurt)

Unlikely pseudo-problems aside, I think it looks great.

Not only is the recovery a Saving Throw, but the negative HP limit is exaclty the same number as Bloodied (only negative) IE, should be written on your sheet anyway.

As far as those arguing about the PCs and monsters not getting the same deal, well, it's really easy to not only give the important NPCs or big baddies the same chance to live, you could randomly audit the occasional bad guy, whenever it seems important to you for whatever reason.

"Oh, the PC's left that goblin for dead! Let's see if he lived to sneak off and tell the Necromancer they're coming!" <roll roll roll> Otherwise, you can let the rabble die.

FItz

 

[Ant]

I really liked the presentation of this article. Very interesting and informative.

Unfortunately I'm very disappointed with the actual content. They've taken away the cool thinks about 3.5 and left in enough other things to make it look like a bit of a sad, house-ruled rehash. Not impressed.

I'm also not liking the fact that PCs are now starting to reach super-hero level. Yes, yes ... realism isn't what this is about and whatnot. I get it. I still find the power creep disturbing.

5th edition will either be, "Bugger it! Who are we kidding, guys? Look ... no-one likes dying so PCs just don't die anymore, OK?" or "Bugger it! Super-mondo PCs are so cliched. Realism and grittiness is way cooler and where it's at. Let's bring back some excitement! PCs die at 0hp!"

 

[Celebrim]

I don't get it. Maybe it's the writing. Take this example:

That may seem like an unreachable number, but it’s important to remember that monsters, like characters, aren’t piling on as many attacks on their turn as in 3rd Edition.

Yes, it does seem like an unreachable number, give that monsters aren't piling on as many attacks on thier turn as in 3rd edition. Perhaps the author meant to say that it seems like a 'reachable number'? It's hard to know what the design goal was based on that sentence.

My guess from the rest of the article is that it is to make PC's virtually invulnerable. The goal is to have PC's that can have 'the stuffing beaten out of them without serious consequence'. (Pardon me for thinking that's what hit points themselves did.)

Notice first that the writer is worried that the audience might find these too rules too harsh:

This is less than a 4th Edition character would have, but each monster attack is dealing a smaller fraction of the character’s total hit points, so it should be reasonable. If it feels too small, increase it to one-third full normal hit points and try again.

The writer doesn't even hint that he thinks you are supposed to find these rules too lenient.

Secondly, notice that being at -1 hitpoint is functionally the same as being at -60. No matter how close you are to death, no matter how badly you've been mangled, you are one instant from up and at 'em again. This rather discourages monsters trying to finish a character off. If you've dropped a 200 hit point character to -1, the next 98 damage you do to that character is meaningless. There is also a small chance of dropping unconscious and then gaining hitpoints: "I feel much better now."

I for one have never been disappointed to feed a mortally wounded character a potion of cure light wounds, and find that they don't immediately leap to thier feet. I always figured that they were for curing light wounds.

And finally, they hammer the 'NPC's aren't PC's' point again.

 

[Warbringer]

Besides, you should be aware of the plot-critical NPCs anyway, since they're the ones who get detailed, do all the talking, have names instead of 'Orc Guard 17", etc...

and have skills

 

[Toryx]

You can still do that, though, at the DM's discretion. What this means is you don't have to keep track of that stuff for J. Random Orc. And, for god's sake, people, if the PC's say, "Hey, is there one we could heal up and interrogate?"

Just say yes! So what if he hit 0 hit points? You're only not bothering with the -HP stuff because it's a headache, not because J. Random Orc doesn't take some time before he bleeds out.

I guess my point, which was rather poorly made now that I think about it, is that I don't like to be in fight after fight with mindless automatons. I like the enemies to be more developed than that, and even if the majority of the monsters are cannon fodder for the leader, at least someone in that battle is going to be more than a damage dealing cardboard figure waiting to get killed so the pcs can get their experience points.

To me, giving all the npcs and monsters death at 0 automatically consigns them to the cardboard figures. But then, maybe I'm just not playing the same game as everyone else.

 

[Professor Phobos]

I guess my point, which was rather poorly made now that I think about it, is that I don't like to be in fight after fight with mindless automatons. I like the enemies to be more developed than that, and even if the majority of the monsters are cannon fodder for the leader, at least someone in that battle is going to be more than a damage dealing cardboard figure waiting to get killed so the pcs can get their experience points.

To me, giving all the npcs and monsters death at 0 automatically consigns them to the cardboard figures. But then, maybe I'm just not playing the same game as everyone else.

You aren't. I can't see any logic to your statements. Your point is, frankly, nonsensical.

EDIT: I'm entirely serious. How is "Dead at 0" somehow automatically removing anything interesting from an NPC? How is a "Dead at -10" npc any more developed than a "Dead at 0" NPC?

There's no connection there. It makes no sense.

 

[Toryx]

There's no connection there. It makes no sense.

Well if that's the case, then there's no point in my continuing this discussion with you any further.

As far as those arguing about the PCs and monsters not getting the same deal, well, it's really easy to not only give the important NPCs or big baddies the same chance to live, you could randomly audit the occasional bad guy, whenever it seems important to you for whatever reason.

You're right, of course. I guess ultimately, what bothers me is that the way they're ruling it suggests to me that the designers aren't interested in designing the game with the level of sophistication I was hoping for. Leaving DMs to decide to give important NPCs or big baddies something to distinguish them from the random monster outside of the rules simply disappoints me. I understand that they are aiming toward a new generation of gamers, but if their method of doing so is to lower the bar of the gaming experience (in my mind at least) it's too bad.

It's not a big deal...I can still run it the way I want as you suggest, I just wonder how far this kind of thinking is going in the overall design of the new edition.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

This actually happened in one of Chris Perkins' games. The party was trapped in a room, snakes and nagas and poison everywhere, oh my! Everyone was down to single digit hit points and taking ongoing damage. My warlord's turn came up, she took damage and fell over...and I rolled a 20 on the saving throw. That was just enough to stand rearguard as the rest of the party got the doors open and escaped. If I hadn't rolled that 20, the others wouldn't have been able to work on the door and I'm fairly sure we would have had more than one casualty. So yeah, it was wicked cool gnarly.

Sold!

I can't tell you how many of my TPKs could have used this dynamic to good effect.