New Article: Death and Dying

[Zimri]

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.

So after every post of yours that I read I went back and checked the article to make sure what I thought I understood was ,well for lack of a better term, what I thought I understood. Here is the pertinent text (in my humble or not so humble opinion)

Monsters don’t need or use this system unless the DM has special reason to do so. A monster at 0 hp is dead, and you don’t have to worry about wandering around the battlefield stabbing all your unconscious foes. (I’m sure my table isn’t the only place that happens.) We’ve talked elsewhere about some of the bogus parallelism that can lead to bad game design—such as all monsters having to follow character creation rules, even though they’re supposed to be foes to kill, not player characters—this is just another example of the game escaping that trap. Sure, a DM can decide for dramatic reasons that a notable NPC or monster might linger on after being defeated. Maybe a dying enemy survives to deliver a final warning or curse before expiring, or at the end of a fight the PCs discover a bloody trail leading away from where the evil warlock fell, but those will be significant, story-based exceptions to the norm.

Bolded emphasis mine

So if there is a significant NPC (not even the big bad maybe a henchman who needs to survive to get info to the big bad, or some street thug who has friends or will get friends and become an ongoing plot device) then this new system can work to your advantage. especially once the PCs learn they no longer need to waste time slitting throats. The npc you want to save made 100 10-19s in a row and the party didn't wait to see if he got up they just assumed he was dead.. or he rolled a 20, sensed they were still there and stayed down, or slithered off while they were cleaning up the mooks.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I do sort of sympathize, but I can rationalize this fairly okay under the current rules. PC's, left to their own devices, eventually, most of the time, bleed out. I can basically assume that monsters do the same. They're not dead at 0 hp, they're just no longer a threat and basically will continue to be dying until they actually are dead. Much like in current 3e games where, unless I have a healer running around, I don't worry about monsters below 0 hp.

It's a minor point, but it's important to me, flavor-wise. It's not that the monsters are any more dead than the PC's at 0 hp, it's just that the monsters don't usually have the healing that will restore them the way the PC's do, and I can assume, for expedience of play, that they basically never roll a 20 on that save (unless I really want 5% of them to come back, I suppose).

 

[S'mon]

" If a character with negative hit points receives healing, he returns to 0 hp before any healing is applied."

I hate this kind of rule, it's the same thinking that gave us 3.5e's "save every round to break Hold Person". It gives the enemy a huge incentive to finish off dying PCs before they pop back into the fight, or the GM has to play the enemy as idiots.

A well-designed dying rule IMO should aim for the exact opposite - the incapacitated PC should be clearly out of the combat, giving the enemy no reason to keep attacking him. And bleeding out should be slow - minutes, not seconds. That way, if the PCs win and avoid a TPK, he'll survive.

 

[A'koss]

Um, I hate to be the one pointing out the obvious, but if you're so worried about taking prisoners why not just strike for non-lethal damage, grapple them or subdue them with a spell. Hacking them down like a tree with a great axe, you get what you get - firewood.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Ooh, I like that a lot. It divide's a characters HPs into 3 equal areas: Fine, Bloodied, and Dying. I love the symmetr.... oh, right.

 

[Toryx]

Lackhand: You're right. Either way, players and DMs are going to do their own thing.

I suspect that I'm guilty of looking at a hidden meaning in the death rules where there may not be any. I was thinking that if they're going to trivialize (in my view) NPCs and monsters by making it so that once they're down they can never get up again, where else are they simplifying things? But I have no evidence either way, so I'll just have to wait and find out.

Ultimately, as a player I like not knowing if the evil bad guys are actually dead unless I make sure, and I like as a DM forcing the players to deal with the consequences of a enemy who isn't dead yet. When I run the game it'll continue to be that way (assuming the players are willing). As a player, I'm going to have to hope that the DM is willing to house rule it that way as well.

 

[Warbringer]

And honestly, now that I think about it, how often do you hear of people who were mortally wounded recovering when left completely on their own, but not enough for them to get up and stagger around a bit or get back into the fight? Pretty much everyone, either in fiction or in real life needs medical attention to not die.

A lot less frequently than we hear they took a busride to the the morgue

 

[JohnSnow]

@Dragonblade & Lizard. You are both incorrect. There is nothing in the 3.5 rules that suggests npcs and monsters die at 0 hit points. They follow the staggered/dying/dead rules just like PCs. Several monsters (like boars) even have special rules that take advantage of this fact.

Ah. I see. So you actually spend 5-10 rounds rolling a d20 check for every NPC and monster in your campaign to see if they stabilize on their own? That's an impressive dedication to "equal treatment."

Given a DM like that, I'd make sure never to play a character that was too heroic. Because my PC would be the one who walked around after every fight slitting the throats of all the dead monsters, "just to be sure."

That may be to your tastes, but it doesn't work for mine.

But back to D&D. A group RPG isn't the same as a movie. Different requirements and very different elements make it 'good'. Scripted hack melodrama isn't one of those things.

But individuals can have very different opinions about what makes for a 'good' game. In my world, I like there to be a relatively large buffer between the PCs and the events of the world. What you call "scripted hack melodrama," I call the "life of a hero." When I play D&D, I don't want to replay The Dirty Dozen, The Magnificent Seven, or any of dozens of other movies where half the heroes are dead at the end, I want Silverado, or Star Wars where the good guys get to ride off into the sunset, at least most of the time. (More on this below, as I realize even the movies I mention here don't reflect the possibility of random death at any time.)

While "realistic" death may be what you're after, I certainly don't want my D&D games to look like the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan, without the player knowing whether he's Tom Hanks or "Extra #6" when the party hits the beach at Normandy.

There's nothing wrong with heroic sacrifice, but the death should be heroic, damnit, not random. Even in The 13th Warrior, where most of the "heroes" die, some of them live. Even most of the characters in The Dirty Dozen and The Magnificent Seven live until the climactic scene. They aren't killed off by "Desperado #4" in the second scene. That's because the characters who die randomly in an action movie aren't the main characters. They are, for the most part, extras. Or you've created a situation where most of the characters dying is key to setting the right "tone." I submit that while stories like that might make for very good movies, they usually make for crappy games, since the player whose PC dies in Scene 2 is out of the rest of the adventure (without the contrivance of a "replacement character" joining the party everytime a hero dies). Which is, IMO, usually way more cheesy than just having the original PC survive.

Wait a sec. I just had a thought. Are you one of those DMs who thinks "attrition-based adventuring" is "fun?"

 

[Grog]

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.

Are you serious? The -10 rule wasn't one of the cool things about 3.5. It was a holdover from 1E that didn't work very well in 3E. In 1E, the -10 threshold almost always meant something, because even the more powerful monsters often didn't hit for very much damage in a swing. But in 3E, the -10 threshold basically didn't exist at high levels where monsters routinely do 30+ damage with a single attack.

It was definitely time for an overhaul.

 

[Kesh]

A well-designed dying rule IMO should aim for the exact opposite - the incapacitated PC should be clearly out of the combat, giving the enemy no reason to keep attacking him. And bleeding out should be slow - minutes, not seconds. That way, if the PCs win and avoid a TPK, he'll survive.

Except that your way isn't much fun. If I get a nasty hit and go down, then spend the next 10 minutes sitting there while everyone else fights, I'm left with… well, nothing. Besides, what would be the alternative? No healing until combat is over?