New Article: Death and Dying

[Stalker0]

I'm seeing a lot of people suggest that instead of the 3 saves and your out there should be some fortitude mechanic.

Here are a few reasons that's a bad idea:

1) Double dependence on the con stat for survivability. Currently, con provides you hit points, which also provides you an extended death's door. Con already has a strong correlation to survivability. If you add in a fort save, then your also adding in another dependenace on con. It makes people with lots of con exponentially more survivable than those without it.

Con is the second most important stat to every class in 3e, its often considered suicidal to have a low con. I would love it if 4e made con an important stat, but one not critical to everyone just to stay alive.

2) Scalability. Fort Saves scale. So not only do high level characters have a ton more hitpoints AND the extended death's door, but then they have strong fort saves. It makes it even tougher to kill them, while low level characters become more frail.

4e is attempting to stop the rapid increase in power with levels, to smooth things out. That's why I think the static d20 roll is a good idea.


In general, I think this new mechanic is pretty neat. The one thing I don't like is that there's only a 55% chance to roll 1-10 and get a death strike. Considering you always have a least 3 rounds before you bite it, I would much rather make it 1-15. 3 rounds is long enough imo.

I do like the roll a 20 and get back up with 1/4 hitpoints. I do wonder if 1/4 hitpoints is too many, but the idea of allowing a player to have some excitement even while unconscious is a great idea!!


Finally, I like the death's door mechanic, but I wonder if 1/2 your max in negatives is too much. I mean -60 is a big window!!! From what monster's we've seen it doesn't feel like monsters will be racking up that much damage per round. I wonder if every PC will just be knocked out.

However, that's an easy houserule, making it 1/3 of max hitpoints of 1/4 could fix that easily if it becomes a problem.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The new rules look good. Negative 10 was definitely an issue that needed fixing. PC death has probably been my biggest problem in 3e. It's fairly easy to die and very time consuming creating a new PC, particularly at high level. One of these had to change. They're keeping the character complexity so the death rate had to go down.

It might be better if there was a clear division in the rules between NPCs that die at zero hp ie mooks and those that don't (other than whether it has a name, though I admit that's really the key determinant).

I'm really intrigued by these alternate death and dying mechanics they tried. Hopefully we'll see some in 4e's version of Unearthed Arcana.

 

[WhatGravitas]

<returns to conciousness and forces his hand inside his gut wound, sealing it shut with pressure>
"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

Sounds perfectly alright to me.

Additionally, getting back up probably isn't the best idea: 4E encounters will usually involve more creatures. Even if the orc stabs you and you feel better than before, his buddies see you, see that you're hard to kill and pile up on you.

That higher tolerance and ability to "push through" also prevent PCs from being gimped too hard by the sheer number of actions opponents may get through their number.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Remathilis]

That's the problem. The GM should be held to the same standard as the other players at the table. It's one of the biggest turn-offs for outsiders because it's seen as sanctioned cheating; the solution isn't to make special cases for the GM, but to make the standard ruleset universally fair and elegant. It's not like it hasn't been done.

Here Here! No more of this "The DM doesn't have to tell you what your saving against" or "the DM doesn't have to declare the NPC is scrying on them, or casting charm person on them". Heck, why does he need that cardboard screen? My character sheet is in the open, as is my die rolls. His map, notes and die rolls should be as well!

 

[Doug McCrae]

Every game I run, everyone plays the same game and adheres to the same rules.

NPCs in 3e don't use the same rules as PCs. For example: NPC classes, different wealth levels, standard or nonelite array for ability scores.

 

[Ipissimus]

Now THIS is more like it! -applauds the article and the mechanics-

This handles things more elegantly, though it certainly requires a shift in thought particularly for DMs. Reading this thread, I think you can see how combat flavor needs to be re-packaged for the new paradigm (and that most of the problems are rooted in metagame thought).

For example, the 200hp fighter on 5hp who gets stabbed for 6 by an orc, then makes his save and goes back to 50hp. Sure, if you look at it from a metagame standpoint, he's just been healed by being stabbed. As some people pointed out, the better way is to look at it as 'the orc simply ticks the fighter off and (most likely) subsequently gets mauled'. The point is that all rules are just numbers, pretty dull and lifeless if you look at them as they are, it takes some creative packaging to make hit points and combat exciting, and I've found it to be that way since 1e. What it means exactly to have 25% hp is pretty nebulous anyway, we've never had mechanics for broken bones or internal injuries and we really don't want to start down that path now for DnD. If you want excrutiating detail, play GURPS.

Of course, as someone said above, you can't just say 'the blow caves in your ribcage' anymore, since the PCs have a chance to get up again. Rather than gristly descriptions of death, you've got to play up the unknown angle. "You see the dragon's tail arc towards you a moment before it slams into your chest, knocking you aside! You think you hear your bones pop and crackle under the blow." Now, the PC will either die, remain stable until someone heals him (somehow) or pick himself up to fight on and you've left the avenue open for that to happen.

For those who want a more realistic bent to explain why a character gets back up, what about self treatment? Who said that being down negative hp meant being unconscious, necessarily? Yet another action movie trope is the hero that pulls the bullet out, patches himself up by tearing up his shirt to bind the wounds, maybe cauterizes the wounds with some fire and a knife, then goes back into the fray.

DnD's always been more cinematic than realistic, that's one if its strengths in the market. I'm afraid that realism in RPGs is a niche market, if you want it DnD isn't for you, you'd be happier playing something that uses condition monitors instead.

Now, I think the two things that are missing from the article (not a complaint, more of an observation) are the rules for Healing (mundane and magical) and the rules for Coup de Grace. The article doesn't mention specifically that Coup de Grace is gone, and that might take care of the problems with monsters who want to finish off characters.

Of course, I'd question the sanity of anyone who ignored the alive and well people with the big pointy things trying to kill them to make sure that the one that was down and not fighting was really dead. But then, not all NPCs are sane.

The problem without Coup de Grace is the same as the previous editions, only amplified since everyone has more negative hp. If an evil cleric of Tharizdun decides he's going to slit the throat of the downed Paladin (definitely in character for the NPC), it doesn't make much sense for it to take several rounds since the downed player can't effectively struggle (and when you're bleeding out, struggling to retain your grip on reality, you can't). When we learn what they've done with Coup de Grace, I think this hole will be plugged.

 

[Henry]

NPCs in 3e don't use the same rules as PCs. For example: NPC classes, different wealth levels, standard or nonelite array for ability scores.

I'm of similar mind, myself. Coming from an AD&D background, DMs in our groups have never completely adhered to the same rules as characters, because of their natures as referees. Different DMs have different styles, mind you (some roll in the open, some always roll in secret, some roll in the open for climax battles only, etc.) but all I've known have always had some rules fiat going on, to speed a slow game, or to help a group of hard-charging players down on their luck, or to correct a "tough" encounter that turned out to be a cakewalk, etc.

 

[Fifth Element]

For anyone who never played 1st edition, the above quote summarizes the experience quite handily.

Dr. Awkward coming in late for the win! And it's funny because it's true.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm seeing a lot of people suggest that instead of the 3 saves and your out there should be some fortitude mechanic.

Here are a few reasons that's a bad idea:

1) Double dependence on the con stat for survivability. Currently, con provides you hit points, which also provides you an extended death's door. Con already has a strong correlation to survivability. If you add in a fort save, then your also adding in another dependenace on con. It makes people with lots of con exponentially more survivable than those without it.

Con is the second most important stat to every class in 3e, its often considered suicidal to have a low con. I would love it if 4e made con an important stat, but one not critical to everyone just to stay alive.

2) Scalability. Fort Saves scale. So not only do high level characters have a ton more hitpoints AND the extended death's door, but then they have strong fort saves. It makes it even tougher to kill them, while low level characters become more frail.

4e is attempting to stop the rapid increase in power with levels, to smooth things out. That's why I think the static d20 roll is a good idea.


In general, I think this new mechanic is pretty neat. The one thing I don't like is that there's only a 55% chance to roll 1-10 and get a death strike. Considering you always have a least 3 rounds before you bite it, I would much rather make it 1-15. 3 rounds is long enough imo.

I do like the roll a 20 and get back up with 1/4 hitpoints. I do wonder if 1/4 hitpoints is too many, but the idea of allowing a player to have some excitement even while unconscious is a great idea!!


Finally, I like the death's door mechanic, but I wonder if 1/2 your max in negatives is too much. I mean -60 is a big window!!! From what monster's we've seen it doesn't feel like monsters will be racking up that much damage per round. I wonder if every PC will just be knocked out.

However, that's an easy houserule, making it 1/3 of max hitpoints of 1/4 could fix that easily if it becomes a problem.

I think it's worth noting that already a lot of people have started writing their own house rules regarding this mechanic. Normally I'm a "just wait and see" sort of guy, but I think that in this case, it's a good thing. This is a mechanic that can be customized. If you don't like the death's door rules, you can alter the window, the amount you heal when you roll a 20, the spread of results on the d20, and a few other aspects of the rule, to make it as deadly or as forgiving as you like. Gritty or heroic--lethal or safe. I hope that there are a lot of places that, like these rules, provide switches and dials for house ruling to taste.

 

[Grazzt]

hmmh the death at -10 hp was a houserule in ADnD introduced in some adventrures IIRC... (one of them is Night Below... right here by my side) called hover at deaths door.

Actually, I think it first popped up in the 1e DMG, page 82.