New Article: Death and Dying

kennew142 said:
When you're (or in this case I) wrong, you're wrong. I could have sworn that the rule about -10 hp had come from a Dragon article, but it is there in black letter on page 82 of the DMG.

I don't think that I, or anyone I knew, ever used the rules about long term incapacity.
My group did. And there was a 3rd level Cleric spell in UA (Death's Door) that alleviated that incapacity - very popular with my group's clerics.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

JohnSnow said:
The tradition (and, IMO, wholly unsatisfactory) explanation is that the spell is also restoring some of the fighter's "heroic luck," or "divine protection." So, since the 20th-level fighter is more infused with that than the 2nd-level fighter, it takes a mightier spell to fully restore him.

The real (gamist) reason is that, with spell slots, allowing an inconsequential resource like a 1st-level spell to heal 40 hp wreaks havoc with game balance. So they came up with the above (ridiculous) justification.

With spell slots being gone, I think Fourth Edition will dispatch this incongruence with a "bullet in the head."
Yes, I understand this. It's something we've put up with because of the Vancian spell system, but hopefully it's being chucked in favour of a more level-independent healing system.
 


Also, IIRC, didn't Aragorn have a nap in the middle of the fight with the cave-troll (in the film), and then bounce up after a few Zs and get back into the action?
 


Just Another User said:
yes, "and almost the double on a crit",so you think they've have already forgot how their new crits work? not exactly encouraging, at least for DDI articles quality.

If you roll, say, 1d12 for damage, you average 6.5.

If you crit in 4E, you do automatic max damage. Max damage on 1d12 is 12.

12 is "almost double" 6.5.
 

Dausuul said:
If you roll, say, 1d12 for damage, you average 6.5.

If you crit in 4E, you do automatic max damage. Max damage on 1d12 is 12.

12 is "almost double" 6.5.

For any amount of dice, yeah, maximum is going to be "about" double the average, getting closer as the dice type gets bigger. This isn't true of static plusses, however, and our Pit Fiend statblock shows this: 1d6+11 damage averages 14.5 and caps at 17, an approximately 17.2% gain in damage.
 

Imban said:
For any amount of dice, yeah, maximum is going to be "about" double the average, getting closer as the dice type gets bigger. This isn't true of static plusses, however, and our Pit Fiend statblock shows this: 1d6+11 damage averages 14.5 and caps at 17, an approximately 17.2% gain in damage.

True, but we aren't talking about the pit fiend. We're talking about an unspecified 15th-level "brute" monster:

At 15th level, that fighter might face a tough brute capable of dishing out 25 or 30 points of damage with its best attack… or nearly twice that on a crit.

So the monster might be more dice than static bonuses (though that seems unlikely given current trends), or it might have a special ability that boosts its crit damage. My point is that "nearly twice that on a crit" does not have to mean the monster is using the 3.5E double-damage rule.
 

delericho said:
1) Death at negative half hit points. Better, IMO, to have death at negative full hit points, rule that any attack on a dying character is an automatic critical hit, and double the bleeding damage per round.
I say negative half HP is way too many. These are humaniod bodies, heroicly avoiding attacks and rolling with the punches went bye bye at 0 HP. I'll agree any hit should be an autocrit.
delericho said:
2) Monsters are dead at 0 hit points, unless they've been predetermined as being important to "the plot". So, I guess PCs now can't nurse one of those goblins back to positive hit points in order to pump him for information, then?
Quite fair, if those gobbos were alive and dying, every round 5% would be getting back up with 1/4 HP.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top