New Article: Death and Dying

[Thaumaturge]

Hearing that from a designer sold me completely, I can now wait peacefully for 4E.
Thank you.

Agreed.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Cadfan]

Interesting. Gets the job done. Gives you a lot of rounds to lay on the ground and moan, though- at the point you drop into the negatives, you can expect about 5 rounds before you die.

Of course, it may also be harder for the cleric to go rescue you in a game where multiple enemy combats are the norm. Its easier to disengage from one foe than twelve.

 

[Victim]

I can also see why several of the PCs during the playtests are bouncing from out to upright repeatedly, like a yo-yo.

That seems pretty much like the story of our 3.5 dark elf rogue. For a while, she had so few points - and our favored soul was so good at healing - that she'd be at full, take one round's worth of attacks and get knocked out, then get healed back to up near full (plus temp HP).

 

[A'koss]

Hmmm.... an interesting spin on the fairly common expanded neg. HP solution with the "3 strikes and yer out" caveat. That's not bad...

Another thing that caught my eye is the 15th level fighter with 120 HP. If this is the average and Fighters start with ~30 HP, then he's gaining roughly 6.5 HP/level. I was curious how HPs were handled, I was actually expecting a little bit less than this.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

I like the idea of 1/2 total HP equals the maximum negative HP a player can have. However, it once again delves right back into the old addages of 2nd edition (negative numbers).

Hmm. Still not entirely satisfying, but I'll houserule something similar once 4th edition comes out (unless a better version is introed in the rules).

 

[Darkwolf71]

Since HP are abstract and don't necessarily correspond to actual physical damage, I have no problem with it.

Abstract or not, 25% is a signifigant number.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well, I have to say this is pretty much definately an improvement, for my money.

It's not "WOW!", but it's clearly a system that is simple, fun, quick and still tense. I'm not sure if I like the whole "three strikes and yer out" thing and it bugs me a tiny bit that Regdar on negative 69 HP is going spring up on full healed value HP just like Mialee on -2 HP, and that his saves are just as easy, but hey, it's better than 2E. I'll certainly steal it if I run a 3.5E game before 4E comes out.

I do wonder if, given how LARGE the negative values are, whether you need them at all. I mean, why not just have it so you have a "dying" state when knocked below 1hp, which would be very similar but prevent any fiddling with negative numbers? The article didn't seem to touch on that, other than to say you might get hit for enough to go from low-HP to perma-dead (sure, but it seems unlikely, frankly, and they just explained how that wasn't particularly fun).

 

[Imban]

Hmmm.... an interesting spin on the fairly common expanded neg. HP solution with the "3 strikes and yer out" caveat. That's not bad...

Another thing that caught my eye is the 15th level fighter with 120 HP. If this is the average and Fighters start with ~30 HP, then he's gaining roughly 6.5 HP/level. I was curious how HPs were handled, I was actually expecting a little bit less than this.

That's equivalent to a 15th-level 3e Fighter, without any equipment, with 14 Constitution. (12 HP at 1st level + average 7.5 HP/level for 14 levels = 117 HP)

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Meh.
Hey, this NPC isn't dead! He must be important to the plot!

Agreed. I'm not a fan of rail roading DM'ing by fiat. If an NPC is important to your oh so precious plot, keep them out of combat with the PC's.

 

[Dragonblade]

Abstract or not, 25% is a signifigant number.

Agreed.

I'm ok with it, though. I'm known for being "generous" with HP in my game.

But I like the 4e approach so much that at this point I don't see any need for houseruling. Granted I haven't seen and played the final product yet.