D&D 5E New Death and Dying Rules

[Sunseeker]

I was wrong; damage when dying counts as one death save failure. Is it too lethal? I dunno, I think a character loses their right to complain about lethality when they're alive at 0 hp.

I think that depends on how we frame 0 HP. Is 0 HP death? Or is HP "living" health, wherein 0 is unconsciousness? This was one reason I loved "bloodied", because D&D has never really had granularity in health, you were either alive, or dead/unconscious.

 

[kitsune9]

I can see making it CON + level. Adding in a small amount of scaling but mostly making it about meat. One other thing I can see too is Size. A gargantuan dragon has a lot of meat so should be able to go a lot lower than a pixie.

I think this echoes closer to my sentiments.

 

[kitsune9]

I'm probably the minority in this discussion, but here goes.

I like the mechanics of death and dying; however, I would prefer that the Con saving throw be difficult. You have three rounds at 0 hp in which to save of which you have at least a 5% chance of automatically saving and getting 1 hp. I would set the DC at 20 so that pretty much the hardiest fighters (or those who valued Con) get the best chances of surviving (even though those chances are not good) while the others can hope their comrades can get to them in time.

I'm also a big fan of the death spiral. If you're seriously wounded at some threshold (half hp, 25% hp left, or 10% hp left, etc.), then you're taking on penalties to stay conscious while fighting. While fighting is the key. Though to ease book keeping, I would only prefer there be one threshold.

Secondly, dying and coming back from the dead should be a major ordeal. If you die and you're brought back, you lose something more than just getting -4 penalty to rolls until you take long rests to eventually remove them. I'm more in favor of losing levels, particularly if the cost to getting your butt raised is only 500 gp.

I wouldn't want my suggestions to be part of main ruleset, because I know that a lot of players play D&D to play epic heroes and as such dying along the way is not really all that fun; however, for tournament play or gritty games, I'm a big fan where the more stakes on the table makes for a more tense and nerve-wrecking game which is really awesome.

 

[N'raac]

I wouldn't want my suggestions to be part of main ruleset, because I know that a lot of players play D&D to play epic heroes and as such dying along the way is not really all that fun; however, for tournament play or gritty games, I'm a big fan where the more stakes on the table makes for a more tense and nerve-wrecking game which is really awesome.

Extrapolating from this, the "main rules" need a default to which all the dials are set, whether that default is epic heroes, and dying along the way will be unlikely, or a grim & gritty game where death is a much more likely occurence. Given the main rules are likely to also be the tournament play rules, this also implies a decision on the default setting for tournament play. If the "main rules" are a random combination of high powered epic play and grim & gritty low magic settings, they seem unlikely to be satisfactory to anyone.

 

[Aloïsius]

I want agony rules. Insta-death (aka "your life expentancy once you are unconscious is lower than 1 minutes) breaks my suspension of disbelief. I want the PC to have to drag their wounded fellow to the town's healer, not knowing if they will reach him before their friend dies. Being wounded so seriously that your life is in danger should not be some on/off switch that change round by round. And having a buddy reach 0 HP should mean "time to retreat !".

And, above all, I want my NPC to be able to tell the PC "the killer is arghhhhhh" without the PC insta-healing him with a finger snap.

 

[kitsune9]

I want agony rules.

And, above all, I want my NPC to be able to tell the PC "the killer is arghhhhhh" without the PC insta-healing him with a finger snap.

That would be awesome. I would play a game that had that. Unfortunately, adding a layer of complexity though tends to more trouble than it's worth for most players.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Wow... I would never have guessed that so many people had issues with negative hit points. I've literally never heard it suggested that they were a problem before, yet it seems to be the near-unanimous opinion in this thread that they're horrible and getting rid of them is a positive or even necessary change. Personally, I have never seen anything that would make me think the concept (as opposed to some of the forms its implementation has taken) is inherently problematic. Dare I ask what people find so terrible about them?

The problem with negative hit points is that they are negative numbers. For people uncomfortable with math, that's a huge pain.

Even without that, it seems inelegant. Having to drop to some number less than 0 to die seems weird. Why not just dead at zero, and unconscious when you drop belong your con score? It's the same thing, has no negative numbers, and feels like hit point represent a more full range of health.

 

[jeffh]

The problem with negative hit points is that they are negative numbers. For people uncomfortable with math, that's a huge pain.

Even without that, it seems inelegant. Having to drop to some number less than 0 to die seems weird. Why not just dead at zero, and unconscious when you drop belong your con score? It's the same thing, has no negative numbers, and feels like hit point represent a more full range of health.

Well, for one thing, because then you're moving the pivot-point that actually matters, i.e. the point where you're out of the fight, to some semi-arbitrary non-zero number that isn't even consistent from character to character. For the math-averse, if they're anything like the less mathematically inclined players I've had, that's bound to be even more confusing. Even for those with stronger math skills, it makes it harder than necessary to estimate how much damage you can take and still be in the fight. (Not hard per se, but harder than it needs to be.)

Short version: If the problem is that negative hit points are inelegant and unintuitive (which I don't agree with in the first place), your "solution" looks to me like it would make the problem worse, not better.

I don't deny that some people find negative numbers inherently unintuitive, though I've never had that issue myself, I'm just saying your suggestion sounds like a cure worse than the disease, for the people who have the problem in the first place.

 

[darjr]

for me it's one of those things I didn't really consider a problem until a better answer came along. I'm not completely happy with the current rules, they do seem a bit fiddly, but much less so than before.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Short version: If the problem is that negative hit points are inelegant and unintuitive (which I don't agree with in the first place), your "solution" looks to me like it would make the problem worse, not better.

Perhaps. No more than the bloodied condition. Personally, I never considered when I fall unconscious to be the point that matters, at least when compared to the point where I die. But I don't really play the tactical game much.

Were I designing hit points, you would have hit points equal to your Con Score + hit dice. You wouldn't get your con bonus each level. When you dropped below your Con Score, you are staggered. If you choose to take an action, you roll a Constitution check to stay conscious. I'm not sure if I'd have characters bleed out or make death saves.

It's basically Vitality and Wound points, just with a different wrapper.