New tidbit about spells and hit points.

I really like the sound of bloodied. Looks like, it gets rid of the fine... fine... fine... dead thing without introducing a death spiral, and inserts a break point into combat where everyone has to shift tactics and take a new approach. Thumbs up.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I do like the idea of a bloodied condition that makes you fight harder when your back is up against the wall. If it mitigates the death spiral, I could really get behind it. I love the idea of a unified condition track, it's just the tied to hit points part that I don't enjoy.

If there were a sidebar that explained how to untie conditions and hit points, that'd rock. Built-in customization options are the bomb. I'm not a simulationist (I just wanna have fun!), but I'll not begrudge them their jollies.
-blarg
 

Very interesting to the Half-HP condition change apply to PCs, though I'm not so keen on the term "Bloodied" as that doesn't necessarily have to be the case (poisoned, drained, etc.). A more generic "Wounded" might be better. It also sounds like they might not be completely getting away from Save or Lose/Die spells though it may still be up in the air.

And does this mean that Saving Throws are still in, rather than a Saga-like target number?
 

Jeph said:
I really like the sound of bloodied. Looks like, it gets rid of the fine... fine... fine... dead thing without introducing a death spiral, and inserts a break point into combat where everyone has to shift tactics and take a new approach. Thumbs up.
Imagine possibilities for monster design.

Crimson ooze: when reduced to half hit points it splits into 6 lesser oozes.

Magma Golem: when reduced to half HP, lava begins to flow through the cracks in golem's ceramic skin.
 


Gargoyle said:
Death at -10 has always annoyed me. When they got rid of negative AC, they should have gotten rid of negative HP. Give player characters 10 bonus HP and make them go unconscious at 10 hp and die at zero.

Nah, I don't like that. As far as Okay/Not Okay thresholds go, 0 is pretty much the best and most obvious value.

That said, I think dead at -10 is a bad idea, too.

Here's what I would have done: when a character reaches 0 hit points, he must immediately make a Fort save (DC 10 + damage done in that last attack) or die. If he succeeds, he remains at 0 hit points and is incapacitated. Thereafter, the character must periodically make Fort saves to remain alive. Any further damage suffered by the character requires a new save (but leaves the character at 0 hit points). A coup de grace is automatic death.

This would get rid of the problem that -10 is basically a trivial buffer at high level. It would mean that a character who is dropped to the equivalent of -9 might not bleed out before the Cleric has any chance to get to him. Conversely, it also means that the Cleric can't just leave a colleague who dropped to -1 for a few rounds because he has more pressing matters to attend to - his friend might die at any time.
 


sfgiants said:
Seems like another thing a DM has to keep track of...

I agree with you if the number of different triggers is too high and you can't memorize them easily. On the other hand, if many abilities trigger or can be used when at half hit points or lower, any DM or player will be used to look for them after the first session.
 

Pity. I don't like condition tracks. Hit points are a lot simpler. And I've got no real problem with save-or-die, it's how the system handles death that's much more of an issue, coupled with how easy it is to create a new character.

These things are all connected, mind. Perhaps fewer save-or-die could be coupled with fewer deaths from other sources (such as by increasing the -ve hit points value), so PCs deaths are less frequent. Thus PC creation could be made more complex by adding options.
 


Remove ads

Top