PC at -8 HP. What does "stabilizing" actually look like?

[reveal]

Let me explain my cryptic title.

Last session a PC dropped to -8 HP. The cleric tried to make her way to the PC but couldn't. The next round the player rolled and stabilized. The cleric player, on her turn, had a good question. "Can I tell if he's stable?"

So can she? What does that look like? The PC is dying and the cleric is trying to stop him from bleeding to death, internally or externally. The cleric gets close and the dying PC successfully stabilizes. Can the cleric tell this? Or does the cleric still think the PC in question is still slowly dying?

 

[kenobi65]

If I were the DM in this situation, I'd have the cleric make a Heal skill check (DC20 or so) to make this quick bit of triage assessment. A successful check, and the cleric realizes that the fallen character has self-stabilized. An unsuccessful check, and the cleric just isn't sure. The reason I'd set the DC fairly high (maybe even higher than 20) is that the cleric is trying to make a extremely quick call.

I'd have to think about whether this'd be a free action or not -- I wouldn't want to make it as much as a standard action, because if the Heal check revealed that the "down" character was dying (or, if the cleric failed the Heal check), I'd want the cleric to still be able to treat that character in that round. So, I'd probably make the initial Heal check a move-equivalent action.

Just my 2 copper pieces' worth, of course.

 

[Philip]

I think it would be pretty noticable, even to the untrained eye. Dying means going from -1 to -10 in under 1 minute.

I envision this pretty much as blood gushing out, hart not beating, body convulsing etc. Once you stabilize, the huge blood loss is stopped, your heart starts beating again etc.

Stabilizing someone is what they attempt to do in the ER. The patient might still die later, but he is not dying within the next few minutes or so.

 

[AuraSeer]

This clearly calls for a Heal check. I'd put it at DC 10, since checking whether he needs first aid should be a lot easier than actually doing the first aid. Time required would be a judgement call; I'd probably say a move-equivalent action.

That's if the cleric is adjacent to the downed character. If he's outside touch range, I'd give a -10 penalty to the check, because he can't do necessary things like take a pulse. (That's another judgement call, not a rule.) If he's more distant than that I'd apply an additonal -1 per 10', just like on a Spot check, because of the difficulty in seeing small details.

 

[shilsen]

IMC, stabilizing people twitch. Nobody knows why. It's a gift

 

[0-hr]

There isn't anything conrete in the rules about it - so its up to the GM. Personally, I'd allow it for free. Bleeding, unconcious, and dead can look different so when it counts why not assume that they do? (unless, of course it makes a better story for it to be obscure )

 

[atom crash]

If I were the DM in this situation, I'd have the cleric make a Heal skill check (DC20 or so) to make this quick bit of triage assessment. A successful check, and the cleric realizes that the fallen character has self-stabilized. An unsuccessful check, and the cleric just isn't sure. The reason I'd set the DC fairly high (maybe even higher than 20) is that the cleric is trying to make a extremely quick call.

So you'd set the DC to find out if you still need to help the dying character much higher than the actual skill check needed to help the dying character (Heal check DC 15 to stabilize a dying character)? Interesting.

This clearly calls for a Heal check. I'd put it at DC 10, since checking whether he needs first aid should be a lot easier than actually doing the first aid. Time required would be a judgement call; I'd probably say a move-equivalent action.

This sounds more reasonable. I'd probably be inclined to make it a Spot check DC 10, with a +2 Heal synergy bonus, so it would be modified by distance from the target.

Though I agree more with shilsen and Philip. IMC this is a gimme -- no sense in making the PCs jump through more hoops just to help out a fallen comrade. Whether from the fact that blood is no longer gushing out of that nasty wound or the downed PC just started twitching, the cleric would just know that the character has stabilized. Why? That's what they do. They just know.

If it makes you better, simply roll a d20 behind your screen, look at the result, then -- regardless of the die roll -- tell the player, "Yeah, you can tell he's stabilized."

 

[kenobi65]

So you'd set the DC to find out if you still need to help the dying character much higher than the actual skill check needed to help the dying character (Heal check DC 15 to stabilize a dying character)? Interesting.

Well, maybe, but here's why. I was (perhaps incorrectly) interpreting the initial question as the cleric trying to tell, at a glance, if the down character was stable (with the implied follow-up: "If he's not stable, I cast a cure spell on him / treat him with the Heal skill. If he is stable, I do something else.")

Keep in mind that using the Heal skill is usually at least a standard action. If the cleric was willing to spend a standard action to use Heal to assess whether the other character was stable, I probably wouldn't even make him make a roll. BUT. If the cleric did that, and the down character *wasn't* stable, then the cleric has blown his opportunity to actually stabilize the down character that round, because all he has left is a move action!

In short -- assessing, with a moment's glance, if an injured character is dying or not, *should* take some skill / effort, IMO. I don't want to penalize someone who's trying to help a downed party member...but, in this case, it sounds to me like the cleric's player is trying to have his cake and eat it too, at least a little bit.

If the cleric's sole motiviation in the round is to heal his comrade, I wouldn't make him make a roll. (And, honestly, if that's the cleric's sole motivation, why is he even bothering trying to assess if the other character is stable? Just cast a Cure spell on him -- stable or not, he's *still* at -8!) If the cleric's trying to prioritize between two injured party members, I probably woudn't make him make a roll, either. But, if the cleric's trying to assess whether he helps a comrade who is clearly critically hurt, and may or may not be about to die, or go attack the bad guy, I *am* going to make him make a roll. That one's probably not going to be a freebie.

If it makes you better, simply roll a d20 behind your screen, look at the result, then -- regardless of the die roll -- tell the player, "Yeah, you can tell he's stabilized."

Chuckle. Honestly, depending on the situation, I might do the same. I view my job as the DM to be to make the players *think* I'm about to kill their PCs, without really killing anyone.

 

[kenobi65]

Whether from the fact that blood is no longer gushing out of that nasty wound or the downed PC just started twitching, the cleric would just know that the character has stabilized. Why? That's what they do. They just know.

If one uses "blood no longer gushing out of that nasty wound" as an indicator of stabilization, then the states of "stabilized" and "dead" look rather similar, at first glance.

 

[atom crash]

If one uses "blood no longer gushing out of that nasty wound" as an indicator of stabilization, then the states of "stabilized" and "dead" look rather similar, at first glance.

That's very true. And in either case, the cleric doesn't have to worry about stabilizing that character.