We Used the new death and dying rules and it saved our ninja

[pukunui]

I've heard that potions and scrolls are not in 4E.

Where have you heard that?

 

[ruleslawyer]

But, just taking the current rules as we know them, a few minor tweaks could make it better:

1) If the player of the PC rolls 10-19 3 times, he is stabilized.
2) If the player of the PC rolls a 1, he gains a strike and gets to immediately roll again.
3) If the player rolls a 20, he goes to 1 hit point (note: I understand some people like the go to 25%, I just find it annoying that a PC can self heal when unconscious, personal dislike).

The only "issue" that this does not resolve (at least for me) is the PC at 0 hits is in the same boat as the PC at -50. This could be resolved by changing #2 to on a 1-9, subtract that number from current hit points. But, I could see why that would bug some people.

Personally, I think someone could come up with rules unlike any of these that are even better.

That's not a bad set of tweaks, actually. Thank you.

 

[FireLance]

The only "issue" that this does not resolve (at least for me) is the PC at 0 hits is in the same boat as the PC at -50. This could be resolved by changing #2 to on a 1-9, subtract that number from current hit points. But, I could see why that would bug some people.

That does go some way towards solving the problem, but it could be too dangerous for low-level characters and not dangerous enough for high-level characters. A better approach may be for characters who are below half of their negative hit point threshold (minus one quarter of their full normal hp) to start with one strike against them and die after only two more failed rolls.

 

[KarinsDad]

That does go some way towards solving the problem, but it could be too dangerous for low-level characters and not dangerous enough for high-level characters. A better approach may be for characters who are below half of their negative hit point threshold (minus one quarter of their full normal hp) to start with one strike against them and die after only two more failed rolls.

That's a nice solution too. I prefer it to what I wrote.

 

[Kesh]

This is only true if one buys into the fact that 4E hit points are more abstraction and less meaningful.

… which is exactly what the designers have said they wanted. If you don't want to play with HPs as abstract, that's your call. But the system is working as intended.

 

[Mephistopheles]

The only "issue" that this does not resolve (at least for me) is the PC at 0 hits is in the same boat as the PC at -50. This could be resolved by changing #2 to on a 1-9, subtract that number from current hit points. But, I could see why that would bug some people.

Some tweaks to your tweaks based on my own version of 4E death and dying I've been working on for 3E (I like the potential for heroic recoveries but find the system as presented by WotC so far somewhat erratic).

On a 1-9 the character takes damage equal to half his level rounded up.

On a 20 the character recovers on 1 hit point with the following alternatives for 25% recovery:
i) The character must pass a Fort save with the DC equal to the negative hit point total the character had accumulated before rolling the natural 20.
ii) Or, more in line with the 4E system as presented, the character makes another roll and on a 10-19 recovers 25% of his maximum hit points if the negative hit points accumulated did not exceed one-quarter of his maximum hit points.

 

[Fifth Element]

In our game, this situation goes;

Player: "What are you at, Bob?"
DM: "You do not get to know that. What are you doing?"

"Sir! Playing a game, sir!"

That may be the situation in your game, just realize that it's not the situation in all games. Probably not even the majority.

 

[PoeticJustice]

Never Mind.

 

[AllisterH]

For myself, the Death and Dying rules from Unearthed Acana is a better option. Die Hard, Action Points, and Second Wind could work as follows:

Actually, I always thought that was an example of bad game design. Basically, that rule is similar to the "10% exp bonus for prime requisite score" from 1E/2E as it basically rewards a player TWICE.

You already get a bonus for having a high HP thanks to CON but then you're getting ANOTHER bonus thanks to CON. This is part of the problem with why CON was considered the 2nd best stat after your prime stat in 3.x.

 

[KarinsDad]

"Sir! Playing a game, sir!"

That may be the situation in your game, just realize that it's not the situation in all games. Probably not even the majority.

And you came up with your statistics how?

I know of several DMs that attempt to minimize table talk for knowledge that the PCs do not have.

In fact, there is a term for it. Metagaming. Look it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming_(role-playing_games)

Note the sentence:

Traditionally, metagaming is generally frowned upon in role-playing communities, as it upsets the suspension of disbelief and affects game balance.