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

[Rechan]

True, but apparently Con scores and total hit points have nothing to do with the chance of outright dying due to the d20 roll. To me, this doesn't make sense. It seems too random.

In 3e, that barbarian and mage were just as likely to die. The 10% stablization roll anyone?

That was truly random.

 

[Wolfspider]

In 3e, that barbarian and mage were just as likely to die. The 10% stablization roll anyone?

Quite true. Neither system is very good in that regard. Stabilization should be based on something other than randomness, whatever version of D&D you are playing.

That was truly random.

What do you mean by "truly" random? Both systems are completely random. D&D 4e is not an improvement at all in this regard.

 

[Wolfspider]

It does make sense. A barbarian has the same chances to recover from a much heavier beating as the mage who nearly died from a scratch.

Your statement here does not make sense within the framework of the abstract hit point system that D&D employs. A barbarian could lose nearly all his hit points and not even have a bruise, much less have suffered a serious beating.

 

[Crosswind]

It seems as if people are neglecting the obvious:

Once the barbarian and the mage are both unconscious, the barbarian -still- has a better chance to survive. He has much more room between where he is now and where he dies than the mage does, assuming they're both equally negative. Thus, he has more opportunities to roll dice.

Thus, a better chance of surviving vs. dying.

 

[Wolfspider]

It seems as if people are neglecting the obvious:

Once the barbarian and the mage are both unconscious, the barbarian -still- has a better chance to survive. He has much more room between where he is now and where he dies than the mage does, assuming they're both equally negative. Thus, he has more opportunities to roll dice.

Thus, a better chance of surviving vs. dying.

How so? This doesn't seem to be how the new rules work now....

 

[Lackhand]

It seems as if people are neglecting the obvious:

Once the barbarian and the mage are both unconscious, the barbarian -still- has a better chance to survive. He has much more room between where he is now and where he dies than the mage does, assuming they're both equally negative. Thus, he has more opportunities to roll dice.

Thus, a better chance of surviving vs. dying.

Buh? In 3.x, they each die at -10, and have a 10% chance to stabilize each round, so no difference between the two there.

In 4e, the barbarian dies at -AReallyBigNumber... but the bleeding out mechanic is completely divorced from hit points. So other than "being chewed on while unconscious" (which, since it still inflicts hp damage, is a rougher deal for the wizard than the barbarian), there's still no difference.

Mind you, I'm okay with this -- the barbarian is able to stay conscious longer; his last few positive hit points are the equivalent of the wizards first few negative hit points, or something. No mechanics wanted for this, for me.

 

[Insight]

At some point, a living being is just the same as any other. Your Con score should have NOTHING to do with the rate of blood loss. If being at negative HP represents being unconscious and starting to bleed out, I don't know that the Barbarian should bleed out any differently than the Wizard. The Barbarian's bigger muscles and life on the frontier have no bearing on the fact that he has a heart that needs to pump and a brain that needs oxygenated blood. Both he and the Wizard are alike in this regard and the state of their physical acumen has little bearing on this issue.

That said, I do like the dying rules at negative HP, but I think stabilization should be the same for everyone.

 

[Generico]

True, but apparently Con scores and total hit points have nothing to do with the chance of outright dying due to the d20 roll. To me, this doesn't make sense. It seems too random.

I felt the same way at first, but after thinking about it for a while, I concluded that A) 3.5 dying rules are also totally random, and B) if you've been knocked unconscious by something, your ability to overcome the pain and keep fighting is no longer a factor. If you took enough wounds to make you pass out, the only factor that should determine whether you wake up or not is how lucky you are. If you got lucky and that last stab missed your heart by an inch, you survive. If you didn't get lucky, and that last stab severed a major artery, you die.

 

[Wolfspider]

I felt the same way at first, but after thinking about it for a while, I concluded that A) 3.5 dying rules are also totally random,

Yeah, the v3.5 dying rules are just as random. Does anyone know of any good house rules or d20 supplements that have addressed this issue?

and B) if you've been knocked unconscious by something, your ability to overcome the pain and keep fighting is no longer a factor.

This is not how I envision death and dying at all.

It seems exceeding strange to me that they would implement such a random rule in 4e, considering that the designers have talked so much about reducing randomness, especially with things like save or die effects.

The new death and dying rules are even more random than save or die!

 

[Plane Sailing]

It does make sense. A barbarian has the same chances to recover from a much heavier beating as the mage who nearly died from a scratch.

but at -1hp both are in the same boat, with an equal chance of dying. Do you think that is what might be expected?

The lower -ve hp threshold suggests that it takes longer for a barbarian to 'bleed out' than the wizard, *but* 'bleeding out' doesn't take current -ve hp condition into account, and is just based on a failing 3 d20 checks.