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

[Rechan]

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

Yes, that's what I expect.

The barbarian had a bigger amount of HP to GET to -1hp. Doesn't that count for Something? But when they're bleeding out, meat is meat. There's not much training or physical fitness you can have to make you "die slower".

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.

No, the -ve Hp threshold suggests that when an Ogre hits a Barbarian with a tree, knocking him unconscious and sailing, the Barbarian's body is tough enough to not be crushed when the ogre hits him with the tree.

Meanwhile, the wizard, with his tiny ass negative threshold, is turned into a red mist.

 

[Deverash]

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?

Our group implemented a house rule that you died at -Con and to stabalize you had to roll a fort save at DC 18. Gives the same chance at first level for the wizard to stabalize, and gives the fighter-types a much better chance to not bleed out. Worked for us. I just recently switched my group to the 4e version, and ever seemed to be pretty happy with it.

 

[Generico]

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!

Consider this:

A scrawny 10 year old girl gets attacked by a bear. The bear takes 1 good swing and knocks her out. Now, Mike Tyson comes along and picks a fight with the bear. Mike is obviously a lot tougher than a 10 year old girl (don't let his voice fool you ), and a better fighter. He stands up to several attacks from the bear, dodging some, turning some into glancing blows, and just toughing out a couple more. Finally, the bear bites him on the neck and he goes down.

The little girl and Mike Tyson are now both at negative HP. Why should Mike Tyson be more likely to wake up after being bitten in the neck and taking several blows from the bear, when the little girl suffered only one attack? The fact that Mike Tyson is a boxer doesn't matter after he's unconscious. His superior strength, pain tolerance, and fighting skill are no longer a factor. In reality, Mike is more likely to die because he suffered more attacks from the bear.

 

[KarinsDad]

I won't go into all of the reasons I do not like the 4E death and dying rules (I did that in other threads), but one thing I find weird is that the PC at -1 has the same chances of death and survival as the PC at -50.

It's a bit strange that just due to die rolls, the guy at -50 and 1 point away from actual death (with 102 hit points) who could not survive one round of the Pit Fiend's Fire Aura can suddenly be at 25% (i.e. wake up and not be bleeding) whereas another PC with the same total hit points at -1, 50 points away from actual death who could sit in the Pit Fiend's Fire Aura for 9 more rounds could die (i.e. bleed to death) in 3 rounds.

That is so bizarre and non-intuitive.

Quite frankly, WotC appears to adding quite a few inferior rules, just for the sake of simplicity when there are other rules just as simple that they could use, but do not have nearly as many issues with them. IMO.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Quite frankly, WotC appears to adding quite a few inferior rules, just for the sake of simplicity when there are other rules just as simple that they could use, but do not have nearly as many issues with them. IMO.

I could ask you to present a better rule, and you might come up with something interesting, but: There are countless of variations, and each have their drawbacks and advantages.

If you factor Constitution into the recovery chance, you make Constitution too important, and punish those harshly with a low constitution - who now have a shorter buffer and have less chance to recover from it in th first place, while rewarding those that have a high Con again by giving them enough hp so that dropping to 0 is less likely for them, increasing the likelyhood of them recovering, and giving them more time to do so.

It's important to distinguish between the two features of the dying rules:
The negative hit points are not there to "track" how close to dead you are. They exist only as a buffer to avoid the "instant death" risk of higher level combat. There is a good chance that if your enemy can deal 20-30 points of damage per round to a character, that one of his blows will not just drop you, but outright kill you. The negative hitpoint buffer ensures that this happens rarely.

The recovery or death chances are the ones that describe how close a dying character is to death. Each failed roll brings you one step closer to death...

 

[Fifth Element]

Meanwhile, the wizard, with his tiny ass negative threshold, is turned into a red mist.

Precisely. Remember that there are two ways to die: rolling 3 bad results on the d20, or reaching your negative hp threshold. A mage will reach that much quicker. The mage is still far more likely to go from 2 hp to dead in a single blow.

Also, when the barbarian rolls 20 and recovers, he regains a lot more hp than the mage does.

 

[Fifth Element]

We tried out the new rules tonight. We had one character death (who would have died under the old rules anyway), and we had plenty of chances to use the rules, with character going negative 7 or 8 times (it was a pretty rough night). We had one natural 20 for a recovery, which everyone found very exciting. Probably saved the party's skin in the end. All in all, I quite like the rules.

 

[JohnSnow]

It's a bit strange that just due to die rolls, the guy at -50 and 1 point away from actual death (with 102 hit points) who could not survive one round of the Pit Fiend's Fire Aura can suddenly be at 25% (i.e. wake up and not be bleeding) whereas another PC with the same total hit points at -1, 50 points away from actual death who could sit in the Pit Fiend's Fire Aura for 9 more rounds could die (i.e. bleed to death) in 3 rounds.

That is so bizarre and non-intuitive.

It's only bizarre and non-intuitive if you don't buy the general theory about hit points. Once you understand how hit points work, it's a whole lot easier to work it out intuitively. Obviously, if you're of the mindset that hit points represent actual physical damage, it's bizarre and non-intuitive.

On the other hand, if you accept that hit points instead represent the capability of a heroic individual to survive and recover from attacks that would kill a "normal" person, things make a lot more sense.

In the case of the character with massive negative damage (your -50 hp guy who rolls a 20), consider this. George is fighting a giant and after a bunch of grazing blows, he gets hit by its club. There's a sickening smack and he flies across the room, bounces against the wall and slumps to the ground. Clearly, he's out.

Or is he? Since he's a hero, that might have been a killing strike, or he might just be wounded and temporarily winded. He's not unhurt. He just might not be in danger of dying.

The trick is, we don't know which until the results are in. If enough time passes that he bleeds out from his injuries, or he fails badly 3 times before he gets aid, then the answer was the first. On the other hand, if he rolls that 20, it looked worse than it seemed, and like a hero in an action movie, he recovers enough to kick ass once more.

Some people have a problem with this. But it's not bizarre if you accept that hit points are basically an abstraction that primarily exists for story purposes.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's important to distinguish between the two features of the dying rules:
The negative hit points are not there to "track" how close to dead you are. They exist only as a buffer to avoid the "instant death" risk of higher level combat.

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

Take two PCs with the same hit points.

At full hit points, one gets hit with a single attack that takes him to 0.

At full hit points, the other gets hit with a single attack that takes him to -50.

If the first attack was just a hair weaker, the first PC would not be unconscious. If it were a LOT stronger, it could not kill the PC.

If the second attack was a LOT weaker, the second PC would still be unconscious. If it were a hair stronger, it would kill the PC.

There is obviously a difference in power and deadliness between the two attacks.

But with the 4E rules, this fact is ignored once PCs become unconscious. At that point, both PCs have same chances for death or survival even though one was slammed nearly into death and the other was barely knocked unconscious. The fact that an attack is strong or weak or how far negative it took a PC is irrelevant to these rules.

This concept of video gamey abstraction makes for unbelievability and inferior rules for some people, myself included.


It's possible that the only reason some people support the new death and dying rules is that WotC published them. If WotC would have published better (or worse) death and dying rules, these same people might be supporting the alternative rules just as vigorously.

But, just because WotC publishes something does not make it a good rule. In this case, far from it.

 

[KarinsDad]

...

Some people have a problem with this. But it's not bizarre if you accept that hit points are basically an abstraction that primarily exists for story purposes.

This type of explanation is a self fulfilling prophecy.

"The rules are ok because that is what the rules say."

It doesn't make the rules more logical or balanced or believable, it merely states that the rules are ok because they are the rules.

From a rules perspective, there are indeed good and bad rules. Regardless of people trying to support any rule that comes along with their own spin of rationality.

From a story perspective, any rule will do. Nobody dies rules. Nobody goes unconscious rule. PCs always win rule. The story rules!


But, a massive attack that does not kill should be harder to instantly recover from than a minor attack that barely knocks one unconscious. IMO. YMMV and obvious does.