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

[JohnSnow]

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

[SNIP]

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.

Emphasis Mine.

You're right. That's the crux of the problem. But the notion that hit points are abstract is hardly new. Most of those of us who regard hit points as abstract have been playing the game for decades. And we can support our view of hit points as being "mostly abstract" based on information from the first Edition Dungeon Master's Guide. Gary never believed that hit points represented the character's ability to take actual physical damage. Back then, hit points were mostly abstract, especially at high levels.

The notion of hit points as being anything but abstract is mostly confined to one book in the history of D&D - the Third Edition Epic Level Handbook.

From what I've heard, some people have embraced that notion, but others (myself included) have rejected it entirely. We like and embrace the abstract nature of hit points, which is much more consistent with how they've been portrayed for the bulk of the history of the game. So we see the Fourth Edition approach as being more in tune with the D&D we know. Basically, all they're doing is reconciling the power-based recovery of hit points with the way they're been portrayed in all other aspects of the game.

 

[Pinnacle]

It is possible that the full 4th E rule will use a modified roll of some kind. That would deal with a lot of the things people are complaining about.

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?

In D20 Modern you use a DC 20 Fortitude save instead of the 10% roll. I believe the rules are the same otherwise.

 

[pukunui]

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.

That might be true. Then again, it might not. It's all entirely theoretical. Personally, I'm finding the reports from people who have actually tried out the rules in their games to be much more worthwhile than the posts by people arguing, either for or against the new rules, from a purely theoretical standpoint. And from what I've seen, the people who've tried out the new death & dying rules all love them ... it's certainly sold me on them. Now I just have to see if my group's willing to try out a new rule so close to the end of our 3.5 campaign.

 

[KarinsDad]

Emphasis Mine.

You're right. That's the crux of the problem. But the notion that hit points are abstract is hardly new. Most of those of us who regard hit points as abstract have been playing the game for decades.

I'm not sure we are communicating.

Hit points are an abstraction. I do not disagree with that.

But, a powerful attack is a powerful attack as per my previous example. The fact that hit points are an abstraction does not in any way diminish the fact that an attack that does 100 points of damage is more powerful than an attack that does 50 points of damage.

The problem with the new death and dying rules is that the PC at 0 hit points can take a LOT more damage from additional sources such as fire auras (based on what we know so far) whereas the PC at -50 can hardly take another scratch.

But, the PC at -50 has the same chance of survival as the 0 hit point PC with these rules.

That is where your abstraction POV becomes over the top and an extremeist POV for me. That's carrying the idea of hit point abstraction too far. IMO. It's supporting the new rules, just to support the new rules, regardless of whether those rules really make sense.

I too believe that hit points are abstractions, but in my model, they are abstractions that actually mean something real. They represent something. A combination of luck, intuition, actual damage, etc. But, the PC at 0 hit points still has luck remaining. The PC at -50 has very little luck remaining. A single fire aura will kill him, it will not kill the PC at 0 hit points.

One does not ignore what hit points represent, a scale of current health / luck / intuition, just because WotC put up a new death and dying rule that allows the PC basically on the verge of death to survive and the one barely unconscious to die.

It's difficult to explain such an extremeist view of abstraction to some people. At least it would be difficult for me to explain it to some of my players when I find it a lacking position in the first place.

 

[shilsen]

The title really amused me since we used the new death and dying rules for the first time last session and they barely saved the PCs from the ninja. Three 8th lvl PCs got jumped by three 6th lvl goblin ninjas. One of the PCs got taken below 0, actually managed to roll a 20 and got back up. Another PC dropped below -10 and would have died without the new rules. And havng them roll the d20 after being knocked unconscious was definitely more interesting than just dropping 1 hp per round.

Admittedly it was just the one try, but I really liked the new rules.

 

[AZRogue]

The old dying rule wasn't any better. This one is random too, but with an improvement:

Besides becoming Stable, you have a shot to get back into the fight. This gives some very real hope, and a big rush when it happens, I imagine.

Instead of knowing exactly when you're going to bleed away and die, you now have a chance to die regardless (though it is unlikely). This increases tension.

So, it's not some mega-improvement by any means, but it's nice for what it is. No big deal. It's not more realistic, but the old rules weren't either.

 

[Rechan]

I would add that while my last session did not involve the 4e rules, we had a situation where they would've been useful.

With 4e, you don't pay a "Negative HP Tax" when healing. The second you get healing, it's 0+HP gained.

Our tank, a favored soul, got critted and went from max to -7. He was healed - for 6 points. So it took a second round for him to be brought back into the fight, and had our scout not shot the guy in the back, he was likely going to overrun the druid healing our tank.

Had we been using the 4e rules, he would've popped back up when he was healed and put a sword between the guy's eyes.

 

[KarinsDad]

The old dying rule wasn't any better. This one is random too, but with an improvement:

Besides becoming Stable, you have a shot to get back into the fight. This gives some very real hope, and a big rush when it happens, I imagine.

The odds are 73% death, 0% unconscious but stable, 27% back into the fight.

Instead of knowing exactly when you're going to bleed away and die, you now have a chance to die regardless (though it is unlikely). This increases tension.

You also know when you are not going to bleed away and die. You are not going to bleed away and die in round one or round two.


Another bizarre aspect of it is that a PC at 1 hit point that gets knocked unconscious has a chance to get back up at 25% and being more capable after being unconscious than before. He would have had a 0% chance of jumping to 25% hit points (shy of using a resource) if an opponent hadn't knocked him out.


This is comparable to a conundrum with the 3E AoO rules. An unconscious opponent prone in a square cannot provoke an AoO. A conscious opponent prone in a square can drop his guard and provoke.

It's interesting that the unconscious opponent never drops his guard.

 

[Ipissimus]

Ask a paramedic how arbatrary it is who lives and who dies. Looking at it as a whole, statistically speaking, there's not much connection between physical prowess and the will to live. A young guy in the prime of youth who works out and eats right might pop off where the old guy who smokes, drinks and never did an honest day's work in his life soldiers on.

Now, PCs aren't ordinary people. You have to be a certain blend of crazy and stupid to fight nameless legions of horrors on thier home turf. They wouldn't do the job without driving reasons to do so. In recovery, the old saw is true, ask a doctor whether they'd put their money on the patient who wanted to live or the patient who's already given up. Odds on, they'll bet on the one who never gives up.

So, getting back to the question at hand. A 100hp damage attack is stronger than a 50hp damage attack? Why? If you accept that HP is an abstract concept then you have to accept that damage is just as abstracted. A giant swings a tree-trunk and can shatter fortifications with a single blow while a guy with a rapier and a few good feat/class choices deals the same or more damage. How exactly does one 'turn aside' a blow from a tree trunk? Or does one simply dodge the blow? If the barbarian with Dex 10 'dodges' the tree trunk rather than being crushed, why can't the elf mage with Dex 20 'dodge' the same attack more effectively? Ok, so we have AC for that, but then what does AC represent?

Like the plot of any movie, if you pick apart DnD's mechanics (most of which are pretty abstract) your suspension of disbelief will shatter. Example, remember the first Lord of the Rings movie? The troll fight? Does it really make any sense for Aragorn to survive being bashed in the chest and flung across the room? No, his internal organs should be the consistency of jelly. Do you believe it in the moment? Probably, and if so it is because you wish to believe it.

 

[PeelSeel2]

Blah Blah Blah. That is an opinion.

The new rules add tension, hope, uncertainty, and dice rolls into a moment. All things which gamers love. And it keeps it simple.