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

[KarinsDad]

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.

No, I do not.

50 points of damage damages the wall of the building.

100 points of damage blows the wall away.

Sorry, your POV makes no conceptual sense. The PC with 60 hit points gets clipped hard by the 50 point attack, but gets killed by the 100 point one. The abstraction is still there. But the larger attack is still larger.

 

[FireLance]

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 peculiarity might simply be because there is no second wind mechanic in 3e. In 4e, a 20 might only stabilize the character (no further rolls necessary), and hp recovery is only possible if he uses his second wind.

 

[Lackhand]

This peculiarity might simply be because there is no second wind mechanic in 3e. In 4e, a 20 might only stabilize the character (no further rolls necessary), and hp recovery is only possible if he uses his second wind.

I used a modified form of the new death mechanic -- exploding 1s, because I'm a bastard, and 20s send you to 1 hp, not 1/4 your hp, and 3 11-19s in a row is an auto-stabilize at 0.
I used it twice last session. No longer needing to pay the negative hp debt was nice, and I say that as the DM who was cheated out of two rightful character deaths.

The players who were knocked out seemed to enjoy it more than they usually do when I try to kill their characters
So, I'm a mostly-believer; I think the 3.x presentation of them seems overpowered, but I'll probably use them without houserules in 4e.
Or possibly retain the 3-successful-rolls-in-a-row-is-a-stabilize aspect, since it's a boost in the PC's corner, and PC's need all the help they can get, sometimes.

 

[Rechan]

This peculiarity might simply be because there is no second wind mechanic in 3e. In 4e, a 20 might only stabilize the character (no further rolls necessary), and hp recovery is only possible if he uses his second wind.

I didn't read in the article that the second wind was the only way to get back up to 1/4 HP once the 20 is rolled.

 

[Lackhand]

I didn't read in the article that the second wind was the only way to get back up to 1/4 HP once the 20 is rolled.

Yeah, but it's not a bad assumption, is it? I mean, if it looks like a Second Wind and it quacks like a Second Wind, it's not a terrible idea to assume it is a second wind, even if we're not sure just what a second wind quacks like

Or, said another way: I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. But rolling a twenty and getting back a quarter of your hit points certainly looks like "on a twenty, you may immediately spend a second wind", which we know are in 4e because dwarves are good at them.

 

[FireLance]

So, I'm a mostly-believer; I think the 3.x presentation of them seems overpowered, but I'll probably use them without houserules in 4e.
Or possibly retain the 3-successful-rolls-in-a-row-is-a-stabilize aspect, since it's a boost in the PC's corner, and PC's need all the help they can get, sometimes.

Assuming that a natural 20 in 4e only stabilizes and hp recovery is possible only if you use a second wind, the only other house-rule I might have (if it is not in the 4e rule) is to retain hp loss from bleeding, in order to distinguish being at -50 hp and 0 hp. It should be something along the lines of lose 5% of your full normal hit points (minimum 1) unless you roll a 20, so that someone who starts out at 0 hp and keeps rolling 10-19 will still die in 10 rounds (or so).

 

[FireLance]

I didn't read in the article that the second wind was the only way to get back up to 1/4 HP once the 20 is rolled.

It doesn't. It's a guess, and it's based on the following:

1. The 3e translation of the 4e mechanic has no middle ground between all-the-way dead and alive and fighting apart from being stabilized after a Heal check. I'm guessing the actual 4e rule will allow for such a middling outcome, even if it only takes place after the character is out of second winds.

2. As previously pointed out, it leads to the odd outcome that a character at negative hp may become better off than a character with 1 hp. Tying hp recovery on a natural 20 to second wind attempts removes that.

3. Recovery of one-quarter of hit points looks mechanically similar to second wind, but 3e has no rules for second wind. It thus seems to be a translation of the second wind mechanic into 3e.

 

[Ipissimus]

Sorry, your POV makes no conceptual sense. The PC with 60 hit points gets clipped hard by the 50 point attack, but gets killed by the 100 point one. The abstraction is still there. But the larger attack is still larger.

You ignored the rest of the point. You contend that 50 points of damage is stronger than 100 points of damage but fail to realize that because the system is abstract, that might not necessarily be true in the same way that someone with 100hp might not be 'tougher' than someone with 50hp.

For example, take a high-Con Barbarian and a low-con Wizard. Now imagine that someone takes a dagger and slits their throats. They both die. It didn't matter what the Barbarian's hp were so high or that the dagger only deals 1d4 damage, he's just as dead as the Wizard. This is why we have rules for Coup de Grace, because it makes no sense for the Barbarian to survive that wound.

Consider different sources of damage. A Rogue with a dagger sneak attacks, a giant bashes in your head with a tree trunk or a Wizard unleashes a bolt of lightning. Which one is 'stronger'? Technically, all three of them should kill you, it doesn't matter if you're stabbed through the eye, bashed to a bloody pulp or fried from the inside out. Why ANY PC survives these attacks isn't about how tough they are: as the PHB states, Hit Points are about the ability to turn aside, avoid or minimize the effects of a blow in order to keep fighting.

What is the difference between a 50hp sneak attack and a 100hp sneak attack? You got stabbed in a less vital organ? He meant to hit your skull but only managed to plunge a dagger into your chest? Neither. The difference is that the Barbarian saw the 100hp attack coming and knew to shift slightly to take the blade in the shoulder unlike the wizard who hasn't trained in the martial arts and doesn't know the trick and thus got stabbed through the heart (or close to it).

The 50hp sneak attack does less damage, not because the assassin's dagger is somehow smaller than other daggers, but because of the wildly variable situation of combat (which is, incidentilly, why these rolls are random). The Barbarian saw the attack coming sooner and was able to twist out of the way, perhaps pulling a tendon in his leg but not taking the dagger in the shoulder. The Wizard saw the blow coming sooner but still how no idea about how NOT to become a shish-kebab, so he gets skewered.

The attacks aren't 'stronger' or 'weaker', a blade is a blade and a lightning bolt is a lightning bolt. What damage and hit points represent, respectively, is the character's skill in killing and living. The higher the damage you inflict, the harder it is for someone to turn the blow aside, the more skillfully you have made your attack. The higher your hit points, the greater your ability to avoid blows that should, by all rights, end your life.

 

[pukunui]

1. The 3e translation of the 4e mechanic has no middle ground between all-the-way dead and alive and fighting apart from being stabilized after a Heal check. I'm guessing the actual 4e rule will allow for such a middling outcome, even if it only takes place after the character is out of second winds.

I'm confused. Why do people keep saying there's no middle ground? I thought if you rolled a 10-19 that you had no change in your status (eg. "unconscious and dying")?

2. As previously pointed out, it leads to the odd outcome that a character at negative hp may become better off than a character with 1 hp. Tying hp recovery on a natural 20 to second wind attempts removes that.

Some people have suggested that the hp recovery on a natural 20 in 4e may only be viable if you've got a use of your second wind left. Other people have pointed out that this gives a dying person with negative hp an advantage over someone with only 1 hp ... however, in 4e, that person with 1 hp may very well be able to use their second wind to regain 25% of their hp, thus making the hp recovery on a natural 20 not that much more advantageous. Just a thought.

 

[FireLance]

I'm confused. Why do people keep saying there's no middle ground? I thought if you rolled a 10-19 that you had no change in your status (eg. "unconscious and dying")?

Because this isn't an end state. You keep rolling the d20 until you roll 1-9 three times (dead), or you roll a 20 (alive with 25% hp). If there was a rule that you stopped rolling the d20 after you got three results of 10-19, so that you no longer were in danger of death, but had no chance to recover hp without additional help (or the passage of time), then there would be some middle ground.