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

[pukunui]

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.

Well, but you could keep rolling in the 10-19 range and stay in the unconscious but not getting better or worse state ...

Besides, I think the reasoning is that it's not fun for a player to have their character unconscious but stable for a long time because they basically end up being a spectator. It's better that the character either recovers or that the character dies altogether so the player can make a new one or something.

 

[FireLance]

Well, but you could keep rolling in the 10-19 range and stay in the unconscious but not getting better or worse state ...

You could in theory, but in practice, you're unlikely to be able to keep it up for long.

Besides, I think the reasoning is that it's not fun for a player to have their character unconscious but stable for a long time because they basically end up being a spectator. It's better that the character either recovers or that the character dies altogether so the player can make a new one or something.

While this is an approach that I generally agree with and support, I don't think that stabilization on a natural 20 and hp recovery by spending a second wind will result in much player downtime. If there are per encounter hp recovery mechanics, the player of the unconscious character will only be a spectator until the end of the encounter, and even if he is out of second wind, another character might be able to provide some kind of healing that will get him back into the fight.

 

[pukunui]

You could in theory, but in practice, you're unlikely to be able to keep it up for long.

Of course, but this discussion is almost entirely theoretical. Everyone who's posted on these boards after having actually tried the rules seems to have had a positive experience ... that is to say, they appear to be fun. I'm going to give them a try (assuming my players vote in favor of it), although I think I might can the healing to 1/4 hp since, while it may make sense in the context of the new 4e rules, I don't think it really makes much sense with the 3.5 rules. I'll probably have a natural 20 get you back up to 1 hp.

While this is an approach that I generally agree with and support, I don't think that stabilization on a natural 20 and hp recovery by spending a second wind will result in much player downtime. If there are per encounter hp recovery mechanics, the player of the unconscious character will only be a spectator until the end of the encounter, and even if he is out of second wind, another character might be able to provide some kind of healing that will get him back into the fight.

I'm not sure if you're countering something I said earlier or not but I certainly don't disagree with the above sentiment.

 

[hero4hire]

What I find funny is that a Ninja (an assassin of the night!) got taken out by an assassin vine!

haha :|

But he lived for "Only a ninja can kill a ninja!"

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

Damage that brings you to negative hit points can achieve only 2 results in 4E:
It can bring you to dying, and it can bring you to death. There is no further distinction. You can't be "deader then dead" and you can't be "more dying then dying" from damage.

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.

If WotC would have made a better rule, I would have defended it. If they made a worse rule, but one that still played better than the 3.x rules, I would have defended that as well. Indeed. (I assume, maybe there is some kind of variant that really sucks. Maybe you can post an alternative rule, but then, if I disliked it - or anyone else that likes the 4E rule - it could just "prove" that we're f4nboys and wouldn't know a good rule even if it hit us over the head...)

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

Why are the rules inferior? Inferior to what? The -10 hit point buffer of 3.x, that was a wild gamble at high levels because many attacks either ignored it entirely (death attacks) or damage values made it unlikely to reach the "dying" zone at all?

And I am tempted to invoke the corollary to Godwins law here. It defintiely is a totally useless attack on the rule. I know no videogames that uses dying rules that come even close to the 4E rules. Most games I played either make you drop unconcious and out of the fight until it's over, or just let your character die and you'll have to load from the last save game point - or maybe are ressourected at Position X and have to find your body and treasure...

 

[FireLance]

Damage that brings you to negative hit points can achieve only 2 results in 4E:
It can bring you to dying, and it can bring you to death. There is no further distinction. You can't be "deader then dead" and you can't be "more dying then dying" from damage.

It does raise the question of why bother with negative hit points at all, if all they do is to determine whether you are dead or dying after your hit points drop below 1. In fact, if it makes no difference whether you are at -50 hp or 0 hp, I would prefer to drop the chance of instant death entirely, and have the characters start off dying regardless of how far below 0 hp they would have gone, with actual death occuring only after three failed rolls.

However, I'm fairly sure that it will still be important to track negative hit points, either because characters will continue to lose hit points when dying (but at a faster rate than in 3e), or because continuous damage and area damage effects will be fairly common. That means that a character at -50 hp is still closer to being dead than a character at 0 hp.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Just a note for the "High-Con barbarian vs. puny wizard" debates... I wouldn't be surprised if there's a feat or two available to let "tough guy" characters benefit more when they're negative (like that 3.x feat that let you keep fighting till you hit -10 and just died). And I'd be REALLY surprised if the Barbarian class didn't have some class powers like that, whenever it comes out.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It does raise the question of why bother with negative hit points at all, if all they do is to determine whether you are dead or dying after your hit points drop below 1. In fact, if it makes no difference whether you are at -50 hp or 0 hp, I would prefer to drop the chance of instant death entirely, and have the characters start off dying regardless of how far below 0 hp they would have gone, with actual death occuring only after three failed rolls.

However, I'm fairly sure that it will still be important to track negative hit points, either because characters will continue to lose hit points when dying (but at a faster rate than in 3e), or because continuous damage and area damage effects will be fairly common. That means that a character at -50 hp is still closer to being dead than a character at 0 hp.

Well, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay doesn't use negative hit points. If you're at 0, all attacks are considered critical hits (in no way similar to 3.x/4E critical hits) that have a chance of outright killing or deblitating you. But then, Warhammer also doesn't have a big damage inflation as D&D.

The negative hit points are tracked for the case you take damage while you're below 0. I am not sure it's 100 % neccessary to have that, but any attack against you in this state has a ptential to bring you from dying to dead. It still matters how much damage you take then...

I think it is mostly there to
- give PCs a chance to survive inside an ongoing damage effect, or an area damage effect
- while at the same time still making such stuff a considerably risk (don't fireball your friends lying on the ground!)
- Still give a chance to _really_ kill someone, without waiting for him to roll below 10 three times...

 

[eleran]

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.

Yes but, in 4e that character at 1 HP could use a second wind to regain 25% of their HP. So really all the nat20 while unconcious is doing is giving them a free second wind action. I suppose you're like/dislike for the rule all depends on how much of a simist v gamist you are. The older I get the less simist I am becoming. We have instituted the rule in our 3.5e game and we really like it so far.

 

[MerricB]

It is extremely likely that the "stabilization" roll is a saving throw, and thus there are save modifiers for some characters. (See the Pit Fiend). Also, it's been hinted that the human is better at surviving such affairs.

So...