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

[pukunui]

EVERY player knows that they have at least 2 rounds to get the Fighter stabilized or healed in 4E. There is no urgency. That is why it is a bad rule. IMO.

Why is it, then, that all the posters who have reported back after having actually used the rule (instead of just arguing about it in a theoretical sense) say it's fun, that it adds tension and excitement, etc etc? I have yet to see anyone say "We tried it and didn't like it". Every single "I don't like it" post that I've read has simply contained an untested opinion. (If there is an actual post where someone has said "I tried it and didn't like it", please do point me in its direction.)

 

[JohnSnow]

The only complaints I have with the new rules is this:

1) The negative range seems too wide. Again this is from 3e glasses, but judging from the monsters we've seen now it doesn't look like there will every be a time at high levels when a character will go from conscious to dead, it will always be up to unconscious. So the only way for a dm to kill a character is to beat the unconscious body, and then he looks like an ass

Well, to be fair, we've seen precisely one monster (the Pit Fiend), and we don't really know how the rules for critical hits work.

It's possible that, in grand heroic tradition, most heroes can't actually be killed instantly by a blow from a single monster. Maybe the Pit Fiend just isn't the best at dealing massive amounts of damage on a single hit. Ideally, since dropping someone to their full negative hit point total is basically a "death attack," it should probably be set up so that a critical hit from some monsters can do it, but a regular hit probably can't. In other words, "instant death," while it should occasionally be possible, shouldn't be possible very often.

Basically, when a designer says that some 15th-level monsters can deal around 60 hit points on a critical hit (which Andy did), I say we believe him, rather than second guessing based on our limited data points.

2) I actually think the 3 rolls are TOO predictable!! 3 rounds is a long time!!

18 seconds is a long time?

*Jozan and Lidda have already acted this round*
Tordek: "Gurk."
DM: "Tordek slumps to the floor, seriously injured." "Tordek, give me a saving throw." {miss}
Lidda: "Crap! Jozan, Tordek just went down!"
Jozan: "Hold on Tordek, I'm coming." {turns to DM} "I make a fighting withdrawal."
<Lidda does something>
DM: "Tordek, give me another save." {miss}
Jozan: "I make my way across the battlefield until I can reach Tordek and tend his wounds."
DM: "Okay, it's going to take your full action to reach Tordek."
<Lidda does something>
DM: Tordek, give me another save."

Now, our little sample scenario diverges:

CASE A:
{Tordek rolls between 11-19}
DM: "Okay Tordek, you're still alive."
<Lidda does something>
Jozan: "As I reach Tordek, I pray to Pelor to 'heal' his wounds."
DM: "Okay, Pelor's radiance emanates from your fingers, sealing Tordek's wound. Good thing too, that was a near thing. The dwarf's eyes flutter open."

CASE B:
{Tordek rolls between 1-10, his third and final failed save}
DM: "Oooo....not good." {passes Tordek's player a note.}
<Lidda does something>
Jozan: "As I reach Tordek, I pray to Pelor to heal his wounds."
DM: "Pelor's radiance emanates from your fingers, but despite your best efforts, his wounds look too severe. A last gasp slips from Tordek's mouth...
Tordek (weakly): "Avenge meeee...." {Tordek dies}

Case C:
{Tordek rolls a 20, indicating recovery}
<Lidda does something>
Jozan: "As I reach Tordek, I pray to Pelor to heal his wounds."
DM: "As you begin your prayer, the dwarf sits up, wiping blood from his eyes."
Tordek (spitting blood through his teeth): "It takes more than that to kill a dwarf! Where's me axe?"

A is certainly well within the realm of possibility. Basically, three rounds is short enough that the PCs don't dare dawdle, but that their comrade isn't screwed if the healer's engaged in melee and across the room when someone gets dropped.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The only complaints I have with the new rules is this:

1) The negative range seems too wide. Again this is from 3e glasses, but judging from the monsters we've seen now it doesn't look like there will every be a time at high levels when a character will go from conscious to dead, it will always be up to unconscious. So the only way for a dm to kill a character is to beat the unconscious body, and then he looks like an ass

It doesn't have to be intentional - if your enemy spell caster is slinging fireballs, or your enemy is engulfed in a flaming aura (see Pit Fiend), you might take damage even if the DM didn't specifically target you.

Interestingly, there might actually be a chance now to recover from a TPK - either someone rolls a 20, or the NPCs decide to stabilize everyone and put them in a prison cell...

 

[pukunui]

Interestingly, there might actually be a chance now to recover from a TPK - either someone rolls a 20, or the NPCs decide to stabilize everyone and put them in a prison cell...

Good point ... and I've just realized that 4e will most likely have some form of non-lethal damage mechanic that would probably allow someone to "knock someone out" and thus make them "unconscious but stable". While this still doesn't account for the apparent lack of self-stabilization, it might account for Andy's comments about wanting to make it easier to capture people.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Why is it, then, that all the posters who have reported back after having actually used the rule (instead of just arguing about it in a theoretical sense) say it's fun, that it adds tension and excitement, etc etc? I have yet to see anyone say "We tried it and didn't like it". Every single "I don't like it" post that I've read has simply contained an untested opinion. (If there is an actual post where someone has said "I tried it and didn't like it", please do point me in its direction.)

This too.

 

[Greg K]

Can you give an example of what might be a *good* rule to cover death and dying? Your criticism of the current rule is presumably informed by the idea that there's a better option, and I'd like to see it.

For myself, the Death and Dying rules from Unearthed Acana is a better option. Die Hard, Action Points, and Second Wind could work as follows:

a. Change Die Hard to give a bonus to the saves to avoid dying and for dying characters to stabilize.
b. Allow Action points to be sent on the saves to avoid dying and to stabilize. Possibly allow multiple action points to stabilize automatically.
c. Second Wind can be used by characters that are disabled, stabilized character, or regain conciousness (brought to 1 hp by a stabilzation roll that succeeds by 5 or more).

 

[ruleslawyer]

That is a good rule. Think I'll be using that one!

 

[KarinsDad]

I was responding directly to this sort of thing in his statements:
If you're sending food back to the kitchen because you don't like it, whether or not you can cook, that's one thing. When you send your sauteed skate wing back with the injunction that the wing should have been prepared using one of several other methods, I'd consider it within the chef's right to wonder which other preparation you were thinking of.

Actually, I can cook. I have written a 3E rules book before. But, even people who cannot cook know lousy food when they eat it.

There was a thread on death and dying rule suggestions last week. If you want suggestions, go there.

But, just taking the current rules as we know them, a few minor tweaks could make it better:

1) If the player of the PC rolls 10-19 3 times, he is stabilized.
2) If the player of the PC rolls a 1, he gains a strike and gets to immediately roll again.
3) If the player rolls a 20, he goes to 1 hit point (note: I understand some people like the go to 25%, I just find it annoying that a PC can self heal when unconscious, personal dislike).

The only "issue" that this does not resolve (at least for me) is the PC at 0 hits is in the same boat as the PC at -50. This could be resolved by changing #2 to on a 1-9, subtract that number from current hit points. But, I could see why that would bug some people.

Personally, I think someone could come up with rules unlike any of these that are even better.

 

[pukunui]

1) If the player of the PC rolls 10-19 3 times, he is stabilized.

Hmm. I like that.

2) If the player of the PC rolls a 1, he gains a strike and gets to immediately roll again.

Not sure this is necessary but whatever.

3) If the player rolls a 20, he goes to 1 hit point

Was already thinking about doing this if my group votes to try out these rules.

The only "issue" that this does not resolve (at least for me) is the PC at 0 hits is in the same boat as the PC at -50.

I dunno why but this one just doesn't bother me.

 

[KarinsDad]

Interestingly, there might actually be a chance now to recover from a TPK - either someone rolls a 20, or the NPCs decide to stabilize everyone and put them in a prison cell...

You appear to be arguing just to argue. This existed in 3E. PCs could stabilize to avoid TPK. NPCs could decide to stabilize everyone and put them in a prison cell.

In fact, with a 4 person party, the odds of at least one unconscious PC waking up in 4E is 72%. The odds of everyone dying is 28%. But, that PC has to be one that can stabilize the others, or it doesn't matter. I've heard that potions and scrolls are not in 4E.

In 3E, the odds of everyone dying is a lot less than that. The only advantage for 4E is that someone could wake up right away, but that is not guaranteed, nor is it guaranteed that the PC waking up can actually do something about the others.