Where did -10 come from?

[diaglo]

Point noted. When Wesley is healed by Mad Max, how many hit points does he have when he can barely move? :\

Unless he took Strength damage, too. It makes me want use that torture machine in my game. Now I just have to come with the crazed-soul that would develop such a thing.

again in 1edADnD healing was different. negative hps meant something else in the books.

edit: what this whole question gets to is: What do hps represent in your game?

 

[Umbran]

The problem is that if the threshold is small enough compared to the damage amount, it isn't just a higher risk of instant death--without a big enough window, someone in your party will die in nearly every fight. It's just a matter of who the opponents go after first.

Nobody ever said Adventuring was safe, did they?

As I said, this is to be expected as power levels go up. Higher threat really needs to mean higher risk. If the risks are always the same, there's no real reason to go up in levels at all, honestly.

That being said, part of this seems more to me an issue of encounter design, rather than of the mechanic. Given the mechanic, it is up to the DM to balance out encounters so that they play out in an interesting fashion.

 

[JoeGKushner]

again in 1edADnD healing was different. negative hps meant something else in the books.

edit: what this whole question gets to is: What do hps represent in your game?

I was reading the AD&D 1st ed DMG and Gygax is like, "It takes a lot of bedrest and if you're below -6, you may have lost a limb, scarring or something else to really showcase how near you came to dying." Interesting stuff.

 

[kadath]

A simple variant that keeps the -10 relevant at high levels:
* Any attack that would reduce your hit points below zero reduces your hit points to zero. (If you have 20hp and get hit for 37 points of damage, you're at 0, not -17).
* When you reach 0hp, you are dying (losing 1hp per round) and need healing, application of the heal skill, or rolling the 10% chance to stabilize.

This variant makes the -10 bigger at low levels though, so -5 is a nice compromise (a 5 round buffer rather than a 10 round buffer). It all depends on how much time you want to give the PC to either (a) stabilize on their own - which by the law of averages they will do given 10 rounds or (b) get help from a friend.

 

[KB9JMQ]

A simple variant that keeps the -10 relevant at high levels:
* Any attack that would reduce your hit points below zero reduces your hit points to zero. (If you have 20hp and get hit for 37 points of damage, you're at 0, not -17).
* When you reach 0hp, you are dying (losing 1hp per round) and need healing, application of the heal skill, or rolling the 10% chance to stabilize.

This variant makes the -10 bigger at low levels though, so -5 is a nice compromise (a 5 round buffer rather than a 10 round buffer). It all depends on how much time you want to give the PC to either (a) stabilize on their own - which by the law of averages they will do given 10 rounds or (b) get help from a friend.

I really like that. Have you put it to use? How did it go ?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Nobody ever said Adventuring was safe, did they?

As I said, this is to be expected as power levels go up. Higher threat really needs to mean higher risk. If the risks are always the same, there's no real reason to go up in levels at all, honestly.

That being said, part of this seems more to me an issue of encounter design, rather than of the mechanic. Given the mechanic, it is up to the DM to balance out encounters so that they play out in an interesting fashion.

I never said adventuring had to be safe. The point is, however, that the 10 hit point buffer might as well not exist at those levels. The chance of being knocked into a buffer zone of that region becomes so remote that it is almost as if it didn't exist. You have a better chance of making a DC 48 saving throw vs Death (assuming you don't go with telescoping dice rolls and thus the 20 always saves) than you do of hitting the Dying buffer.

That being said, part of this seems more to me an issue of encounter design, rather than of the mechanic. Given the mechanic, it is up to the DM to balance out encounters so that they play out in an interesting fashion.

It doesn't matter how you balance the encounter--the buffer still won't be reached. If you are suggesting that a well-designed encounter will be against enemies who are so weak that they can't even knock out a single PC before being eliminated, then I disagree.

 

[KRT]

A simple variant that keeps the -10 relevant at high levels:
* Any attack that would reduce your hit points below zero reduces your hit points to zero. (If you have 20hp and get hit for 37 points of damage, you're at 0, not -17).
* When you reach 0hp, you are dying (losing 1hp per round) and need healing, application of the heal skill, or rolling the 10% chance to stabilize.

This variant makes the -10 bigger at low levels though, so -5 is a nice compromise (a 5 round buffer rather than a 10 round buffer). It all depends on how much time you want to give the PC to either (a) stabilize on their own - which by the law of averages they will do given 10 rounds or (b) get help from a friend.

so no more "off with the heads" then. "Sorry boss, can't chop his head off for you, but I can take him to zero and let the clock do the rest".

actually in all seriousness I'm sure there's some house rule to cover that. However I like to see a greater range at which a character can be disabled and dying that increases with experience. How many movies have we seen where some important character bleeds his last out while accomplishig some last important task or spilling out some wise words before so unwisely toppling over dead. Now how to get that into the game without a hundred rolls and 50 rules to follow. So how about this a fortitude check DC10+the amount in the negatives. Miss the roll and you are unconscious. Make it right on and you have 1 round before losing consciousness. For every point over the DC you get an extra round. 10 points over and you are conscious and stable. Once you lose consciousness you get a second roll (hmm... somewhat like poison saves). Same thing applies. Miss it and you die. Make it you have one round to bleed out. make it by ten or more you loss that many more hit points but are stable at the end of it. This method allows for some large negatives. A mid level character with +7 fortitude goes to -5 hit points, the DC is 15. could roll a 8 =15 and remain conscious for 1 round at which time goes unconscious at -6, DC now 16, rolls a 19 =26 and stabalizes after 10 rounds at -16. You would have to have some pretty high fortitude saves and good rolls to get to -30 or so but healing at that level would take care of that.

 

[frankthedm]

At higher levels, it just doesn't work. Even Monte's variant in AE with the Con being the negative modifier at death.

Oh it works well for man sized bipeds, it works just fine to show you the punishment that was being dealt out. Now that you have run out of the luck/grace of gods/tenacity your heroic HP total granted you, your body is a sack of meat like anybody elses, with many, many bits that are needed to live. squish

10 hp can put a chip into stone and nearly ding steel. Plenty enough to break skulls or snap necks.

 

[Conaill]

How about this:

- If you drop below your level in hp, but don't go negative, you're disabled.
- If you drop below minus (10+lvl), you're dead

Scales nicely with level, it's not *that* much of a change, and the two should more-or-less balance out in power.

 

[Storm Raven]

Point noted. When Wesley is healed by Mad Max, how many hit points does he have when he can barely move? :\

Miracle Max. Mad Max is off trying to drive through the Australian desert.