Where did -10 come from?

[Rystil Arden]

Well, life's tough all over

Really, that rather makes sense to me - the system isn't supposed to completely eliminate instant death. At higher levels, there's more power being tossed around, in general. The character should be at much higher risk of instant death.

But then, no single damage system is going to make everyone happy all the time. But they have to make one the standard, right? This is what house rules are for.

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.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

See, now I always thought the problem was that because of how hit points were defined and used D&D did not (could not!) model debilitation. As someone already said it's the "fine, fine, fine, DEAD" phenomenon. Sort of goes along with "Save or DIE". That, I have long assumed, is what the -10 thing is about - it's a means to get away from the insanely binary situation of either living and being entirely functional at 1 hp and being utterly, permanently dead at 0 hp.

Back in the day (1E) it was a welcome rule because one of the common complaints was (and sometimes still is) that it was so difficult to survive 1st level, or even the first few levels when PC hit points just didn't seem to be up to task of keeping PC's alive through those initial challenges. Again, as people have already indicated it becomes almost irrelevant at higher levels - but then the nature of what hit points are really representing changes as well as you increase in level. 1 hit point means something quite different to a PC with only 10 hp than it does to a PC with 100. Higher level PC's also have a vastly greater variety of things like ways to heal damage, the means to overcome death by resurrection, the ability to survive longer in a high damage environment (thus to recognize and avoid/reduce danger before getting too close to 0 hp), and so on.

Works fine for me and always has, though I have to confess that as a DM I have that nagging sense that PC's are cheating if they live after I've "killed" them by putting them to 0 or lower.

 

[Jdvn1]

Exactly. I also use the AU variant with the Con score, which helps a lot.

That's my guess as to the origin of the -10 rule anyway.

"Wow, outright death at 0 really sucks."
"Yeah, you're right. And it's not like as soon as people go unconscious they die in real life."
"True. We should give some sort of buffer. Say... 5."
"5? It should be based on a stat that's related. Like Con."
"Oh, sure, yeah. So, negative Con?"
"Yeah, that works."
"Yeah. Wait... so it's different for every character? Maybe we should have a more consistent mechanic, or at least one more broad rule. After all, we don't want to hurt low-Con characters more than they're already hurt, y'know?"
"Good point. Let's use an average. 10."
"Perfect."

 

[JoeGKushner]

I love the UA variant -- probably my favorite alt. from that book. I go ahead and say -1/5 hp, though.

Especially at lower levels, with orcs, I advise that mooks get a penalty or just "no save", though. Otherwise, the game can turn moralizing really, really quick.

I don't use it with NPCs as I assume any of them that go down are getting coup de grace at the very least.

 

[Mercule]

I don't use it with NPCs as I assume any of them that go down are getting coup de grace at the very least.

I've got two PCs in my game with "cultural differences" on the question of whether it's right to coup de grace an opponent.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I've got two PCs in my game with "cultural differences" on the question of whether it's right to coup de grace an opponent.

I've got a few PCs in one of my PbP games that have "cultural differences" on the question of whether it's right to coup de grace unconscious allies.

 

[diaglo]

I've got a few PCs in one of my PbP games that have "cultural differences" on the question of whether it's right to coup de grace unconscious allies.

0 = dead usually fixes that problem.

 

[Rystil Arden]

0 = dead usually fixes that problem.

Well, the PCs fixed the problem by deciding that if their ally wasn't humanoid and it was unconscious, it should be Coup de Graced.

 

[IronWolf]

I agree the mod was probably to allow for a state of unconciousness instead just the two states - alive or dead. In the current campaign I am playing in (up to 6th and 7th level now) we use the go to negative your Con. This has worked well and kept my dwarven cleric alive twice now.

 

[ssampier]

Think of it this way. When you hit negative hit points, that's just D&D's way of allowing you to be "mostly dead".

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.