-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Where did -10 come from?
- Thread starter JoeGKushner
- Start date
Bront
The man with the probe
I think how you view the rule depends on how you play. I generaly tend to play low to mid levels (Rarely over 12th, usually around 5th), and the -10 number seems fine, though I like the idea of using Con score instead. Same likely with others who tend to play around the same power level.
The other factor is deadlyness factor. I do not care for the death around every corner aspect of a game, and neither do most of my game masters, so death is general unlikely, though the combat will be harrying in other ways. Those that like death or tend to deal with it more will likely be in favor or either more leway (Bigger number) or no leway (0=death).
That's the beauty of house rules. Idealy everyone gets what they want.
The other factor is deadlyness factor. I do not care for the death around every corner aspect of a game, and neither do most of my game masters, so death is general unlikely, though the combat will be harrying in other ways. Those that like death or tend to deal with it more will likely be in favor or either more leway (Bigger number) or no leway (0=death).
That's the beauty of house rules. Idealy everyone gets what they want.
Henrix
Explorer
I don't remember where I got it from, but it might very well be from Tweet. I would have guessed it was from Unearthed Arcana, but it seems it is not.pogre said:
We tried the UA method, with Fort saves, but didn't like it. Sometimes it took forever for a staggered character to drop due to having a good fort save. We also felt it was a little unfair; a character of a fighting class usually has a good Con and a good Fort save, so they never fail, while the poor rogue lives in constant fear! Con is important enough as it is.
The main reason we tried it was because we were a little tired of other PCs not hurrying to their fallen comrades, as they knew they were just barely below zero, and so they had perhaps six rounds before anything had to be done.... :\
Nowadays we are happy with the following; characters die at (10 + lvl) negative hp, bleed 1d3-1 hp/round unless they roll under 10%.
And noone is allowed to tell the others how much damage they have suffered (other than in general terms), nor how much they bled, nor if they've stopped bleeding, until another PC has looked them over (given first aid, healad, etc).
We feel this is a good balance between survivability and excitement!
genshou
First Post
Beautiful! I would instead make a character disabled at 0 -level instead of 0 +level, but thank you for inspiring me to come up with that in the first place!Conaill said:
Edit: Sorry, I meant disabled from 0 to 0 -level inclusive. I need to stop posting when under the effects of significant other distraction and a headache ^_^;
Last edited:
You're welcome.genshou said:Beautiful! I would instead make a character disabled at 0 -level instead of 0 +level, but thank you for inspiring me to come up with that in the first place!
Note that if you extend Disabled into negative instead of positive hp territory, the buffer between Disabled and Dead won't scale with levels, and is back to a fixed 10 hp. Not to mention the fact that you've now upped the power level of PC's compared to monsters and most NPC's, for whom Disabled or healing back to consciousness rarely comes into play...
genshou
First Post
I'm quite aware of that. I like having the buffer between disabled and death to be so small. I just don't like the sudden jump from alive and kicking to dead and... well, not kicking, for the most part.Conaill said:You're welcome.
Note that if you extend Disabled into negative instead of positive hp territory, the buffer between Disabled and Dead won't scale with levels, and is back to a fixed 10 hp. Not to mention the fact that you've now upped the power level of PC's compared to monsters and most NPC's, for whom Disabled or healing back to consciousness rarely comes into play...
Also, I don't think high-level characters are disabled even a thousandth as often as they should be. It doesn't bother me that PCs will get more mileage out of it. Technically monsters would get a whopping threshold in which they are disabled when they would be dead by the RAW, and it's easier for the PCs to avoid unintentionally killing NPCs they mean to capture...
orbitalfreak
Explorer
I'm trying to come up with an alternate dead/dying/disabled/fine setup for my next campaign.
I'm thinking of the following:
From zero to "character level" in hit points, you're disabled. So, a 20'th level character is disabled at zero through positive 20. With these rules, a character with 10 Con or less who always rolls 1's on his hit-point rolls (don't forget the max roll at first level will provide a cushion) will almost always be disabled, reflecting the character's fragile nature. That way, "disabled" scales depending on your level.
"Dying" would be from -1 to -x, where x = 10 + con modifier + level. So, a 12'th level character with a 15 (+2) con would be dying from -1 to -24, and dead at -25 or lower. This setup gives a large, scaling window for dying characters. I prefer less lethal campaigns, because it maintains character continuity better; feel free to ignore the base 10 modifier above, instead using Con bonus + level. In that case, have -1 to -1 be the minimum threshold for dying in the case of super-negative con modifiers.
I would also have "death effects" blast all your abilities to 1, and drop you to "character level" points away from death (using the expanded "dying" range, based on your new con score). For simplicity sake, I would use Con = 1, ignoring any bonuses due to magic items, etc.
I'm thinking of the following:
From zero to "character level" in hit points, you're disabled. So, a 20'th level character is disabled at zero through positive 20. With these rules, a character with 10 Con or less who always rolls 1's on his hit-point rolls (don't forget the max roll at first level will provide a cushion) will almost always be disabled, reflecting the character's fragile nature. That way, "disabled" scales depending on your level.
"Dying" would be from -1 to -x, where x = 10 + con modifier + level. So, a 12'th level character with a 15 (+2) con would be dying from -1 to -24, and dead at -25 or lower. This setup gives a large, scaling window for dying characters. I prefer less lethal campaigns, because it maintains character continuity better; feel free to ignore the base 10 modifier above, instead using Con bonus + level. In that case, have -1 to -1 be the minimum threshold for dying in the case of super-negative con modifiers.
I would also have "death effects" blast all your abilities to 1, and drop you to "character level" points away from death (using the expanded "dying" range, based on your new con score). For simplicity sake, I would use Con = 1, ignoring any bonuses due to magic items, etc.
Aaron L
Hero
I've always viewed it as saying that everybody's got 10 HP of actual body mass hitpoints, the rest are pretty much your ability to keep those BMHP from getting ganked. AT 0 HP youre knocked silly and have no dodging or luck left, and after that youre bleeding out your guts. Thats why I like making it your CON instad of just 10.
Similar Threads
