Where did % to stablize come from?

[JoeGKushner]

I mentioned a while ago that I didn't like the -10 rule.

In the same vein, where did the percentage dice to check for stabliziation come from?

I was very happy to see d20 Modern go away from that pattern. Makes no sense afaic. "Yeah, here's a d20 system where everything is a d20 roll but to stablizie, roll % under your Con score!"

 

[JimAde]

Actually isn't it a flat 10%? Even worse. That's why I use a Con check for this. It's DC 19, so if you have no modifier, it's 10%, just as written, but if you're tougher it's easier. Since I also allow auto-success on a 20, it's not impossible for the frail, either.

 

[delericho]

"Yeah, here's a d20 system where everything is a d20 roll but to stablizie, roll % under your Con score!"

Well, not everything in d20 is rolled on a d20 - concealment, for example, is a d% roll. I believe I recall reading that the principle is rolls that have associated modifiers are done with a d20, while those that cannot be modified use d%. (Which is why the Blind Fight feat allows you to reroll miss chances, rather than changing the percentage or giving a bonus to the roll.)

It's also worth noting that the chance is a flat 10%, as JimAde pointed out.

The reason it's not just based on Con (I think) is that a character with high Con is already much tougher, by virtue of having more hit points. Using a Fort save to stabilise, or using d% and roll under Con, or even having death occur at -Con are all sensible mechanics, but they effectively double the impact of Con on survivability in the form of hit points. (Besides, if it's a Fort save, no high level good-Fort character will ever fail to stabilise, unless the save DC is sufficiently high that no low level poor-Fort character will ever stabilise. That may or may not be a problem.)

 

[Mark CMG]

Calling something 10% (or any percentage that progresses by 5% incrementally) doesn't prohibit the use of the d20 but is simply a way to express it in a slightly different way. Besides, WotC makes more money on their dice sets when they include more than just d20s.

 

[MrPunch]

I agree that I dislike the rule and it should be a d20 check based on cahracter toughness; however there is a good reason that it is a percentage check.

Percentage checks are always unmodified rolls (i.e. you cannot change them) so that with a %age chance you always have the same chance and cannot be denied it. So I think making the roll take this format is to make sure the character always has a chance of stabilization which cannot be taken away.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

In the same vein, where did the percentage dice to check for stabliziation come from?

I have been using that since my first D&D Character at College. The 10% chance to Stabilize I thought was just part of 2nd Edition D&D. But I've never actually remember READING that rule, just Everyone I always gamed with used it.

I don't know wether is was a real rule, or just a wide spread 'house rule', but it's been there for as long as I can remember.

In my games, I give Players either thier Character Level (Like in the Epic Book), or their Con Score, whichever is higher, to deterimine the Negative HP's they can be at.

That's also the Percentage Chance they have to Stabilize.

I could change it to a Con check or Fort save with a set DC.

 

[reveal]

I agree 100%. I hate 10% to stabalize. If you're character is tougher, they should have an easier time stabilizing. I've houseruled the d20 Modern Fort save DC 20 rule into my Eberron campaigns and will do so in future campaigns, no matter where they're set.

 

[DanMcS]

I tend to do all rolls like this as chance rolls on a d20, where high is good for the player. So a 10% stabilize chance becomes a DC 19 chance check, and a 20% miss chance from concealment becomes a DC 5 chance check to hit.

One, it fits with the rest of the mechanics a bit better. Two, I allow players to use action points on them.

 

[JimAde]

The mention of Eberron brings up a good point. If it's a Fort save (or any other d20 roll) you should be able to use Action Points. Again, that may be a pro or a con, depending on your play style. I call it a pro.

 

[reveal]

The mention of Eberron brings up a good point. If it's a Fort save (or any other d20 roll) you should be able to use Action Points. Again, that may be a pro or a con, depending on your play style. I call it a pro.

You can spend an Action Point to automatically stabilize in Eberron regardless of if you're using a Fort Save or 10%.