Will you try the new "Death & Dying" rules now?

[Steely Dan]

If you metagame the game that way, sure.

That can be applied to any part of this game, so please give it another shot.

 

[KarinsDad]

That can be applied to any part of this game, so please give it another shot.

Another shot?

So because players can metagame dying in 3.5, that's a good reason to encourage it in 4E?

Please give your comment here another shot.

 

[KarinsDad]

Again, we don't know this. Although the 3.5 version does not state it, the article seems to suggest that there is some form of hp loss on a "failed" roll in addition to moving one of three steps closer to death. So, if the players are similarly unaware of how badly injured the PC is, they have just as much incentive to heal him urgently.

EDIT: Specifically, this part:
So it looks like bleeding to death will still occur in 4e, but at a faster pace, and the three failed rolls equals death bit is the additional random element.

I think you are reading things into what he wrote that are not implied. In fact, he implied the opposite of what you are inferring. He implied that the 3 strikes rule is there so that players do not have to keep track of lowering hit points (i.e. the entire 4E concept of having fewer numbers to keep track of).

The concept of:

Well, this is a lame rule, but since we do not know all of the 4E rules, we should give the designers the benefit of the doubt is a fine thing to do for you. For me, it's a lame rule based on what we have been given so far until proven to not be a lame rule.

 

[Pinotage]

That's basically a houserule which I introduced a few months after starting 3.0e, but it has a problem.

Basically the paladin never failed his saves, the wizards and rogues always failed theirs... the problems of a fortitude save!

It would probably work better if you allowed people to choose which save they wanted to use, so the wizards could hold it together by force of will, while the rogues, uh, wriggled out of the way (OK, harder to justify for rogues!)

Cheers

I suppose it depends on how you view a Fortitude save. One could imagine that the fighter is tougher and healthier and so more likely to resist dying, whereas the rogue and wizard are not. But, yes, it would certainly be plausible to use strength of Will to not die, but I'd couple that with FireLance's idea of negative hp meaning helpless but not unconscious. An unconscious creature has no Will after all, or at least not in terms of D&D where unconscious creatures are always considered willing for Will save spells.

Pinotage

 

[FireLance]

I think you are reading things into what he wrote that are not implied. In fact, he implied the opposite of what you are inferring. He implied that the 3 strikes rule is there so that players do not have to keep track of lowering hit points (i.e. the entire 4E concept of having fewer numbers to keep track of).

So, how would you interpret the following?

The new system also retains the “unconscious character bleeding out” concept, but for obvious reasons speeds it along a bit. (There’s not really any tension watching that 15th-level fighter bleed out at a rate of 1 hp per round for 30 or 40 rounds.)

EDIT: Oh, I see what you mean. I guess it could be interpreted that the three failed rolls equals death mechanic is what simulates the process of bleeding to death. It's certainly a valid interpretation, but if that's what we'll get in 4e, it'll be easy enough to house-rule. On a failed roll, you lose 5% of your full normal hit points. There. Best of both worlds.

 

[Steely Dan]

Another shot?

So because players can metagame dying in 3.5, that's a good reason to encourage it in 4E?

Please give your comment here another shot.

For someone who supposedly is the father of someone (Karen), you seem a tad immature/childish/defensive.


What I was actually saying was you can pretty much meta-game almost any concept/mechanic in D&D, I don't see how 4th Ed is encouraging it any more than 3rd Ed.

 

[Emirikol]

I think it's ridiculously complicated in a rulesset that is supposedly trying to simplify things.

jh

 

[KarinsDad]

For someone who supposedly is the father of someone (Karen), you seem a tad immature/childish/defensive.


What I was actually saying was you can pretty much meta-game almost any concept/mechanic in D&D, I don't see how 4th Ed is encouraging it any more than 3rd Ed.

Well, at least I am not the one calling other people names. Look in the mirror sport before pointing fingers.

As to how it is encouraging it more than in 3E, 4E absolutely states that a PC has a 3 rounds survival (according to the rules we know so far). The players know that the situation is not yet urgent in rounds one and two.

In 3E, the group can play without any of the other players knowing how negative a PC is at. In 3E, nobody has to know when the felled PC will die (if at all) unless that is how the group plays the game. Now do you "see it"?

One is not forced to metagame this in 3E. One is automatically metagaming it in 4E by definition. This does not mean that fellow PCs will not rush to the fallen PC on round one, it just means that the players know that it is not urgent.

 

[Beckett]

I think it's ridiculously complicated in a rulesset that is supposedly trying to simplify things.

jh

Roll a D20. On a 1-10, make a mark. 11-19, do nothing. 20, set HP to 1/4 max.
Do this each round on your turn until someone uses the heal skill on you, casts a healing spell on you, or you roll a 20. If you ever accumulate three marks, you're dead.

That's complicated?

 

[Steely Dan]

Well, at least I am not the one calling other people names. Look in the mirror sport before pointing fingers.

As to how it is encouraging it more than in 3E, 4E absolutely states that a PC has a 3 rounds survival (according to the rules we know so far). The players know that the situation is not yet urgent in rounds one and two.

In 3E, the group can play without any of the other players knowing how negative a PC is at. In 3E, nobody has to know when the felled PC will die (if at all) unless that is how the group plays the game. Now do you "see it"?

One is not forced to metagame this in 3E. One is automatically metagaming it in 4E by definition. This does not mean that fellow PCs will not rush to the fallen PC on round one, it just means that the players know that it is not urgent.

Yeah, I'm not getting sucked into this; I've seen your post history (creepy) – no thanks…