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

[FireLance]

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

I think the increased complexity is fine because it makes the process of dying more interesting. In other words, the payoff is worth the additional complexity.

From the perspective of the player of the dying PC, the 3e stabilization roll was not very significant. The chance of success was small, and the payoff for a success was that you no longer needed to make stabilization rolls. For 4e, you have an approximately even chance of getting a bad or neutral result, and a small chance of (possibly) being able to rejoin the fight. The payoff for a success is larger, and psychologically, since there is still a good chance of getting a neutral result, the roll seems more meaningful.

From the perspective of the other players, dying becomes less predictable. The three steps to death mechanic means that a PC in the low negatives could still possibly die in three rounds (I'm personally considering a house-rule that a natural 1 counts as one step and requires another roll so that it will be possible for a PC to die in a single round, but I won't go into this here) which means there is more urgency to help dying PCs, and less treating them as a schedule to work around.

Of course, YMMV.

 

[KarinsDad]

From the perspective of the player of the dying PC, the 3e stabilization roll was not very significant. The chance of success was small, and the payoff for a success was that you no longer needed to make stabilization rolls. For 4e, you have an approximately even chance of getting a bad or neutral result, and a small chance of (possibly) being able to rejoin the fight. The payoff for a success is larger, and psychologically, since there is still a good chance of getting a neutral result, the roll seems more meaningful.

It depends on if the player is math challenged or not.

In 3E, the odds of dying were 39% at -1 and 90% at -9.

In 4E, the odds of dying are 73%.

So, a PC at -1 through -6 has a better chance of survival with 3E rules, at -7 the same, at -8 or lower, worse.

 

[SteveC]

I think this may be an example of "you're not seeing the whole picture yet" that some of the designers have talked about. These rules seem rather quirky, but if they're incorporated into other aspects of the game, they'll seem a lot more natural.

The "three strikes" rule seems to be the new system for handling "save or die" effects. It's been mentioned more than a few times that if you face an effect that would normally completely take you out of the game, there will be multiple opportunities to avoid it. So turn to stone, paralysis, domination all may fall under this new rule.

Taking that into consideration, I don't think it's a bad rule to give characters a few rounds to be healed before they finally die, especially if resurrection is going to be less common. It is still possible, (although unlikely for a high level character) to die immediately ... you just have to take enough damage all at once.

The roll a D20, 1-10 = bad, 11-19 = good 20 = very good mechanism sounds like it will work quickly and effectively. You have a sort of "luck roll" being made, but also one that talents, feats and items can certainly modify.

I'm not so sure that I'd fall in love with this damage system right now (I'd say 1-10 = 1 strike, 11-15 = no change, 16-19= stabilize, 20 = heal) but in looking at the broader picture, it could work.

--Steve

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It depends on if the player is math challenged or not.

I am afraid a lot of people have trouble calculating probabilities, since it comes up so rarely in "real life". But the ratio might be a bit better with roleplayers. (We at least have an incentive to calculate them.)

In 3E, the odds of dying were 39% at -1 and 90% at -9.

In 4E, the odds of dying are 73%.

So, a PC at -1 through -6 has a better chance of survival with 3E rules, at -7 the same, at -8 or lower, worse.

But what are the odds of actually getting in the 0 to -10 range in the first place at each level 3E?
What are the odds of getting in the 0 to -1/2 hp range at each level in 4E?

(I know we can't answer the last question yet, so it's a bit unfair).

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

It depends on if the player is math challenged or not.

In 3E, the odds of dying were 39% at -1 and 90% at -9.

In 4E, the odds of dying are 73%.

So, a PC at -1 through -6 has a better chance of survival with 3E rules, at -7 the same, at -8 or lower, worse.

Those odds don't account for time limits however. Your chance of death over the same number of rounds as you might bleed in 3e is:

HP (or rounds) / 3e / 4e
-1 (9) / 39% / 66%
-2 (8) / 43% / 62%
-3 (7) / 48% / 56%
-4 (6) / 53% / 48%
-5 (5) / 59% / 37%
-6 (4) / 66% / 23%
-7 (3) / 73% / 9%
-8 (2) / 81% / 0%
-9 (1) / 90% / 0%

So in fact, you're better off at -4 or below under the new system, in a sense. Yes, from any negative hitpoint total you've got a 73% chance you won't make it, but that's given infinite time. Over the same period as you would bleed to death in 3e, your chances are better.

 

[Warbringer]

We've being playing Dying is what happens between -10% of hit points and -25% which is death... You can fight, but at a risk of causing d10 hps of damage (raging ignores this)

Think I'll keep this, but add the magical healing starts from 0. We also play if you get out of combat with out becoming bloody condition, your hps revert to max for next encounter

FYI we have A Damage Chart
50% Bloody (Was "Severe" ...)
90% Critical,
-10% Dying,
- CON Dead

So a 12th fighter with 20 Con (140 hps)
Bloody (70)
Critical (126)
Dying (-14)
Dead (-35)

 

[Piratecat]

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

Out of the thread. If you didn't want to get "sucked into this," you probably should have thought of that before you leveled multiple insults. You're fully capable of disagreeing with someone without making it personal; next time, please do so.

KD, be aware that you come off as hostile as well. Dial back the challenging tone, please.

We expect people to be able to debate without rancor. As always, email me if this somehow isn't clear.

 

[KarinsDad]

Those odds don't account for time limits however. Your chance of death over the same number of rounds as you might bleed in 3e is:

HP (or rounds) / 3e / 4e
-1 (9) / 39% / 66%
-2 (8) / 43% / 62%
-3 (7) / 48% / 56%
-4 (6) / 53% / 48%
-5 (5) / 59% / 37%
-6 (4) / 66% / 23%
-7 (3) / 73% / 9%
-8 (2) / 81% / 0%
-9 (1) / 90% / 0%

So in fact, you're better off at -4 or below under the new system, in a sense. Yes, from any negative hitpoint total you've got a 73% chance you won't make it, but that's given infinite time. Over the same period as you would bleed to death in 3e, your chances are better.

Good point.

However, it is a bit misleading because it assumes that the PC can be saved in time in your 4E column. That is not necessarily the case. Just because a PC at -9 has a 0% chance of dying in 1 round in 4E does not mean that he will not die.

You are right though. In 4E, the players have more time to help a fallen comrade. But, the fallen comrade typically has a worse time of saving himself.

Edit: I got the no change and the die chances mixed up. Nevermind on that.

 

[FireLance]

It depends on if the player is math challenged or not.

In 3E, the odds of dying were 39% at -1 and 90% at -9.

In 4E, the odds of dying are 73%.

So, a PC at -1 through -6 has a better chance of survival with 3E rules, at -7 the same, at -8 or lower, worse.

I wasn't talking about the overall probability of survival, though. I was talking about the perceived importance of each roll.

Assuming that the average player's perception of "dying" is that every round, his PC is going to get worse and somehow closer to death, and the d20 roll represents some way of preventing that:

In 3e, there's only a 10% chance that something bad will not happen.

In 4e, there's a 50% chance that something bad will not happen, AND a 5% chance that something good might happen.

The chance of affecting the status quo seems larger in 4e, and the d20 roll thus seems that much more important.

 

[Cmarco]

Well, I tried it out in both my games this week. It actually makes combat seem a lot more intense, and I was quite pleased with the outcome. Nobody died, but the moment one of my players rolled his second 5 in a row...

I'm looking forward to next week. Maybe, if someone's close to biting it, they'll roll a 20... could be very interesting.

I like a little fear and uncertainty among my players. Just me though...