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

[MerricB]

I do not think it is overdramatization.

A big portion of DND combat is hit point damage. A rule that allows for a PC at -50 hit points to suddenly go to 30 hit points without any healing is a significant rule.

It's a "Hey, you rolled good on a die. Guess what? As a reward, you go from the verge of being dead to conscious and 25% capable. Isn't that cool?".

Sure, it's cool. It's nonsensical to be a hair's breath from death one second to fairly functional the next without assistance from a logical point of view, but "it's cool".

There's a sport called "boxing"...

I think it shows the possibilities of going down for the count... and not!

 

[Vegepygmy]

There's a sport called "boxing"...

I think it shows the possibilities of going down for the count... and not!

I didn't realize that so many boxers died after being KO'd.

I might have to start watching bouts on TV!

 

[pukunui]

I voted no ... but not because I don't like the new mechanic. I am actually rather keen to see how it works. However, my RHoD campaign is very nearly over, and since I've almost completely lost interest in 3.5, I'm going to step down as DM until the 4e rules come out. So, with that in mind, there's very little point in trying to introduce a new variant rule into the campaign at this time.

That being said, I'll bring it up with my players and if they want to give it a try, then I'll do so. But I have no plans to implement it of my own volition.

 

[Pinotage]

No, thank you. The rules seem far too clunky for me. Multiple die roles, keeping check of past results, having to look up die roll results on a table... Yuck! Even the standard 3.5e is simpler than this. Why change to something more complex?

Pinotage

 

[FireLance]

I mentioned it in the other thread, but since it's come up here: The hit point recovery on a natural 20 is only in the "Try It Now!" section, and might be an inelegant translation of the actual 4e rule, which could be that on a natural 20, the character actually stabilizes (no further rolls needed) and may use a second wind, if he has any left.

Of course, if you don't like the idea of second wind in the first place, you're not going to like this any better, but otherwise, it's not simply jumping up to 25% full normal hit points because of a die roll. The character is actually expending one of his resources.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

No, thank you. The rules seem far too clunky for me. Multiple die roles, keeping check of past results, having to look up die roll results on a table... Yuck! Even the standard 3.5e is simpler than this. Why change to something more complex?

Pinotage

What? The new rule is roll a dice on your turn. The old rule was roll a dice on your turn. No more dice rolls! The table is hardly difficult either, you'll find it intuitive in no time. I fail to see how this is more complex in actual play.

 

[Bluenose]

I'll be trying it when my group next meets. I'm not sure that it isn't slightly more complex than it needs to be, but we'll go with the RAW suggested at first. I can think of one or two house rules we might try already. On a 20 you're back with hp equal to your level (or HD); and there seems no reason to keep track of the exact number of hit points involved once you're at negative levels, if the mechanism doesn't differentiate.

 

[Jhaelen]

I don't think I'll introduce that rule in my 3E campaign for at least two reasons:
- there are too many ways to save characters on the verge of dying as it is.
- it doesn't happen nearly often enough that one of the pcs is in actual danger of dying.

I may change my stance on this once the party is higher level or after the cleric character died and refuses to play a cleric again.

Another thing I can't leave uncommented:

I didn't realize that so many boxers died after being KO'd.

I might have to start watching bouts on TV!

Umm, so you can watch people die live? That's sick.

 

[Pinotage]

What? The new rule is roll a dice on your turn. The old rule was roll a dice on your turn. No more dice rolls! The table is hardly difficult either, you'll find it intuitive in no time. I fail to see how this is more complex in actual play.

It's still clunky. Any rule that has to refer to data (the table, which has no basis in the rules, it's just thumb-sucked), is mechanically clunky, because it does away with the basis of the d20 system - roll a d20 dice against a DC to resolve. Yes, you're rolling a d20, but you're checking the result against a table rather than a fixed DC (determined by a set rule, generally). Within the d20 framework, that's clunky and poor design.

And you still have to make note of previous die roles to make sure you don't fail something 3 times in a row. And you have to work out what you new 'when-I-die-value is'. 3.5e had a flat -10, or the better -Con as a variant. I'm not saying it's a bad system in play, just that it's a clunky mechanical system that could've been done neater within the design principles of the d20 system. But, looking at 4e, it seems that's gone straight out the window in any case, so this will fit right in. And let's not forget that 1/4 hp thing which is just, well, weird.

Pinotage

 

[eleran]

For those who voted yes, come back here and tell how it worked.

Our session is tonight. We are going to implement the rule. I will give a full report.