I've added it to my nomenclature of 3.75 rules, which my group is using in our current Planescape campaign.
Will you try the new "Death & Dying" rules now?
- Thread starter MerricB
- Start date
eleran said:
Please also try out "kill healing" (=Killing a party member with high total and very low current HP so that he has a chance for a free 25% recovery. After 2 turns stabilize him or cast a cure minor wounds for a 1HP heal to prevent the chance of dieing because of the 3rd failed roll. If you used cure minor wounds you can repeat this stuff again until he rolls a 20).
ThirdWizard
First Post
Derren said:
Uh huh... remind me not to play with your group...
(Keep in mind that in 4e, there will be per encounter healing, so given enough time, you can easily cure to full without resorting to gaming the system.)
Last edited:
Derren said:
I did the math for it myself, and "kill healing" is worth it as per those rules if the person you want to heal up has 4.5% or less of his HP remaining. Repeatedly attempting it is worth it if the healing spell in question cannot restore more than 4.5% of his HP.
That said, I don't think you should be encouraged to do this, so I consider it an error in the rules similar to 3e's allowance for drowning yourself in a bucket in order to recover from having dealt infinite or nigh-infinite HP damage to yourself, just one that's more likely to see play - sticking your head in a bucket relies on a possibly controversial interpretation of the rules (that being set to -1 HP applies even if one's HP is amazingly more negative), and it's only useful after you've already broken the system anyway.
Chris_Nightwing
First Post
Pinotage said:
I think the use of the d20 is in fact further integration of the d20 system. In 3e for instance, we were told the percentage chance of stabilization, and whilst the table could quote percentages, using a d20 will be more intuitive to new players. Also I think you've misunderstood the system a little - it's three strikes and you're out, not three in a row and you're out, so you just need to remember how close you are to death, which I think is pretty easy when you're not in the fight. The chance of you moving closer to death, staying the same or recovering is the same however many strikes you have (well, except three).
I also don't see why you need to make a needless attack on the 'design principles of the d20 system' in 4e since this is probably the first real mechanic we've seen. The 1/4 HP thing is for the 3e variant, which I guess they think will fit in better with current 3e rules. In 4e it's 1/2 HP, so you have three states: Fine, Bloodied and Dying, all of which cover the same span. I appreciate the houserule based around Con or Fort saves was popular in 3e - but it didn't actually solve the strange lack of symmetry around 0 HP. A fighter with over three hundred hit points basically treated being on anything less than 50 as dying and desperately wanted healing. With the new system the point at which you're unable to fight shifts to this point, so no longer will you be absolutely fine until you take a paltry amount of damage compared to your total survivability. I like this change, some may not, but in my opinion there's nothing clunky about the mechanic, I find it quite elegant.
Derren said:
This is a DM issue, not a rules issue.
If my players decide to stab one of their companions in the chest with a broadsword so he may have a chance to roll a 20...nope, sorry, not happening. You just committed attempted murder. The group is done at that point because they have one player who is dying and another is guilty of trying to kill him.
Remember, the players understand the rules but outside of the Order of the Stick, the characters do not. If this happens in your group, it is the DM's fault, not the rules.
Charwoman Gene
Adventurer
KarinsDad said:
Unfortunately, every TSR/WotC D&D/AD&D Designer from EGG to Heinsoo disagrees with you. Hit points have NEVER been purely physical damage. Yes, there is some wonkiness.(poison, additional effects on hit) There is more wonkiness in the pure physical damage side.(Falling Damage, Coup-de-grace)
Last edited:
Chris_Nightwing
First Post
Derren said:
As I calculated in the other thread, kill-healing is extremely unlikely to work out for the best. After 6 rounds of bleeding, you have >50% chance of being dead and <25% chance of recovering. Sure, you can save them at the last minute, but in the heat of combat that'll be just as hard to do as getting to someone at -9 HP. I think it might not work so well in 3e due to Close Wounds and the like though. Also, note that you stop rolling if you're stable, so you'd have to cure minor/cause minor continuously to get that recovery to happen. As a DM, I'd be tempted to rule that any strikes you accumulate until you're stable are still around if you get injured again before being healed.
Chris_Nightwing
First Post
Imban said:
I think your math might be flawed, but I'd love to hear it. I reckon, given infinite time, you recover 27.1% of the time and die 72.9% of the time. So, if you recover to 25% of your hitpoints when you get back up, that means your infinite-time number of HP is 6.78% of your total HP. You could argue that being on less than that number makes it worth trying to kill heal, but the system isn't deterministic. Stochastically, after 6 rounds, you have >50% chance of dying and <25% of recovering (I repeat!), so unless you're sure someone can get to you when you're down 2 strikes, I wouldn't risk stabbing yourself!
Chris_Nightwing said:
I was going to quote the math at you, but amusingly enough you were the one who did it:
Chris_Nightwing said:
The time for hoping that a lucky roll will heal you is past once you've received two strikes, because then you could very well die on your next round and that's obviously a crappy and terrible outcome. Assuming you're always bailed out (if necessary) once you've received two strikes, this is mathematically identical to starting out down one strike, so we'll be using the "1 Strike" line. While the probability of getting that 25% recovery here is certainly less, it means that all potential losses are in terms of healing resources, rather than your death.
By that line, falling onto your sword and hoping to heal up some via rolling a 20 rather than relying purely on the party healer will cause you to need to be healed up from zero hit points 81% of the time, and from 25% of your maximum hit points 19% of the time. I think that, as 19% of 25% is 4.5%, that's the break-even point below which it becomes worth it to attempt to heal yourself through falling on your sword. Likewise, since a Cure Minor Wounds would only restore you to 1 HP, it's far better used by a Cleric to try and get you that 25% boost than spending all of them for the day on healing 6 HP.
Of course, in a time-limited situation (i.e. combat), or given the presence of unlimited healing resources, there's no point to ever doing this.
