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

[Plane Sailing]

On a related point - I notice that 'second wind' is a percentage of total hp, the "Wooo, natural 20!" healing they talk about here is a percentage of total hp.

It makes me wonder if all healing sources might go to a percentage basis, so while CLW (or its equivalent) cures 10% of hit points (min 1) perhaps CSW cures 40% of hit points (min 4) and Heal (or its equivalent) cures 100% of hit points.

Pure supposition, but it would get around the conceptual issue of CLW returning a peasant from deaths door to full health while only being slightly effective on a mighty hero.

Cheers

 

[Derren]

I disagree. Right now you have a handy countdown clock....

"Dude, you're only at -1...we have nine rounds to get to you"

Now, looking at the above math, most will be dead within 6 rounds, if not 5. It isn't ideal, but that part of it is an improvement.

It depends on how damaged the character is.
In 3.E there is no random factor in when you die, but the time span could be as low as 1 round if you are at -9 hp from the attack.
In 4E you have the random factor, but it will always at least survive for 3 rounds.

The question what is better? A minimum 3 round survival + random death factor or predictable time till death which can be quite low.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I should have mentioned that we always used the Fortitude save variant, where you roll a save against a DC determined by the damage dealt. That's a neat system in the sense that it 1) uses a d20, 2) sets a DC governed by a rule, and 3) uses the d20 mechanic of rolling with a modifier against a DC. It's a good mechanic and in compliance with the overall design principles.

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

 

[Plane Sailing]

It's about as good as unconsciousness as a game mechanic model if it normally only happens when some resource runs out. Say, hit points.

I think you might be missing the point.

If the new system only allows for unconsciousness when stabilised by an external agency, how does that compare for the old system which allows for spontaneous stabilisation?

In the old system, one of the end results of a combat might be that you are unconscious but stable. In the new system that result can't happen, apparently.

 

[FireLance]

I think you might be missing the point.

If the new system only allows for unconsciousness when stabilised by an external agency, how does that compare for the old system which allows for spontaneous stabilisation?

In the old system, one of the end results of a combat might be that you are unconscious but stable. In the new system that result can't happen, apparently.

Actually, I think there are a number of points in the air at the moment.

I had earlier mentioned the possibility that the actual 4e rule might be different from the stated way to run it now in 3.5e, in that a natural 20 would result in stabilization, and the option to recover hit points if the character was still able to use his second wind. If he was out of second wind, he would remain stable, but unconscious.

My point about unconsciousness resulting from running out of hit points was in response to Karinsdad's question on what good is unconsciousness as a game mechanic model if it only happens if some resource (presumably, second wind) is not available.

 

[Bagpuss]

Hows it effect the Diehard Feat?

Diehard [General]
Prerequisite

Endurance.
Benefit

When reduced to between -1 and -9 hit points, you automatically become stable. You don’t have to roll d% to see if you lose 1 hit point each round.

When reduced to negative hit points, you may choose to act as if you were disabled, rather than dying. You must make this decision as soon as you are reduced to negative hit points (even if it isn’t your turn). If you do not choose to act as if you were disabled, you immediately fall unconscious.

When using this feat, you can take either a single move or standard action each turn, but not both, and you cannot take a full round action. You can take a move action without further injuring yourself, but if you perform any standard action (or any other action deemed as strenuous, including some free actions, swift actions, or immediate actions, such as casting a quickened spell) you take 1 point of damage after completing the act. If you reach -10 hit points, you immediately die.
Normal

A character without this feat who is reduced to between -1 and -9 hit points is unconscious and dying.

 

[FireLance]

Actually, come to think of it, I wonder why characters can't be conscious but helpless. Given the apparent ease with which characters can trigger second wind and other abilities to recover hit points, I think the default state of being at negative hit points should not be unconscious and dying, but too beat up and in too much pain to do anything. That would be a better fit with all the sudden recovery mechanics that we seem likely to have.

 

[Aristotle]

I really liked the lack of "negative hit points" and the use of a damage track in SWSE. These rules, and what is coming in 4E, feel like a step backwards. I think SWSE did it right, in a less-than-realistic but very cinematic way.

I'm putting this on the, relatively small, list of rules I hope to see optional alternatives for in the DMG or other variant rules sourcebook.

 

[KarinsDad]

I disagree. Right now you have a handy countdown clock....

"Dude, you're only at -1...we have nine rounds to get to you"

Now, looking at the above math, most will be dead within 6 rounds, if not 5. It isn't ideal, but that part of it is an improvement.

If you metagame the game that way, sure.

In our game, the only person who knows how negative a PC is at is the player of the PC and he or she does not give that information out. Even as DM, I do not know where the PC is.

So in our game, the PC could die in one round or in nine. The players do not know and there is a sense of urgency. PCs have died because someone had to get to them within a round or two and did not.

With this new rule, a PC is either dead, or unconscious with AT LEAST three rounds of survival guaranteed (shy of an NPC attacking again).

That's a lame rule because there is no sense of urgency.

 

[FireLance]

That's a lame rule because there is no sense of urgency.

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:

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.) Thanks to some clever abstractions, the new system also removes the predictability of the current death timer. (“OK, Regdar’s at -2 hp, so we have 8 rounds to get to him. Yawn… time for a nap.”)

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.