Link
I think this new system should work pretty well, and I like that they added a Try It Now section that lets you use the new system in your current 3rd edition games. I'm going to discuss with my groups about trying it out.
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
LorrickAldus |
Design & Development: Death and Dying |
Lead | |
|
New article up about Death and Dying
Link I think this new system should work pretty well, and I like that they added a Try It Now section that lets you use the new system in your current 3rd edition games. I'm going to discuss with my groups about trying it out. |
|||
Tiburon Silverflame |
|||
|
I certainly agree with Andy on the problems cited with the current system. I'm not crazy about some of the recovery rules offered in the Try It Now...but
there's plenty of room for customization in there, without worrying about disrupting the entire fabric of death/dying.
|
|||
Vector Mangler |
|||
|
Oooo, awesomesauce. Looks like they staked a pet peeve of mine right through the heart.
Plus I'm totally going to pull out this quote:
the very next time we have a thread debating whether monsters and PCs should have the same rules and powers and creation system! |
|||
Kaladhan |
|||
|
I think this rule is very promising. That means that a healer can get anyone back on their feet with one spell. That's good!
|
|||
durendal |
|||
|
definitely a system i like - its really straight forward, but also a definite improvement.
Notably Unstable,
|
|||
DerekDyer |
|||
|
I think it's a very smart and excellent rule. I also know for a fact that it works well. *I* have been doing this for well over two years. (BRB I need to
sweep my house for bugs.)
I do like the addition to it that healing magic brings you to zero, then adds it's amount. |
|||
Dan C Davis |
|||
|
I kind of like it. In my current 3.5 campaign I use the variant rule that lets you drop to - Con score before you die; it's not a big stretch to allow
that or 1/3 maximum hit point total. Monsters can easily get the same.
I don't like the idea that healing does the same amount no matter what your negative hit points are. Take a PC at 1 hp. What this rule means is that the PC will be healed for the same amount whether he gets poked with a dagger for 2 dmg. or gets his skull cracked open with a critical hit by a giant's club for 40 dmg. This creates a huge loophole to be taken advantage of; the high hit point PCs will try to take the big hits when they're low on hit points so that they can get a better benfit from healing. As for the "We've talked elsewhere about some of the bogus parallelism" quote, that's what caused many of the problems in 2E; the monsters and NPCs could do tons of things that the PCs couldn't. The 4E designers will have to be very careful not to duplicate those same mistakes or they'll just be repeating the same problem.
Make the world a better place; slap someone who needs it.
|
|||
Yobgod |
|||
|
It's interesting, the system is -almost- identical to not having negative hit points at all, which is a variant rule I've played around with to
reasonable success.
The only difference I can see is that you can, in this system, kill an incapacitated character by simply doing more damage until you eventually exceed the 'dead' threshold. I'm not really sure how much that adds to the game, and if they give that up, the healing rules get a bit clearer in how they work. I think I'd just stick with there being no negative hit points at all and damage to a 'dying' character triggering a fort save versus sudden death. The system itself is a bit less deadly (in that you're much more likely to spend time in the dying state instead of going directly from healthy to dead), but the stabilization rolls themselves seem a bit harsher. As a nice side effect, you're usually guaranteed at least 3 rounds before you snuff it, which is good. It's more fun when the other players actually get a chance to try to save you. "This creates a huge loophole to be taken advantage of; the high hit point PCs will try to take the big hits when they're low on hit points so that they can get a better benefit from healing. " That's nonsense. First, I don't know of anything a PC can do to effect whether they take a 'big hit' or a 'small hit'. Secondly, assuming that they could, they would *always* take the small hit rather than the big hit... it's better not to have the damage at all then to get the "benefit" of having more of it healed. Third, there's really no 'advantage' to be gained... after going down you'll end up in the exact same state whether you took a large or small hit, and you'll be just as likely to take -another- large or small hit. |
|||
DerekDyer |
|||
This creates a huge loophole to be taken advantage of; the high hit point PCs will try to take the big hits when they're low on hit points so that they can get a better benfit from healing.It may look that way... on paper (though I disagree)... but I can't believe this would ever happen at the table. Of course I don't really see a way to take advantage or exploit this, but even then I don't envision any PC's actively trying to do so. |
|||
Vector Mangler |
|||
Dan C Davis wrote: Um, what? How exactly do you see that happening? I would think a PC, any PC, who is low on hit points would try to avoid getting hit so that they don't waste rounds lying on the ground bleeding when they could be helping the party win the fight. |
|||
durendal |
|||
|
Further counteracting any player wanting to 'exploit' taking a big hit over a small one (if they had some manner of forcing which they took) is that
you still have negative HP and a death's door limit. Taking the big hit, while healing will have the same level of affect on you as if you took the little
one and dropped unconscious, also brings you closer to dying regardless of what you "dying d20" roll is.
Notably Unstable,
|
|||
keteryck |
|||
|
Also, the big hit can potentially kill the character. Potential death weighed against a small gain in healing seems like a poor gamble.
The 'no negative hp' option would basically be a 'even less death' option where you can go as negative as you want, whee. Or you can make it so any hit over your Fort defense that sends you negative kills you for a 'lot more death' option. It's pretty tweakable. Seems pretty good to me. |
|||
Dan C Davis |
|||
Vector Mangler wrote:The party is fighting a giant. He has an AoO left, the party needs to get past him, and he can do 20 dmg. on a good hit. PC #1 has 10 hp, PC #2 has 50 hp, both with a maximum of 60 hp. If PC #1 takes the AoO and drops, he will need less healing than if PC #2 takes the AoO without dropping. With 10 hp PC #1 isn't much good in a fight, but he can take one for the team by taking the AoO.
Make the world a better place; slap someone who needs it.
|
|||
keteryck |
|||
|
Course 'getting past him' and 'falling prone unconscious' don't strike me as compatible, but hey
I am _okay_ with there being incentive for heroic actions like taking one for the team. And hopefully the giant doesn't crit and kill the PC. |
|||
durendal |
|||
|
Like Keteryck, i certainly wouldnt consider passing out next to an angry giant more healing efficient than taking a hard hit. If the party actually got away,
then player 1 will need significantly more healing. Ala Raise Dead.
Notably Unstable,
|
|||
Arcane Guyver |
|||
|
Another good update. Take what worked in 3e (negative hit points) and leave behind what didn't (0 hp = disabled, -10 hp = death).
It's not a game if you can't lose. The rules are there for a reason.
|
|||
DerekDyer |
|||
Dan C Davis wrote: First (sentence): Well we need to take the system as a whole. Obviously we don't know everything, but it's implied that clerics/healers can heal forever. So the assumption would be that you go into most combats with full HP's (presuming you have someone that can heal). That makes the extra damage that #2 takes a moot point. Second (sentence): How does PC#1 having 10hp make him less valuable in a fight? He is still at 100% combat effectiveness. He is far more valuable for the team being active and taking *any* (constructive) action, than dropping, which would actually bring the team down to 75% effectiveness (assuming 4 PC's). |
|||
Ampherion |
|||
|
I like some of the changes. The only change Im a little wary of is the recovery rule when a player rolls a natural 20. This player, with no healing,
recovers to 1/4 of their hit points. This isn't a big deal so much at low level, but at higher level it could be a problem. I guess I need to see how
much damage a monster does in a single round. If a monster of appropriate challenge can damage a character for 1/4 of their hit points in a round, then I
think its ok. It does seem that combats will be shorter.
1A1S-060412-060806-N-W-523/1000-MX
|
|||
keteryck |
|||
|
Then, as a suggestion, the easy house rule is that it restores you to 1 instead of 1/4.
|
|||
DerekDyer |
|||
|
From article (Emphasis mine):
3) If you're dying at the end of your turn, roll 1d20. Lower than 10: You get worse. If you get this result three times before you are healed or stabilized (as per the Heal skill), you *die*. 10-19: No change. 20: You get better! You wake up with hit points equal to one-quarter your full normal hit points. So if lose the third coin toss with death, you die. Whether you are at -5 or -35 (hypothetically 100hp). I didn't realize this on the first read of the article. The only change Im a little wary of is the recovery rule when a player rolls a natural 20. This player, with no healing, recovers to 1/4 of their hit points.It's part of the "awesomeness" of rolling a natty twenty. I guess I need to see how much damage a monster does in a single round. If a monster of appropriate challenge can damage a character for 1/4 of their hit points in a round, then I think its ok.I think it's fine if 1/4 your HP is twice the damage a "average" opponent will deal. Allowing you to take one hit without dropping again. I expect strong damage dealing enemies like strikers or especially elites will be able to deal somewhere in the ballpark of 1/4 your HP's. It does seem that combats will be shorter.Well take into account that there will likely be 2-4 times the amount of enemies. Then, as a suggestion, the easy house rule is that it restores you to 1 instead of 1/4.I would probably step down to 10% first, and then step down to 1hp if that also doesn't meet your expectations. |
|||
Ampherion |
|||
I think it's fine if 1/4 your HP is twice the damage a "average" opponent will deal. Allowing you to take one hit without dropping again. I expect strong damage dealing enemies like strikers or especially elites will be able to deal somewhere in the ballpark of 1/4 your HP's.This is what I mean. If a crit drops you close to dead again, I am ok with the 25% value.
1A1S-060412-060806-N-W-523/1000-MX
|
|||