Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Salla 02-14-07, 11:06 AM	Something I'm actually seriously considering ... One of my larger beefs with the d20 System is that it's very difficult to lose a fight without dying. That 10 HP buffer zone between unconscious and dead is VERY narrow. Additionally, calling back to the pulp novel influences, death of a major protagonist should be rare, and if it happens, it should be dramatically appropriate and important to the plot. Combining this with the fact that returning from the dead is difficult to accomplish in Eberron means that PC death should REALLY be a major dramatic event. Therefore ... Under ordinary circumstances, PCs cannot die without the player's consent. The primary exceptions are Death effects, Coup De Graces, Disintegration-style effects and situations where neither the DM nor players can come up with a remotely feasible way for the PC to have escaped death. These rules do not apply to NPCs. A PC at 0 to -9 HP is disabled, and will lose a HP every round he performs a strenuous action, however at -10 he merely falls unconscious. What I Think This Will Accomplish: 1. More attachment to PCs. In my experience, the more lethal a system is, the less likely the players are to invest emotional energy and time into their characters because they don't wish to spend more time on their backgrounds than they actually get playing the character before dying. 2. Encouraging the swashbuckling actions. Since the PCs lives will not hang in the balance quite so much, the players will not feel the need to make every action 'optimal'. They can afford to show off, because they have the ability to lose without dying. 3. Enable plot elements. Sometimes, the bad guys need to get away to start a plotline rolling, and often, with the abilities PCs bring to the table, they cannot, which leads to a fight, and in my experience, few players are willing (or remember) to take the -4 to hit to attempt to subdue a foe, instead relying on 'luck' to get them into the Death's Door buffer so they can try to recover them later. With this rule, the villains can simply win the fight ... which is even *more* likely to get the PCs motivated, as nothing motivates a player more than getting his butt whupped.
UnderworldLord 02-14-07, 11:25 AM	An interesting concept and theory, but I have to admit that I'm not sure I'd use i. Sometimes, death of a player is just what you need to motivate them to scram. I mean, if you take away death, you take away the meaning of dieing. Essentially, it could be useful to a point, but its how far to take this point that you have to wonder.
treehouse916 02-14-07, 12:22 PM	As much as I hate PC death (from either side of the DM screen), it's a necessary component for any game. Fear is a great motivator, and when players are worried that their favorite character is going to die that just draws them deeper into the game. If you take away the players' fear, what would normally be intense and enjoyable combat becomes sort of arbitrary. I wouldn't use this house rule, but in the end you've got to make the call based on what you and your players would enjoy most. Maybe you could use it on a trial basis, and see how the players react?
Cambian00 02-14-07, 12:30 PM	I would tend to agree... as a DM with more than 20yrs play time I have dealt with characters dying. It is a necessary part of the game in terms of mechanics. Player characters are, in every sense of the word, Mortal. They are born, they grow, they live, they die. Their actions (or inactions) can, very seriously, speed up this process. If you want to motivate them to act in a more "heroic/swashbuckling" manner simply extend the near death range from -10 out farther to about -20 or even -30. This should give them enough of a buffer zone between action and death to allow them to be more dramatic and reckless without fearing death as much.
Alex_ 02-14-07, 12:47 PM	Just because you don't DIE when you're knocked out, doesn't mean you can't be captured, can't still have you stuff stolen, fail a task, etc. There are still other penalties for defeat. I hope your DM focuses more on those. Sounds like your DM sounds more interested in the roleplaying, story, and really cinematic game by sacrificing the more simulationist aspects of the Death rues. I'd say take advantage of this once and see how it goes. No, your character won't die per se, but on the upside, you can now feel free to do things that are more "in character" without your metagaming side going, "will this get me killed?". I agree with our predictions, but for some people, these aren't necessarilly bad things, depending on the player. However, if this is not how you like to play DnD, then you are by all means free to leave. Find a DM who uses death rules, wait for this DM to change houserules, or try DMing your own game.
johnkretzer 02-14-07, 01:40 PM	Something I'm actually seriously considering ... One of my larger beefs with the d20 System is that it's very difficult to lose a fight without dying. That 10 HP buffer zone between unconscious and dead is VERY narrow. Additionally, calling back to the pulp novel influences, death of a major protagonist should be rare, and if it happens, it should be dramatically appropriate and important to the plot. Combining this with the fact that returning from the dead is difficult to accomplish in Eberron means that PC death should REALLY be a major dramatic event. Therefore ... Under ordinary circumstances, PCs cannot die without the player's consent. The primary exceptions are Death effects, Coup De Graces, Disintegration-style effects and situations where neither the DM nor players can come up with a remotely feasible way for the PC to have escaped death. These rules do not apply to NPCs. A PC at 0 to -9 HP is disabled, and will lose a HP every round he performs a strenuous action, however at -10 he merely falls unconscious. What I Think This Will Accomplish: 1. More attachment to PCs. In my experience, the more lethal a system is, the less likely the players are to invest emotional energy and time into their characters because they don't wish to spend more time on their backgrounds than they actually get playing the character before dying. 2. Encouraging the swashbuckling actions. Since the PCs lives will not hang in the balance quite so much, the players will not feel the need to make every action 'optimal'. They can afford to show off, because they have the ability to lose without dying. 3. Enable plot elements. Sometimes, the bad guys need to get away to start a plotline rolling, and often, with the abilities PCs bring to the table, they cannot, which leads to a fight, and in my experience, few players are willing (or remember) to take the -4 to hit to attempt to subdue a foe, instead relying on 'luck' to get them into the Death's Door buffer so they can try to recover them later. With this rule, the villains can simply win the fight ... which is even *more* likely to get the PCs motivated, as nothing motivates a player more than getting his butt whupped. Have you ever played 7th Sea?
Cifer 02-14-07, 04:21 PM	As much as I hate PC death (from either side of the DM screen), it's a necessary component for any game. Is it? I've yet failed to recognize death rules in monopoly, poker and tetris. All of them seem to be games... Death is certainly an important part of a game, but not an integral one. There are RPGs that don't use standard Death mechanics - 7th Sea was already mentioned, Castle Falkenstein (a game which I feel to be very similar in feel to Eberron, though industrialization takes a larger share than magic) and they are no worse for this, for exactly the reasons mentioned: A player that hasn't got to fear death for every non-optimized step he makes is a player that can roleplay his character the way he wants to without the ever-present threat of losing him. Look at all the classics: When the three musketeers fought someone, did they ever think "When I swing on the rope, I'll count as flatfooted so all the thugs of the cardinal will sneak-attack me - better use the stairs"? When James Bond became a bit too cocky and was imprisoned by the Villain, was he ever killed outright instead of being put into an inescapable death-trap (tm) and told the plans for world domination? When Indiana Jones explored the Well of Souls, did he send his henchmen in first because of being afraid of the asps' poison? Dropping Death from the regular game rules makes for a different game, but not for a neccessarily bad one.
Alpha_Moose 02-14-07, 06:07 PM	Look here (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/unearthedDefence.html), then scroll down to Damage Conversion (from Unearthed Arcana). It is something that doesn't drastically change the rules and I think also adds some more realism to them. The only problem is creatures with regeneration.
Alex_ 02-14-07, 06:16 PM	Look here, then scroll down to Damage Conversion (from Unearthed Arcana). It is something that doesn't drastically change the rules and I think also adds some more realism to them. The only problem is creatures with regeneration. I don't know why I never read over those rules in Unearcthed Arcana. I think they kind of overestimate the chances of badguys coming back though. With a powerful recurring villain, once defeated, if the players choose not to kill them outright, they're going to do something to ensure the villain is not let loose to come back after them. With the regular mook or random encounter, it's unlikely that after getting a severe womping from the PCs, that they're going to be eager to come back for revenge. I mean sure Batman fights the Joker constantly, but I think the Joker's goons suffer a higher turnover rate to the point where Batman doesn't fight the same ones every time (who're itching for revenge).
yrogerg 02-14-07, 07:13 PM	Something I'm actually seriously considering ... One of my larger beefs with the d20 System is that it's very difficult to lose a fight without dying. That 10 HP buffer zone between unconscious and dead is VERY narrow. Additionally, calling back to the pulp novel influences, death of a major protagonist should be rare, and if it happens, it should be dramatically appropriate and important to the plot. Combining this with the fact that returning from the dead is difficult to accomplish in Eberron means that PC death should REALLY be a major dramatic event. Therefore ... Under ordinary circumstances, PCs cannot die without the player's consent. The primary exceptions are Death effects, Coup De Graces, Disintegration-style effects and situations where neither the DM nor players can come up with a remotely feasible way for the PC to have escaped death. These rules do not apply to NPCs. A PC at 0 to -9 HP is disabled, and will lose a HP every round he performs a strenuous action, however at -10 he merely falls unconscious. What I Think This Will Accomplish: 1. More attachment to PCs. In my experience, the more lethal a system is, the less likely the players are to invest emotional energy and time into their characters because they don't wish to spend more time on their backgrounds than they actually get playing the character before dying. 2. Encouraging the swashbuckling actions. Since the PCs lives will not hang in the balance quite so much, the players will not feel the need to make every action 'optimal'. They can afford to show off, because they have the ability to lose without dying. 3. Enable plot elements. Sometimes, the bad guys need to get away to start a plotline rolling, and often, with the abilities PCs bring to the table, they cannot, which leads to a fight, and in my experience, few players are willing (or remember) to take the -4 to hit to attempt to subdue a foe, instead relying on 'luck' to get them into the Death's Door buffer so they can try to recover them later. With this rule, the villains can simply win the fight ... which is even *more* likely to get the PCs motivated, as nothing motivates a player more than getting his butt whupped. Have you considered a middle-ground option, such as making the death point equal to -(10+the character's Con Modifier), making the disabled point equal to 0-the Character's Con Modifier, or both? Or, as an alternative to the former suggestion, making the death point equal the negative of the character's Con score? Any of these would widen the death threshold a bit, and as you allude, death effects become more and more of a threat at higher levels, making the death threshold largely moot. However, I would shy away from rendering death-by-damage nonexistent, and from making the rules for PCs and NPCs (and especially major NPCs) too dramatically different in that regard. After all, a staple of even pulp novels is often that the *danger* of death is still very real, even if Our Heroes continue to miraculously avoid it. In those pulp influences, Our Heroes seldom lose, so the fact that loss means death is irrelevant.
UnderworldLord 02-14-07, 07:41 PM	The thing about death is that if you're players don't feel threatened by it, they won't stop to think about their consequences anymore. I'd say widening the threshold to 20 would work, and maybe increase it by 5 every 5levels or something.
Edymnion 02-14-07, 08:10 PM	I wouldn't want to play in this game. I would like to play in a game that prevents character death from stupid things, like rolling a natural 1 on your balance check and falling off a bridge, rolling max damage and going to -10 on the nose. But, I typically just reroll once, and if the dice still say they die, then the dice gods have spoken. Basically though, without fear of failure, there is no thrill to success. If I cannot die, then no matter how great the conquest, it is hollow, because while I could not win, I could never really fail. Plus, it encourages absolutely suicidal behavior that would make even a Kender think twice.
goblin_pride 02-14-07, 08:40 PM	Plus, it encourages absolutely suicidal behavior that would make even a Kender think twice. That pretty much covers it.
Crimsonsun 02-14-07, 10:28 PM	In my game Im running right now I let a player burn all their AP to end up at -9 and stable. I don't let it work on insta-death stuff (Circle of Death, etc) but it works for damage
KavonRa 02-14-07, 11:40 PM	I think players should be aware that if they chew off more then they can handle they as a resulte get into trouble. Trouble meaning in this case a possible permanent end. HOWEVER its one of my DM rules, my players dont know this but i wont kill off one of their chars right away. Ill make sure they somehow manage to survive tho it depends on the situation ofcourse. As for permision to kill off a char...if he/she toys with his/her char's life then i dont see any need to ask permission.
Alpha_Moose 02-15-07, 03:54 PM	Plus, it encourages absolutely suicidal behavior that would make even a Kender think twice. What's funny is in my group the normal threat of death does nothing for that. Most players just think that they will make a new character if the old one dies. And they all do.:rolleyes:
Roland the Crownbreaker 02-15-07, 05:56 PM	The group I play in uses a negative constitution rule. A Con score of 16 means that the character can drop to -16 before they die. It adds a little more survivablity without allowing the characters to be complete morons.
Lord_Tirian 02-15-07, 07:06 PM	Hmm... I don't think that houserule is that bad. Essentially, it's very movie-esque: The characters don't die - they'll be captured - and can still be killed with a Coup de Grace, making being knocked out also very dangerous. However, equally powerful and movie-esque would be: Spend an action point to prevent a death, putting you to -9 (stabilized) - you could even make it automatic. Makes death less dangerous, but keeps the players wary, since AP won't last forever.
UnderworldLord 02-15-07, 07:31 PM	I'd still just increase the buffer zone, or use the constitution thing.
johnkretzer 02-15-07, 09:00 PM	I will say this I have gamemastered 7th Sea before where the rule are set up to make it very diifitcult to kill someone by accident. I.E. Bad dice rolls, NPCs roll incredible, etc. I have never seen anybody do anything that would make a kender proud...I am sorry I did once and you know what he died..because neither 7th Sea or Salla's house rules prevent people from dying because of stupidity. These rules just stop the random, meanless deaths. Personaly I got no problems with random meanless death or if I do I just run 7th Sea.
yrogerg 02-15-07, 09:17 PM	I have never seen anybody do anything that would make a kender proud...I am sorry I did once and you know what he died..because neither 7th Sea or Salla's house rules prevent people from dying because of stupidity. These rules just stop the random, meanless deaths. No they don't. They only stop death by damage, which is often the result of not backing off when it's necessary, more than anything else. Especially above, say, level 4. It doesn't stop random, meaningless deaths from Save or Die effects, and it doesn't stop random meaningless deaths from very low rolls on, say, a Jump or Balance check. And again, I'm really not a fan of creating such a huge asymmetry between PCs and NPCs, especially when it does something like rendering Non-Lethal damage irrelevant.
UnderworldLord 02-15-07, 11:17 PM	Agreed... especially since I love my lizardfolk barb/druid with a merciful greatclub and powerful charge!
Ventifax 02-16-07, 02:11 AM	Another alternative (swiped from BESM D20) is not to "kill" characters until they hit (0 - max hp).
Kid SixXx 02-16-07, 07:28 AM	I am fortunate that most of the folks I game with are mature enough to accept the notions that: It's a game. Heroes die. Unless I'm dealing with people who are unnaturally attached to the pieces of paper sitting in front of them, I've got no problem letting the dice fall where they may although I do sometimes fudge things when statistically awful things are happening to the party all at once (ie. I've had nights where everyone manages to roll a fumble at the worst possible time.) Deaths punctuate the plotline sometimes, and it is sobering when a party member dies at a critical juncture of the adventure. Most people I know wear PC deaths like a badge of honor, so they've no problems re-rolling while everyone else is RPing some other encounter. I've also been fortunate enough to game with folks that tend not to do amazingly stupid things unless they were actually RPing & the situation called for it. (ie. for a Warforged Artificer with quite a few ranks in Trap Sense, my friend's PC, Fulcrum, never fails to get us in trouble with the old "I wonder what this lever does?" gimmick.)
Ryoden_Anariavas 02-16-07, 10:23 AM	In the game I am playing in now the rule is -10 + your level before you die. It comes in effect more often than not
goblin_pride 02-16-07, 10:29 AM	Most people I know wear PC deaths like a badge of honor, so they've no problems re-rolling while everyone else is RPing some other encounter. A heroic death can be excellent for keeping a storyline rolling. But as with everything else, choosing the time and place of that final fight is in the hands of the player. If playing a character that rushes headlong into a fight and won't back down is the player's standard, then death may be forthcoming. Altering the rules about death because the players don't understand the tactics involved in breaking contact with an enemy is foolish at the least and outright mollycoddling at the worst. I know it may seem cold, but I really don't have much patience for players that can't grasp the simple concept that sometimes the best choice is to run rather than fight. Standing your ground against near-insurmountable odds has it's place, but being able to see that you might not be able to overcome the odds is part of the game and makes the acts of heroism so much more impressive. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- As an example, let's take a situation from one of the games I play in. A simple task, 200 kobolds camped around a fortress that we want to explore. Rather than using the simplest tactics, one of our party rushes headlong into the heart of the kobold host without consulting anyone else. The NPC nobleman follows him in the mad rush. Now we have the party broken into three seperate melees with a huge number of kobolds filling in the gaps between. I fought my way in to rescue the separated casters and the supply wagon, the wizard had to widen the gap to keep them at range and the cleric stayed at the edge rather than trying to fight his way into the encircled combatants in the middle. As you can guess, it went badly. By your houserule, the PCs that made the idiotic blunder of charging headlong into a massed army would still be alive, although the situation would be a bit more dire for them. I do feel bad for the sorceror and illusionist, but they're quite happy with the paladin and fighter they made*. One of the rewards of creative thinking and using tactics is the continued survival of a player's character, if you remove death as a strong possibility, the Players will certainly do much dumber things because they know they can't die. *A matched pair, knight and squire, I was rather impressed by the level of cooperation the two players showed when they made the characters. So far they've shown that the death of their previous characters taught them that if they stay close to each other, opponents can't do as much damage to them as quickly. I guess that is the one real benefit of their former characters' deaths.
Pinky's brain 02-16-07, 11:02 AM	Combining this with the fact that returning from the dead is difficult to accomplish in Eberron means that PC death should REALLY be a major dramatic event. No, it's not ... you just have to hurry a bit more.
tallric_kruush 02-16-07, 11:16 AM	Have you considered a middle-ground option, such as...making the death point equal the negative of the character's Con score? Monte Cook uses this rule in Arcana Unearthed. Disabled also gets a different starting point, but from what I can tell the rules aren't considered "Open Gaming Content", so I shall not post them here.:) If you have access to Arcana Evolved, check p.185. I really don't like the setting all that much, but he has some very well made alternate rules in here. I guess that makes sense, since we're talking about Monte Cook.
UnderworldLord 02-16-07, 11:53 AM	Seriously, Goblin_Pride, I need to get into one of your games. That sounds like a lot of fun.
Alex_ 02-16-07, 12:18 PM	As an example, let's take a situation from one of the games I play in. A simple task, 200 kobolds camped around a fortress that we want to explore. Rather than using the simplest tactics, one of our party rushes headlong into the heart of the kobold host without consulting anyone else. The NPC nobleman follows him in the mad rush. Now we have the party broken into three seperate melees with a huge number of kobolds filling in the gaps between. I fought my way in to rescue the separated casters and the supply wagon, the wizard had to widen the gap to keep them at range and the cleric stayed at the edge rather than trying to fight his way into the encircled combatants in the middle. As you can guess, it went badly. By your houserule, the PCs that made the idiotic blunder of charging headlong into a massed army would still be alive, although the situation would be a bit more dire for them. No, they would have been captured, stripped of all gear, and made into Kobold captives/slaves and be subjected to torture. That could have effectively be the end of the campaign even if everyone didn't die from hitting -10. Also, if anything hinged upon the party's scouting of the Kobold camp, then they obviously failed, and whatever the Kobolds were planning will now go unknown until they're able to accomplish whatever they're planning. There are other consequences for losing in combat other than death.
goblin_pride 02-16-07, 12:25 PM	Seriously, Goblin_Pride, I need to get into one of your games. That sounds like a lot of fun. Come to Iowa, Lordalm and Lawdog DM opposite weeks.
johnkretzer 02-16-07, 12:28 PM	By your houserule, the PCs that made the idiotic blunder of charging headlong into a massed army would still be alive, although the situation would be a bit more dire for them. I do feel bad for the sorceror and illusionist, but they're quite happy with the paladin and fighter they made*. One of the rewards of creative thinking and using tactics is the continued survival of a player's character, if you remove death as a strong possibility, the Players will certainly do much dumber things because they know they can't die. Actualy no there would be dead. Read the house rule again. The kobolds would simply Coup De Graces on all the PCs. Seeing how the kolbold don't keep slaves or such there is no reason to keep you guys alive.
goblin_pride 02-16-07, 12:32 PM	That could have effectively be the end of the campaign even if everyone didn't die from hitting -10. It almost was, fortunately the Wizard, the NPC and I survived. The cleric, or King Munchkin as I like to call him, managed to save his own skin as well by avoiding any personal risk. Also, if anything hinged upon the party's scouting of the Kobold camp, then they obviously failed, and whatever the Kobolds were planning will now go unknown until they're able to accomplish whatever they're planning. Yeah, scouting wasn't as high a priority to the others. Being the only scout in a party that includes two Grade A munchkins, I was pretty much screwed in any hopes of getting a peek before they waded in.
UnderworldLord 02-16-07, 03:17 PM	Iowa is way too far from home, and much colder I might add. I play online mostly. As for penalties beyond death, yes there are. But when its going to be the effective end of the campaign anyway, you still have to make more characters. Dead or not. Right?
yrogerg 02-17-07, 07:57 PM	Monte Cook uses this rule in Arcana Unearthed. Disabled also gets a different starting point, but from what I can tell the rules aren't considered "Open Gaming Content", so I shall not post them here.:) If you have access to Arcana Evolved, check p.185. I really don't like the setting all that much, but he has some very well made alternate rules in here. I guess that makes sense, since we're talking about Monte Cook. I don't see that one specifically, but: http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/variantAdventuring.htm
tallric_kruush 02-17-07, 08:43 PM	I don't see that one specifically, but: http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/variantAdventuring.htm Are you sure you looked at Monte Cook's "Arcana Unearthed" or "Arcana Evolved" and not WotC's "Unearthed Arcana"? It's right there on p.185 of "Arcana Evolved".
yrogerg 02-17-07, 09:12 PM	Are you sure you looked at Monte Cook's "Arcana Unearthed" or "Arcana Evolved" and not WotC's "Unearthed Arcana"? It's right there on p.185 of "Arcana Evolved". Don't have that book, specifically, though I am guilty of conflating "variant rules" with "Unearthed Arcana".
tallric_kruush 02-17-07, 09:27 PM	Don't have that book, specifically, though I am guilty of conflating "variant rules" with "Unearthed Arcana". With the names being so similar, it's easy to get them confused. Monte's "Arcana Evolved" (and the revised/updated/improved "Arcana Evolved") are sort of an alternative PHB-DMG-Campaign Setting in one. It's very impressive in many ways. The magic system scraps the arcane/divine distinction, for instance. The base classes progress to level 25, rather than 20. There are many differences. No elves, no dwarves... As I said above, though, I really don't like the Campaign Setting for Monte's "Arcana" books. It's called "Diamond Throne", if I remember correctly. Oddly enough, it's set in a kingdom ruled by giants (from the aforementioned Diamond Throne)...:thinks: Anyway, being the granddaddy of 3.0 DnD, Monte is most qualified to publish variant rules systems. I just didn't happen to like the setting attached to this one. His "Ptolus" Campaign Setting, on the other hand, is magnificent. Probably the single most amazing RPG book ever printed; and it's created to use standard 3.5 DnD rules right out of the box, er, wrapping.
Lux72 02-17-07, 10:02 PM	The group I play in uses a negative constitution rule. A Con score of 16 means that the character can drop to -16 before they die. It adds a little more survivablity without allowing the characters to be complete morons. I've never liked this rule because it doubly rewards those with high CONS while it doubly punishes those with low CONs. The high CON people are already benefiting from more hit points and now it takes even more damage to kill them. The low CON people are already suffering from reduced hit points and now they die even sooner. After all if a 16 CON person dies at -16 then a 8 CON person should die at -8.
tallric_kruush 02-17-07, 10:05 PM	I've never liked this rule because it doubly rewards those with high CONS while it doubly punishes those with low CONs. The high CON people are already benefiting from more hit points and now it takes even more damage to kill them. The low CON people are already suffering from reduced hit points and now they die even sooner. After all if a 16 CON person dies at -16 then a 8 CON person should die at -8. That's true. Though I gotta say, I've never played a character of any type with a Con score of less than 10.
androkguz 02-17-07, 10:18 PM	I like your rule, but for it to work, your PC should be the type of PC that would roleplay a character that fears death even if he can't really die. Because that character doesn't know he can't really die. With that in mind, I think that the rule can be a good one. If you're however looking for PC to be able to do heroic/suicide-but-cool actions then you can use this variant: take control of half the action points of each PC and choose to use them as d10s when they do something really cool, and only when they do.
Lux72 02-17-07, 10:19 PM	I'll admit that I have rarely played in games where a character has less than a 10 CON (it's happened) but the argument still hold true for characters with higher than 10 CONs compared to each other. Assuming average hit point rolls, the 16 CON person has more hit points than the 12 CON person and now the 16 CON person has 4 more hit points to lose until he dies.
tallric_kruush 02-17-07, 10:33 PM	I'll admit that I have rarely played in games where a character has less than a 10 CON (it's happened) but the argument still hold true for characters with higher than 10 CONs compared to each other. Assuming average hit point rolls, the 16 CON person has more hit points than the 12 CON person and now the 16 CON person has 4 more hit points to lose until he dies. Very true. It's really only likely to help the Barbarians, Fighters, etc... But if it helps part of the party, it helps all the party.
Lux72 02-17-07, 10:50 PM	But if it helps part of the party, it helps all the party. I suppose in a way. I'm just not sure how much "help" the Barbarian is as he slips from -10 to -16. He's still unconscious. Heheh... I'm just being difficult. That extra 4 points of damage could be the difference between a cleric getting to them or not getting to them.
tallric_kruush 02-17-07, 11:03 PM	I'm just not sure how much "help" the Barbarian is as he slips from -10 to -16. Perhaps not much at all if he spends a lot of time that way.:) Some players, whether through bad luck or bad decisions, seemed destined to be dropped in every encounter.
Cifer 02-19-07, 03:52 PM	The main point, as Alex has already mentioned, is that there are or should be other way of defeat than death - ways from which the PCs can recover, grit their teeth and emerge with new hatred for their enemy. The PCs didn't manage to get to the princess in time on account of having been clobbered? Well, the bad guy will have done [whatever it is bad guys do with a princess]. What do you need death for? To present a danger? Don't you think there are other ways for doing that?
Vharuck 02-20-07, 08:20 PM	Why would the PCs live? If the opponents want to kill them, they're not going to leave them unconscious (unless they have more pressing matters and the PC makes that elusive stabilization check). If you want the villains to capture the PCs, use nets, manacles, grappling, and non-lethal damage.
strange_person 02-20-07, 11:30 PM	IMC, I don't use negative values for HP. It works more like VP (including per-hour rather than per-day healing for most injuries), but instead of hits after 0 VP counting against Wounds, they go to the Injury system. Crits don't have any special effect; they just do more damage. That way, the normal fight mechanics are unchanged, but faster recovery means more bold action and less running back to town, and the Injury system allows more dramatic Boromir-like last stands (mission-critical saves are what APs are for) without removing the risk of sudden death. Most NPCs and monsters surrender and/or flee when they run out of VP and start taking Hits; thus, equally difficult conflicts with not so much fatality. Nonlethal hits heal at one per hour, and charachters with 0 VP must recover all nonlethal hits before natural VP healing resumes. Lethal hits apply as a penalty on ALL saving throws, and they don't heal without assistance; a d8 of healing (instead of a flat 5 points) can remove a lethal hit instead of restoring VP. For nonmagical healing, I ported in the Surgery feat from D20 Modern, but with a few changes: upgraded the HP restored to D8s, and every "status condition" the patient is suffering from adds an hour to the time and 2 points to the Heal DC. Conditions (such as Exhausted, Panicked, or Nauseated) that are more severe versions of other conditions inflict correspondingly larger penalties; for example, operating on a Panicked charachter (assuming it's possible to restrain them, and they don't calm down before the operation begins) takes 3 hours longer than normal, and the dc is 6 points higher. Using a healer's kit doesn't grant a bonus on surgery rolls; it negates the -4 penalty for improvised tools. Minimal improvised tools include something small and sharp (any light slashing or peircing weapon), something to close wounds with (needle and thread, appropriate cantrips/orisons, or a controlled source of fire if you're willing to risk inflicting more damage than you repair), and disinfectant (holy water, or anything alchoholic). If the surgeon fails be less than 5 points, the operation is a success (VP and/or lethal hits are recovered) but there's some kind of complication: typically infection, direct ability score damage (Con for blood loss, Cha for scarring, othee stuff for other stuff) or loss of a limb, but the DM is encouraged to be creative in the event of magically-induced injuries or other unusual circumstances. Brute-force magical fixes for botched surgery should always be at least theoretically available (Regenerate and Heal are the best, with Break Enchantment or Remove Curse for the exotic stuff, and don't forget Remove Disease and Neutralize Poison), but expensive and inconvenient so as to encourage creative temporary solutions from the PCs. Performing surgery on yourself nets a +5 bonus due to the visceral feedback, but automatically inflicts at least one complication. Stabilization saves when dying are only made every round if the dying charachter is disturbed somehow (such as being in the middle of a fight, or on a bumpy vehicle ride, or dragged across rough ground). If they're lying still in relative peace, the roll is made per minute, to reflect the benefits of leaving an injured person to recover rather than trying to move them. If it's really cold, or there's powerful magic in the terrain, the roll is made per hour, but there's a risk of losing extremities (cold) or getting some kind of supernatural taint (magic). Fast healing just recovers VP faster; it stops working when VP hits zero, but recovering even a single point of VP lets it start up again. Inflict Minor Wounds potions become popular with vampires. Regeneration works like Fast Healing, except that it doesn't stop at 0 VP, 5 points of VP healing can instead recover a nonlethal hit, and (as normal) most attacks count as nonlethal. I like my system particularly because it doesn't require a revision of the basic rules for healing magic, but it adds more detail to the thin line between "hurt real bad, but he'll be fine in two days" and "dead." Also, the possibility of disfiguring injuries makes people more inclined to seek peaceful solutions, or at least quick and decisive applications of force rather than casually smashing whatever gets in their way.
Ryoden_Anariavas 02-21-07, 09:39 AM	What if they are swallowed by a purple worm and slowly digested do they still have the choice of not being dead? after all the worm is not preforming a Coup De Graces with its gizzard.
UnderworldLord 02-21-07, 11:04 AM	I think that might fall under special circumstances.
DMsDelight 02-21-07, 11:27 AM	Imma have to agree with the general consensus here, as of halfway throgh the thread. Death is half the fun and challenge. In fact, it can be even more of an epic adventure to find a way to raise the PC who died, take revenge on the killing party and takin their stuff to save the world they were trying to destroy and dominate (etc.). If you want to run that rule, my opinion is to not TELL the player that they can't die, but continue to encourage the swashbuckling action. The PCs will pick up on this and gradually make more bold moves, like any good movie.
Alex_ 02-21-07, 01:19 PM	Why would the PCs live? If the opponents want to kill them, they're not going to leave them unconscious (unless they have more pressing matters and the PC makes that elusive stabilization check). If you want the villains to capture the PCs, use nets, manacles, grappling, and non-lethal damage. It doesn't prevent a TPK. It allows for stuff like the party's gimpy Bard designed for social interaction to be more forward in combat alongside the Barbarian, without the player worrying that he can potentially lose his character forever. He still goes down during the fight, but instead of hitting negative HP and hoping somebody gets to him in time before he dies, and has to be raised (negative lievel)/reincarnated (new race or species)/roll up a new character, he just has to sit out the rest of the encounter. When the fight is over the party can heal him out of unconsciousness as normal, and they continue with th adventure. They don't have to lug around scrolls of raise dead, or retreat from th dungeon to find a means of healing him, unless it's part of the plot or something the players WANT to do.
sinrae_kinesti 02-22-07, 03:57 AM	wow this rule would be awesome if you had people so afraid to breathe in a dungeon for fear of poisonous death. i think the problem is the DM has been to lethal in the past and made it his point to try to scare players into flying straight. i've never ran a game where i was out to kill the players and i tried not to in combat if i knew they were disabled. dont take this as soft hearted sentiment because i have killed entire parties because they did something stupid. but i think if people stopped using D&D to get there anime monster slaying jollies off, with epic villians that dont even get dirty when his beast's blood spills al over him. (can you tell that i have an animosity toward japanese cartoons?) well anyway I'm off to lunch you folks have a good day
Vharuck 02-23-07, 05:32 PM	It doesn't prevent a TPK. It allows for stuff like the party's gimpy Bard designed for social interaction to be more forward in combat alongside the Barbarian, without the player worrying that he can potentially lose his character forever. He still goes down during the fight, but instead of hitting negative HP and hoping somebody gets to him in time before he dies, and has to be raised (negative lievel)/reincarnated (new race or species)/roll up a new character, he just has to sit out the rest of the encounter. When the fight is over the party can heal him out of unconsciousness as normal, and they continue with th adventure. They don't have to lug around scrolls of raise dead, or retreat from th dungeon to find a means of healing him, unless it's part of the plot or something the players WANT to do. Not to sound rude, but if a wimpy bard ran into combat alongside the barbarian, I'd call the result natural selection.
Cifer 02-23-07, 06:47 PM	Not to sound rude, but if a wimpy bard ran into combat alongside the barbarian, I'd call the result natural selection. Natural selection is what would happen in real life, but what would happen in a movie when the mighty heroes' comic relief blundered into a battle?
goblin_pride 02-23-07, 07:06 PM	Natural selection is what would happen in real life, but what would happen in a movie when the mighty heroes' comic relief blundered into a battle? Bad movie-making. I don't know about you, but it always torques my nuts to see the comic relief character come out of a fight without a scratch when the hero is battered and abused.
Alex_ 02-23-07, 08:37 PM	Not to sound rude, but if a wimpy bard ran into combat alongside the barbarian, I'd call the result natural selection. He's going to be out of the fight sooner regardless. However, this way, he won't be out of the campaign entirely, fall behind in character progression, or move the campaign in a different direction. It also helps alleviate the anxieties of the player who is so afraid of his/her character dying that he/she won't take the risk to help another player in a dire situation. Natural selection is what would happen in real life, but what would happen in a movie when the mighty heroes' comic relief blundered into a battle? Not just the comic relief. There are oh so many great movies where characters come up against individuals who are obviously deadlier and more skilled in combat than they are, that don't result in the logical conclusion of said character dying. The comic relief is one such example, but other stereotypes include the scientist, the love interest, the sidekick, the person being protected, etc. Sometimes they can contribute to a fight, but this is less likely when they're so afraid of certain death if they attempt it that they don't.
yrogerg 02-24-07, 12:22 AM	He's going to be out of the fight sooner regardless. However, this way, he won't be out of the campaign entirely, fall behind in character progression, or move the campaign in a different direction. OR he gets a bow or crossbow, takes a song feat or two, and play the character he picked in a *reasonable* manner. Less incentive to do that, if the only serious consequence is "you wake up after combat". Not to mention the fact that as cartoonish as hit points can be, and as much as this is already a complaint about the D&D hit point system, never dying from damage kinda makes them dramatically more so.
Alex_ 02-24-07, 12:52 AM	OR he gets a bow or crossbow, takes a song feat or two, and play the character he picked in a *reasonable* manner. That's what most charatcers will do anyway. getting knocked out early in a combat encounter and having to sit it out, even if you don't die is still something most layers won't do. However, they are more willing to risk that if it means a situation where the bard might WANT to get within range of an enemy's powerful attacks in order to help the Barbarian out (deliver a healing spell, specific Bardic ability, aid other, etc) without fear of becoming a smear or having to alter the information on his character sheet (if not write up a new one). Not to mention the fact that as cartoonish as hit points can be, and as much as this is already a complaint about the D&D hit point system, never dying from damage kinda makes them dramatically more so. Just because your character doesn't lose a level, has to get reincarnated into a different body, or have to create a totally new character when defeated doesn't mean players are going to just roll over and accept defeat readily in every situation. I'm sure you've played many a game where you have no actual mechanical disadvantages for going down other than restarting from the point where you were before defeat. You still try to play the game to the end don't you? There's a reason why they don't make many games where you only get 3 lives, and when they're gone, you have to start the whole game over or stop playing altogether) anymore. While not simulationist or terribly realistic, this isn't necessarily bad game design. It works very good for more cinematic games, which more akin to movies where the main characters don't die until it's the "right time".
UnderworldLord 02-24-07, 10:29 AM	Simple careful application of this rule works just fine. But if I charge into the dragons maw, while its breathing fire, and have only 5HP to spare... you can bet its because I want a new character, not because I'm being 'cinematic'.
goblin_pride 02-24-07, 11:37 AM	Simple careful application of this rule works just fine. But if I charge into the dragons maw, while its breathing fire, and have only 5HP to spare... you can bet its because I want a new character, not because I'm being 'cinematic'. Or you have a knapsack full of smoke powder and you know good and damned well that the dragon isn't aware of that little tidbit. That's heroic, cinematic and guaranteed to bring down the house.
strange_person 02-24-07, 12:00 PM	There's still the whole "grizly burninating death" aspect to worry about.
Donald_Cannith 02-24-07, 12:05 PM	Currently I am running a fairly high level Eberron campaign and they just ran into a certain rakshasa who disintegrated a party member. What they don't know is that the disintegrated party member also has his soul trapped and he is permanently dead. I can tel you oen thing, thisi s going ot motivate them like hell to take o nthe Lords of Dust, even thoguht thats nto what the yare doing. (currently trying to rid House Deneith of its Quori influences and trying to unite House Cannith) They made the mistake of trying to court Jorlanna and the Rakshasa took them out back and beat the **** out of them using Magic jar o nthe big fighter and having him beat up the support characters and a few things before coup de gracing himself and disintegrating the spellcaster. Luckily, the Cleric got the mall otu of there alive through magnificent playing.
Wrathamon 02-26-07, 09:05 PM	There are several ways i handle this One is traits and flaws. I use a fate token mechanic to help prevent death If a player is reduced to -10 or lower they are automatically stabilized at -9. They then receive a negative level till their next level. If they spend a fate token they are given a Flaw instead of the negative level which is permanent w/ no bonus feat associated with it. This flaw is normally associated with how they died. If they spend two fate tokens they get a trait that is associated with how they die and is purely positive for their character. Several traits have more positive benefit to certain builds then others. If they spend 3 fate tokens they are just left stabilized at -9. Each level the player is given a fate token. This can also be used as a reroll on any die roll. I also started using taint if they died because of death magic or something extremely evil in nature instead of flaws and traits.