10 negative hp replaced by negative con [Archive] - Wizards Community

10 negative hp replaced by negative con [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Golden Zealot
05-28-06, 10:36 AM i think i heard as a house rule or some variant rule ages ago that instead of just using -10 hit points for everyone, each character would use their con score as their number of negative hit points. either that or everyone has -10, but their con modifier is subtracted from that to give them a new amount of negative hit points.
i was wondering if those who used this kind of variant found it to be a good and balanced improvement to the game.
SilvercatMoonpaw
05-28-06, 11:08 AM That variant is used in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved/Unearthed books. I think -Con modifier is unconcious, -Con score is dead.
Lord_Tirian
05-28-06, 01:43 PM That variant is used in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved/Unearthed books. I think -Con modifier is unconcious, -Con score is dead.

Exactly.

It works fine. It gives your PC some (albeit small) extra room to survive, and since you are staggered fom 0 to -Con Mod., but still conscious, there is a higher chance of foes/PCs, of dramatic actions (dealing the final blow, then falling unconscious).
Celestial_Gold_Dragon
05-28-06, 02:02 PM I just use staggered at 0, dying at -1, and dead at -con. It works fine also.

I was thinking:
Does it seem reasonable to change your self-stabilization chance from 10% to con%?
Xeviat-DM
05-29-06, 12:13 AM I just use staggered at 0, dying at -1, and dead at -con. It works fine also.

I was thinking:
Does it seem reasonable to change your self-stabilization chance from 10% to con%?

Why not just make it a fortitude save. The stabilization check is the only check that I can think of that is still a raw percentage, and has little to no way of being improved (you can take diehard; that's pretty much it). Now, there are the concealment miss chance percentages, but that should be out of player's hands.

So yes, it would be fine to do con%, but I think a fort save would be the better option.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Golden Zealot 05-28-06, 10:36 AM	i think i heard as a house rule or some variant rule ages ago that instead of just using -10 hit points for everyone, each character would use their con score as their number of negative hit points. either that or everyone has -10, but their con modifier is subtracted from that to give them a new amount of negative hit points. i was wondering if those who used this kind of variant found it to be a good and balanced improvement to the game.
SilvercatMoonpaw 05-28-06, 11:08 AM	That variant is used in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved/Unearthed books. I think -Con modifier is unconcious, -Con score is dead.
Lord_Tirian 05-28-06, 01:43 PM	That variant is used in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved/Unearthed books. I think -Con modifier is unconcious, -Con score is dead. Exactly. It works fine. It gives your PC some (albeit small) extra room to survive, and since you are staggered fom 0 to -Con Mod., but still conscious, there is a higher chance of foes/PCs, of dramatic actions (dealing the final blow, then falling unconscious).
Celestial_Gold_Dragon 05-28-06, 02:02 PM	I just use staggered at 0, dying at -1, and dead at -con. It works fine also. I was thinking: Does it seem reasonable to change your self-stabilization chance from 10% to con%?
Xeviat-DM 05-29-06, 12:13 AM	I just use staggered at 0, dying at -1, and dead at -con. It works fine also. I was thinking: Does it seem reasonable to change your self-stabilization chance from 10% to con%? Why not just make it a fortitude save. The stabilization check is the only check that I can think of that is still a raw percentage, and has little to no way of being improved (you can take diehard; that's pretty much it). Now, there are the concealment miss chance percentages, but that should be out of player's hands. So yes, it would be fine to do con%, but I think a fort save would be the better option.