"Death and Dying" variant (UA page 121) [Archive] - Wizards Community

"Death and Dying" variant (UA page 121) [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Sebby
10-19-04, 04:08 AM Hi.

Anyone else is using it? I started using it in my Eberron campaign, mostly because I don't like the "you die at -10 hp" standard rule, but with experience I find it is way too easy on the characters.

It's the Fort Save DCs: they are too easy.

(For those who are not familiar with the rule, part if it says that when you would be reduced to 0 hp or less, you have to roll a Fort Save with a DC of 10 + 2 per 10 damage received in the last injury. If you pass, you're disabled, if you fail, you're dying and if you fail by 10 or more, you are dead. You don't track negative hps; 0 hp is the lowest you can get.)

At low levels, it is very rare to suffer more than 20 damage at once (so the DC is almost always 10 or 12), and at high levels, even DCs of 20 (50 damage) are easy to pass, and we're not even talking about failing them by 10 or more.

So I am thinking about tweaking it a bit, to make it somewhat more lethal. I am considering one or both of these:

Use higher Fort Save DCs: 10 + 2 per 5 damage received;
You die if you fail the save by 5 or more;

Note that we are also using Eberron's Action Points rule, which tend to make those critical saves easier to pass.

Any comments? Too harsh? Not enough?
Lina_Inverse
10-19-04, 11:06 AM Hi.

Anyone else is using it? I started using it in my Eberron campaign, mostly because I don't like the "you die at -10 hp" standard rule, but with experience I find it is way too easy on the characters.

It's the Fort Save DCs: they are too easy.

(For those who are not familiar with the rule, part if it says that when you would be reduced to 0 hp or less, you have to roll a Fort Save with a DC of 10 + 2 per 10 damage received in the last injury. If you pass, you're disabled, if you fail, you're dying and if you fail by 10 or more, you are dead. You don't track negative hps; 0 hp is the lowest you can get.)

At low levels, it is very rare to suffer more than 20 damage at once (so the DC is almost always 10 or 12), and at high levels, even DCs of 20 (50 damage) are easy to pass, and we're not even talking about failing them by 10 or more.

So I am thinking about tweaking it a bit, to make it somewhat more lethal. I am considering one or both of these:

Use higher Fort Save DCs: 10 + 2 per 5 damage received;
You die if you fail the save by 5 or more;

Note that we are also using Eberron's Action Points rule, which tend to make those critical saves easier to pass.

Any comments? Too harsh? Not enough?

id say its too harsh.its ebberon,its silly to have lvl10 charecters appear out of fricken nowhere.but guess what,everytime a PC dies you need a new one.hence the rules in that book do exactly what they should,MAKE IT HARDER TO DIE.
Soulmage
10-19-04, 11:28 AM I think the problem might be the action points, not the system. Its working fine in my standard D&D game, but the fact that action points let you really do well at key times could be the cause of your problems - it doesn't get much more key than those fort. saves.

I'd suggest just houseruling that action points cannot be spent on those saves. That should solve the problem for you.
Sebby
10-19-04, 03:59 PM Hi, and thank you both for your comments.

Soulmage: it is true that using Action Points in conjunction with Death and Dying is problematic. In fact, variant rules often don't work well together and require some further house-ruling. But even then, the PCs almost never need to spend an AP to make those saves, because they are too easy. At least, that is what experience has shown me and my group. Also, that would not fix the problem with NPCs: they don't have action points and the Fort save DCs are still too easy for them.

Lina_Inverse: my goal is not to kill PCs left and right. Quite the contrary. I chose to use the Death and Dying variant because at higher levels, that 0 hp to -10 hp fork seems pretty narrow and useless ("the dragon hits you with his claw (roll-roll), you take 25 damage and are down to 2 hp; now he bites you for 30..."). I don't want to play a super-lethal game, but too easy is boring. Gotta have a reasonable level of risk to keep players on edge.

Also, this request for a harsher rule is coming from my players as well: they observe that bad guys don't drop as easily as before, because they almost always make the Fort Save to be only disabled. Sorry, no cleave attempt!

And that is why I am trying to find a reasonable tweak to the Death and Dying variant. It's not about killing PCs, it's about risk and fun.
Loophole Hider
10-19-04, 04:19 PM Equation for number needed to die at:
HD*-2 = Dead past this number. Minimum (or maximum because its negative?) = -10

Hope that helps. Similar to the massive damage varient based on HD.
roll8dn
10-19-04, 05:49 PM Um, I think that it was Gary Gygax (don't hold me to that; my memory is more than a bit murky) who suggested another alternative. Your Disabled score (normally 0 hp) is equal to your Con MODIFIER (e.g., a character with an 18 Con would have a Disabled score of -4, whereas a character with a 12 Con would have one of -1); but your Death score is equal to your Con SCORE (e.g., a character with an 18 Con would have a Death score of -18). Just a thought; I thought that it might be a good alternative for you.
Sebby
10-20-04, 12:23 AM Um, I think that it was Gary Gygax (don't hold me to that; my memory is more than a bit murky) who suggested another alternative. Your Disabled score (normally 0 hp) is equal to your Con MODIFIER (e.g., a character with an 18 Con would have a Disabled score of -4, whereas a character with a 12 Con would have one of -1); but your Death score is equal to your Con SCORE (e.g., a character with an 18 Con would have a Death score of -18). Just a thought; I thought that it might be a good alternative for you.
That is exactly what we did before using Death and Dying from UA. I didn't know where this house rule came from, though. If Death and Dying does not work out for us, that is what we'll keep using.

Thanks,
meatpuppet
10-20-04, 11:37 AM Hi sebby,

As you, I'm not to fond of the predictability of the –10 HP you die rule (or even – CON variant as a matter of fact). That’s why I’ve been thinking a lot about using the UA Death an Dying variant in my campaign.

I agree with you, the Fort Save DCs look a bit “effortless” at first glance. They imply that a character with Fortitude +4 cannot die instantly with a 29 HP hit, even if he has only 1 HP left… But still, he has a real good chance of falling unconscious and being near death (a 50 % chance if I am correct).

Furthermore, the rule states that a dying character must make a Fortitude save, DC 10, +1 per turn after the first, to become stable. If he fails the save, he dies. If he succeeds by less than 5, he is still dying.

So when you take into account the Dying part of the rule variant, it seems more balanced to me.
:)
Kiri Sittori
10-20-04, 11:44 AM Um, I think that it was Gary Gygax (don't hold me to that; my memory is more than a bit murky) who suggested another alternative. Your Disabled score (normally 0 hp) is equal to your Con MODIFIER (e.g., a character with an 18 Con would have a Disabled score of -4, whereas a character with a 12 Con would have one of -1); but your Death score is equal to your Con SCORE (e.g., a character with an 18 Con would have a Death score of -18). Just a thought; I thought that it might be a good alternative for you.

And please tell me why GARY GYGAX would come up with a rule that helped player characters. Before you do, pick up as many First Edition AD&D books as you can carry, and read them all. :)

Actually, that is a pretty nice alternative, whatever the source.
roll8dn
10-20-04, 01:33 PM As I said, don't hold me to that.
d_nychus
10-20-04, 02:10 PM Here's the method I use currently. I found that it was literally impossible for any high Fort save character to die using the UA rules as written.

When reduced to 0 hp or less, you must make a Fortitude saving throw DC = hp below 0. If you make the save by more than 5, you are treated as though you are exhausted, but not dead, dying, or disabled and any further damage requires another saving throw. If you make the save by 5 or less, you become disabled. If you fail, you are dying.
Disabled: You are disabled as per the PHB. If you take further damage or exert yourself, you must make a Fortitude saving throw DC = hp below 0. If you make the save by more than 5, you become unconscious but stable. If you make the save by 5 or less, you are dying. If you fail the save and have more than –10 hp, you become dying; if you have –10 or less and fail the save, you are dead.
Dying: Every round you are dying, you need to make a Fortitude saving throw, DC = hp below 0. If you make the save by more than 10, you become disabled. If you make the save by 10 or less, you become stable. If you fail the save by 5 or less, you lose 1 hp, and remain dying. If you fail the save by 5 or more and you have more than –10 hp, you lose 1 hp and remain dying. If you fail the save by 5 or more and you have less than –10 hp, you are dead.
Stable: You are stable per the PHB. Each hour or each time you take damage, you must make a Fortitude save, DC = hp below 0. If you make the save by more than 5, you become disabled. If you make the save by 5 or less, you remain stable. If you fail the save by 5 or less, you take 1 point of damage, but remain stable. If you fail the save by more than 5, you become dying.

The Diehard feat allows you to act normally between 0 and –9 hp. At –10 or less, you must make a Fortitude save based on the conditions above.

So far, we have had a few people slipping into exhuasted range to still fight, one guy who was rendered dying after a nasty fall (I use a capless falling damage for my games, too), but stablized, and teetered between dying and stable several times while the party got down to him, and a number of disabled fighters limping away to the cleric. I haven't fully killed anyone yet, but that has been mostly intentional.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sebby 10-19-04, 04:08 AM	Hi. Anyone else is using it? I started using it in my Eberron campaign, mostly because I don't like the "you die at -10 hp" standard rule, but with experience I find it is way too easy on the characters. It's the Fort Save DCs: they are too easy. (For those who are not familiar with the rule, part if it says that when you would be reduced to 0 hp or less, you have to roll a Fort Save with a DC of 10 + 2 per 10 damage received in the last injury. If you pass, you're disabled, if you fail, you're dying and if you fail by 10 or more, you are dead. You don't track negative hps; 0 hp is the lowest you can get.) At low levels, it is very rare to suffer more than 20 damage at once (so the DC is almost always 10 or 12), and at high levels, even DCs of 20 (50 damage) are easy to pass, and we're not even talking about failing them by 10 or more. So I am thinking about tweaking it a bit, to make it somewhat more lethal. I am considering one or both of these: Use higher Fort Save DCs: 10 + 2 per 5 damage received; You die if you fail the save by 5 or more; Note that we are also using Eberron's Action Points rule, which tend to make those critical saves easier to pass. Any comments? Too harsh? Not enough?
Lina_Inverse 10-19-04, 11:06 AM	Hi. Anyone else is using it? I started using it in my Eberron campaign, mostly because I don't like the "you die at -10 hp" standard rule, but with experience I find it is way too easy on the characters. It's the Fort Save DCs: they are too easy. (For those who are not familiar with the rule, part if it says that when you would be reduced to 0 hp or less, you have to roll a Fort Save with a DC of 10 + 2 per 10 damage received in the last injury. If you pass, you're disabled, if you fail, you're dying and if you fail by 10 or more, you are dead. You don't track negative hps; 0 hp is the lowest you can get.) At low levels, it is very rare to suffer more than 20 damage at once (so the DC is almost always 10 or 12), and at high levels, even DCs of 20 (50 damage) are easy to pass, and we're not even talking about failing them by 10 or more. So I am thinking about tweaking it a bit, to make it somewhat more lethal. I am considering one or both of these: Use higher Fort Save DCs: 10 + 2 per 5 damage received; You die if you fail the save by 5 or more; Note that we are also using Eberron's Action Points rule, which tend to make those critical saves easier to pass. Any comments? Too harsh? Not enough? id say its too harsh.its ebberon,its silly to have lvl10 charecters appear out of fricken nowhere.but guess what,everytime a PC dies you need a new one.hence the rules in that book do exactly what they should,MAKE IT HARDER TO DIE.
Soulmage 10-19-04, 11:28 AM	I think the problem might be the action points, not the system. Its working fine in my standard D&D game, but the fact that action points let you really do well at key times could be the cause of your problems - it doesn't get much more key than those fort. saves. I'd suggest just houseruling that action points cannot be spent on those saves. That should solve the problem for you.
Sebby 10-19-04, 03:59 PM	Hi, and thank you both for your comments. Soulmage: it is true that using Action Points in conjunction with Death and Dying is problematic. In fact, variant rules often don't work well together and require some further house-ruling. But even then, the PCs almost never need to spend an AP to make those saves, because they are too easy. At least, that is what experience has shown me and my group. Also, that would not fix the problem with NPCs: they don't have action points and the Fort save DCs are still too easy for them. Lina_Inverse: my goal is not to kill PCs left and right. Quite the contrary. I chose to use the Death and Dying variant because at higher levels, that 0 hp to -10 hp fork seems pretty narrow and useless ("the dragon hits you with his claw (roll-roll), you take 25 damage and are down to 2 hp; now he bites you for 30..."). I don't want to play a super-lethal game, but too easy is boring. Gotta have a reasonable level of risk to keep players on edge. Also, this request for a harsher rule is coming from my players as well: they observe that bad guys don't drop as easily as before, because they almost always make the Fort Save to be only disabled. Sorry, no cleave attempt! And that is why I am trying to find a reasonable tweak to the Death and Dying variant. It's not about killing PCs, it's about risk and fun.
Loophole Hider 10-19-04, 04:19 PM	Equation for number needed to die at: HD*-2 = Dead past this number. Minimum (or maximum because its negative?) = -10 Hope that helps. Similar to the massive damage varient based on HD.
roll8dn 10-19-04, 05:49 PM	Um, I think that it was Gary Gygax (don't hold me to that; my memory is more than a bit murky) who suggested another alternative. Your Disabled score (normally 0 hp) is equal to your Con MODIFIER (e.g., a character with an 18 Con would have a Disabled score of -4, whereas a character with a 12 Con would have one of -1); but your Death score is equal to your Con SCORE (e.g., a character with an 18 Con would have a Death score of -18). Just a thought; I thought that it might be a good alternative for you.
Sebby 10-20-04, 12:23 AM	Um, I think that it was Gary Gygax (don't hold me to that; my memory is more than a bit murky) who suggested another alternative. Your Disabled score (normally 0 hp) is equal to your Con MODIFIER (e.g., a character with an 18 Con would have a Disabled score of -4, whereas a character with a 12 Con would have one of -1); but your Death score is equal to your Con SCORE (e.g., a character with an 18 Con would have a Death score of -18). Just a thought; I thought that it might be a good alternative for you. That is exactly what we did before using Death and Dying from UA. I didn't know where this house rule came from, though. If Death and Dying does not work out for us, that is what we'll keep using. Thanks,
meatpuppet 10-20-04, 11:37 AM	Hi sebby, As you, I'm not to fond of the predictability of the –10 HP you die rule (or even – CON variant as a matter of fact). That’s why I’ve been thinking a lot about using the UA Death an Dying variant in my campaign. I agree with you, the Fort Save DCs look a bit “effortless” at first glance. They imply that a character with Fortitude +4 cannot die instantly with a 29 HP hit, even if he has only 1 HP left… But still, he has a real good chance of falling unconscious and being near death (a 50 % chance if I am correct). Furthermore, the rule states that a dying character must make a Fortitude save, DC 10, +1 per turn after the first, to become stable. If he fails the save, he dies. If he succeeds by less than 5, he is still dying. So when you take into account the Dying part of the rule variant, it seems more balanced to me. :)
Kiri Sittori 10-20-04, 11:44 AM	Um, I think that it was Gary Gygax (don't hold me to that; my memory is more than a bit murky) who suggested another alternative. Your Disabled score (normally 0 hp) is equal to your Con MODIFIER (e.g., a character with an 18 Con would have a Disabled score of -4, whereas a character with a 12 Con would have one of -1); but your Death score is equal to your Con SCORE (e.g., a character with an 18 Con would have a Death score of -18). Just a thought; I thought that it might be a good alternative for you. And please tell me why GARY GYGAX would come up with a rule that helped player characters. Before you do, pick up as many First Edition AD&D books as you can carry, and read them all. :) Actually, that is a pretty nice alternative, whatever the source.
roll8dn 10-20-04, 01:33 PM	As I said, don't hold me to that.
d_nychus 10-20-04, 02:10 PM	Here's the method I use currently. I found that it was literally impossible for any high Fort save character to die using the UA rules as written. When reduced to 0 hp or less, you must make a Fortitude saving throw DC = hp below 0. If you make the save by more than 5, you are treated as though you are exhausted, but not dead, dying, or disabled and any further damage requires another saving throw. If you make the save by 5 or less, you become disabled. If you fail, you are dying. Disabled: You are disabled as per the PHB. If you take further damage or exert yourself, you must make a Fortitude saving throw DC = hp below 0. If you make the save by more than 5, you become unconscious but stable. If you make the save by 5 or less, you are dying. If you fail the save and have more than –10 hp, you become dying; if you have –10 or less and fail the save, you are dead. Dying: Every round you are dying, you need to make a Fortitude saving throw, DC = hp below 0. If you make the save by more than 10, you become disabled. If you make the save by 10 or less, you become stable. If you fail the save by 5 or less, you lose 1 hp, and remain dying. If you fail the save by 5 or more and you have more than –10 hp, you lose 1 hp and remain dying. If you fail the save by 5 or more and you have less than –10 hp, you are dead. Stable: You are stable per the PHB. Each hour or each time you take damage, you must make a Fortitude save, DC = hp below 0. If you make the save by more than 5, you become disabled. If you make the save by 5 or less, you remain stable. If you fail the save by 5 or less, you take 1 point of damage, but remain stable. If you fail the save by more than 5, you become dying. The Diehard feat allows you to act normally between 0 and –9 hp. At –10 or less, you must make a Fortitude save based on the conditions above. So far, we have had a few people slipping into exhuasted range to still fight, one guy who was rendered dying after a nasty fall (I use a capless falling damage for my games, too), but stablized, and teetered between dying and stable several times while the party got down to him, and a number of disabled fighters limping away to the cleric. I haven't fully killed anyone yet, but that has been mostly intentional.