PDA

View Full Version : Minor 4e Change:



Rutee
2008-02-04, 05:49 PM
Whoo! People die at something lower then -10. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080201a&authentic=true)

Not sure if I like the d20 roll at the bottom, but.. I definitely like expanding the window to be something you can reasonably hit past level like, 5.

Theli
2008-02-04, 06:04 PM
One wonders what the "clever abstractions" of the bleeding out mechanic refer to.

Hmm, wonder if you just plain bleed faster if you have more hitpoints... Maybe if you're higher level? How exactly are they going to go about it in order to speed it up?

Perhaps there's just a certain number of rounds of negative hitpoint status that you have to get stable in before you're dead...

Tren
2008-02-04, 06:06 PM
One wonders what the "clever abstractions" of the bleeding out mechanic refer to.

Hmm, wonder if you just plain bleed faster if you have more hitpoints... Maybe if you're higher level? How exactly are they going to go about it in order to speed it up?

Perhaps there's just a certain number of rounds of negative hitpoint status that you have to get stable in before you're dead...

Assuming the modified version they present at the bottom of the page for 3E is close enough, you have 3 rounds to be stabilized, either by heal skill, rolling well on your stabilization check, or magical healing, or you die.

Brawls
2008-02-04, 06:07 PM
Can someone spolier it for those of us at work.

Thanks

Newtkeeper
2008-02-04, 06:07 PM
This is the first 4e change I can say I wholeheartedly agree with. And, best of all, I can easily rip it for me 3e campaign!

Lord Tataraus
2008-02-04, 06:09 PM
Article for your convience:
Character death is one of the ultimate threats in any RPG, and D&D is no exception. Besides the obvious, um, “inconveniences” that death might cause your character and his allies in both the short and long term—inconveniences which vary based on your level, the current situation, and of course your attachment to that particular character—death is a mark of failure. In some hard-to-explain but very real way, a dead character symbolizes that you just “lost” at D&D. That can prove a bitter pill for many players, and in my experience is even more frustrating than paying for a resurrection.

What We Hated

Early in the design process, Rob, James, and I identified a number of ways that we were unsatisified with D&D’s current death and dying rules. For example, we strongly disliked the inability of 3rd Edition D&D’s negative-hit-point model to deal with combat at higher levels—once the monsters are reliably dealing 15 or 20 points of damage with each attack, the chance of a character going straight from “alive and kicking” to “time to go through his pockets for loose change” was exceedingly high; effectively, the -1 to -9 “dying” range was meaningless. Ask any high-level fighter whether he’d prefer the second-to-last attack from a monster to leave him at 1 hp or -1 hp; I’d put odds on unconsciousness, and how lame is that?

Among other problems, this also meant that characters effectively had no way to “lose” a combat except by being killed. This removes a lot of dramatic possibilities for the story—for instance, the classic scene of the characters being captured and thrown in a cell from which they have to escape using only their wits and a pack of chewing gum (or whatever).

On top of all that, the game added a complex state of being at exactly 0 hp, which wasn’t quite like being fully capable but also wasn’t quite dying. Honestly, though, how often does any character actually get reduced to exactly 0 hp? Why did the game need a condition that existed at exactly one spot on the big, broad range of hit point possibilities?

What We Wanted

We wanted a death and dying system that added fun and tension at the table, scaled well to any level of play, and created the threat of PC mortality (without delivering on that threat as often as 3rd Edition did).

Characters had to feel that death was a possibility in order for combat to feel meaningful. If it seems impossible to be killed, much of the tension of combat disappears. However, if the majority of combats result in death (as is the case for a lot of high-level play in previous editions), the game is forced to reclassify death as a trivial obstacle in order to remain playable. 3rd Edition accomplished this with popular spells such as close wounds, delay death, and revivify—mandatory staples of any high-level cleric’s arsenal due purely to the commonality of death. But that removes the tension, and now what’s the point of death at all?

The system also had to be simple to remember and adjudicate at the table. Being able to keep the rule in your head is important, because you don’t want to be bogging the game down flipping through a book when a character is clinging to life by a thread—that should be high-tension time, not slowdown time!

Finally, it had to be believable within the heroic-fantasy milieu of D&D. (Believability isn’t the same thing as realism—an error which has ruined more games than I can count.) Put another way, it had to feel like D&D—one of those tricky “you know it when you see it” things.

What We Did About It

Back in 2005, this was obviously a much lower priority than, say, creating the new model for how classes and races worked, so we put it on the back burner to simmer. As the months passed, we and other designers proposed various models that tried to solve the conundrums set out above, varying from exceedingly abstract to witheringly simulationist. We playtested every model, from death tracks to life points, each time learning something different about what worked or didn’t work. A few times, we even temporarily settled on a solution, claiming that the playtesters only needed time to get used to our radical new ideas.

Thankfully, our awakening came well before we released the game (or even before widescale playtesting began, for that matter). Despite some quite elegant concepts, none of our radical new ideas met all the criteria necessary, including simplicity, playability, fun, and believability.

The system had to be at least as simple to remember and at least as easy to play as what already existed. For all their other flaws, negative hit points are pretty easy to use, and they work well with the existing hit-point system.

It had to be at least as much fun as what already existed, and it had to be at least as believable as what already existed. In ideal situations, negative hit points create fun tension at the table, and they’re reasonably believable, at least within the heroic fantasy milieu of D&D, where characters are supposed to get the stuffing beaten out of them on a regular basis without serious consequences.

Every one of our new ideas failed to meet at least one of those criteria. Maybe they were playable but too abstract to feel fun or believable, or they were believable but too complicated to remember. Nothing worked, and I admit we experienced a couple of freak-out moments behind closed doors.

Side note to all those would-be game designers out there: When you hear yourself making that claim, you might be in danger of losing touch with reality. Sometimes you’re right, and your innovative game design concept just needs a little time to sink in. (The cycling initiative system used by 3rd Edition D&D is a good example of that—back in 1999, some very vociferous playtesters were convinced that it would ruin D&D combat forever. Turned out that wasn’t exactly true.) But every time you convince yourself that you know better than the people playing your game, you’re opening the possibility of a very rude (and costly) awakening.


The Breakthrough

Eventually we got it through our heads that there wasn’t a radical new game mechanic just waiting to be discovered that would revolutionize the narrow window between life and death in D&D. What we really needed to do was just widen the window, reframe it, and maybe put in an extra pane for insulation. (OK, that analogy went off the tracks, but its heart was in the right place.)

Characters still use a negative hit point threshold to determine when they move from “unconscious and dying” to “all-the-way-dead,” but now that threshold scales with their level (or more specifically, with their hit point total). A character with 30 hit points (such as a low-level cleric) dies when he reaches -15 hit points, while the 15th-level fighter with 120 hp isn’t killed until he’s reduced to -60 hit points.

That may seem like an unreachable number, but it’s important to remember that monsters, like characters, aren’t piling on as many attacks on their turn as in 3rd Edition. At 15th level, that fighter might face a tough brute capable of dishing out 25 or 30 points of damage with its best attack… or nearly twice that on a crit. The threat of “alive-to-negative-everything” on a single hit remains in play, but it’s much less common than in the previous edition. That puts that bit of tension back where it belongs.

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.”)

It’s also less costly to bring dying characters back into the fight now—there’s no “negative hit point tax” that you have to pay out of the healing delivered by your cure serious wounds prayer. That helps ensure that a character who was healed from unconsciousness isn’t in an immediate threat of going right back there (and you’ll never again have the “I fed Jozan a potion of healing but he’s still at negative hit points” disappointment).

Monsters don’t need or use this system unless the DM has special reason to do so. A monster at 0 hp is dead, and you don’t have to worry about wandering around the battlefield stabbing all your unconscious foes. (I’m sure my table isn’t the only place that happens.) We’ve talked elsewhere about some of the bogus parallelism that can lead to bad game design—such as all monsters having to follow character creation rules, even though they’re supposed to be foes to kill, not player characters—this is just another example of the game escaping that trap. Sure, a DM can decide for dramatic reasons that a notable NPC or monster might linger on after being defeated. Maybe a dying enemy survives to deliver a final warning or curse before expiring, or at the end of a fight the PCs discover a bloody trail leading away from where the evil warlock fell, but those will be significant, story-based exceptions to the norm.

Oh, and speaking of zero hit points? You’re unconscious and dying, just like every new player expects it should be. It’s not as harsh as the “dead at 0 hp” rule of the original D&D game, but it’s still not a place you want to be for long!

Try It Now!

If you want to try out a version of this system in your current game, try the following house rule. It’s not quite the 4th Edition system, but it should give you an idea of how it’ll feel.

1) At 0 hp or less, you fall unconscious and are dying.
Any damage dealt to a dying character is applied normally, and might kill him if it reduces his hit points far enough (see #2).

2) Characters die when their negative hit point total reaches -10 or one-quarter of their full normal hit points, whichever is a larger value.
This is less than a 4th Edition character would have, but each monster attack is dealing a smaller fraction of the character’s total hit points, so it should be reasonable. If it feels too small, increase it to one-third full normal hit points and try again.

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.

4) If a character with negative hit points receives healing, he returns to 0 hp before any healing is applied.
In other words, he’ll wake up again with hit points equal to the healing provided by the effect—a cure light wounds spell for 7 hp will bring any dying character back to 7 hp, no matter what his negative hit point total had reached.)

5) A dying character who’s been stabilized (via the Heal skill) doesn’t roll a d20 at the end of his turn unless he takes more damage.

Looks pretty solid, but I have no more response than: about time.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-04, 06:11 PM
Must say, I don't really like it but I'm aware that I'll be in the minority here.

Why don't I like it? Two reasons:

1. I prefer standard mechanics whenever possible. I.E. everyone dies a -10 is simpler than everyone dies at total -hp/4 if total -hp/4 < 10 unless your HP < -10 and you roll less than 10 on a d20 three times in a row. Also, because the critical number for death scales with level, I can see folks going "oh wait, I'm not dead! I leveled last session!" two rounds after they bit it.

2. This looks to me like it makes it harder for a character to die, rather than just be knocked out. I prefer my games a bit grittier, where death is a real possibility for those in the monster slaying profession.

Catch
2008-02-04, 06:22 PM
Must say, I don't really like it but I'm aware that I'll be in the minority here.

Why don't I like it? Two reasons:

1. I prefer standard mechanics whenever possible. I.E. everyone dies a -10 is simpler than everyone dies at total -hp/4 if total -hp/4 < 10 unless your HP < -10 and you roll less than 10 on a d20 three times in a row. Also, because the critical number for death scales with level, I can see folks going "oh wait, I'm not dead! I leveled last session!" two rounds after they bit it.

2. This looks to me like it makes it harder for a character to die, rather than just be knocked out. I prefer my games a bit grittier, where death is a real possibility for those in the monster slaying profession.

Understandable. Then again, are all characters cut from the same cloth? In the same way that different characters can take different amounts of punishment before being seriously hurt, wouldn't it follow that there would be a similar difference when it came to kicking the bucket?

Tren
2008-02-04, 06:27 PM
1. I prefer standard mechanics whenever possible. I.E. everyone dies a -10 is simpler than everyone dies at total -hp/4 if total -hp/4 < 10 unless your HP < -10 and you roll less than 10 on a d20 three times in a row. Also, because the critical number for death scales with level, I can see folks going "oh wait, I'm not dead! I leveled last session!" two rounds after they bit it.

Those are fair concerns, but I really don't see the math being a big deal on this one. Especially in the context of having fewer attacks to deal with in combat, taking a few seconds when you go below 0HP to figure out what half your max hp is doesn't seem like that big of deal.

Newtkeeper
2008-02-04, 06:28 PM
Those are fair concerns, but I really don't see the math being a big deal on this one. Especially in the context of having fewer attacks to deal with in combat, taking a few seconds when you go below 0HP to figure out what half your max hp is doesn't seem like that big of deal.

It might also be one of the things you math before hand and put on your character sheet.

Hunter Noventa
2008-02-04, 06:28 PM
All I can think of is Final Fantasy Tactics...except after three rounds of 'dying' you're gone forever barring divine intervention (aka gameshark).

I'm not sure if I like the change or not.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-04, 06:33 PM
Understandable. Then again, are all characters cut from the same cloth? In the same way that different characters can take different amounts of punishment before being seriously hurt, wouldn't it follow that there would be a similar difference when it came to kicking the bucket?

It seems to me then that the easier soloution would simply be to have death occur at HP 0, since HP are the mechanic that are supposed to represent 'amount of punishment' a PC can take.


Those are fair concerns, but I really don't see the math being a big deal on this one. Especially in the context of having fewer attacks to deal with in combat, taking a few seconds when you go below 0HP to figure out what half your max hp is doesn't seem like that big of deal.

Although not a big deal individually, I've found every little bit of wasted time adds up. The game I run is on a pretty severly limited time schedule per week.

I don't particularly like the mechanic because it seems to me, at least, that there are simpler soloutions (mathematically) that still make it relational to the character. Death occurs at -10 + Con for example.

Blackadder
2008-02-04, 06:37 PM
I like nat20's as much as the next person, but if you roll a nat-20 on your dead check then you are automatically good AND you get 1/4 your hit points back?

:smallconfused:

I'm sorry but I have visions of low hit points 10-15 level characters deliberately stabbing themselves into negatives hoping to roll the nat-twenty for free healing. You have a 50% chance to get worse, a 45% nothing happens and a 5% chance you come back just fine with 25% of your hit-point total?

I have a sudden image of a fighter and a cleric in a field.
Fighter:Cleric heal me OOC:I only have 5 hitpoints left!
Cleric:Sorry it makes more sense to bash you with my mace (OOC:into negatives) *clonk*
Fighter:OOC:What the hell man?
Cleric:OOC:Hey Mr 120 hitpoints if your roll a twenty on your recovery check you'll be at 30 hitpoints, and if you don't(And roll bad twice) I just use cure minor wounds on you(1hp o healing!) to heal you stable, then bash you again until you roll a twenty
Fighter:Ahh I see! "Roll roll heal!"
Cleric:Clonk!
Fighter:Roll Roll Heal!
Cleric:Clonk
Fighter:Roll... Ahah! Twenty! I'm back!
DM:@#$@$@!

Rutee
2008-02-04, 06:41 PM
I'm sorry but I have visions of low hit points 10-15 level characters deliberately stabbing themselves into negatives hoping to roll the nat-twenty for free healing. You have a 50% chance to get worse, a 45% nothing happens and a 5% chance you come back just fine with 25% of your hit-point total?
This tactic is likely to be met with a classic quote. "The Defense Department regrets to inform you that your son has died because he was stupid." A smarter person would drink a potion or use Second Wind. I'd rather you go back to 0 with the option to use any remaining Second Wind, myself, but it's not like attacking oneself will be a /good/ idea.


It seems to me then that the easier soloution would simply be to have death occur at HP 0, since HP are the mechanic that are supposed to represent 'amount of punishment' a PC can take.
Simpler, yes. Grittier, yes. Utterly boring to me, yes. I prefer straight incapacitation at 0, with no chance for insta-death on most attacks, personally. Death shouldn't happen at some random schmuck's hands, but when dramatically appropriate.


Although not a big deal individually, I've found every little bit of wasted time adds up. The game I run is on a pretty severly limited time schedule per week.

I don't particularly like the mechanic because it seems to me, at least, that there are simpler soloutions (mathematically) that still make it relational to the character. Death occurs at -10 + Con for example.
Sorry, but -10 - Con Mod is.. not a solution. At all. I genuinely can't see HP/2 being literally any form of stumbling block, but I've got an arithmetic calculator in my head.

Tura
2008-02-04, 06:41 PM
Must say, I don't really like it but I'm aware that I'll be in the minority here.

Why don't I like it? Two reasons:

1. I prefer standard mechanics whenever possible. I.E. everyone dies a -10 is simpler than everyone dies at total -hp/4 if total -hp/4 < 10 unless your HP < -10 and you roll less than 10 on a d20 three times in a row. Also, because the critical number for death scales with level, I can see folks going "oh wait, I'm not dead! I leveled last session!" two rounds after they bit it.

2. This looks to me like it makes it harder for a character to die, rather than just be knocked out. I prefer my games a bit grittier, where death is a real possibility for those in the monster slaying profession.

1. As far as I can tell, it isn't going to be so complicated. The whole formula was to playtest the concept in 3.5, but I get the impression that in 4e it'll be much much simpler: Your negative hit points will be half your normal hit points. Sounds easy enough. :smallsmile:

2. Mmmmmaybe. Someone might be kind enough (or bored enough) to calculate how many rounds on average a character can remain alive in negative hit points. Regardless of level and hit points total.

Catch
2008-02-04, 06:43 PM
It seems to me then that the easier soloution would simply be to have death occur at HP 0, since HP are the mechanic that are supposed to represent 'amount of punishment' a PC can take.

Which is exactly the way it was done in 1st Edition. It isn't fair, nor does it make sense for characters to be either at full operating capacity or en route to meet their maker, as it doesn't effectively simulate the "disabled-but-not-dead" status. On top of that, one lucky attack can drop a character much eaiser, which means that you've effectively reduced the amount of usable hit points a character has, as they'll tend to start running once they're below, say 25%. If you want to run a grittier game with less slash and more dash, that's fine, but the basis of 4e is heroic fantasy, which means being able to take on heroic challenges, and by extension, heroic damage.

plainsfox
2008-02-04, 06:44 PM
Besides, math goofs are part and parcel of the fun of DND ;) I mean, how many people have died because they read the saving throw numbers wrong or missed adding something when they leveled?

Beleriphon
2008-02-04, 06:45 PM
Whoo! People die at something lower then -10. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080201a&authentic=true)

Not sure if I like the d20 roll at the bottom, but.. I definitely like expanding the window to be something you can reasonably hit past level like, 5.


The d20 roll is for players to simulate the 4E rules in their 3E game, not necessarily a 4E mechanic.

RTGoodman
2008-02-04, 06:49 PM
I like nat20's as much as the next person, but if you roll a nat-20 on your dead check then you are automatically good AND you get 1/4 your hit points back?

:smallconfused:

Yeah, I kinda feel the same way. That just seems too much, especially at higher levels. I'd almost think that you could just return with 1 HP per HD or something like that - it's enough to get you moving, but you haven't just "woken up" to start fighting all over again.

(Look at me - 4E isn't even out yet, and I'm already coming up with houserules for it... :smallsigh: )

Artanis
2008-02-04, 06:53 PM
Although not a big deal individually, I've found every little bit of wasted time adds up. The game I run is on a pretty severly limited time schedule per week.
*shrug* So write down "die at -whatever" next to the "hp" column. It only has to change when your max HP changes, at which point you're wasting time screwing with math anyways.


I don't particularly like the mechanic because it seems to me, at least, that there are simpler soloutions (mathematically) that still make it relational to the character. Death occurs at -10 + Con for example.
Like Rutee said, this specific "solution" just flat does not work, especially in 4e with its deemphasizing of stat-modifying magic items. However, I do see what you're going for.

The thing is, the best way to scale dying hp by how much damage enemies do - which was the point of modifying the system in the first place - is to scale dying hp by how much "normal" hp a character has, since that's already balanced against enemies' damage output...in theory, at any rate. And the simplest way to scale by "normal" hp is just to take the max hp and divide it by something. So yes, there may be simpler ways out there...but I would have a hard time thinking of what they are :smallcool:

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-02-04, 07:25 PM
I'm more in the "Why even have negative hit points?" camp. 0 used to mean dead. If we want a mechanic for unconsciousness, it's easy to implement within positive numbers. I'm not certain why tacking on more hit points after 0 is needed? Moreover, why does everyone get differing amounts of hit points, but the same amount of negative points?

Phooey, I say!

Matthew
2008-02-04, 07:28 PM
Heh. Well this is the fairly obvious result of increasing Hit Points and Damage Potential Output. When the -10 rule was first introduced it was with much lower numbers in mind, so no surprises. Don't really care for the natural 20, recover a quarter of your HP rule myself or the number inflation, but for those who don't want death to be as much of a threat as previously, this sounds okay.

Tengu
2008-02-04, 07:30 PM
A smarter person would drink a potion or use Second Wind.

What's Second Wind? A 4th Ed "heal small amounts of damage to yourself out of combat several times a day" Earthdawn mechanics ripoff?

And I like the new change. People who complain that it's harder to keep track of the new system need to seriously polish their elementary school-level math.

Mando Knight
2008-02-04, 07:30 PM
I like the change... an unconscious Fighter is now harder to kill than an unconscious Wizard, reflecting how tough he's become through his martial training...

Too bad Roy faced Xykon a year early...

Roy would have fallen on his head, got knocked down to -20 HP or so, then miraculously roll a 20 for dramatic effect... he then runs back to AC under his own power, and gets healed up by Durkon before intercepting Miko just before she slashes through the Gate, getting her to help him and Soon to slay Xykon instead...

Except that the Plot would still conspire against them...

If it worked though, I could see the end-of-battle conversation Roy would have with Eugene...

Eugene: "What just happened? How did you survive that fall?"
Roy: "4th Edition, Dad. Fighters can survive just as long a fall as Wizards can now, without your Feather Fall." Roy then gets that "I'm Roy, and I just beat you bad and you know it" look on his face...

...OK, fine, I'm not as good as Rich at coming up with catchy retorts, but you get the idea, right?

Rutee
2008-02-04, 07:44 PM
What's Second Wind? A 4th Ed "heal small amounts of damage to yourself out of combat several times a day" Earthdawn mechanics ripoff?

Dunno about the Earthdawn ripoff, but basically.

illathid
2008-02-04, 07:59 PM
I really liked this idea. JohnSnow over on the ENWorld forums posted this as an example of how the new death mechanics could work (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4032921&postcount=110) and it seemed really cool tip-top.


Is it? Given the 15th-level sample fighter has 120 hp, one with 200 is probably about 25th-level, or more. Consider this example, which you might recognize. Any similarity to real fictional characters is wholly intentional.

Two swashbucklers are engaged in a running duel. The first (let's call him "Indigo") has pursued the second (who we'll call "Baron Rungen") down a corridor, but unknown to Indigo, Baron Rungen took the rogue training feat and is waiting in ambush. Indigo charges into the room, and Rungen throws his dagger into Indigo's gut, getting a critical hit and doing max damage on his sneak attack. We'll assume Indigo is 7th-level with about 72 hp, so this bloodies him but he doesn't die. He does however, slump against the wall.

Indigo: "Sorry father. I tried."
Baron Rungen: "You must be that spanish brat I taught a lesson to all those years ago. Have you been chasing me your whole life only to fail now? That's the worst thing I've ever heard. How marvelous."
[Indigo is bloodied but not dead. He uses his Second Wind, pulls out the knife and stands.]
Rungen: Good heavens. Are you still trying to win?
[Indigo falls back against the wall.]
Rungen:You've got an overdeveloped sense of vengeance. It's going to get you into trouble someday.
[Rungen draws his sword and lunges at Indigo who then forces the blade to his left shoulder. Again Rungen lunges at Indigo and the blade is deflected to Indigo's right arm. Now Indigo loses more hp, plunging him to -1 hp and dying. He falters.]
[Indigo rolls a 20 on his recovery action. He now has 18 hp. He's still bloodied, but very much alive.]
[Rungen swings his sword but Indigo blocks it and then begins advancing.]
Indigo: [weakly] Hello. My name is Indigo Montalvo. You killed my father prepare to die.
[Falling on a table, Indigo uses his Extra Second Wind. He now has 36 hp.]
[Rungen attacks and Indigo blocks four times before he continues to advance on Rungen.]
Indigo Montalvo: [Louder] Hello. My name is Indigo Montalvo. You killed my father prepare to die.
[Now Rungen attacks five times and Indigo blocks every single one.]
Indigo Montalvo: [Shouting!] Hello. My name is Indigo Montalvo. You killed my father prepare to die.
Baron Rungen: Stop saying that!

And the fight continues. And ends with Rungen's death. Indigo's injury, while seemingly deadly at first, doesn't, in the end, seem that bad.

How is that NOT what we're trying to duplicate?

As for the the the whole "Roll a d20 to see if you die, stay the same, or gain your hitpoints back" it's actually quite consistent with what we know about saves based on the new DDM Miniature Rules (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mi/20080117a).

In the new DDM rules you roll a d20 for every negative status effect, where when you roll lower than 10 you continue to suffer the effect, when you roll a 10-19 it goes away, and if you get a 20 all of your negative status effects will go away.

I'm also speculating that this mechanic will also be how death effects, like the beholder rays, will work.

kme
2008-02-04, 08:17 PM
What I don't like with this system, is that apparently, the only way to kill higher level characters using a weapon is to stab them while they are unconscious. Half of total HP seems like too much.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-02-04, 08:26 PM
Can anybody say "Breathing in and out rapidly, X lifted his sword. It felt like it weighed a few tons, but this didn't stop him. Slowly, he lifted it, higher and higher, until it could go no further up.

And then, he let it fall, using the extra momentum to land the final blow. His quest completed, he stumbled and falled. As darkness overtook him, all he said was 'Victory'."

Or, in other words, Coup De Grace?

zaei
2008-02-04, 08:28 PM
I like it. It's exciting and heroic. For a grittier feel, just make recovering put you at 1hp, or not heal you at all.

Orzel
2008-02-04, 08:35 PM
Been doing 1/2 negative HP for a while. Nice. But bash people is still the best way to kill people because of our save house rule.

TheThan
2008-02-04, 08:48 PM
Honestly I like this. It’s close to a house rule I made once. The only thing I sort of don’t like is that you actually get better on a 20, it should bring your wounds up to 0 and stabilize you, not allow you to jump back up and keep fighting. That sort of looses the Verisimilitude of combat: “oh good thing I made that 20, now I’m going to stand and keep fighting, despite getting my left arm chopped off.”


I'm going to try the variant they posted in my regular 3.5 game (assuming we can get together this weekend that is).

Citizen Joe
2008-02-04, 09:07 PM
FASA (and now Redbrick) did basically the same thing with Earthdawn back in 1993. In Earthdawn, you tracked damage sustained rather than hp lost. When that damage reached a certain point, you became unconscious. A bit more damage and you died. For an average person, these ratings were 22 and 31 respectively. A tough person may be as high as 34/42. As you increased in levels (called 'circles') you could increase those ratings based on your class (called 'disciplines'). This increase let you take more damage but also increase the damage difference between unconscious and dead.

Behold_the_Void
2008-02-05, 01:30 PM
Hey! That's what I did for my Bleach D20!

I'll have to adapt some of the more interesting points there though.

Deepblue706
2008-02-05, 01:51 PM
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.

Emphasis mine.

Does anyone else have a problem with that?

"Jim, Jim! We thought you were dead!"
"Nah, I'm a bit hurt, but I'm okay."
"But, you took a sword through the chest!"
"...I got better."

Rutee
2008-02-05, 01:55 PM
Emphasis mine.

Does anyone else have a problem with that?

"Jim, Jim! We thought you were dead!"
"Nah, I'm a bit hurt, but I'm okay."
"But, you took a sword through the chest!"
"...I got better."

Someone else handled this better.

"My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

Deepblue706
2008-02-05, 01:57 PM
Someone else handled this better.

"My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

Edit: Unconscious isn't specified, eh.

But, regardless, Inigo didn't get better. He bled all over himself as his cause drove him forward. What happens if he's up against, say, anyone else?

So, remember, if you come back okay, it means it was somehow involved with your backstory.

Rutee
2008-02-05, 02:00 PM
But, you have to be unconscious and dying for this work, I thought. Also, it has a 5% chance of happening regardless of what your cause is.

"My name is Inigo Montoya. You may not have killed my father, but, prepare to die anyway."

This is part of why I use something like Hero Points from MnM in my few DnD games. THere's no other way to mechanically ensure that people can get that dramatically appropriate Nat 20.

As to unconscious, meh. I just read that entire range as "Disabled" when it comes to allowing people their dramatic last words. Or Would-be last words, as the case may be.

Deepblue706
2008-02-05, 02:02 PM
Hero points are nice, but I wouldn't use this concept of "getting better". I'd have the points be used to temporarily gain the "Diehard" feat.

horseboy
2008-02-05, 02:03 PM
What's Second Wind? A 4th Ed "heal small amounts of damage to yourself out of combat several times a day" Earthdawn mechanics ripoff?


Well, I doubt they'll have the recovery rules of "1 hour between tests", "1st one 1st thing in the morning", "must wait 1 minute after combat". Course it's a rare group that follows all those restrictions anyway. :smallamused:

daggaz
2008-02-05, 02:08 PM
Honestly I like this. It’s close to a house rule I made once. The only thing I sort of don’t like is that you actually get better on a 20, it should bring your wounds up to 0 and stabilize you, not allow you to jump back up and keep fighting. That sort of looses the Verisimilitude of combat: “oh good thing I made that 20, now I’m going to stand and keep fighting, despite getting my left arm chopped off.”


I'm going to try the variant they posted in my regular 3.5 game (assuming we can get together this weekend that is).

Yeah pretty much what I think about the whole thing..

Laurellien
2008-02-05, 02:12 PM
My only problem is wizards' insistance on treating monsters differently.

Rutee
2008-02-05, 02:15 PM
My only problem is wizards' insistance on treating monsters differently.

When have Red Shirts ever been treated the same, narratively?

webgem
2008-02-05, 02:31 PM
I think this is a fun mechanic, and yes it does take away from a gritty feel, but I don't think terribly gritty when I think d&d anyhow, I go white wolf for that. The previous example is excelent, and it seems like a pretty good idea. Rolling that d20 represents your determination against this foe. If he didn't roll that d20 he would just be another of those who failed. Hero points in addition to this would be a good idea I think. I'm playing SAGA right now, and force points seem to work well, or in this case destiny point. Plus the chance of, urg I'm resiliant I can struggle back and win the day is totally what I think of in heroic fantasy.

Blackadder
2008-02-05, 02:33 PM
Question, does this change not make DieHard the best feat ever? They can't let it stand as is because suddenly you just gained a twenty five percent HP bonus. Or perhaps you still have to roll your checks while in the negatives?

Duke of URL
2008-02-05, 02:34 PM
Characters die when their negative hit point total reaches -10 or one-quarter of their full normal hit points, whichever is a larger value.

Nit-pick: it should say smaller value or larger absolute value. -20, for example, is less than -10.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-05, 02:39 PM
Simpler, yes. Grittier, yes. Utterly boring to me, yes. I prefer straight incapacitation at 0, with no chance for insta-death on most attacks, personally. Death shouldn't happen at some random schmuck's hands, but when dramatically appropriate.

This is just matter of taste. I like my world to have the possibility of a PC dying at some schmucks hands as I feel it adds to versimilitude. I realize I am in the minority on that, and I'm cool with it. :smallcool:


Sorry, but -10 - Con Mod is.. not a solution. At all. I genuinely can't see HP/2 being literally any form of stumbling block, but I've got an arithmetic calculator in my head.

No, it's not really a soloution, but I'd prefer at static 'you die at -14 forever' than a 'you die at -36, this level, next level it wll be -41'. Personally, I'd rather use neither.


1. As far as I can tell, it isn't going to be so complicated. The whole formula was to playtest the concept in 3.5, but I get the impression that in 4e it'll be much much simpler: Your negative hit points will be half your normal hit points. Sounds easy enough. :smallsmile:


If you are right then I will be happier than if it's some convoluted mechanic. Ideally, I'd rather it be static.


I like the change... an unconscious Fighter is now harder to kill than an unconscious Wizard, reflecting how tough he's become through his martial training...


See, that's what I don't like. Someone with martial training bleeds to death just as quickly as someone without.


Nit-pick: it should say smaller value or larger absolute value. -20, for example, is less than -10.

True. I think that might have confused some people with my example too. Not that it matters.

Rutee
2008-02-05, 02:39 PM
Question, does this change not make DieHard the best feat ever? They can't let it stand as is because suddenly you just gained a twenty five percent HP bonus. Or perhaps you still have to roll your checks while in the negatives?

Maybe Diehard is different, or dead, in 4e?

fendrin
2008-02-05, 03:09 PM
I read this and other than saying, "hey, good idea", I thought of some of the most climatic fight scenes in movies.

I mean, think of Boromir's death in Fellowship of the Ring (specifically the movie version). He's feathered with arrows. He falls. (to neg HP). Then he gets up again.

What about all those "I thought i killed you!" moments? Dozer (or is it his brother?) Saving Neo et al in the Matrix when what's-his-name (Switch?) is unplugging them.

Or the hero is thrown off a cliff into a river and presumed dead. In truth, he washes to shore and crawls, barely alive, and starts hunting the bad guy again.

besides, remember that this is still sometthing that should inly come up in really tough fights, really unlucky fights, ans when the player is being particularly stupid.

Oh, and speaking of stupid, I would house-rule that intentional damage from allies putting you below 0 is insta-death. Kind of like how I have house-ruled that you can't heal yourself by drowning.

Diamondeye
2008-02-05, 03:32 PM
I like this change. I think it's good from both a heroic fantasy and a realism perspective.


Richard Shea, Class of 1948, a native of Portsmouth, graduated from Churchland High School. He first studied in uniform at Virginia Tech at the height of World War II. Enlisting in the army, he served as a Sergeant, and entered West Point where he graduated. He was an All American in track and said to have been the greatest track star to attend Virginia Tech (where he ran his first competitive race) or West Point. Turning down the opportunity to attend the Olympics he joined his classmates in the Korean War. Richard Shea received the Medal of Honor for actions as an army first lieutenant at Pork Chop Hill during the Korean War. Fighting outnumbered, he voluntarily proceeded to the area most threatened, organizing and leading a counterattack. During the bitter fighting, he killed two enemy with his trench knife. In over 18 hours of heavy fighting he moved among the defenders of Pork Chop Hill ensuring a successful defense. Leading a counterattack he killed three enemy soldiers single-handedly. Although wounded, he refused evacuation. He was last seen fighting hand-to-hand during yet another counterattack. He left behind a wife and unborn son.

Sounds fairly similar to certain real-life incidences.

Deepblue706
2008-02-05, 03:45 PM
I read this and other than saying, "hey, good idea", I thought of some of the most climatic fight scenes in movies.

I mean, think of Boromir's death in Fellowship of the Ring (specifically the movie version). He's feathered with arrows. He falls. (to neg HP). Then he gets up again.

Oh, you know that he falls to negative HP for a fact, do you? Maybe, he was hit with some arrows, and feeling pain, a concept entirely omitted from D&D rules. He doesn't have to be dying to fall to a knee.



Or the hero is thrown off a cliff into a river and presumed dead. In truth, he washes to shore and crawls, barely alive, and starts hunting the bad guy again.

Immediately? Even Big Boss, hero of Metal Gear Solid 3 (arguably one of the toughest SOBs ever to walk in video game history) encounters a very similar situation, but is at least hospitalized (he broke a lot of bones) before he treks out again to kill the bad guys.

fendrin
2008-02-05, 03:56 PM
Oh, you know that he falls to negative HP for a fact, do you? Maybe, he was hit with some arrows, and feeling pain, a concept entirely omitted from D&D rules. He doesn't have to be dying to fall to a knee.
Please. I was drawing a comparison. Obviously they didn't consult as-of-yet unwritten D&D rules to determine what would happen in the movie.


Immediately? Even Big Boss, hero of Metal Gear Solid 3 (arguably one of the toughest SOBs ever to walk in video game history) encounters a very similar situation, but is at least hospitalized (he broke a lot of bones) before he treks out again to kill the bad guys.
Gee, I've never mastered the skill of always rolling a 20 whenever I want to. What's your secret?

In a world without magical healing, it would take quite a while to get from 1/4 hp to full hp, even with excellent medical care. I would say that 1/4 hp is still pretty bad off.

Theli
2008-02-05, 04:06 PM
HP damage is an abstraction.

0 HP could very well mean succumbing to pain and unconciousness.

It does not have to mean that the character passes a point of next-to-no return where their likely outcome is death.

This is not a change in 4E. HP has ALWAYS been such an abstraction. It's just that the mechanics behind it are constantly changing.

Artanis
2008-02-05, 05:12 PM
Emphasis mine.

Does anyone else have a problem with that?

"Jim, Jim! We thought you were dead!"
"Nah, I'm a bit hurt, but I'm okay."
"But, you took a sword through the chest!"
"...I got better."
Sorta. It really depends on how the mechanics work themselves out, specifically how much damage enemies do relative to a character's HP.

If 25% health means they can keep getting wailed on for another hour, then yeah, I'd probably hate it unless they came up with a DAMN good explanation (which would be pretty much impossible to do). On the other hand, if 25% meant that you were just going to go right back down the next time the monster so much as looked at you funny, it won't really make much difference one way or the other, and I doubt even the most hardcore 4e-haters would be able to mind it too much :smallwink:

CASTLEMIKE
2008-02-05, 05:28 PM
Must say, I don't really like it but I'm aware that I'll be in the minority here.

Why don't I like it? Two reasons:

1. I prefer standard mechanics whenever possible. I.E. everyone dies a -10 is simpler than everyone dies at total -hp/4 if total -hp/4 < 10 unless your HP < -10 and you roll less than 10 on a d20 three times in a row. Also, because the critical number for death scales with level, I can see folks going "oh wait, I'm not dead! I leveled last session!" two rounds after they bit it.

2. This looks to me like it makes it harder for a character to die, rather than just be knocked out. I prefer my games a bit grittier, where death is a real possibility for those in the monster slaying profession.

I agree the new mechanics seem to imply that the BBEGs will just defeat the PCs and leave them unconscious on the rare occassions they defeat the PCs. Will there be a similar mechanic for the PCs to do the same to BBEGs (More experience for leaving them alive and unconscious or less for killing them while they are defenseless)?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-05, 05:39 PM
Emphasis mine.

Does anyone else have a problem with that?

"Jim, Jim! We thought you were dead!"
"Nah, I'm a bit hurt, but I'm okay."
"But, you took a sword through the chest!"
"...I got better."

In a dramatic break with tradition, it seems like 4E is actually paying more than lip-service to the idea that Hit Points represent more than the ability to withstand physical injury.

D&D has always said that HP represented luck, skill, toughness, magic, divine favour and who knows what else, but that was always undermined by the fact that the only way to get HP *back* was by physical healing. 4E finally seems to bite the bullet and have them *actually* represent a variety of things.

So when you "stabilise" you're still bleeding heavily, but you're no less "lucky" or "divinely favoured" or for that matter "skilled" than you were before. Another good hit will drop you again, but those 25% HP represent your *not* taking another good hit.

North
2008-02-05, 05:46 PM
I really like this idea. Were going to start using this in the remainder of our campaigns until 4.0 comes out.

SimperingToad
2008-02-05, 06:04 PM
All this means is that someone at Wizards recognised that while the ability for dishing out and absorbing damage has increased via power creep over the editions, the "death's door" rule has not.

If part of the intent of 4E was to make the rules simpler, this rule definately does not mesh with the intent. If you're going to increase the threshold to compensate for the power creep, then just use a lower static number, like -20 for instance. As hit points are an abstraction, someone at -1 isn't hurt really as bad as he seems to be, so will take some time to bleed out. Such is life... er... well mostly anyway.

Regards,
theToad

Worira
2008-02-05, 06:06 PM
I read this and other than saying, "hey, good idea", I thought of some of the most climatic fight scenes in movies.

I mean, think of Boromir's death in Fellowship of the Ring (specifically the movie version). He's feathered with arrows. He falls. (to neg HP). Then he gets up again.


Epic nitpick: of course you're talking about the movie version. He dies in Two Towers in the books.

Collin152
2008-02-05, 06:09 PM
Can anybody say "Breathing in and out rapidly, X lifted his sword. It felt like it weighed a few tons, but this didn't stop him. Slowly, he lifted it, higher and higher, until it could go no further up.

And then, he let it fall, using the extra momentum to land the final blow. His quest completed, he stumbled and falled. As darkness overtook him, all he said was 'Victory'."

I suppose I can, but the real question is, would I? It is quite a mouthful.

Neon Knight
2008-02-05, 06:52 PM
I like these new rules. Certainly better for a dramatic gaming style.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-05, 06:55 PM
I like these new rules. Certainly better for a dramatic gaming style.I've always felt an actual risk of death made the games more dramatic. I prefer playing with a feel of finality, which I guess is why I prefer settings where resurrection is rare or unheard of. This is just one more aspect of 4E that feels like a video game to me.

North
2008-02-05, 06:58 PM
Yeah, being able to be captured, the whole hero or baddy comin back from the dead. Huge improvements.

Neon Knight
2008-02-05, 06:59 PM
I've always felt an actual risk of death made the games more dramatic. I prefer playing with a feel of finality, which I guess is why I prefer settings where resurrection is rare or unheard of. This is just one more aspect of 4E that feels like a video game to me.

I've always felt the inverse. When you dedicate a large amount of focus and time into developing the characters, a high mortality rate tends to be a detriment, in my experience.

Also, explain the videogame comment: In most video games I've played, once the damage threshold is reached, you usually have to load your last save or start a new game. Particularly since the concept of "lives" has fallen out of favor.

North
2008-02-05, 07:02 PM
And death can still happen and it can be dramatic. Plus this way with the chance of dying in three rounds. It can happen faster. Putting more pressure on the live ones to get there faster.

Rutee
2008-02-05, 07:04 PM
I've always felt the inverse. When you dedicate a large amount of focus and time into developing the characters, a high mortality rate tends to be a detriment, in my experience.

This is my entire objection to high mortality rate games.

Bearonet
2008-02-05, 07:06 PM
If I am playing a character, hopefully I am enjoying doing so.

Having that character die is detrimental to that enjoyment.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-05, 07:07 PM
I've always felt the inverse. When you dedicate a large amount of focus and time into developing the characters, a high mortality rate tends to be a detriment, in my experience.It forces you to worry about everything, IMHO. The mage has to spend a couple of spells against weak opponents, just because if the low-level orcs reach him, it's all over. It makes the game grittier.
Also, explain the videogame comment: In most video games I've played, once the damage threshold is reached, you usually have to load your last save or start a new game. Particularly since the concept of "lives" has fallen out of favor.I was talking about computer RPGs, where generally it is impossible to kill off an NPC. And the lack of punishment for failure is a bit annoying, simply because in real combat a single mistake can get you killed. I like the risk of losing a character I've invested in, because that makes death seem like more than an inconvenience. Just my experience.

Rutee
2008-02-05, 07:11 PM
Why are you playing DnD if you want a gritty game? >.>

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-05, 07:12 PM
I don't if I can help it. DnD is a common system used by everyone, but that doesn't make it good. I post here because it's about roleplaying, not because it's about d20.

Tren
2008-02-05, 07:45 PM
It forces you to worry about everything, IMHO. The mage has to spend a couple of spells against weak opponents, just because if the low-level orcs reach him, it's all over. It makes the game grittier. I was talking about computer RPGs, where generally it is impossible to kill off an NPC. And the lack of punishment for failure is a bit annoying, simply because in real combat a single mistake can get you killed. I like the risk of losing a character I've invested in, because that makes death seem like more than an inconvenience. Just my experience.

Death can still be incredibly significant in your campaign based on how available you make resurrections. All that's changed is the significance of being knocked into negative hit points, and with the possibility of dying within 3 rounds it still seems pretty serious. Making recovery from unconsciousness easier seems to fit in with their general design scheme thus far: big action.

Everyone gets one attack per round and each class has lots of special abilities so you've always got something cool to use. They use the term "dramatic recovery" to describe human racial abilities in R&C, I think the goal is to make it possible, even if it's only a 5% chance, that you have that awesome moment where you the hero snap to at just the right moment, spring back into action and deliver the killing blow to the monster.

Maybe it's just me but that sounds pretty doggone fun. :smallbiggrin:

Neon Knight
2008-02-05, 07:53 PM
It forces you to worry about everything, IMHO. The mage has to spend a couple of spells against weak opponents, just because if the low-level orcs reach him, it's all over. It makes the game grittier. I was talking about computer RPGs, where generally it is impossible to kill off an NPC. And the lack of punishment for failure is a bit annoying, simply because in real combat a single mistake can get you killed. I like the risk of losing a character I've invested in, because that makes death seem like more than an inconvenience. Just my experience.

I prefer gritty style games for combat oriented sessions. Makes you use your head, and getting a new piece of meat to manipulate is easy because roleplay is of little concern. I view it sort of like playing an CoD4 death match with a bunch of my friends.

Personally, I think there are a lot of ways to make things threatening besides the ability to kill you in one round. I also think that real combat is in no way, shape, or form a good model for any sort of game combat, because I bet almost 99.99% of the sane adult population of the world finds actual lethal combat to be completely unpleasant. As a future soldier, I'm sure as heck not looking forward to putting my live body in the line of bullets that could rob me of my life in an instant. The death of a fictional character isn't quite of that magnitude on the unfun scale, but I feel it could come pretty dang close.

I'd also like to mention that random, arbitrary, and frequent death has been an active detriment to roleplaying of any sort in certain RP games I've played, because the people I played with didn't want to invest time and effort into something that would quickly be invalidated.

Personally, its a pain to lose a character I spent a lot of time, writing, developing, and thinking about, thus invalidating all that material. Sort of like making a painting, or sculpting a figure, only to have it suddenly explode in your face halfway through. I can't help but be miffed that the work was never completed. I'm here to tell a story, or at least act out a part in a story (assuming an RP focused game.) Having to keep inventing and refining new characters ever time the high lethality kicks in is annoying for me; I'm not an endless font of creativity, and I don't have a lot of time to spend on DnD.

I don't want to be inconvenienced by my hobbies, I want to be entertained by them. Some of that entertainment comes from overcoming challenges. But constantly failing and losing so much when attempting the challenge of a high morality game with heavily developed RP characters really saps most of the fun out of the game in my experience.

And if you ask why I bothered to say all this, well, since you felt like sharing why you like a more gritty style for RP, I felt it was only fair to tell you how I felt, so that we perfectly understand each others equally viable opinions. I'm not trying tor refute your position or say you are wrong, just provide some insight as to why I feel differently.

I'm still unsure of how the NPC thing affects this article. NPCs are invulnerable in RPGs to cut back on the amount of content the devs have to make. If they made content covering every single thing a player could do and the world's reaction to it, it would take them frickin forever to release even a short game, and it would take up plenty of memory space. Its a necessary abstraction.

This article, in fact, states that NPCs (well, they said "monsters," but in my book a monster is an NPC that wants to eat/kill/loot you) will die at 0 HP, and thus faster than any PC. SO I can't see how that make sit feel like a video game.

It is an actual simplification in many video games that you never see disabled enemies, only either live ones or dead ones, but in most games enemies react to damage, even if it is just an accuracy penalty.

Souju
2008-02-05, 08:07 PM
i think it'd be fun to use this on NPCs :) if the bad guy you just vanquished isn't really dead, it can make for some dramatic tension :)

Durendal
2008-02-05, 08:20 PM
I think theres one thing that alot of people are overlooking with this miraculous roll a 20 and gain 1/4 your hit points. Even if you gain 1/4 your hit points, your still below 1/2 health, which in 4e means your bloodied. Now we don't know exactly what being "bloodied" entails, but I would be willing to bet it includes some sort of negative. This means that, unlike in 3x, you aren't quite back to full effectivness.

Deepblue706
2008-02-05, 10:30 PM
Please. I was drawing a comparison. Obviously they didn't consult as-of-yet unwritten D&D rules to determine what would happen in the movie.

You missed my point. You drew a comparison where no parallels necessarily existed. It specifically noted at the end of a turn, you make this roll. You could readily go from a state of unconsciousness to ready-to-go-fight-some-more. Boromir got up because he had to in order to continue fighting, not because he was miraculously better. He was brought low because of accumulated wounds and pain - but it's not to say he was "in the negatives". People don't consider he might have just been in pain, because D&D doesn't ever bring this up. This mechanic would be, at best, an inelegant tool for the task you would imply it could be used for.



Gee, I've never mastered the skill of always rolling a 20 whenever I want to. What's your secret?

In a world without magical healing, it would take quite a while to get from 1/4 hp to full hp, even with excellent medical care. I would say that 1/4 hp is still pretty bad off.

I'm not talking about rolling a 20 to "get better". I'm saying that shouldn't exist as it is. You used the example: "The Hero falls off a cliff". This should take into account the particular character and the specific situation - not just a 5% chance despite any number of factors. Yes, it may not happen every session - but I believe it's something that should be much more dependent on the character's toughness, how bad their condition, and then mitigating elements...this method suggests that a 20 gets you back on your feet and ready to go, regardless, and that's pretty darn silly. Even heroes of heroes fall and never get back up immediately - this mechanic is inflating the PC beyond the already inflated image it provides. Players should not even think about getting back up unless their character is actually that tough.

1/4 may not be too much, but it's enough to bring a PC to a point where they're no longer penalized for any kind of strenuous action - which is absurd when you've broken half of your ribs or are bleeding profusely.

The_Blue_Sorceress
2008-02-05, 11:02 PM
If I am playing a character, hopefully I am enjoying doing so.

Having that character die is detrimental to that enjoyment.

I'll second that. I'm not ashamed to admit it, sometimes I even cry a little.


:frown:

ShadowSiege
2008-02-05, 11:22 PM
1/4 may not be too much, but it's enough to bring a PC to a point where they're no longer penalized for any kind of strenuous action - which is absurd when you've broken half of your ribs or are bleeding profusely.

Considering hit points are an abstraction, we could go with the explanation that the previously incapacitated character was sufficiently flooded with adrenalin, endorphin, and other chemicals that he's able to ignore the broken ribs and continue to fight. As has been said, 1/4 hp is still bloodied (though not in 3e, where it is still dangerously close to incapacitation) in 4e which has both advantages and disadvantages.

I'm going to be going forward with the suggested rules to get used to them. Death isn't fun when you're invested in a character, and D&D is heroic fantasy, not grim and gritty fantasy. Arthur was laid low by his bastard son who was aided by Morgan's magic, not Ted the Turnip Farmer who picked up a spear for the first time that day.

Deepblue706
2008-02-06, 12:17 AM
Considering hit points are an abstraction, we could go with the explanation that the previously incapacitated character was sufficiently flooded with adrenalin, endorphin, and other chemicals that he's able to ignore the broken ribs and continue to fight. As has been said, 1/4 hp is still bloodied (though not in 3e, where it is still dangerously close to incapacitation) in 4e which has both advantages and disadvantages.

Yes, we can say that - but it doesn't change my feelings about how this kind of ability should only be reserved for only the toughest of tough heroes, not just anyone considered a PC.



I'm going to be going forward with the suggested rules to get used to them. Death isn't fun when you're invested in a character, and D&D is heroic fantasy, not grim and gritty fantasy. Arthur was laid low by his bastard son who was aided by Morgan's magic, not Ted the Turnip Farmer who picked up a spear for the first time that day.

Please, define heroic fantasy. I would presume, that in heroic fantasy, there are heroes, and they live in worlds that are far more exotic than our own. However, how does one come to be a hero? Are they born, or are they made? I have always preferred the latter. However, this shouldn't say that I don't play a game of heroic fantasy. I wouldn't want to lose to Ted the Turnip Farmer, but I shouldn't expect anyone less than the world's greatest wizards and swordmen, etc, to be no match for me. While we want our heroes to win the day, it's essentially meaningless if they so conveniently never lose until it's time to retire the character. The game should be constantly filled with peril (and not time-consuming inconveniences).

Without an element of real challenge, nobody treasures the victories they have nearly as much as they should. Instead of developing contrived ways for characters to make comebacks from near-death, maybe the game should severely limit some fantastical abilities, so that when they are witnessed, they'll actually be somewhat remembered. Such a quick recovery is not suitable for just any hero when you want dynamics. And no, in a good system, limiting abilities shouldn't make anyone stand out more than another person by much - GURPS (Generic Universal Role Playing System) by Steve Jackson games warrants countless kinds of abilities, but it doesn't grant merit in every concievable way to the players because they're "heroes". Just because someone is a "hero", it doesn't mean they should be impervious to stab wounds or what have you - that's just what one hero might have. A fully-fledged hero is still a balanced person - strong enough to win the day, but weak enough to still allow for connection with a very human audience.

If a character dies, then it's all the sweeter for those who survive. Plus, I can't recall a good tale where nobody on Team-Good died. Does it always have to be a "correctly timed" death? That seems contrived as well. As a DM, I've killed very few characters - but that doesn't mean I don't hand my player's asses to them every now-and-then. It's how the game should go. If you can't lose, then is it even a game? No, it's the sandbox. Some might appreciate that - I certainly don't.

tyckspoon
2008-02-06, 12:32 AM
If a character dies, then it's all the sweeter for those who survive. Plus, I can't recall a good tale where nobody on Team-Good died. Does it always have to be a "correctly timed" death? That seems contrived as well. As a DM, I've killed very few characters - but that doesn't mean I don't hand my player's asses to them every now-and-then. It's how the game should go. If you can't lose, then is it even a game? No, it's the sandbox. Some might appreciate that - I certainly don't.

hmm. I can't really tell if you think this mechanic promotes 'players who can't lose' in 4E or if you just took the opportunity to lead off into a viewpoint piece about you think roleplaying games should go. So far, these preview articles have indicated that the designers want to reduce the frequency of deaths in 4th Edition (which strikes me as detrivializing character deaths. Hopefully there will be a reduction in close wounds/revivify effects to go along with the reduction in instant-kill effects.) Nothing has said that they want to get rid of the possibility all together.. and if the party does get beat to the ground, I'm pretty sure having all of them be in an expanded Disabled zone is functionally almost identical to having them all be dead. Except they're not actually dead, so you can still do something with them and move their story on after a bad loss.

ShadowSiege
2008-02-06, 01:55 AM
However, how does one come to be a hero? Are they born, or are they made? I have always preferred the latter.

Often, the case is both. A combination of innate and learned abilities and traits denote many fantasy heroes. It is often because there is something special about the hero-to-be that they are able to accomplish the feats and survive the hardships that make them heroic.


I wouldn't want to lose to Ted the Turnip Farmer, but I shouldn't expect anyone less than the world's greatest wizards and swordmen, etc, to be no match for me. While we want our heroes to win the day, it's essentially meaningless if they so conveniently never lose until it's time to retire the character. The game should be constantly filled with peril (and not time-consuming inconveniences).

The Ted the Turnip Farmer bit was more about having the PCs killed at the hand of Nameless Schmuck B. I find it unsatisfactory to be killed by someone that doesn't present a credible threat.


Without an element of real challenge, nobody treasures the victories they have nearly as much as they should. Instead of developing contrived ways for characters to make comebacks from near-death, maybe the game should severely limit some fantastical abilities, so that when they are witnessed, they'll actually be somewhat remembered. Such a quick recovery is not suitable for just any hero when you want dynamics...snip...A fully-fledged hero is still a balanced person - strong enough to win the day, but weak enough to still allow for connection with a very human audience.

You make a valid point. I would guess that somewhere in the mechanics that we have yet to see there will be an class ability or feat that will enable a character to achieve the otherwise very unlikely recovery. That the chance is there at all is due the concept of player characters being extraordinary (the article says that monsters don't need or use it, though I think I will have them do so for a bit of unpredictability).


If a character dies, then it's all the sweeter for those who survive. Plus, I can't recall a good tale where nobody on Team-Good died. Does it always have to be a "correctly timed" death? That seems contrived as well. As a DM, I've killed very few characters - but that doesn't mean I don't hand my player's asses to them every now-and-then. It's how the game should go. If you can't lose, then is it even a game? No, it's the sandbox. Some might appreciate that - I certainly don't.

I wouldn't say death(s) makes victory sweeter, but rather bittersweet and in a campaign where resurrection is available (which is many of them), it is more a matter of persevering through it all to return the fallen comrade to life. I'm not sure what you mean by "correctly timed," though if you mean occurring at such a time that it will have an meaningful impact, yes it should be the case. Prominent members of Team Good die at such times, even if the death itself is random. An excellent example is from Buffy the Vampire Slayer's fifth season. In the episode "The Body," Joyce Summers, Buffy's mom dies of an aneurysm.
The character in question isn't even an active member of Team Good or relevant to the looming end of the world, but the death has considerable impact on the characters and a viewer that has invested themselves in the show, as well as consequences later on in the season.

The characters shouldn't suffer from contrived deaths, nor should they suffer from random, meaningless deaths because of a bad roll or three. They should suffer deaths because they pushed themselves too hard, got in over their heads, or are facing a formidable foe. This is what rules as revealed thus far seem to be set up for.

deadseashoals
2008-02-06, 02:29 AM
I don't if I can help it. DnD is a common system used by everyone, but that doesn't make it good. I post here because it's about roleplaying, not because it's about d20.

Why are you posting about the death mechanics in 3E/4E D&D if you try to avoid playing D&D?

Charity
2008-02-06, 03:15 AM
I guess because he wants to ^

I welcome this change, having read the article I find myself agreeing in all the key areas with their analysis of third edition mortality rates.
As a DM I have killed far too many PC's unintentionally, I don't enjoy it, they certainly don't and then I am forced to stretch believability in order to introduce the players new character. Obviously there has to be the threat of death but the current system only really punishes TPK at the moment anyway, anything less and it's just a case of a ressurection and a bit of cash hardly the fear inspiring final curtain that it ought to be.

Kioran
2008-02-06, 03:35 AM
When have Red Shirts ever been treated the same, narratively?

In my games, since redshirts can be elevated to NPCs (or in rare cases replacement PCs) if they get lucky or do some clever/impressive stuff. Yay NPCs.

But seriously, this is the first 4th Ed preview I do, by and large, approve of. Except for getting back lots of HP at 20, this is good. And possibly yoinked.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-06, 05:22 AM
This is one of those "people play games for different reasons" discussions which runs into huge problems because both sides like to use the same terminology for their playstyles.

I honestly don't think that there is a single person who would say that they *didn't* want their games to be exciting and dramatic. The problem is that people are using different definitions of "excitement" and "drama".

Some - like me and I think Rutee - think that "dramatic" means "possessing the qualities of a drama". Amongst other things, this means that we see arbitrary character death as "undramatic" because it happens for no reason and just costs you a character whose story you're still interested in exploring.

Others think that "dramatic" means "dealing with large-scale, significant events and their consequenes". For these people PC death is always dramatic by definiton, and part of what makes a scene dramatic is the possibility that your character might die.

I tend to characterise these two sets of priorities as "specific" and "general". The "specific" player wants their character to be in dramatic situations, they want to be told "the roof is caving in and if you don't make this dex check you'll die". The chance that things might go horribly wrong heightens their sense of drama.

The "general" player, on the other hand, wants to be able to look at the game as a *whole* and see a sequence of dramatic events. Tell a general player to save vs roof or die and they'll be upset. Being killed by a falling roof is anticlimactic, so rolling a dice for it seems wrong.

To put it another way, the "specific" player cares about *whether* their character gets to the end of the adventure and kills the bad guy, while the "general" player only cares about *how*.

fendrin
2008-02-06, 10:24 AM
In my games, PCs only die for one of four reasons.
They have done something really stupid.
They are killed in an intentionally very difficult encounter.
They sacrifice themselves to save others (diving on a grenade, holding the narrow pass while others escape/go for help, etc).
The player leaves the game and I deem it beneficial to the game for the character to die.

Does that mean that the players are largely in a 'sandbox' environment? No.
If the players fail a their tasks, perhaps a favored NPC will die. perhaps an entire village will be wiped off the map. They may lose important objects (take away a wizard's spellbook, or a Samurai's katana, a family heirloom, or a plot-centric McGuffin). The reputation of the adventurers may fall. They may even be deemed criminals, depending on the circumstances.

The key here is that the penalty fits the crime, so to speak. If you fail to save the princess from the evil cleric, the king will not only not reward you, he may banish you from the kingdom. Or perhaps the princess became the sacrifice that was key to summon some ancient evil force. that evil force goes on a rampage, and now the PCs have something even more difficult to contend with.

And yet, excepting the four conditions above, they are not at risk of death. In 3.5, I have to fudge die rolls to make sure the players don't die needlessly. With the rules presented in this article, that will much less often be the case.

It's also worth noting that I very rarely run games at a level where raise dead and other such spells are available. Even when I do, I make them much more restrictive because they make death nothing but an inconvenience. Death should be a rare thing that has a lasting impact (and I'm not talking about negative levels...). Typically in my games, because of the levels involved, death is final.

Interestingly enough, throughout the years, none of the dozen or so people I have run games for have ever complained that it there wasn't enough challenge or consequences. On the other hand i have been in games with prodigious death rates (a DM who was very strictly by-the-book, and never fudged rolls, and had the kind of encounters where a single mistake was deadly). What happened was that the players didn't get attached to their characters, so losing one wasn't a big deal. There was a minor inconvenience in integrating a new character into the group, but it wasn't that bad.

Deepblue706
2008-02-06, 10:30 AM
Often, the case is both. A combination of innate and learned abilities and traits denote many fantasy heroes. It is often because there is something special about the hero-to-be that they are able to accomplish the feats and survive the hardships that make them heroic.

According to dictionary.com, a hero is "a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities." I do agree heroes should have ability - but I see the hero as untouchable by nameless characters to be tasteless.



The Ted the Turnip Farmer bit was more about having the PCs killed at the hand of Nameless Schmuck B. I find it unsatisfactory to be killed by someone that doesn't present a credible threat.

Why were they there in the first place? If the PCs are fighting and earning XP, then they're up against a threat.



You make a valid point. I would guess that somewhere in the mechanics that we have yet to see there will be an class ability or feat that will enable a character to achieve the otherwise very unlikely recovery. That the chance is there at all is due the concept of player characters being extraordinary (the article says that monsters don't need or use it, though I think I will have them do so for a bit of unpredictability).

Well, the monsters don't have this because they're insignificant. The players are the driving force. While I acknowledge that, I feel that there should be limitations on just how extraordinary characters are, and in what ways.



I wouldn't say death(s) makes victory sweeter, but rather bittersweet and in a campaign where resurrection is available (which is many of them), it is more a matter of persevering through it all to return the fallen comrade to life. I'm not sure what you mean by "correctly timed," though if you mean occurring at such a time that it will have an meaningful impact, yes it should be the case. Prominent members of Team Good die at such times, even if the death itself is random. An excellent example is from Buffy the Vampire Slayer's fifth season. In the episode "The Body," Joyce Summers, Buffy's mom dies of an aneurysm.

Well, when I meant "correctly timed", I meant when the player is ready to let go of the character, or if it's a very meaningful death. I do not believe players should choose when they die (unless committing suicide, or something to that effect) - I firmly believe that if the players are up against challenges, then they should always have a chance to fail, which sometimes includes death.



The character in question isn't even an active member of Team Good or relevant to the looming end of the world, but the death has considerable impact on the characters and a viewer that has invested themselves in the show, as well as consequences later on in the season.

Yes - and I'm not about to abolish the idea of a tragic death that impacts the party members. However, I believe that all combat should be treated more seriously, and that losing against a nameless foe can be emotional as well. If every party death happens to occur only when the party is completely outclassed, I'm going to be very bored. I require dynamics in my games to keep me interested.



The characters shouldn't suffer from contrived deaths, nor should they suffer from random, meaningless deaths because of a bad roll or three. They should suffer deaths because they pushed themselves too hard, got in over their heads, or are facing a formidable foe. This is what rules as revealed thus far seem to be set up for.

Well, I do believe there will be some kind of "action points" involved - which is a system I do like (I believe you can spend them for rerolls, etc, yes?). A death by a poor roll is annoying, I will admit. However, I believe that if PCs are in a fight, it should be important regardless if whether or not the PCs know their enemy's name. If they should die, they shouldn't complain, because in a fight people die. If there was no chance of failure to begin with, was it even a fight? Do the players deserve any rewards, at all?

Deepblue706
2008-02-06, 10:34 AM
This is one of those "people play games for different reasons" discussions which runs into huge problems because both sides like to use the same terminology for their playstyles.

I honestly don't think that there is a single person who would say that they *didn't* want their games to be exciting and dramatic. The problem is that people are using different definitions of "excitement" and "drama".

Some - like me and I think Rutee - think that "dramatic" means "possessing the qualities of a drama". Amongst other things, this means that we see arbitrary character death as "undramatic" because it happens for no reason and just costs you a character whose story you're still interested in exploring.

Others think that "dramatic" means "dealing with large-scale, significant events and their consequenes". For these people PC death is always dramatic by definiton, and part of what makes a scene dramatic is the possibility that your character might die.

I tend to characterise these two sets of priorities as "specific" and "general". The "specific" player wants their character to be in dramatic situations, they want to be told "the roof is caving in and if you don't make this dex check you'll die". The chance that things might go horribly wrong heightens their sense of drama.

The "general" player, on the other hand, wants to be able to look at the game as a *whole* and see a sequence of dramatic events. Tell a general player to save vs roof or die and they'll be upset. Being killed by a falling roof is anticlimactic, so rolling a dice for it seems wrong.

To put it another way, the "specific" player cares about *whether* their character gets to the end of the adventure and kills the bad guy, while the "general" player only cares about *how*.

Well put, Mr. Hemmens.

fendrin
2008-02-06, 10:47 AM
Deepblue706, you make it sound as if character death were the only measure of failure. In an arena combat/deathmatch situation, I would agree with that. In a game that extends beyond combat, I don't, and I feel there are better motivators than character death.

CrowSpawn
2008-02-06, 11:12 AM
The ranting aside... I do have a legitimate, non-opinionated gripe:

With this new system, a character in the negatives is either dying (1-9 result), dying soon (10-19) result, or jumping back into the fray (20 result). While I like this concept (and am planning on adopting it) I'm bothered by the fact that a dying character can now not stabilize on his own. Without someone else offering a healing check, a character in the negatives is either dying or dramatically re-emerging. Theres no stabilizing middle ground.

I had an idea about it, if you care:

Perhaps add +1 to the roll every time you "didn't change" until the point where a result of 9 or lower is no longer possible and you "stabilize" and stop rolling. The catch is that a player cannot re-emerge without a natural 20, so getting a 20 or higher because of pluses would simply mean "no change."

Comments?

Indon
2008-02-06, 11:53 AM
Without someone else offering a healing check, a character in the negatives is either dying or dramatically re-emerging. Theres no stabilizing middle ground.

Depending on how 'bloodied' works, it may well be that 25% of your hit points, or whatever they make it in 4'th edition, is more akin to stabilizing than it is to 'jumping back into the fray'.

Starbuck_II
2008-02-06, 12:16 PM
I wouldn't say death(s) makes victory sweeter, but rather bittersweet and in a campaign where resurrection is available (which is many of them), it is more a matter of persevering through it all to return the fallen comrade to life. I'm not sure what you mean by "correctly timed," though if you mean occurring at such a time that it will have an meaningful impact, yes it should be the case. Prominent members of Team Good die at such times, even if the death itself is random. An excellent example is from Buffy the Vampire Slayer's fifth season. In the episode "The Body," Joyce Summers, Buffy's mom dies of an aneurysm.
The character in question isn't even an active member of Team Good or relevant to the looming end of the world, but the death has considerable impact on the characters and a viewer that has invested themselves in the show, as well as consequences later on in the season.


I thought the death was out of place and slightly meaningless. It didn't fit the scheme of Buffy-universe.
It allowed the writers to write stuff about Buffy being forced to grow up and stuff, but it didn't follow. It was out of left field so to speak.

But I alwqays liked Xander best. Especially his hidden victory against the ghoul teenagers trying to blow up the school.

Deepblue706
2008-02-06, 12:29 PM
Deepblue706, you make it sound as if character death were the only measure of failure. In an arena combat/deathmatch situation, I would agree with that. In a game that extends beyond combat, I don't, and I feel there are better motivators than character death.



Well, when I meant "correctly timed", I meant when the player is ready to let go of the character, or if it's a very meaningful death. I do not believe players should choose when they die (unless committing suicide, or something to that effect) - I firmly believe that if the players are up against challenges, then they should always have a chance to fail, which sometimes includes death.

I said it sometimes includes death. It is not only death, includes other things, but it should never exclude death because "it's bad for the ongoing story", or something to that effect. What if someone has the opnion that the heroes should never fail? As a DM, should I respect that, and just have them always win, regardless? If that's the case, why even have dice? I wouldn't ever appease a player like this, because I dislike that playing style. There are enemies, they are a challenge, and PCs are mortals. They are heroic mortals, but I believe the title of "hero" is something earned, not bestowed from the start of the game, and grants the players a huge +5 plot-shield. If they live, they live. If they die, they die. We can always make new characters.

If anyone wants to discuss this further, then I suppose I'll start a thread on the mortality of the PC (unless someone else would like to), as we are losing context with the current one.

Artanis
2008-02-06, 12:37 PM
Depending on how 'bloodied' works, it may well be that 25% of your hit points, or whatever they make it in 4'th edition, is more akin to stabilizing than it is to 'jumping back into the fray'.
Exactly what I was thinking.

It could very well be that 25% means "just enough time to get an emergency heal or Second Wind before the monster looks at you funny and you fall back down in a pool of your own blood again".

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-06, 12:40 PM
I said it sometimes includes death. It is not only death, includes other things, but it should never exclude death because "it's bad for the ongoing story", or something to that effect. What if someone has the opnion that the heroes should never fail? As a DM, should I respect that, and just have them always win, regardless? If that's the case, why even have dice? I wouldn't ever appease a player like this, because I dislike that playing style. There are enemies, they are a challenge, and PCs are mortals. They are heroic mortals, but I believe the title of "hero" is something earned, not bestowed from the start of the game, and grants the players a huge +5 plot-shield. If they live, they live. If they die, they die. We can always make new characters.

Just to highlight the levels of difference in opinion that can come up with this kind of stuff, I actually *do* hold the opinion that the heroes should never fail, or more precisely that random chance should never produce a result which closes off options.

Deepblue706
2008-02-06, 12:45 PM
Just to highlight the levels of difference in opinion that can come up with this kind of stuff, I actually *do* hold the opinion that the heroes should never fail, or more precisely that random chance should never produce a result which closes off options.

That's fine, and I apolgize if I come off as disrespectful - but it's not the kind of game I'd want to play.

And, I feel bound when the system itself seems to be making groundwork for one style of play, but fails to support mine (at least, in my mind). D&D may not be the game for me, but I don't exactly have many other viable options readily available.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-06, 01:01 PM
That's fine, and I apolgize if I come off as disrespectful - but it's not the kind of game I'd want to play.

That's cool, it's not for most people, and actually I *do* also appreciate both sorts of game (sometimes it *is* fun to think "how the hell are we going to survive this), I was just highlighting that your "what if somebody doesn't think PCs should ever fail" remark wasn't actually hyperbole.


And, I feel bound when the system itself seems to be making groundwork for one style of play, but fails to support mine (at least, in my mind). D&D may not be the game for me, but I don't exactly have many other viable options readily available.

WFRP? It's a good deal grittier. Or Pendragon if you like Arthurian? Ars Magica?

Damn, I've just turned into that guy you get on every gaming forum who responds to every criticism somebody has about a game by saying "clearly this isn't the game for you - have you tried [My Favourite Game] instead?"

Seriously, though, I think D&D occupies a weird middle ground. You don't like the idea that characters can't be killed by a single lucky shot as easily, I don't like the fact that they can be killed by a single lucky shot *at all*. It's sort of lose-lose.

For what it's worth, I'm not actually a D&D player either...

Jack Zander
2008-02-06, 01:13 PM
Exactly what I was thinking.

It could very well be that 25% means "just enough time to get an emergency heal or Second Wind before the monster looks at you funny and you fall back down in a pool of your own blood again".

And then again, maybe it won't. We don't know how the game works yet, so it's a little early to be assuming anything.

Perhaps when 4th Ed comes out, it will be the game system to end all game systems, perfect and holy in the Father's eyes, and ideal for any type of game. But most likely it will have it's inherent flaws that need to be house ruled away. Is this mechanic a flaw? I dunno, we haven't even seen it yet. But it sounds like people are simply springing back up fighting after bleeding out for a few rounds somehow.

When I first bought SWSE, I thought it was a nigh perfect system. Then little things started bugging me. How come I can't take a 5 foot step? Now there is no way to emulate two characters fighting while inching towards the main reactor core (unless you want to suffer an AoO).

It won't take long before things start to not make sense.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-06, 01:14 PM
Exactly what I was thinking.

It could very well be that 25% means "just enough time to get an emergency heal or Second Wind before the monster looks at you funny and you fall back down in a pool of your own blood again".

I've been thinking about this 'reverting to bloodied' issue and I'm starting to wonder. I know the designers have indicated that there will be special actions for each class that can only be taken when bloodied. I always assumed that these actions were of the 'heroic last stand'/'chopping off the BBEG's head at the last moment' sort of things.

It's too early to tell of course, but if I'm right about those actions being that kind of thing coupled with this sort of death mechanic we might start seeing 'bloodied' builds when 4e comes out. The idea of that bothers me.

Jack Zander
2008-02-06, 01:22 PM
I've been thinking about this 'reverting to bloodied' issue and I'm starting to wonder. I know the designers have indicated that there will be special actions for each class that can only be taken when bloodied. I always assumed that these actions were of the 'heroic last stand'/'chopping off the BBEG's head at the last moment' sort of things.

It's too early to tell of course, but if I'm right about those actions being that kind of thing coupled with this sort of death mechanic we might start seeing 'bloodied' builds when 4e comes out. The idea of that bothers me.

Lol.

Fighter: Quick! Only 3 more HP til I'm blooded, hit me on your turn!
Cleric: you mean instead of the BBEG?
Fighter: Yeah dude, I can totally pull off this sweat combo, but only when my liver is exposed to oxygen.
Cleric: I've studied medicine and healing for years, and I have no idea how that makes sense...

fendrin
2008-02-06, 01:28 PM
I said it sometimes includes death. It is not only death, includes other things, but it should never exclude death because "it's bad for the ongoing story", or something to that effect.
I was thinking about other things you said, but regardless, I concede that you do not believe death is the only measure of failure.

I do not prevent PC death because it is bad for the story. I prevent PC death only when it is meaningless. I do this because I (as the DM) feel that meaningless PC deaths detract from the game. If the death is meaningful for any reason, I let it stand. If Ted the mind-controlled Farmer minion who is nowhere near the big boss just happens to roll a crit with his scythe, I don't want to see a character get offed. It's no fun, and the death is meaningless. It's the same reason I don't have PCs roll reflex checks when they step out into a busy street to make sure they don't get run over by a wagon.

Typically I would fudge the situation so that the character is severely hurt (maybe -8 or so) but not dead. Does it have an effect in game? Heck yes. The cleric has to take time out to cast a spell on the near-dead character, and said character probably won't be getting up even then. If it's the cleric who's layed out, you'd best hope someone bought a healing potion or (gasp) put ranks in in the heal skill.

Hmm, bringing this back to the article for moment, it seems that small amounts of healing are going to be much easier to get without disrupting the flow of combat (thereby eliminating the healbot role). It seems that using such an ability could be very dangerous, given that any healing would put a character back on their feet. I think it would be interesting to see if players start to wait for the second 'get worse' roll before having their characters get healed. That would make getting incapacitated from HP damage even more of an effect than it currently is. Suddenly I think the nat 20 = 25% hp is a positive addition to the game rules, not just a neutral one that adds flavor (albeit flavor that some people don't like).


What if someone has the opnion that the heroes should never fail? As a DM, should I respect that, and just have them always win, regardless? If that's the case, why even have dice? I wouldn't ever appease a player like this, because I dislike that playing style. There are enemies, they are a challenge, and PCs are mortals. They are heroic mortals, but I believe the title of "hero" is something earned, not bestowed from the start of the game, and grants the players a huge +5 plot-shield.
As a DM you should do what you feel is best for the game and not what a single player feels is best. I don't prevent a player death because I am appeasing the player, I do it because I feel it is the best thing to do. Like the characters in a good story, the characters are only going to die if there is a reason for it.


If they live, they live. If they die, they die. We can always make new characters. I feel this attitude leads to a distant relationship between player and character. I want my players to be upset that they have to make a new character, and not just because it's time consuming and a lot of work to do right. If characters die too often, then character deaths for any reason become nothing but speedbumps.


If anyone wants to discuss this further, then I suppose I'll start a thread on the mortality of the PC (unless someone else would like to), as we are losing context with the current one.
Indeed. If you do create such a thread, please post a link to it in this one.

Morty
2008-02-06, 01:28 PM
I've been thinking about this 'reverting to bloodied' issue and I'm starting to wonder. I know the designers have indicated that there will be special actions for each class that can only be taken when bloodied. I always assumed that these actions were of the 'heroic last stand'/'chopping off the BBEG's head at the last moment' sort of things.

It's too early to tell of course, but if I'm right about those actions being that kind of thing coupled with this sort of death mechanic we might start seeing 'bloodied' builds when 4e comes out. The idea of that bothers me.


Well, there'll probably be also drawbacks to being bloodied. At least, that's what logic dictates. I don't know how will it work in 4ed.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-06, 01:32 PM
Well, there'll probably be also drawbacks to being bloodied. At least, that's what logic dictates. I don't know how will it work in 4ed.

Neither do I. I hope the drawbacks make that kind of build impractical but if the drawbacks aren't severe enough, or there are ways to counteract them without leaving the 'bloodied' state then I could see builds designed to never be above half health. Especially if it is difficult to die.

Draz74
2008-02-06, 03:04 PM
The ranting aside... I do have a legitimate, non-opinionated gripe:

With this new system, a character in the negatives is either dying (1-9 result), dying soon (10-19) result, or jumping back into the fray (20 result). While I like this concept (and am planning on adopting it) I'm bothered by the fact that a dying character can now not stabilize on his own. Without someone else offering a healing check, a character in the negatives is either dying or dramatically re-emerging. Theres no stabilizing middle ground.

I had an idea about it, if you care:

Perhaps add +1 to the roll every time you "didn't change" until the point where a result of 9 or lower is no longer possible and you "stabilize" and stop rolling. The catch is that a player cannot re-emerge without a natural 20, so getting a 20 or higher because of pluses would simply mean "no change."

Comments?

I think they've mentioned that spending an Action Point can still make you stabilize automatically. I think this will be the "main" way for a PC to save themselves if they aren't going to get a Heal check in time.

Which works OK, as far as making the game play smoothly. Unfortunately, it's not very realistic.

In real medieval warfare, the reasons people rarely survived horrific battle wounds without immediate aid isn't because they bled to death a minute or two later. It's because one of the following things happened:

Their side lost the battle. Their opponents went around stabbing (coup-de-grace) all the dying bodies to make sure they stayed dead.
They were eventually salvaged alive, but medicine of the time, lacking magical aid, just wasn't enough to get them back into conscious-and-healing conditions.
Same as the previous one, except their wounds got infected, and disease was even nastier than wounds for the medicine of the time to deal with.


The game reflects this poorly. In either edition, the possibility of "dying but stable" conditions is too unlikely. (In 3e, "dying" is too unlikely, and in 4e, "stabilizing" is too unlikely, at least for common soldiers rather than adventuring heroes.)

At least in 3e, walking around after the battle performing coup-de-graces was common practice, which (unfortunately) is nicely realistic.

Cybren
2008-02-06, 03:43 PM
Monsters don’t need or use this system unless the DM has special reason to do so. A monster at 0 hp is dead, and you don’t have to worry about wandering around the battlefield stabbing all your unconscious foes. (I’m sure my table isn’t the only place that happens.) We’ve talked elsewhere about some of the bogus parallelism that can lead to bad game design—such as all monsters having to follow character creation rules, even though they’re supposed to be foes to kill, not player characters—this is just another example of the game escaping that trap. Sure, a DM can decide for dramatic reasons that a notable NPC or monster might linger on after being defeated. Maybe a dying enemy survives to deliver a final warning or curse before expiring, or at the end of a fight the PCs discover a bloody trail leading away from where the evil warlock fell, but those will be significant, story-based exceptions to the norm.

See this is where I think separating player and non player rules is a bad idea. You wind up with a situation governed entirely arbitrarily. To a bad DM, every enemy will die. To a worse DM, every enemy will survive. You wind up with a situation where the DM will at best have to remember who the PCs decided to 'make sure they're dead after the fight', consider how serious their ending blow was, and if they DO think they survive, arbitrarily determine how long it takes them to wake up/recover/etc. If the DM wanted the enemy to survive? Well then he will and it will just seem like system endorsed rail-roading

Theli
2008-02-06, 03:57 PM
If the DM wanted the enemy to survive? Well then he will and it will just seem like system endorsed rail-roading

Hmm...Reverse Oberoni Fallacy?

horseboy
2008-02-06, 04:02 PM
See this is where I think separating player and non player rules is a bad idea. You wind up with a situation governed entirely arbitrarily. To a bad DM, every enemy will die. To a worse DM, every enemy will survive. You wind up with a situation where the DM will at best have to remember who the PCs decided to 'make sure they're dead after the fight', consider how serious their ending blow was, and if they DO think they survive, arbitrarily determine how long it takes them to wake up/recover/etc. If the DM wanted the enemy to survive? Well then he will and it will just seem like system endorsed rail-roading
See, that's why you just CdG EVERYTHING. Bamf, you never have to worry about it.

fendrin
2008-02-06, 04:55 PM
Hmf. Personally, I like the idea of leaving some ambiguity as to whether an enemy I leave laying unconscious on the side of the road is dead or not. It's realistic. You want to coup de grace every fallen opponent? Fine, but you will develop a reputation for excessive violence and bloodthirstiness.

I mean, the equivalent in 3.X terms is taking your opponents dead body or tossing it onto a sphere of annihilation to make sure they can't be brought back short of a True Resurrection.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-06, 05:08 PM
Hmf. Personally, I like the idea of leaving some ambiguity as to whether an enemy I leave laying unconscious on the side of the road is dead or not. It's realistic. You want to coup de grace every fallen opponent? Fine, but you will develop a reputation for excessive violence and bloodthirstiness.That was actually common IRL. Armies did it to their opponents, road guards did it to bandits, I'm sure it would be acceptable for the party to do it to the BBEG.
I mean, the equivalent in 3.X terms is taking your opponents dead body or tossing it onto a sphere of annihilation to make sure they can't be brought back short of a True Resurrection.If they can be brought back by a spell, you're not doing your job right. Sure, a Sphere or a Well (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#wellofManyWorlds) is good enough for mooks, but every BBEG and his lieutenant needs to undergo the flesh (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fleshToStone.htm)-mud (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transmuteRockToMud.htm)-water (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/purifyFoodAndDrink.htm) combo so that they aren't even dead. After all, what is the point of killing them if they can come back with better tactics. :smallbiggrin:

Yakk
2008-02-06, 05:19 PM
3.5e version:
You die when you are at negative (CON STAT + HP/4) HP.

If you are at negative hp, roll 1d20.
1-10: Take 1d6 con damage. On a 6, roll again. This does not change your current HP, only your max HP.
11-19: no change
20: Gain your current con in HP. If you reach 1 or above, you are now awake again, and may take a single move action this turn.

horseboy
2008-02-06, 05:25 PM
That was actually common IRL. Armies did it to their opponents, road guards did it to bandits, I'm sure it would be acceptable for the party to do it to the BBEG. If they can be brought back by a spell, you're not doing your job right. Sure, a Sphere or a Well (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#wellofManyWorlds) is good enough for mooks, but every BBEG and his lieutenant needs to undergo the flesh (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fleshToStone.htm)-mud (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transmuteRockToMud.htm)-water (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/purifyFoodAndDrink.htm) combo so that they aren't even dead. After all, what is the point of killing them if they can come back with better tactics. :smallbiggrin:
Too right! One of the top ten rules of surviving to 20 is making sure there's never an enemy at your back. After all, how is he going to trigger the alarm when you're carrying his nugget and his body is in a cistern?

North
2008-02-06, 05:42 PM
3.5e version:
You die when you are at negative (CON STAT + HP/4) HP.

If you are at negative hp, roll 1d20.
1-10: Take 1d6 con damage. On a 6, roll again. This does not change your current HP, only your max HP.
11-19: no change
20: Gain your current con in HP. If you reach 1 or above, you are now awake again, and may take a single move action this turn.

Do you mean Con stat or Con Modifier:smallconfused:

SimperingToad
2008-02-06, 05:55 PM
See this is where I think separating player and non player rules is a bad idea. You wind up with a situation governed entirely arbitrarily. To a bad DM, every enemy will die. To a worse DM, every enemy will survive. You wind up with a situation where the DM will at best have to remember who the PCs decided to 'make sure they're dead after the fight', consider how serious their ending blow was, and if they DO think they survive, arbitrarily determine how long it takes them to wake up/recover/etc. If the DM wanted the enemy to survive? Well then he will and it will just seem like system endorsed rail-roading

All the article is really saying is that at 0hp the monster/NPC is presumed to be dead. No DM wants to keep track of every opponent the PCs knock into the negatives and let bleed out. Nothing forces you to do that for 'special' monsters/NPCs that may be relevant to plot or the PCs want captured. That much has not changed over the editions.

Regards,
theToad

AslanCross
2008-02-06, 06:28 PM
Try It Now!

If you want to try out a version of this system in your current game, try the following house rule. It’s not quite the 4th Edition system, but it should give you an idea of how it’ll feel.

1) At 0 hp or less, you fall unconscious and are dying.
Any damage dealt to a dying character is applied normally, and might kill him if it reduces his hit points far enough (see #2).

2) Characters die when their negative hit point total reaches -10 or one-quarter of their full normal hit points, whichever is a larger value.
This is less than a 4th Edition character would have, but each monster attack is dealing a smaller fraction of the character’s total hit points, so it should be reasonable. If it feels too small, increase it to one-third full normal hit points and try again.

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.

4) If a character with negative hit points receives healing, he returns to 0 hp before any healing is applied.
In other words, he’ll wake up again with hit points equal to the healing provided by the effect—a cure light wounds spell for 7 hp will bring any dying character back to 7 hp, no matter what his negative hit point total had reached.)

5) A dying character who’s been stabilized (via the Heal skill) doesn’t roll a d20 at the end of his turn unless he takes more damage.[/spoiler]


I'm fine with all of these except number 3. Instead of spontaneously healing back up to 1/4 HP, I'd just let him heal back up to 1 HP. As much as I don't like killing my PCs, I'd rather keep that threat of imminent death hovering about. (then again, at high levels, it's pretty pointless.)

I really like the scaling negatives, though.

SimperingToad
2008-02-06, 06:45 PM
I'm fine with all of these except number 3. Instead of spontaneously healing back up to 1/4 HP, I'd just let him heal back up to 1 HP. As much as I don't like killing my PCs, I'd rather keep that threat of imminent death hovering about. (then again, at high levels, it's pretty pointless.)

I really like the scaling negatives, though.

I can understand why some like the idea, but if part of the reason 4E is even in the works in the first place is to simplify 3E, how does this accomplish the mission?

If the purpose of this update is to account for the power creep, wouldn't increasing the negatives to, say for example, -20 be enough? Alternately, you could use the CON score -5 (-8 to -23 for the standard 3-18 abilities), or maybe –15 minus the CON modifier or some other variant.

Regards,
theToad

Yakk
2008-02-06, 07:06 PM
Do you mean Con stat or Con Modifier:smallconfused:

Con stat. That replaces "go up to 1/4 of your max HP". It represents recovery from being KO'd, which can happen sometime.

Rutee
2008-02-06, 07:09 PM
I can understand why some like the idea, but if part of the reason 4E is even in the works in the first place is to simplify 3E, how does this accomplish the mission?
Regards,
theToad

It may not be simpler (And it's 1/2 Max HP will not be rememberred as the pinnacle of difficulty), but it is more intuitive.

SimperingToad
2008-02-06, 07:28 PM
It may not be simpler (And it's 1/2 Max HP will not be rememberred as the pinnacle of difficulty), but it is more intuitive.

Sure it is, but let's hope that everything else doesn't end up this way. That would be a case of the whole being far worse than the sum of it's parts.

An issue I have with it as it stands is that it really is not as intuitive as it seems at first glance. Hit points are abstract numbers. Part of the reason a fighter has a d10 and a wizard has a d4 is that a fighter is trained in eluding a sword thrust that would skewer the wizard, suffering a graze instead of spilling his guts. Unconscious/dying characters tend not to have this kind of mobility, save for the involuntary twitching...

This leaves the range of negatives in direct proportion to an active character who can attempt to avoid damage, while the unconscious/dying cannot. Nitpicky, yes, but if you're going to do something, might as well get it right. :smallwink:

Regards,
theToad

tyckspoon
2008-02-06, 07:40 PM
This leaves the range of negatives in direct proportion to an active character who can attempt to avoid damage, while the unconscious/dying cannot. Nitpicky, yes, but if you're going to do something, might as well get it right. :smallwink:

Regards,
theToad

This would appear to be a problem only if you assume that enemies are going to continue attempting to perform normal attacks after somebody has been disabled. The fighter would be better able to convert a potentially lethal attack into a merely disabling one, as represented by his potentially much larger negative range. But once he's disabled, he's just as vulnerable to a coup-de-grace kind of attack as the similarly disabled Wizard is.

..although that does also presume that coups retain a similar efficiency in dispatching an enemy as what they currently do. If they just cause a critical hit, it does seem possible that a Fighter in the low (..high? Stupid language.) negatives could survive a couple of them. Maybe couping somebody will just assign them an automatically failed recovery roll instead, making them that much closer to dying?

SimperingToad
2008-02-06, 07:48 PM
But once he's disabled, he's just as vulnerable to a coup-de-grace kind of attack as the similarly disabled Wizard is.

Exactly my point. Two people at 0hp or below cannot actively defend themselves, so how can one justify such a wide variance of negative hp? The only difference between the fighter and the wizard at this point is that the typical wizard would bleed out sooner from that spear sticking out of his lung because of his lower constitution, not his HD.

Regards,
theToad

Artanis
2008-02-06, 07:52 PM
If the purpose of this update is to account for the power creep, wouldn't increasing the negatives to, say for example, -20 be enough? Alternately, you could use the CON score -5 (-8 to -23 for the standard 3-18 abilities), or maybe –15 minus the CON modifier or some other variant.
No, this wouldn't be enough because the whole idea has nothing to do with between-editions power creep, it has to do with scaling by level.

Changing it to -20 would literally be worse than useless, because it would involve putting effort into doing exactly zero towards fixing the problem they're trying to fix. Using the CON score system you proposed would also almost certainly be vastly inadequate, because to scale by the amount they're talking about could very well require a PC's CON score to go up by an order of magnitude.

tyckspoon
2008-02-06, 08:00 PM
Exactly my point. Two people at 0hp or below cannot actively defend themselves, so how can one justify such a wide variance of negative hp? The only difference between the fighter and the wizard at this point is that the typical wizard would bleed out sooner from that spear sticking out of his lung because of his lower constitution, not his HD.

Regards,
theToad

Ah. I was thinking more that the Fighter's negative HP range was just another aspect of his better ability to defend himself while healthy, since he is more likely to wind up disabled when struck by an attack that might blow through the Wizard's negative range entirely. If they're both in negatives, then it doesn't matter very much that the Fighter could potentially be more negative than the Wizard; according to the 3rd Ed version of the mechanic presented, they're both equally likely to bleed out (3 turns rolling ten or less) or to recover. And if a coup de grace still works by largely going outside the HP system (3rd Ed, its most lethal effect is forcing a massive Fort save) then it won't matter that the Fighter has more negative HP cushion there either.

horseboy
2008-02-06, 08:23 PM
Exactly my point. Two people at 0hp or below cannot actively defend themselves, so how can one justify such a wide variance of negative hp? The only difference between the fighter and the wizard at this point is that the typical wizard would bleed out sooner from that spear sticking out of his lung because of his lower constitution, not his HD.

Regards,
theToad1) We don't know the mechanics for 4.x yet. The way they were talking in that article, it's likely that it won't take more than one or two hits to drive a fighter into "death" from uncon. Does it really matter that it might take 1 more hit? Will it only take 1 more hit? We don't know yet.

Theli
2008-02-06, 08:30 PM
You know...it may also be the case that...dare I say it...

Wizards may no longer have d4 HP!

*shock* *awe* *gasp*

They may simply have fewer, or less effective, ways to protect against martial attacks.

SimperingToad
2008-02-06, 08:56 PM
No, this wouldn't be enough because the whole idea has nothing to do with between-editions power creep, it has to do with scaling by level.

Changing it to -20 would literally be worse than useless, because it would involve putting effort into doing exactly zero towards fixing the problem they're trying to fix. Using the CON score system you proposed would also almost certainly be vastly inadequate, because to scale by the amount they're talking about could very well require a PC's CON score to go up by an order of magnitude.

Scaling is part of the power creep between editions problem. They're linked. Each edition added things which increased the ability to dish out and take more damage, hence the hit points of PCs and monsters had to be increased accordingly. The thing that remained the same was the -10hp death rule. There is the problem that I see being fixed. Just not too well thought out IMHO. My numbers were only meant as illustrative examples.

Maybe you're seeing it from a perspective that I didn't pick up? :smallsmile:
By all means elaborate.

Regards,
theToad

SimperingToad
2008-02-06, 09:10 PM
1) We don't know the mechanics for 4.x yet. The way they were talking in that article, it's likely that it won't take more than one or two hits to drive a fighter into "death" from uncon. Does it really matter that it might take 1 more hit? Will it only take 1 more hit? We don't know yet.

True enough, but they at least seem to be keeping the same method for hit points thus far (exact dice may vary), so we can make some inferrences from that (which wasn't where I wanted to be... but... but... y'all made me!:smallfrown: )

My whole point was that the abstract hit points of actively moving characters is different from unconscious/dying ones. If you are out and dying, a successful sword thrust through the heart affects a fighter and wizard on equal terms (barring something wierd). This mechanic doesn't seem to reflect this.

Regards,
theToad

SimperingToad
2008-02-06, 09:13 PM
You know...it may also be the case that...dare I say it...

Wizards may no longer have d4 HP!

*shock* *awe* *gasp*

They may simply have fewer, or less effective, ways to protect against martial attacks.

:smallbiggrin: Oooh! Free-form hit dice! Hah! Take that my fighter friend! I got a d12 for hit points last level. How'z your d4 taste?

Regards,
theToad

Roderick_BR
2008-02-06, 09:39 PM
I'm not sure if I like this change. In one hand, as they claim, it will increase the chances of surviving a powerful blow that throws you under zero HP.
The problem is that the game now is effectively giving you even more HP. Their example says that a character with -2 has 8 rounds to be safe. Now you can have around 50 rounds if the character have 200 HP!
Then comes the stabilization rules. If you roll under 10 three times, you die. Now, this makes healing an ally more important, good (but if the guy rolls above 10 for 50 rounds, he'll stay there for 50 rounds).
Then, if you roll a 20, poof, 50 hitpoints! Kinda weird. Maybe if it just threw him to 1 HP, so he can try to escape, it would make sense (healing from allies would be more effective).
Of course, we are comparing it to the currently HP system of 3.5, let's see how it'll be for 4e.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-07, 05:06 AM
I'm fine with all of these except number 3. Instead of spontaneously healing back up to 1/4 HP, I'd just let him heal back up to 1 HP. As much as I don't like killing my PCs, I'd rather keep that threat of imminent death hovering about. (then again, at high levels, it's pretty pointless.)

The problem with being up on 1HP is that you wind up being worse off than if you were stable on the floor. If you're down you're not a threat, and people will probably ignore you to deal with the people who are actually attacking them, and if they *were* going to Coup-de-Grace you they would have done it already.

Standing on 1HP makes you a legitimate and tempting target.

I'd also point out that, in D&D as stands, a character on 1HP isn't actually particularly "near death". They suffer no penalites on any actions, they aren't bleeding, and they'll get better of their own accord, regardless of medical treatment or any other conditions. The 25% extra HP basically represents the same skill/luck/whatever combo that allowed you to survive 25 greatsword blows to the face in the first place.

Starsinger
2008-02-07, 05:32 AM
Exactly my point. Two people at 0hp or below cannot actively defend themselves, so how can one justify such a wide variance of negative hp? The only difference between the fighter and the wizard at this point is that the typical wizard would bleed out sooner from that spear sticking out of his lung because of his lower constitution, not his HD.

I believe you may be looking at this from the wrong side of it. If both the Wizard and the Fighter are at 2 hp, a hit for 12 damage is much scarier for the wizard under the new system than for a fighter, while they're both up and able to actively defend themselves.

Rutee
2008-02-07, 05:38 AM
Is there a confirmed design note that Bloodied entails actual penalties on the character? To my knowledge, Bloodied status only marks whether you may or may not use certain abilities, and whether you are or are not a valid target for certain abilities; An add-on to this is that Rogues get a bunch of abilities to help them burn down a bloodied target.

Khanderas
2008-02-07, 05:54 AM
You know...it may also be the case that...dare I say it...

Wizards may no longer have d4 HP!

*shock* *awe* *gasp*

They may simply have fewer, or less effective, ways to protect against martial attacks.
What you mean we wont have "protection from Fighter" and "Dispel warrior" anymore ? :smallbiggrin:

kjones
2008-02-07, 08:15 AM
Just want to remind everyone that the "Try it Now!" mechanics are meant for immediate implementation in 3rd edition play. It's unlikely that these are the exact mechanics for death/dying that we'll see in 4th edition; rather, they're meant to convey the flavor of those mechanics.

Hopefully, by then they'll have gotten rid of that silly "Nat 20 = Healz" rule.

Charity
2008-02-07, 08:36 AM
Without that if you go down alone there is no hope. There should be some hope of recovery, Hollywood demands it.

Learnedguy
2008-02-07, 09:11 AM
You know...it may also be the case that...dare I say it...

Wizards may no longer have d4 HP!

*shock* *awe* *gasp*

They may simply have fewer, or less effective, ways to protect against martial attacks.

Hey, now when you say it, I remember it too.
Everyone starts up with the same BAB, saves and HP at the beginning right? And progress the same way. It's up to the way you twink your character that makes him distinguish himself. Right?

Meaning you hit right in the sweet spot, and scored a twenty in you knowledge (find error) check:smallamused:

Morty
2008-02-07, 09:50 AM
Is there a confirmed design note that Bloodied entails actual penalties on the character? To my knowledge, Bloodied status only marks whether you may or may not use certain abilities, and whether you are or are not a valid target for certain abilities; An add-on to this is that Rogues get a bunch of abilities to help them burn down a bloodied target.

I've never seen anything about it, but it seems preety obvious that if there's "bloodied" status it's going to impose some penalties.
By the way, am I the only one here who doesn't want his D&D sessions to look like Holywood movies?

Worira
2008-02-07, 10:35 AM
The problem is that the game now is effectively giving you even more HP. Their example says that a character with -2 has 8 rounds to be safe. Now you can have around 50 rounds if the character have 200 HP!
Then comes the stabilization rules. If you roll under 10 three times, you die. Now, this makes healing an ally more important, good (but if the guy rolls above 10 for 50 rounds, he'll stay there for 50 rounds).



What? No, you can't have around 50 rounds. You don't bleed out by HP, you bleed out by rolling under 10. Sure, if you roll above 10 for 50 rounds you could theoretically stay alive for 50 rounds, but that has nothing to do with HP. A wizard bleeds out in the same time a fighter does. And there's no way in hell you'll roll 50 times without rolling under 10 at least three times.

Artanis
2008-02-07, 12:05 PM
Scaling is part of the power creep between editions problem. They're linked. Each edition added things which increased the ability to dish out and take more damage, hence the hit points of PCs and monsters had to be increased accordingly. The thing that remained the same was the -10hp death rule. There is the problem that I see being fixed. Just not too well thought out IMHO. My numbers were only meant as illustrative examples.

Maybe you're seeing it from a perspective that I didn't pick up? :smallsmile:
By all means elaborate.

Regards,
theToad
You're right that if the problem was just with power creep between editions, then yeah, just bumping up the amount of negative hp (whether to -20 or -30 or whatever) would of course be enough. However, they said that the problem wasn't in power creep between editions (or not only in that, at any rate), it was that negatives became increasingly useless as enemy damage went up because the chance that an attack would land you in them went down.


As an illustration, consider two enemies, right out of the SRD:

The first is a low-level enemy, a CR 1 Elf that does 1d8+1 damage. At level 1, that's enough damage to put a PC down in a few hits, but the odds of a hit knocking a PC into negatives and still having enough left over to outright kill him are pretty slim. That Elf would have to get a crit, confirm the crit, and then roll big on the damage, AND the target would have to be pretty low to start with. So the chances of a CR 1 enemy taking an ECL 1 PC from "alive and fighting" to "dead as a doorknob" in one swipe are extremely slim.

The second is a high-level enemy, the likes of which an ECL 20 PC might be up against: a Mature Adult Gold Dragon, CR 19. The Dragon's breath weapon is listed as doing 14d10 damage, for an average of 75. If a 75-damage attack drops a PC, the odds of it still having another 10 damage to kill the PC outright are extremely high - more than 6/7. So 6 times out of 7, a PC that drops into the negatives would keep on going all the way to dead. Even if the PC makes the save for half damage, the odds of dropping him but not killing him are almost 3/4. So the -10 buffer has become almost meaningless.


THAT is what they're trying to fix. A buffer that's meaningful at level 1 should remain meaningful at level 20. And the simplest way to do that is simply to scale it by max hp.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-07, 12:18 PM
By the way, am I the only one here who doesn't want his D&D sessions to look like Holywood movies?

Ah of course, because outside of Hollywood, the protagonists of works of fiction die randomly all the time. Like that bit in La Morte d'Arthur where King Arthur gets his head cut off in the middle of a battle before uniting England.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-07, 12:22 PM
By the way, am I the only one here who doesn't want his D&D sessions to look like Holywood movies?

Ah of course, because outside of Hollywood, the protagonists of works of fiction die randomly all the time. Like that bit in La Morte d'Arthur where King Arthur gets his head cut off in the middle of a battle before uniting England.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-07, 12:32 PM
Ah of course, because outside of Hollywood, the protagonists of works of fiction die randomly all the time. Like that bit in La Morte d'Arthur where King Arthur gets his head cut off in the middle of a battle before uniting England.

Actually, I can think of quite a few Scifi/fantasy novels where characters die for random and unexpected reasons. Feist has done it to several main characters over the course of the Riftwar books for example. One by something as simple as having someone behind him drop a crossbow and being unlucky enough to be hit by the bolt.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-07, 12:35 PM
Actually, I can think of quite a few Scifi/fantasy novels where characters die for random and unexpected reasons. Feist has done it to several main characters over the course of the Riftwar books for example. One by something as simple as having someone behind him drop a crossbow and being unlucky enough to be hit by the bolt.

The protagonist? When their death actually got in the *way* of the plot instead of advancing it? I sincerely doubt it.

George RR Martin is famous for the way that "anybody can die" in his books, for example, but *actually* there's no way that anything's happening to Jon Snow or Dany.

Learnedguy
2008-02-07, 12:37 PM
By the way, am I the only one here who doesn't want his D&D sessions to look like Hollywood movies?

Well, considering the fact that the WotC are stressing the point that D&D is heroic fantasy, you might have a bit of a conundrum in that case:smalltongue:

With that said, if it looks like you're having a Hollywood experience, change the director. That should solve your problems and give your campaigns a bit more flair:smallamused:

AKA_Bait
2008-02-07, 12:41 PM
The protagonist? When their death actually got in the *way* of the plot instead of advancing it? I sincerely doubt it.

Yes. One of the two plot central figures. He was commanding an on the march, someone dropped a loaded crossbow and the bolt took his head off midconversation. It changed the plot signifigantly. I'm not sure what you mean by 'getting in the way' of the plot unless what you actually mean is 'getting in the way of how I expect the plot to progress'.


George RR Martin is famous for the way that "anybody can die" in his books, for example, but *actually* there's no way that anything's happening to Jon Snow or Dany.

He's actually another example I was thinking of mentioning and I'm not so sure of your assumption. He's killed of some characters I wouldn't expect to have died any more than those two and who were equally plot central to the books they were in. More so, in fact, than those two.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-07, 12:51 PM
Yes. One of the two plot central figures. He was commanding an on the march, someone dropped a loaded crossbow and the bolt took his head off midconversation. It changed the plot signifigantly. I'm not sure what you mean by 'getting in the way' of the plot unless what you actually mean is 'getting in the way of how I expect the plot to progress'.

A plot central figure is not a protagonist. Did his death, by any chance, lead to any of the following events happening: A younger, less experienced man having to take command. The villains securing a crucial victory in the confusion. A character experiencing a moment of realisation and personal growth?

Characters in fiction do *not* die randomly. Sometimes they die in a way which the author makes us *think* is random (see every death in anything Joss Whedon has ever made ever), but it is never *actually* random.


He's actually another example I was thinking of mentioning and I'm not so sure of your assumption. He's killed of some characters I wouldn't expect to have died any more than those two and who were equally plot central to the books they were in. More so, in fact, than those two.

Oh absolutely, but that's just skillful misdirection.

Spoilers ahead, for them as cares.

While the death of Ned Stark was shocking, it was anything but random. It was perfectly calculated to come at the worst possible time, for Arya to witness it, and to come only *after* Ned had uncovered the plot against Robert.

On the flip side, Arya wanders around the wartorn, bandit-ridden countryside and somehow manages to get by with her life and virtue utterly intact. Martin uses plot protection, he just hides it well.

Morty
2008-02-07, 01:13 PM
Ah of course, because outside of Hollywood, the protagonists of works of fiction die randomly all the time. Like that bit in La Morte d'Arthur where King Arthur gets his head cut off in the middle of a battle before uniting England.

It's not about characters dying. Characters shouldn't die randomly, but that doesn't have anything to do with heroicness. What I meant was WoTC constantly using words like "dramatic tension", "villain's last speech" and otherwise comparing gamings sessions to books and movies by using the same approach to them. It looks like they're aiming to make 4ed games feel like an overly dramatic movie or book.


Well, considering the fact that the WotC are stressing the point that D&D is heroic fantasy, you might have a bit of a conundrum in that case

I don't see any correlation between heroic fantasy and gaming sessions looking like fantasy book put on a gaming table.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-07, 01:13 PM
A plot central figure is not a protagonist.

To me, protagonist is main character who the story follows. He was one of those.


Did his death, by any chance, lead to any of the following events happening: A younger, less experienced man having to take command.

No.


The villains securing a crucial victory in the confusion

Yes.


A character experiencing a moment of realisation and personal growth?

No.

However, I fail to see how that bears on a character dying in D&D. If Fred the Barbarian dies because he rolled a 1 on his save and Tom the Wizard has a moment of personal reflection about it that doesn't make Fred's death any less because of chance.


Characters in fiction do *not* die randomly. Sometimes they die in a way which the author makes us *think* is random (see every death in anything Joss Whedon has ever made ever), but it is never *actually* random.

In the way you are using the phrase 'die randomly' then nothing in fiction is ever random because the author purposefully writes everything. I have been using 'randomly' to indicate that a character dies because of chance within the story. Which, by the way, is the analogue to D&D death rules.

Theli
2008-02-07, 01:21 PM
I don't see any correlation between heroic fantasy and gaming sessions looking like fantasy book put on a gaming table.

You jest, yes?

Wasn't DnD originally based on Tolkien and other fantasy novels of the time?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-07, 01:21 PM
To me, protagonist is main character who the story follows. He was one of those.

That's a viewpoint character, not necessarily the same thing.


Yes.

There we go then, it was plot necessitated.


However, I fail to see how that bears on a character dying in D&D. If Fred the Barbarian dies because he rolled a 1 on his save and Tom the Wizard has a moment of personal reflection about it that doesn't make Fred's death any less because of chance.

Exactly so. The point is that for some people, the possibility of being killed off by a random die roll is undramatic and unsatisfying. The deaths in A Song of Ice and Fire may feel arbitrary, but they aren't, and none of them are unsatisfying because they are all put in exactly the right place for exactly the right reason.


In the way you are using the phrase 'die randomly' then nothing in fiction is ever random because the author purposefully writes everything. I have been using 'randomly' to indicate that a character dies because of chance within the story. Which, by the way, is the analogue to D&D death rules.

There's a world of difference, though, between a fictional character dying "by chance" because the author decided to have them die in that way, and a D&D character literally dying by chance because of a bad dice roll.

Even seemingly random deaths in fiction have context and meaning. Death by dice doesn't.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-07, 01:24 PM
It's not about characters dying. Characters shouldn't die randomly, but that doesn't have anything to do with heroicness. What I meant was WoTC constantly using words like "dramatic tension", "villain's last speech" and otherwise comparing gamings sessions to books and movies by using the same approach to them. It looks like they're aiming to make 4ed games feel like an overly dramatic movie or book.

If you're making the argument that an RPG should not seek to emulate other media, then that's fine. I agree partially - although in practice I think there's a lot RPGs could learn from static fiction.

It's the use of the term "Hollywood" I have a problem with. It carries an implicit value judgment.

Morty
2008-02-07, 01:32 PM
You jest, yes?

Wasn't DnD originally based on Tolkien and other fantasy novels of the time?

Based on Tolkien. It does not mean it was meant to be Tolkien books put on gaming table.


If you're making the argument that an RPG should not seek to emulate other media, then that's fine. I agree partially - although in practice I think there's a lot RPGs could learn from static fiction.

It's the use of the term "Hollywood" I have a problem with. It carries an implicit value judgment.

You're right, I shouldn't have used the term "Hollywood". But I still don't think it's good for D&D to be designed too much like a movie or a book.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-07, 01:34 PM
That's a viewpoint character, not necessarily the same thing.

Close enough for this discussion.


There we go then, it was plot necessitated.

Why do I have the feeling you would have said that regardless of my answers?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-07, 01:40 PM
Close enough for this discussion.

No it's not, that's sort of the point. As far as I'm concerned, PCs are the *protagonists*, the guys whose names are on the front cover. They're Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker, Thomas Covenant.


Why do I have the feeling you would have said that regardless of my answers?

Because it was, in fact, almost certainly plot-necessitated?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-07, 01:41 PM
You're right, I shouldn't have used the term "Hollywood". But I still don't think it's good for D&D to be designed too much like a movie or a book.

That's entirely fair. A lot of people lose sight of the fact that an RPG actually has an identity of its own, independent of its source material or inspirations.

hamlet
2008-02-07, 01:45 PM
You jest, yes?

Wasn't DnD originally based on Tolkien and other fantasy novels of the time?

No, it was based on the works of Leiber and Vance and Moorcock.

The Tolkeinien touches were, for the most parts, a nod to rabid fans of those stories who wouldn't otherwise touch D&D with a 10ft pole.

Learnedguy
2008-02-07, 01:48 PM
Finally, it had to be believable within the heroic-fantasy milieu of D&D. (Believability isn’t the same thing as realism—an error which has ruined more games than I can count.) Put another way, it had to feel like D&D—one of those tricky “you know it when you see it” things.

A wizard did it:smalltongue: .

---

Anyway, I tried doing some basic math (and quickly came to regret it), and I'm sure someone will correct me, or give us a better calculation, but anyway, here goes nothing.

According to the 3.5 rules presented to us...
...There's a 1/20 chance that you'll recover 1/4 of your health.
...There a 10/20, aka 1/2 chance that you'll get worse.
...There's a 9/20 chance that you'll stay the same.

Meaning that the chance you'll die in three within three rounds are 1/8?
(this is where I stop trying to think, as it hurts)

So in average one out of eight characters will die three rounds after getting knocked out? Not too good odds in a party of four persons.

Anyway, this is assuming that I'm good at math. Unfortunately, I'm not, so someone better redo what I just did:smallsigh:

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-07, 01:52 PM
That's pretty much it. Over any given set of three rounds, there's a 12.5% chance of your character dying. The odds calculations for longer periods of time get a little bit more complicated but not much.

Eldmor
2008-02-07, 02:06 PM
To get a bit more on track...
I don't see figuring out death hp to be a problem at all since it's just bloodied with a - in front of it. If my game is slowed down by someone that can't divide by 2; that's just absurd.
I also see this as a "more fun" mechanic. I never see random death in combat as fun for PCs or NPCs. The new critical hit rules are taking care of this quite well and this helps the reason.
The only thing I don't like about it is 3 rounds or die. It destroys the image of people slowly dieing on a battlefield for me.

Learnedguy
2008-02-07, 02:12 PM
The only thing I don't like about it is 3 rounds or die. It destroys the image of people slowly dieing on a battlefield for me.

The chance that you won't die in three rounds are 7/8, so yeah, don't worry about that too much. Some die quick, but often people will stick around for a while (incidentally, the chance that you'll have rolled a twenty goes up with 5% per round. This means that twenty rounds is should be theoretical absolute for character to just lie around, because then there's a hundred percent chance that he will have rolled a twenty. I think:smallconfused: )

AKA_Bait
2008-02-07, 02:12 PM
No it's not, that's sort of the point. As far as I'm concerned, PCs are the *protagonists*, the guys whose names are on the front cover. They're Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker, Thomas Covenant.

I'm not even sure what you mean by that (especially considering that one of those 3 doesn't even have their name on the cover of the movies...).

Can we settle on 'Main character'? (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Protagonist)



Because it was, in fact, almost certainly plot-necessitated?

No, because your definitions neccesitate it to be true as I mentioned in previous posts.

Eldmor
2008-02-07, 02:19 PM
The chance that you won't die in three rounds are 7/8, so yeah, don't worry about that too much. Some die quick, but often people will stick around for a while (incidentally, the chance that you'll roll a twenty goes up with 5% per round. I think:smallconfused: )

I'd still modify it where you need to roll "Get Worse" three times consecutively in order to die.
This way there's the chance of dieing due to pure hp bleed over an hour or so and not just your unconscious body thinking rerouting the bleeding into your lungs would be a great idea. :smalltongue:

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-07, 02:19 PM
The chance that you won't die in three rounds are 7/8, so yeah, don't worry about that too much. Some die quick, but often people will stick around for a while (incidentally, the chance that you'll roll a twenty goes up with 5% per round. I think:smallconfused: )

The chance of getting a 20 stays the same every roll. It's always one in twenty.

The other nice thing about this system is that you always know your minimum, so you can plan, but don't know your maximum, so you can decide to push it if you want to. You always know "I've got at least two rounds" but can never be sure if you can hold on for three.

Learnedguy
2008-02-07, 02:22 PM
The chance of getting a 20 stays the same every roll. It's always one in twenty.

The other nice thing about this system is that you always know your minimum, so you can plan, but don't know your maximum, so you can decide to push it if you want to. You always know "I've got at least two rounds" but can never be sure if you can hold on for three.

M'yes, a bit of a wording mistake from my part. I think I managed to correct it. What I meant was that the chance that you will have rolled a twenty should increase the longer your character stays knocked out.

I think it's pretty reasonable, from a dramatic point of view. Our hero finally recovers from the villians powerful blow after having had the dramatic flashback that awakened him!

Remember kids, even if you're dying, it's not a sufficent enough reason to not try and fish for some RP experience:smallwink:

Jack Zander
2008-02-07, 02:30 PM
Well, I suppose it explains Anakin springing back up from a Force Lightning effect a few rounds later, just in time to save Obi-Wan. However, I think that could be more accurately described as a stun effect from pain (or electrical shock numbing the muscles) rather than him falling unconscious. Same with Indigo's case. He was hurt and in pain, but obviously he did not fall unconscious and begin to bleed to death yet.

Learnedguy
2008-02-07, 02:48 PM
Anyway, I find it interesting to analyze some of the statistics.

There is for instance, a bigger chance that you will have rolled one twenty than that you'll roll three "killers" during three rounds. Meaning that surviving and getting up is slightly more usual than withering away and dying. Also, of course, the chance that you'll get worse is always marginally higher than the chance that you'll stay the same.

Thus, a good houserule if you want to your players to have a "grittier" or crueler experience would be to make the twenty into "I got one step better" roll instead of a "I'm fine again" roll. Then death would be a lot more prominent. Sounds fun doesn't it?

Also, I wonder if WotC will place some kind of 1/2 of your HP or -10 HP, whichever is higher (err, lower) to prevent fresh characters from dying like mayflies because of lucky attacks:smallbiggrin:

North
2008-02-07, 03:26 PM
Plus if you want to be mean houserule in that a nat one results in automatic death or something. :smallbiggrin:

Charity
2008-02-07, 03:29 PM
No it's not, that's sort of the point. As far as I'm concerned, PCs are the *protagonists*, the guys whose names are on the front cover. They're Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker, Thomas Covenant.



Because it was, in fact, almost certainly plot-necessitated?


er ... Thomas Covennt dies, you know. I understand where you are comming from but still...

ShadowSiege
2008-02-07, 03:55 PM
er ... Thomas Covennt dies, you know. I understand where you are comming from but still...

Yeah, but he gets better according to the wiki article on Runes of the Earth, and his original death was at the end of the Second Chronicles, after he foiled Lord Foul again.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-07, 05:50 PM
M'yes, a bit of a wording mistake from my part. I think I managed to correct it. What I meant was that the chance that you will have rolled a twenty should increase the longer your character stays knocked out.

Granted. To be a math pedant (sorry, I'm a Physics teacher) it doesn't increase by 5% a round. If it did there'd be a 100% chance of your stabilising after 20 rounds, and there isn't (it's obviously at least *possible* to roll a D20 more than 20 times without getting a natural 20).

For what it's worth, your chances of getting back up after 20 rounds are actually approximately 60%, assuming you don't die. It's a funny bit of math that your chances of rolling at least one n on ndn (if you see what I mean) is always about 60%.

Artanis
2008-02-07, 06:32 PM
Y'know, one thing I thought of about the "come back at 1/4 health thing"...it doesn't mean that you come back at 1/4 health in 4e.

Remember, the 1/4 health thing was from the conversion into 3.5, not the description of the 4e system itself. Thus, given the existence of the "Second Wind" stuff, it seems very likely to me that in 4e, rolling a natural 20 could very well put you back at a mere 1hp, at which point you can trigger Second Wind to bring back a chunk more.

...and how would you go about converting that into 3e? Have a natural 20 bring them back at 1/4 to simulate coming back and then triggering Second Wind.


So before we pass judgement on something...let's make sure of what we're passing judgement on :smallcool:

huttj509
2008-02-07, 07:10 PM
After 3 rounds:

Chance you've stabilized: 1-((19/20)^3) = 14.3%
Chance you're dead: 12.5%
Chance you're still unconscious: 100%-(14.3+12.5) = 73.2%

After 4 rounds:

Chance you've stabilized by now: 1-((19/20)^4) = 18.5%
Chance you're dead by now: chance of dying in the first 3 rounds + (chance of surviving the first 3 rounds with 2 worse rolls * chance of rolling worse)
12.5% + (.5*.5* 9/20 * 3 (choices for round in which the neutral roll was) * .5) = 29.3%
Chance you're still unconscious: 100%-(18.5+29.3) = 52.2%

After 5 rounds:

Chance you've stabilized: 1-((19/20)^5) = 22.6%
Chance you're dead by now: chance of dying in the first 4 rounds + (chance of surviving the first 4 rounds with 2 worse rolls * chance of rolling worse)
12.5% + (.5*.5* 9/20 * 9/20 * 6 (permutations) * .5) = 44.5%
Chance you're still unconscious: 100%-(14.3+12.5) = 33.3%

So the chance you've died after the 3rd round quickly passes the chance you're alive again as time goes on.

Edit to show that it does coverge and not go above 100%

10 rounds:

stabilized: 40.12%
Dead: 73.0%

oh crud, I think there's an issue in the stabilized number, as once you've stabilized, you're done (then again, once you're dead, you're done) Think I need to factor in the chance you're still alive or soemthing, I'm pretty sure my dead formula is right.

fendrin
2008-02-07, 08:02 PM
Hmm, I'm no mathematician, nor a teacher of any sort, but let's see if I can derive this right with some basic arithmetic and logic, for the edification of the masses (in which I include myself)...

The probability of rolling at least one 20 when rolling nd20 would be:
1 - (the probability of rolling a 1-19 n times)
This would be:
1-((19/20)^n)
Now, 19/20 = 0.95, so we can substitute that in and get:
1-(0.95^n)

Now the interesting comparison to make would be the likelihood of dying in an equivalent amount of time... a bit more complicated. I'm not even going to bother trying to derive it, because I don't know how. Google is my friend. I'll be using method one of this site (http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/binomialX.html):
(n!/(k!((n-k)!)))*(p^k)*(q^(n-k))
We have variables:
n = rounds elapsed = {3,4,...,20}
k = # of 'failed' rolls needed to die = 3 (or more)
p = probability of 'failing' a roll = (9/20) = 0.45
q = probability of not 'failing' a roll = 1-0.45 = 0.55

So in summary, we have the following:
{table=head]rounds | auto-heal |death
1 | 5.0% | 0.0%
2 | 9.8% | 0.0%
3 | 14.3% | 9.1%
4 | 18.5% | 24.1%
5 | 22.6% | 40.7%
6 | 26.5% | 55.8%
7 | 30.2% | 68.4%
8 | 33.7% | 78.0%
9 | 37.0% | 85.0%
10 | 40.1% | 90.0%
11 | 43.1% | 93.5%
12 | 46.0% | 95.8%
13 | 48.7% | 97.3%
14 | 51.2% | 98.3%
15 | 53.7% | 98.9%
16 | 56.0% | 99.3%
17 | 58.2% | 99.6%
18 | 60.3% | 99.7%
19 | 62.3% | 99.8%
20 | 64.2% | 99.9%[/table]
This is the chance that you have auto-healed or died on or before that round

Well, I hope this will silence some of the criticisms about the system. In rounds 1-3 you are more likely to auto-heal than die, but it is still less than a 15% chance that you will auto-heal in that time. After that, you will always be more likely have died than to have auto-healed.

EDIT: wow, it took me over an hour and a half to write this post! :smalleek:
huttj509, your 'stabilized' calculation is spot on, it's your death calculation that's off. That or a professor at Vassar is wrong. Try adjusting your calculation to account for the fact that there is only a 0.45 probability to 'worsen', not a 0.5 probability.

huttj509
2008-02-07, 09:11 PM
Summary: About a 70/30 split dead/alive if not healed, not factoring in any hp decay while unconscious, if you are left unmolested until you either die or pop back up at 25% life. There's a 56% chance you're dead by round 7.

While you may have a heroic recovery from the brink of death, that's not a gamble I'd like to plan to take.

I feel personally that this does in fact retain good chances of death if untreated, while reducing the possibility of going straight from upright to x's in the eyeballs (not removing it, as the article stated that monsters can get a lucky crit that would do sufficient damage if you were already low, meaning that the damage ranges are keeping the possibility of instagib in mind).



huttj509, your 'stabilized' calculation is spot on, it's your death calculation that's off. That or a professor at Vassar is wrong. Try adjusting your calculation to account for the fact that there is only a 0.45 probability to 'worsen', not a 0.5 probability.

You're right, I misread the die roll as 10 or less, worsen, 11 to 19, neutral, as opposed to 10 being neutral, not worsen. The prior comments of a 1/8 chance of being dead after 3 rounds threw me.

However, I do think the recovery chance needs to be modified by the chances of already being dead, as for example on the 4th round, the 1-(.95^4) includes the possibility of:

worsen
worsen
worsen
recover

Which is still dead.

Math follows:


I think it needs to be 1-(.95^n) - (chance of being dead before round n * .05 [chance of recovering on round n])

So for round 4 we'd have 1-(.95^4) - (.091*.05) = 18.1%, rather than 18.5%

So for the dead formula I think "chance you were dead last round" + ("chance you had 2 worse rolls and the rest neutral" (so you're not in your feet) * "chance you roll worse this round") still works.

So with this, the rules for calculating chances of being dead and on your feet at the end of round n (dead[n] and feet[n] respectively) are:

Dead[n<3] = 0
Dead[3] = .0911
Dead[n] = Dead[n-1] + ((.45^2 * .5^(n-3) * permutations of 2 worse and n-3 neutrals) * .45)

Feet[n] = 1-(.95^n) - Dead[n-1]*.05

For the permutations mentioned in Dead[n], this can be found in the same way as flipping n-1 coins to get 2 heads and n-3 tails. Figure (H+T) ^ (n-1) and look at the coefficient of the H^2 T^(n-3) part.

Example: Say we're on n = 4, so we have three rounds to allocate 2 worse rolls. (H+T)^3 = T^3 + 3*H*T^2 + 3*T*H^2 + H^3 (the 4th row down in pascal's triangle, 1 3 3 1)

This matches our observation of the possibilities as: (worse worse neutral), (worse neutral worse), (neutral worse worse).

If you don't want to figure (H+T)^(n-1), you can go to Pascal's triangle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_triangle), look at the (n-1)+1 = nth row down, and the 3rd number over (first is H^0, next is H^1, then you have H^2) gives the proper coefficient.



Another edit, with the iterative method for getting back on your feet, it tries to combine the 1-(.95^n) method with taking death into account. I think I found an error in the combination.

If there's no death, then on round 1 the chance of standing up is .05. On round 2, the chance that you have stood up is the chance you stood up by round 1, plus the chance you stand up on round 2, given that you did not stand up on round 1. This is .05 + .05*(1-.05) = .0975. Round 3 you get .0975 + .05 * (1-.0975) = .1426. This is mathematically the same as the 1-(.95^n) formula.

So, what we want, is the chance of having stood up last round, plus the chance of standing up, given that you have neither stood up, nor died. So Feet[n] = Feet[n-1] + .05 * (1-(Feet[n-1]+Dead[n-1])).

With these formulas we have:

Round 1
Dead: 0 Feet: .05

Round 2
Dead: 0 Feet: .0975

Round 3
Dead: .0911 Feet: .1426

Round 4
Dead: .2278 Feet: .1809

Round 5
Dead: .3644 Feet: .2104

Round 6
Dead: .4783 Feet: .2317

Round 7
Dead: .5637 Feet: .2462

Round 8
Dead: .6235 Feet: .2557

Round 9
Dead: .6634 Feet: .2617

Round 10
Dead: .6890 Feet: .2654

These numbers are probabilities that by that round you are either dead, or back on your feet. As an additional check, even by round 10, the sum of these numbers is less than 1, meaning that there is still a chance you are unconscious.

What this looks like is that if you are not healed once you are unconscious, there is a 30% chance you jump back to 25% life eventually, but a 70% chance you end up dead dead dead (might be 28/72, but 30/70 is close enough). At 3 rounds or below it's more likely that you are alive than dead, but the odds shift rapidly in favor of death (if you're not alive or dead yet, chances are you rolled worse twice, and there's a 9/20 chance to roll a third, but only a 1/20 chance to revive).

Edit: For Fendrin's table, that the numbers sum to greater than 100% implies that it is counting times you have both died and gotten back on your feet, regardless of what other errors might be in either of our calculations. The chance if death is something that must factor into the chance of getting back up, it doesn't matter if you roll twentys on rounds 4, 5, and 6 if you died in round 3.

Edit 2: The reason the binomial formula used in the above post does not work is there is not just failing and not failing, if you have rolled a nat 20, it doesn't matter if you fail after that, you're not dead (similar to how for the revive chance if you've already died, it doesn't matter your next roll). The only way you die in the 20th round, is if you had 2 worse rolls, 17 neutral rolls, and no revive rolls, and then you roll worse.

fendrin
2008-02-08, 11:15 AM
While you may have a heroic recovery from the brink of death, that's not a gamble I'd like to plan to take.

I feel personally that this does in fact retain good chances of death if untreated, while reducing the possibility of going straight from upright to x's in the eyeballs (not removing it, as the article stated that monsters can get a lucky crit that would do sufficient damage if you were already low, meaning that the damage ranges are keeping the possibility of instagib in mind). My thoughts precisely.



However, I do think the recovery chance needs to be modified by the chances of already being dead, as for example on the 4th round, the 1-(.95^4) includes the possibility of:

worsen
worsen
worsen
recover

hmm. interesting.

the math is beyond me at the moment. Maybe I will try again later...

Deepblue706
2008-02-08, 04:19 PM
Well, I hope this will silence some of the criticisms about the system. In rounds 1-3 you are more likely to auto-heal than die, but it is still less than a 15% chance that you will auto-heal in that time. After that, you will always be more likely have died than to have auto-healed.
.

Personally, I see that percentage table as irrelevent. This all still strikes me as an inelegant system, inappropriate for even testing the waters of what 4ed might be like. I believe something of this magnitude should be reserved for only very specific kinds of PCs. But I'll admit that there's plenty more of the game that I dislike already - I only voice my opinions because I hope that one day I might change another's view enough to make them want to play a game different from what WotC is - and will likely continue - providing. Regardless, this function is characteristic of what D&D truly is, I suppose, and pressing for it to take another path is asking major corporations such as WotC to stop being so concerned about trivial things like money.

I can still hope for variant rules to 4e, I guess...

Farmer42
2008-02-08, 05:31 PM
They don't really discuss it in the article, but I feel the rolling should be in the hands of the DM. That way, if something goes horribly wrong, and a random fluke occurs, the DM can just say, "You're still hurting, but you don't feel any worse" when, in fact, he just rolled the third 1-9 in a minor skirmish on the way to the BBEG's lair.


After all, we're playing with dice here, and I've never met a set of dice that doesn't occasionally have it out for the players.



[Edit]Fixed some spelling errors I should have caught.

Jack Zander
2008-02-09, 01:20 AM
They don't really discuss it in the article, but I feel the rolling should be in the hands of the DM. That way, if something goes horribly wrong, and a random fluke occurs, the DM can just say, "You're still hurting, but you don't feel any worse" when, in fact, he just rolled the third 1-9 in a minor scirmish on the way to the BBEG's lair.


After all, we're playing with dice here, and I've never met a set of dice that doesn't occasionally have it out for the players.

My dice were hott tonight baby! 3 critical sneak attacks! Whooo! Of course, they owed it to be for all the terrible, horrid rolls I got last night.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-09, 05:26 AM
This all still strikes me as an inelegant system

Why inelegant?

Deepblue706
2008-02-10, 03:23 PM
Why inelegant?

First: sorry for the delayed response - for some reason my employer likes me so much, that this week they decided they only want me sleeping 7 hours between my evening and morning shifts :smallannoyed:

Anyway, as for why I think it's inelegant: While this system isn't totally breaking anything (I compared average PCs against appropriate CR encounters - 1/4 hp back, I admit, is not a significant amount), the method it uses to portray this kind of comeback seems to be missing details. I think this most likely because it is more to "try out" a concept similar to what will be established, rather than provide standard rules - but, I cannot help but suspect that the finished game will only be marginally better.

Currently, this model proposes that a PC can immediately "get better", and can rejoin a fight with no drawbacks or penalties. It does not wear-off once the encounter is over, nor does it cause long-term damage. They are not staggered, fatigued, or otherwise suffering any status effect that would hinder their performance. This is a game of heroes, yes, but I feel this system only hints at a growing disparity between the PCs and "normal people", which I find unappealing. Now, when I say that, I do not presume that D&D ever uses realism, or models the majority of things that happen in the game according to real-life standards. However, abilities like this only make it more explicitly so.

It is so basic a model (containing no additional things to consider, other than getting back to 1/4 hp) that I originally felt, upon reading it, as if my intelligence was being insulted. It would seem the idea is to make the game quicker and easier to play, but I'm afraid that it is approaching a point where it is simply too basic. I like a game that flows well, but in skipping over some details, I feel as if some things that are being taken for grant when they should not be. Perhaps it is appropriate for some styles of play, but I want to have access to a variety of styles supported by the system so that I may play how I see fit, without excessive house rules. I do not mind there being a target audience for the game, and of course, I acknowledge the game has to take a standpoint somewhere (in this case, very high fantasy) - but I'd like there to be options. However, I do not suspect there to be many, and the notion that this kind of system is to be presumed the norm makes me feel a little alienated.

I believe a better system would be strictly optional (and still fully functional with the removal of other optional game functions), so that one could simply include what pieces of an overall system they liked, exclude the ones they didn't, to customize the style of game they found most appealing. However, I do not believe the article hinted at such an idea - it merely stated: It’s not quite the 4th Edition system, but it should give you an idea of how it’ll feel.

Too me, that doesn't seem too promising.

Artanis
2008-02-10, 05:13 PM
*stuff*
So let me get this straight. They outline a system that they go out of their way to tell everybody is NOT the 4e system...and you assume that it will be the 4e system, or so close that their little example might as well be it? Personally, I assume that there will actually be...you know...differences. Like they said there would be differences.

Like I said above - which was apparently ignored by literally every last poster on the thread - there are a LOT of ways the 4e system could be completely different but still translate into 3.5e the way they described. For instance, if the Nat 20 brings you back to 1hp, at which point you could trigger Second Wind if you still have a usage of it left, the closest that would translate to in 3.5e is if you come back at partial health (namely ~1/4hp, it would seem).

Deepblue706
2008-02-10, 05:50 PM
So let me get this straight. They outline a system that they go out of their way to tell everybody is NOT the 4e system...and you assume that it will be the 4e system, or so close that their little example might as well be it? Personally, I assume that there will actually be...you know...differences. Like they said there would be differences.

I acknowledged it's a basic simulation of what's to come - it's very simple, and much talk about 4ed involves a decreased amount of rolling, etc. I believe it's supposed to be played "Right out of the box". I didn't assume it will be that close to the real thing, I said I suspect it would only be marginally better. D&D has never been about even somewhat realistic combat - the only parallels are that weapons are involved, and occassionally, people die. If everything is taking a "quick and easy" route, it's definitely not going to get more detailed. It's losing details, when currently the game doesn't have enough (observe the lack of status change when dealt damage with a lethal weapon, whether you're brought down to 98% or to 1% HP).



Like I said above - which was apparently ignored by literally every last poster on the thread - there are a LOT of ways the 4e system could be completely different but still translate into 3.5e the way they described. For instance, if the Nat 20 brings you back to 1hp, at which point you could trigger Second Wind if you still have a usage of it left, the closest that would translate to in 3.5e is if you come back at partial health (namely ~1/4hp, it would seem).

Yeah, sure. But, even if it's a use of "Second Wind", it's no better for me, because I don't like that concept very much in the first place.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-10, 06:07 PM
They outline a system that they go out of their way to tell everybody is NOT the 4e system...and you assume that it will be the 4e system, or so close that their little example might as well be it?

Well, obviously the whole point of the preview example is to provide an experience of what 4E will be like. They're not going to make a decoy out of it and say "look, here's a fireball-throwing fighter as an example, only in 4E you can't actually do that".

Actually, it strikes me that they have now hinted at so many different abilities to regain HP, that it might make the game more elegant to eliminate nearly all of those and simply give everybody more HP to begin with. There's not all that big a difference between having "25 HP and three full heals per day" and simply having "100 HP".

Beleriphon
2008-02-10, 06:16 PM
Actually, it strikes me that they have now hinted at so many different abilities to regain HP, that it might make the game more elegant to eliminate nearly all of those and simply give everybody more HP to begin with. There's not all that big a difference between having "25 HP and three full heals per day" and simply having "100 HP".

Numerically there isn't but functionally there is because the usefulness of those heals depends largely on the circumstances by which they can be used. You can't heal yourself if you're dead for example.

As for Second Wind, I think it works perfectly well in a D&D heroic fantasy milieu. If it works anything like Saga Edition it will heal 1/4 of your hitpoints, but never bring you back to more than half of your maximum hitpoints. This allows characters some level of recovery, takes pressure off the cleric, and keeps fights more interesting and exciting. Add to that more cinematic and I don't really see the problem.

Kompera
2008-02-11, 01:43 AM
I like it.

It addresses the scaling limitations of the static -10 HP system.

It requires less record keeping when a heal is applied to the unconscious character, as there's no need to apply the heal to the negative HP and see if that puts the character over 1, the new HP total is instead simply the amount of healing rolled.

It takes potentially less record keeping than the current system, requiring only that the character collect up to three tokens representing their worsening state before death. This is better in my opinion than the current bleed down 1 more HP each round rules.

For those who suggested that players may forget to recalculate their new 1/4 HP total upon leveling, I offer the following list of maintenance items required upon leveling:

Roll new HP and add them to current total;
Refer to class and INT bonus to find skill points gained and distribute them;
Add any BAB gained;
Add any Fort/Ref/Will save bonuses gained;
Add a stat point if level/4 yields a whole number;
Check for bonus Feat gain by class and also add a Feat if level/3 yields a whole number;
Make a note of any class specials gained;
Learn any new spells as applicable;
Increase spells per day;
Calculate new HP total for Familiar or Animal Companion;
<Anything I may have neglected>;

All of these won't apply to each character, but the top 7 items do apply to every class. I suggest that adding one more maintenance item, the recalculating of HP/4 at the same time as you're adding your new HP roll to your previous total, is a trivial addition to this list. And if you maintain your character on a spread sheet the simple mathematics are done for you.

It offers one certainty: The party has two rounds to finish defeating the bad guys and stabilize or heal the unconscious character. But after that the tension mounts as "lower than 10" tokens are collected. Better in my opinion than "Meh, Fred the Barbarian is only at -3, we've got exactly 6 rounds to finish this fight and heal him before we need to worry about him dying."

And it allows for some heroics. The 5% recovery roll each round is a slim chance, but the presence of this chance will make the roll more interesting to the player whose character is unconscious. Without it the roll may as well be handled by the GM, as it's only the difference between death and further rounds unconscious, and neither are much fun for the player.

And a 100 HP Fighter recovering back to 25 HP still needs to worry about being knocked right back down again. So while the character could jump right back into the melee it's more likely that the recovering character or one of the other characters will need to spend a round or more applying healing. It's still heroic, but it's less cinematic if the players need to worry about the health of the newly recovered character.

Learnedguy
2008-02-11, 06:47 AM
I'm happy to see some real mathematicians going through the math involved:smallbiggrin:

Anyway, now, there's something I'd like to ask.

Has anyone tried the "beta" version they prescribed yet? How did it feel? Did everything go smoothly? What did the other players think about it? Did anyone die? Did someone survive when they should have died? Was 1/4 too much to recover?

C'mon, throwing around hypothesizes are fun, I know, but right now I'd like to see some proper experimenting as well:smallamused:

Khanderas
2008-02-11, 07:36 AM
The chance that you won't die in three rounds are 7/8, so yeah, don't worry about that too much. Some die quick, but often people will stick around for a while (incidentally, the chance that you'll have rolled a twenty goes up with 5% per round. This means that twenty rounds is should be theoretical absolute for character to just lie around, because then there's a hundred percent chance that he will have rolled a twenty. I think:smallconfused: )
Logically you can see it is not so. Roll 19 times (and none of them was a 20) and there is not a 100% chance the 20th time is a 20.

The way to do it is to switch. There is a 1/20 chance to roll a 20.
That means there is a 19/20 chance to NOT roll a 20.
To roll 20 times without rolling 20 even once is (19/20) to the power of 20
(or 19/20 x 19/20 x and so on until you get 20 times).

The answer then becomes about 36% chance of rolling a d20, twenty times in a row and not get a single 20. Or flipped, there is about a 64% chance of you actually rolling that 20 atleast once.


Some would wonder why not do 1/20 to the power of 20 (instead of 19/20).
(1/20)^20 is the formula for the chances of rolling that 20 every time. a far more unlikly number that won't fit in a calculator window (9.5 * 10^-27).


Well I guess I bored you enough. Carry on :)

Edit: Others have done a better job then I with tables and stuff. I'm just glad that my 64% of never rolling a 20 after rolling the d20, twenty times seems to be correct when I look at the table on the previous page.
My way to calculate that is cruder, but also perhaps easier to remember.

fendrin
2008-02-11, 10:12 AM
"Meh, Fred the Barbarian is only at -3, we've got exactly 6 rounds to finish this fight and heal him before we need to worry about him dying."

That's why my BBEGs like to drop AoEs in the vicinity of dying characters. Now, i'm not a total jerk, so I only do this if nobody has made an attempt to resuscitate the dying character. Oh, and coincidentally, I usually wait until about the third round after they are incapped to do it.


My way to calculate that is cruder, but also perhaps easier to remember.
Actually, it's the same, but stated slightly differently. :smallbiggrin:

Yakk
2008-02-11, 12:41 PM
Well, obviously the whole point of the preview example is to provide an experience of what 4E will be like. They're not going to make a decoy out of it and say "look, here's a fireball-throwing fighter as an example, only in 4E you can't actually do that".

Actually, it strikes me that they have now hinted at so many different abilities to regain HP, that it might make the game more elegant to eliminate nearly all of those and simply give everybody more HP to begin with. There's not all that big a difference between having "25 HP and three full heals per day" and simply having "100 HP".

By that logic, a L 20 cleric has how many 1000 HP?

Having to burn actions to heal is different than having the HP by a large amount. I, personally, want a resource that can be chipped away from the characters, but that doesn't seem to be that desired by D&D.

fendrin
2008-02-11, 01:00 PM
I, personally, want a resource that can be chipped away from the characters, but that doesn't seem to be that desired by D&D.

Why, because there are small free action ways for 'Leader' types to heal comrades?

That seems about as game breaking as the Dragon Shaman's healing aura in PHB2. Sure, it's free healing, but it takes time, and only goes so far.

End of the day, setting up camp? Sure, let that aura do what it can before distributing your spells, on the off chance you get attacked in the night.

Fighting your way out of a subterranean dungeon as the whole thing is collapsing behind you? The aura is a small benefit, but not enough.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-11, 01:02 PM
I, personally, want a resource that can be chipped away from the characters, but that doesn't seem to be that desired by D&D.

I like resources that can be chipped away. However, "per encounter" and "at will" abilities are the exact opposite of that.

fendrin
2008-02-11, 01:07 PM
I like resources that can be chipped away. However, "per encounter" and "at will" abilities are the exact opposite of that.

Don't forget that an encounter is now intended to be larger and longer. There will be resource management on the per encounter level that was previously per day. Is that so bad? I like that a heck of a lot better than "Well, we've delved this dungeon for about an hour hand a half, lets call it a night."

Deepblue706
2008-02-11, 09:06 PM
Don't forget that an encounter is now intended to be larger and longer. There will be resource management on the per encounter level that was previously per day. Is that so bad? I like that a heck of a lot better than "Well, we've delved this dungeon for about an hour hand a half, lets call it a night."

Personally, I'm not a fan of per-encounter. But I agree, per-day isn't exactly good, either.

I think something along the lines of Fatigue Points should be something to consider (a GURPS mechanic) - if some abilities might wear down a character, they'll likely come to manage things on a "per encounter" scale, but not actually be limited in the number of times they can perform certain actions outside the realm of what punishment the character is able to take in the first place. I think this would work nicely, because both per-encounter and per-day seem just too arbitrary to me.

Perhaps, if there is indeed some sort of Hero Point aspect in this game, it may end up working along those lines.

Yakk
2008-02-12, 01:47 AM
I want to be able to nickel and dime my characters down, make them feel worn out and stressed, afraid of things that usually they wouldn't find a problem, running for their lives.

That requires a resource pool I can deplete.

In D&D 3.5, this is hard to pull off. You go from a point where you have such a small pool that a single blow can kill you, to a point where replacing your HP is trivial, to a point where stopping the players from hiding and resting requires that the DM arrange things specially to prevent them, quite quickly.

...

This problem is made worse by the "healer" job, whose job it is to cheaply get rid of HP damage. Lacking a healer, the game balance of D&D changes drastically -- but it turns out that healing magic in standard D&D is cheap enough that you don't need a specialized healer for between battle heals, and offense is so much stronger than defense that often the right answer to your friend being heavily hurt is to kill everything that endangers your friend.

...

Now it can be done, but it isn't helped by the rules as written. And more per-encounter abilities makes it harder.

I can accept this, and if I must hack on "wear out" rules to the game as needed. But that doesn't mean I'm blind to the effect.

Rutee
2008-02-12, 02:18 AM
You could rule that the encounter lasts longer then the one fight instead?

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-12, 06:39 AM
First: sorry for the delayed response - for some reason my employer likes me so much, that this week they decided they only want me sleeping 7 hours between my evening and morning shifts :smallannoyed:

Those thoughtful people, they must have read the research that says that 7 hours sleep is healthier than 8.


Anyway, as for why I think it's inelegant: While this system isn't totally breaking anything (I compared average PCs against appropriate CR encounters - 1/4 hp back, I admit, is not a significant amount), the method it uses to portray this kind of comeback seems to be missing details. I think this most likely because it is more to "try out" a concept similar to what will be established, rather than provide standard rules - but, I cannot help but suspect that the finished game will only be marginally better.

Currently, this model proposes that a PC can immediately "get better", and can rejoin a fight with no drawbacks or penalties. It does not wear-off once the encounter is over, nor does it cause long-term damage. They are not staggered, fatigued, or otherwise suffering any status effect that would hinder their performance. This is a game of heroes, yes, but I feel this system only hints at a growing disparity between the PCs and "normal people", which I find unappealing. Now, when I say that, I do not presume that D&D ever uses realism, or models the majority of things that happen in the game according to real-life standards. However, abilities like this only make it more explicitly so.

I can understand the objection but as far as I know (you probably have more information on this than me) D&D does not have and has never had any rules for long term consequences other than death and curses. Under the present system, a character knocked down to -5 HP will never lose a limb, or even crack a rib as a result, or if they do it will only be a flavour effect. Hit Point systems almost always leave you either "completely unharmed" or "unconscious".


It is so basic a model (containing no additional things to consider, other than getting back to 1/4 hp) that I originally felt, upon reading it, as if my intelligence was being insulted. It would seem the idea is to make the game quicker and easier to play, but I'm afraid that it is approaching a point where it is simply too basic. I like a game that flows well, but in skipping over some details, I feel as if some things that are being taken for grant when they should not be. Perhaps it is appropriate for some styles of play, but I want to have access to a variety of styles supported by the system so that I may play how I see fit, without excessive house rules. I do not mind there being a target audience for the game, and of course, I acknowledge the game has to take a standpoint somewhere (in this case, very high fantasy) - but I'd like there to be options. However, I do not suspect there to be many, and the notion that this kind of system is to be presumed the norm makes me feel a little alienated.

I don't think it's about making things easier to play, it looks a lot more like it's about eliminating some frustrating gameplay elements. The problem (as I see it) with the current rules is that a "stable" character is *neither* at any real risk of death or long term consequences *or* contributing actively to the fight. It was in a hazy middle ground that was neither particularly gritty nor particularly heroic. I can see that if you prefer the gritty end of things, a shift the other way will be frustrating, but it stikes me as better than the current system because it at least makes a choice.


I believe a better system would be strictly optional (and still fully functional with the removal of other optional game functions), so that one could simply include what pieces of an overall system they liked, exclude the ones they didn't, to customize the style of game they found most appealing. However, I do not believe the article hinted at such an idea - it merely stated: It’s not quite the 4th Edition system, but it should give you an idea of how it’ll feel.

Too me, that doesn't seem too promising.

D&D *would* work better with more explicitly optional rules, since it's ultimately a kit game.

Anyway, thanks for your reply.

Deepblue706
2008-02-12, 02:06 PM
Those thoughtful people, they must have read the research that says that 7 hours sleep is healthier than 8.

Wait, what?

Well, to tell you the truth, I woke up rather envigorated that morning...



I can understand the objection but as far as I know (you probably have more information on this than me) D&D does not have and has never had any rules for long term consequences other than death and curses. Under the present system, a character knocked down to -5 HP will never lose a limb, or even crack a rib as a result, or if they do it will only be a flavour effect. Hit Point systems almost always leave you either "completely unharmed" or "unconscious".

Yeah, it's never had any rules for it - and I find it upsetting. I suppose when that's the route they're going, later rules won't take into account what the basics ignore. It's just that each futher rule installment that fails to address issues like this only make me more frustrated with the system.



I don't think it's about making things easier to play, it looks a lot more like it's about eliminating some frustrating gameplay elements. The problem (as I see it) with the current rules is that a "stable" character is *neither* at any real risk of death or long term consequences *or* contributing actively to the fight. It was in a hazy middle ground that was neither particularly gritty nor particularly heroic. I can see that if you prefer the gritty end of things, a shift the other way will be frustrating, but it stikes me as better than the current system because it at least makes a choice.

Yes, I suppose you're right about it being better - the middle ground really sucks, in my opinion. However, I don't necessarily need things to be particularly gritty - I just prefer something more...thorough, I suppose.



Anyway, thanks for your reply.

And thank you for yours.

Learnedguy
2008-02-12, 02:26 PM
Then again, the game risks bogging down into calculating and managing broken ribs on friends and foes if the game gets too real. Not to mention that everyone will have to walk around with their own personal healbot to fix all those fractures, which might get frustrating to some.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-12, 02:56 PM
Wait, what?

Well, to tell you the truth, I woke up rather envigorated that morning...

It's one of those bits of popular research which people pull out to say "hey, XYZ popular fact is actually wrong!

Not that I can actually cite a source.


Yes, I suppose you're right about it being better - the middle ground really sucks, in my opinion. However, I don't necessarily need things to be particularly gritty - I just prefer something more...thorough, I suppose.

I know it's annoying when people suggest other systems, but have you tried The Riddle of Steel. Its tone is kind of obnoxious (it keeps going on about how it's teh most realistik RPG evaaah) but as far as I can tell it was specifically designed by somebody who was frustrated at the abstractions of D&D (his designers notes contain an ancedote about a high-level fighter getting shot full of arrows, falling off a cliff, getting up, knocking back a healing potion and walking away). There's a free quick-start on the internet. The Burning Wheel is also really good.

SimperingToad
2008-02-12, 08:27 PM
You're right that if the problem was just with power creep between editions, then yeah, just bumping up the amount of negative hp (whether to -20 or -30 or whatever) would of course be enough. However, they said that the problem wasn't in power creep between editions (or not only in that, at any rate), it was that negatives became increasingly useless as enemy damage went up because the chance that an attack would land you in them went down.

As an illustration, <snip>

THAT is what they're trying to fix. A buffer that's meaningful at level 1 should remain meaningful at level 20. And the simplest way to do that is simply to scale it by max hp.

Sorry, haven't been at the computer lately... and my eyes must be thanking me for it... it's all I do all day.

Ah, I see what you're saying. What you described is a real poser of an issue. People that are on their feet take damage as according to resilience and combat skill, etc (abstract hit points vary widely). But people unconscious and dying are pretty much chunks of meat, with only the toughness of body to determine the time they bleed out (abstract hit points roughly the same). This type of situation puts a character in both types in one swell foop.

It looks like what they've done is to 'fix' this falling into negatives equally in the first place by adding a 'fix' (the additional rolls) to equalize what happens once there. Will this be a case of two negatives making a positive? Will wizards and fighters be on truly equal terms when portraying chunks of dragon appetizers? Will Jeff and Mandy get together again?

These and more will be answered when 4E hits the shelves... <insert soap theme here>

P.S. Not to complicate things, but has there been any indication how massive damage rules figure into this?

Regards,
theToad

Deepblue706
2008-02-12, 09:48 PM
I know it's annoying when people suggest other systems, but have you tried The Riddle of Steel. Its tone is kind of obnoxious (it keeps going on about how it's teh most realistik RPG evaaah) but as far as I can tell it was specifically designed by somebody who was frustrated at the abstractions of D&D (his designers notes contain an ancedote about a high-level fighter getting shot full of arrows, falling off a cliff, getting up, knocking back a healing potion and walking away). There's a free quick-start on the internet. The Burning Wheel is also really good.

Riddle of Steel? Conan?! Conan rocks. I'm gonna have to look this up...

tyckspoon
2008-02-12, 09:57 PM
These and more will be answered when 4E hits the shelves... <insert soap theme here>

P.S. Not to complicate things, but has there been any indication how massive damage rules figure into this?

Regards,
theToad

I'm not aware of anything that's been said about massive damage. Going on known stuff, however:
Save-or-die/lose/suck effects are toned down.
Combat in general is supposed to be more heroic and less arbitrarily lethal.

The most probable thing is that massive damage no longer exists or is printed as an optional rule with a disclaimer that it doesn't really fit the way the system is supposed to work any more.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-13, 01:18 PM
Riddle of Steel? Conan?! Conan rocks. I'm gonna have to look this up...

It's not specifically Conan based, but it's a strong influence. You can get a quickstart (I think) here: http://www.theriddleofsteel.net/

Human Paragon 3
2008-02-13, 04:37 PM
Tried it out last week. One player went down, had to roll twice before he was healed. The first time he was OK, the second time he "got worse," then he was healed. It was more exciting then them just lying their bleeding out one HP per round, and there was the chance for a miraculous recovery.
Of course, the mummy standing over him made things a little more bleak, since getting up provoked its wrath!

I'll post again with more info next time somebody goes under.