RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
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.
Sorry Sturm, you failed, doesn't matter what Time of the Twins says.
Borimir? Your death didn't mean your redemption, it just meant you were a loser.
Boy, PC Dwarven Defender who stood between the goblins and the party, that was dumb. A real hero wouldn't have layed down his life for others like that.
I had a ranger I sacrificed like that, holding off the trolls with flaming arrows so the rest of the party could run. DM asked if I wanted him to be saved via deux ex machina and I said no, his sacrifice would mean nothing if he was saved.
That's in the "Try it in your 3rd edition game" section. How it works in 4E may be slightly different.
it should give you an idea of how it’ll feel.
Sorry, that's how they advertised that bit. And they didn't arrive at any of their numbers by pulling them from a hat.
|
I think there are two types of players.
Those who know like to use tactics and those who like to just storm into the room and fight.3rd edition clearly caters to thos who like to use tactics. Clever players who like to use tactics can take on encounters with CR far above their level.
But that is not for everyone. Many players probably just like to kick in the door, storm in and hack away at the monsters.
I think 4th edition clearly caters to those.Don't get me wrong, even if I do not care for the latter playstyle it is fun for those who like it and if 4th help to revify this, why not?
But this shows me again, that the 4th gaming philosophy is not for me.
Well said.
|
Sorry Sturm, you failed, doesn't matter what Time of the Twins says.
Borimir? Your death didn't mean your redemption, it just meant you were a loser.
Boy, PC Dwarven Defender who stood between the goblins and the party, that was dumb. A real hero wouldn't have layed down his life for others like that.
I had a ranger I sacrificed like that, holding off the trolls with flaming arrows so the rest of the party could run. DM asked if I wanted him to be saved via deux ex machina and I said no, his sacrifice would mean nothing if he was saved.
Those deaths were choices. They did not die in the normal flow of the story in a fight that wasn't supposed to be anything but extraordinary. You can still do that in 4E. If a character choses to sacrifice her life for the party then she can.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Those deaths were choices. They did not die in the normal flow of the story in a fight that wasn't supposed to be anything but extraordinary. You can still do that in 4E. If a character choses to sacrifice her life for the party then she can.
I'm not denying that Crosswired. However, the article doesn't differentiate. It states all deaths are failures.
At the same time I'll invoke the Rule of Wash. Death need not be heroic to be important.
|
If a character choses to sacrifice her life for the party then she can.
There are examples of people who were willing to risk sacrificing themselves, but that does not mean that they NECESSARILY died. In D&D, a heroic character can make a heroic choice to face near-certain death. But sometimes, they find a way to escape.
For example, defending a narrow stone bridge over a roaring chasm from onrushing trolls might seem suicidal. But the trolls must come single file. Say an 8th level character, and 6 trolls. We'd say 'certain death'. But, if the player does well with some fighting defensively or using Combat Expertise, he might do very well against the trolls for a few rounds, buying the time his friends need.
Now, at that point he might choose to fight it out until his inevitable death, or he might choose to jump into the river below. That also has a high risk of death, but there is a chance for survival.
Either way, whether the character lives or dies, he has an interesting story to tell. Now, in 4th edition it sounds almost like you HAVE to try to kill yourself off. On the other hand, the three rounds or you may die makes it somewhat more likely.
I will say this, while the rules are interesting as they propose, I don't see them 'fixing' the stated problems with the death and dying rules in 3rd edition.
|
So a new Design and Development article is up, and I gotta say, not all too impressed.
The text of it is:
*SNIP*
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.
I don't think you should be worried about characters returning to 1/4hp on a successful roll. Thats a 3E house rule that uses this system. My money is that you return to the fight "bloodied" at 1/2 hp in 4e!
I really don't see how folks can interpret this as eliminating the need for good tactics.
Joe-Bob the Fighter gets knocked to -2hp in the current game. You've got 8 rounds to stabilize him before he's dead, with a 57% chance that he'd stabilize on his own in that time.
Under the 3.5 expression of this rules concept, Joe-Bob goes down into the negatives. You don't know how long you've got to stabilize him - maybe 3 rounds, maybe more. I think this adds back a certain amount of drama, because the time pressure will be there.
As for the "absurd" low negs number, I think that's offset somewhat by the fact that even if you're barely in the negatives, if you're left untreated, you can still die. So death can come even if you never get knocked down to -60 (or whatever).
As for the "suddenly recover 25% hit points" - I imagine that ties in to the Second Wind-type recoveries they've discussed in other places.
The best thing is, it looks like you can change the feel of this pretty easily. Want a more grim-and-gritty feel? You could:
- Reduce the percent by which you can go neg to a quarter of your hit points;
- Make death come at 2 low recovery rolls; and/or
- Make the 20 on a recovery give less benefit (or only let you get your "second wind" if you haven't already during that encounter - the other place where I saw Second Wind discussed, it seemed like it was a once-per-encounter-per-recipient sort of thing).
|
|
Going back to the high level 'death was too quick in 3.5' argument...What exactly is wrong with death being much more likely at high levels? In our groups we've always understood that with greater (ie high level) rewards comes greater peril (dear god the dragon just crit my pants off).
It forces people to start coming up with plans and working as a team or they die. I personally like the current death and dying rules because it inserts a slight pause in a players mind before heading into the great old wyrm's lair and initiating combat with the horrid thing before them.
You gotta ask yourself "Do I feel lucky?...Well...Do ya punk?"
Another stubborn 3.5'er here.
This is true in theory, but in practice low level play sees less character death and high level play sees multiple character death in a single (albeit tough) encounter and multiple character rez's.
In high level play, death is really nothing more than fairly short "time-out" for the character, while at low levels its permanent.
Thats not exactly the perfect model of risk vs. reward. Death, essentially, is no longer a real "risk" at high level.
I was pretty much in agreement with the article as it discussed the "problem" but its implementation seems a bit...lenient.
Of course I'll have to wait and see, but I am thinking a "House-Rule" where characters gain some sort of penalty for being unconscious may be in order. Perhaps a character gains a "negative level" (using 3e terminology) that can be "cured" normally (as if they were drained). Drop multiple times in a combat and these effects stack (essentially -1 to everything each time)..although I would hope that curing negative levels isn't readily available in 4E and should be a "ritual" of some sort such that you have to leave the dungeon, spend gold, etc. A -1 that lasts throughout the dungeon-crawl is better than say leaving the dungeon to cure it and risk "respawns" imo. If you fell unconscious a bunch and have -4 for example, then yeah, perhaps leaving and doing the ritual is in order.
I am willing to bet money that if a character actually dies and is raised from the dead, the "penalty" in 4E will be a semi-permannent (an Andy Collins house-rule) negative level. This negative level cannot be cured "normally". When you GAIN a new level you lose a negative level that you gained (-1 to 0 for example).
Another house rule for 3E: I have used the -con as the death threshold as well, but aother twist is to say all characters (i include monsters) stop at zero, they do not pass zero on any single damage source. That is a fighter hits hobgoblin for 15 dropping it from 10 hp to Zero. cleric hits hobgoblin for 15 dropping it from 0 to -15 (and dead). In this house rule, EXACTLY ZERO is always reached before negatives. Try it out in your games!
Joe-Bob the Fighter gets knocked to -2hp in the current game. You've got 8 rounds to stabilize him before he's dead, with a 57% chance that he'd stabilize on his own in that time.
Unless your fighting a pack of unintelligent beasties that are only looking for a meal. Then you have to get to Joe-Bob before one of them nips off with his entrails.
Or, a particularly bloodthirtsty band of Orcs that like watching blood spurt up in he air when they hit things that go *thwack!*. Especially if the pile of thwack won't hit back. "Oh-gore, watch..." *thwack-splash* "Ew, good one. Me next."|
|
Those deaths were choices. They did not die in the normal flow of the story in a fight that wasn't supposed to be anything but extraordinary. You can still do that in 4E. If a character choses to sacrifice her life for the party then she can.I'm not denying that Crosswired. However, the article doesn't differentiate. It states all deaths are failures.
At the same time I'll invoke the Rule of Wash. Death need not be heroic to be important.
I agree. I think the author could have qualified that statement. I think he was giving the general impression and was not taking the dramatic use of death into account.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
I am willing to bet money that if a character actually dies and is raised from the dead, the "penalty" in 4E will be a semi-permannent (an Andy Collins house-rule) negative level. This negative level cannot be cured "normally". When you GAIN a new level you lose a negative level that you gained (-1 to 0 for example).
Isn't that the same technique as the Raise Dead spell in 3.0/3.5?
|
|
I kind of like the idea of changing it a bit (although I'm also fine with the standard 3.5 way of doing it, and don't intend to suggest changing it at my table). I think I would try something like this, though... if I felt inclined to try anything at all. :) The "-10 and you're dead" has worked for my group for a couple of decades now....
GOAL: Make it less likely that characters go from living to unrevivably (short of magic) dead in a single hit
SOLUTION: Whatever attack makes your HP 0 or less moves you into "unconscious and dying" mode. Implement a recovery roll based on Constitution somehow. Three successes means you're at 1 HP [although for 4e I suspect an earlier poster was right in that it will probably bring you up closer to half of max]. Three failed rolls and you're dead. A single attack that does more than [CON BONUS] damage while "unconscious and dying" means you're dead. Any attack while "unconscious and dying" that does damage means that your successful recovery rolls have to start all over. Actual totally dead HP negative is equal to half of your normal maximum.
To use the above in 3.5 (since I don't care how it will work in 4e or not)....
Let's say Crunch the fighter has a 120HP, a 24CON (+7 modifier). He's at 10 HP. He takes a massive hit from Pinky the Red Dragon. Crunch goes from 10 down to -48HP. He is unconscious and dying. Next round nothing attacks him. He makes a Fortitude save (would have to be changed for 4e, I guess, as I understand there are no more actively rolled saves...) at, say, DC25. His Fort is +18. He rolls a 10, success #1. Two more to go. Next round Pinky's sidekick Mr Fluffles (a dire crow.. I don't even know if such a thing exists, ok?) comes over and starts pecking at Crunch's eyes and soft bits. Mr Fluffles does 6 points of damage to Crunch. Less than his CON mod, so he just takes the damage, going to -54. His previous success for recovery is wiped out. Next round, Mr Fluffles attacks again, doing 5 points of damage and making it impossible for Crunch to make a recovery check. Next round, Mr Fluffles eats a lightning bolt from Crunch's buddy Kazap the wizard. Crunch may now continue making recovery rolls. One more point of damage, though, and he'd have been dead for keeps. If Mr Fluffles had been able to do maximum damage with the Eye Pluck (8 points) then Crunch would have also died as that would exceed his CON bonus.
This would stop people from being able to recover while taking continuous damage or damage every round (or every couple of rounds) while unconscious and dying, and continued beatings while in that state would eventually kill the subject. At that rate, even something that did 1 point per round would eventually kill anyone. Something that can do over the target's CON bonus in damage in a single hit would kill it immediately (kind of a free coup de grace, I guess).
I dunno... just thought I'd try something slightly altered. Like it or not, there is my suggestion which I just came up with right now. :)
I don't mind the "healing starts at 0" thing for reviving downed characters. It would sort of be needed if you have a system that takes you well into negatives. Or perhaps you could say, if you want more math but for it to make some sense that healing starts at 10-CON bonus; the higher the con bonus someone has, the more quickly the healing brings them up to consciousness. Probably one step too many into the math department (even for 3.5 :).
As for the "definition" of hit points... if you need such, anyway, as they are a total abstraction and make no logical sense... I've sometimes rationalized it as a simplification of the math that is involved in higher level characters being able to shave a percentage off of physical damage as they progress through their careers - whether through dexterity, sheer brute CON, subtle magics, luck, or what have you. It's easier than saying "the fighter reduces damage by 4.1% for each level gained" and never increasing the HP total (which you could always explain as "the first level HP are the real totality of the character's limit of physical damage").
Anyway... that was a fun break. :)
|
|
Isn't that the same technique as the Raise Dead spell in 3.0/3.5?I am willing to bet money that if a character actually dies and is raised from the dead, the "penalty" in 4E will be a semi-permannent (an Andy Collins house-rule) negative level. This negative level cannot be cured "normally". When you GAIN a new level you lose a negative level that you gained (-1 to 0 for example).
nope WWW.D20SRD.ORG is your friend.
|
Apparently Hit Points now reflect more fatigue than anything else, like, oh, PHYSICAL DAMAGE.And tired monsters die instantly.
This is the only reason I can see you going up to 25% - and that is only if each attack you make takes x hp from you for physical exhersion - you try swinging a heavy sword for an hour straight, never mind dodging, and hitting things. I like this as long as there is no negative cap for actions (IE attacking causes 1 hp of damage, as long as you are currently above 20hp. If you are below 20 it is free)Because I have seen people fight until they fall over from fatigue.
Honestly, I don't have a problem with the mystical HPs on a 20. If the gaming gods ordain that you are to drop a 20, then the character was not meant to die.
Oh ye of little faith!
Over the years, we've developed a wierd little house rule that was never officially made a house rule, but just sort of ended up a point of play. But it's kind of along the same vein as this. Whenever a character took damage that would have reduced him to -10, if (AND ONLY IF) the character had been roleplaying following a god they can make a roll to see if their god intervenes). In th case of paladins and clerics who were specifically performing a task their gods ordained, I'd even give bonuses to the roll. But if the roll was successful, their god happened to look over and decide "No, it's not your time yet. Get back there and finish what I told you to do."
Whenever new players join our group, they are always so surprised by the amount of in-character titheing players do for the church. Every time they are in a city, they ask if there is a temple to their particular gods so they can go pray.
Trust the dice. Be one with the dice.
How about:
Any damage that would put you on negatives instead puts you at zero.
Make a Fort save with DC of damage dealt. Fail= You are dead.
Succeed= You have your constitution bonus in rounds until you die.
|
Contributor
|
How about:
Any damage that would put you on negatives instead puts you at zero.
Make a Fort save with DC of damage dealt. Fail= You are dead.
Succeed= You have your constitution bonus in rounds until you die.
So if you have a constitiution of 10 or less, you always die when reduced to zero?
Presumably, those kicks are inflicting damage of some kind. So, each time you do it, you drive the person closer to the negative hit point threshold, and once they pass it, they die.
Err... then don't let the 20th level monk kick you? ;)
Edit: Oh wait, I forgot RAW doesn't heal HP with the stabilization. I'm thinking about something else.
But don't let the facts stop you from hating. Carry on.
Hate's a strong word. Let's just say that these intangible, abstract "facts" you speak of can't block my tongue from sticking out. ;p
So if you have a constitiution of 10 or less, you always die when reduced to zero?How about:
Any damage that would put you on negatives instead puts you at zero.
Make a Fort save with DC of damage dealt. Fail= You are dead.
Succeed= You have your constitution bonus in rounds until you die.
One could make it 5+Con bonus (for anywhere from 0 to 10 for "normal" stats). But I like the 4e idea of removing the ticking clock. Maybe change it to read, "Save and each successive round make a Fort save at previous DC+1". That possibly makes it a bit more dramatic. You can still eventually die (and a "1" is death, regardless of DC) but a light wound will take more time to kill you than a heavy wound.
Greg
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
nope WWW.D20SRD.ORG is your friend.Isn't that the same technique as the Raise Dead spell in 3.0/3.5?I am willing to bet money that if a character actually dies and is raised from the dead, the "penalty" in 4E will be a semi-permannent (an Andy Collins house-rule) negative level. This negative level cannot be cured "normally". When you GAIN a new level you lose a negative level that you gained (-1 to 0 for example).
Looks like semantics to me.
Losing a level (as per current 3.5 rules) and gaining a negative level give the same result - you're one level lower than you were when you died.
When you get enough xp to go up a level in 3.5, you end up at the same level you were before you died. If you get enough xp to go up a level and you lose a negative level instead, you end up the same level you were before you died.
And in either case, you cannot regain your lost level/negative level with magic.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Some of the alternatives that folks have mentioned mentioned sound interesting but the 4E mechanic has actually been play tested.
Is it so awful that it can't possibly be any good or should we first give it a try and see how it works?
I would rather not jump to conclusions too quickly.
I would rather see sane responses to these articles, but I don't think it's going to happen. These are not conclusions being jumped to, they are emotions being vented. It's like trying to reason with a racist; despite what the KKK says, racism is not based on rational thought. Same goes for 4e hate.
Edit: To clarify the above is not directed to reasonable posters who dislike 4e and are capable of communicating displeasure (think: Aberzombie) without twisting simple statements into unintentioned and ridiculous slams (think: they said "all death is bad", but I can think of various contrived examples where death isn't bad and be willfully blind to the point of the article and the reality of most in-game deaths).
|
|
I would rather see sane responses to these articles, but I don't think it's going to happen. These are not conclusions being jumped to, they are emotions being vented. It's like trying to reason with a racist; despite what the KKK says, racism is not based on rational thought. Same goes for 4e hate.
Yeah, I know. I keep hoping for reason and objective analysis but it seems to be drowned out by THIS JUST PLAIN SUCKS responses.
Oh well.
Just to play devil's advocate to my previous bah-humbugness...
Without having the full rule-set we don't know how this will all play out. I remember when 3.0 was in the offing and people were like 'a dragon with over 25 strength? are you kidding me! how can a dragon be stronger than a deity!!??'...yet the system supported it and we're all fairly happy with 3.X
So supposing we give the new system a fair shake. Flanksteak the 15th level fighter (180hp/-45death) gets b-slapped by Blarg the half/fiend Kobold Champion and knocked to the floor at -20. Most of the monsters I run in 3.5 don't waste actions stomping on corpses to make sure they're deader than dead (monsters don't get to know how close a pc is to true death with metagame anymore than a player should).
So lets assume that a 3.5 monster's attitude is transferable to 4.0 (zomg dm fiat!) and he laughs his 3ft head off and goes for Flanksteak's companions.
Let's explore Flanksteak's dying world. He has 11 chances in 20 to stabilize or better so it's pretty good odds that he'll roll 10 or better in three rounds. There is only 5% chance of him 'leaping' forth from beyond the grave and wailing on Blarg.
Judging by the number of 20's that a given player will toss out in one evening (2-3 in combat for a night unless there is a string of rediculous luck) I think it's fairly safe to assume that we aren't going to experience people behaving like punching dummies and springing back up to wail on our carefully crafted baddies all the time. But when it does happen it will be because of the dice and a player will deserve some payout for a lucky 20. This system also has some merit because it does go a long way towards eliminating the need for a lot of those high level 'deathproof' spells.
My remaining beef simply comes in with the 4.0 designers' goal of preserving the pressence and scariness of character death...and then placing a 55% chance for a player to stabilize with another potential 30-40some odd points left.
*Note* that stabilizing your character does not mean that they are going to be saved from laying there while your party members finish the epic combat. The way the rules as written in the OP are worded your character stabilizes at -30hp and doesn't get worse. IMO it has the potential to make it annoying for high-hp players. "Pshh Crunk has at least 50hp to go we can heal him in a bit"...begin 1hr combat round.
I'm actually fine with a character coming back up on a natural 20. Probably not to 25%hp but up and active none-the less. I just think there should be an equal danger of rolling a 1 and being deader than a doornail. Or decrease the chance for a character to stabilize on their own (I dont want to make a suggestion because it would be too lethal or not lethal enough).
I think either of those things would go a long way to ease most DM's from feeling like characters are nigh-invincible. I'm not saying that players should die or that a DM's job is to set out to murder their RL friends' imaginary constructs. I'm just saying that you can't claim to be in favor of preserving the threat of player death...and not follow through on it.
*shakes head* Musn't...think...happy...thoughts...of 4.0...
Presumably, those kicks are inflicting damage of some kind. So, each time you do it, you drive the person closer to the negative hit point threshold, and once they pass it, they die.Err... then don't let the 20th level monk kick you? ;)
Yeah, you can't do this infinitely, but it's still one of those dumb metagamey things for which the DM will have to swat certain player-types. I guess I shouldn't complain because, after all, it is cathartic and makes for good exercise.
Now we're speculating about totally different parts of the 4.0 rules, but one thing I could that could stop that tactic, or at least mostly stop it is if the cleric could heal players to 1/4 of their HP out of combat without wasting any resources. After all, 4th edition does promise that players will have "at-will" spells and powers. Some sort of limited healing could be part of that. If that's the case, trying to get a player to roll a natural 20 would qualify more as a waste of time instead of as rules abuse.
Some of the alternatives that folks have mentioned sound interesting but the 4E mechanic has actually been play tested.
Is it so awful that it can't possibly be any good or should we first give it a try and see how it works?
I would rather not jump to conclusions too quickly.
Sorry, I should have been clear. I'm looking at house-rules for my 3.5 game. As with any rule set, I'd always play the as-written rules before incorporating house-rules (unless they really, really, really stunk up the place).
Greg
I am not sure about the numbers (mostly because I am not sure how hitpoints and damage will work out in 4E) but the mechanics and principles behind it look good. I will have to wait and see it in context but definitely some good ideas.
|
|
nope WWW.D20SRD.ORG is your friend.Isn't that the same technique as the Raise Dead spell in 3.0/3.5?I am willing to bet money that if a character actually dies and is raised from the dead, the "penalty" in 4E will be a semi-permannent (an Andy Collins house-rule) negative level. This negative level cannot be cured "normally". When you GAIN a new level you lose a negative level that you gained (-1 to 0 for example).
Looks like semantics to me.
Look again.
In one case (lose a level) you lose things like skills, feats, class features, hit dice, and XP. In the case I outlined, the addition of a negative level simplifies to From www.d20srd.org:
"A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained:
* -1 on all skill checks and ability checks.
* -1 on attack rolls and saving throws.
* -5 hit points.
* -1 effective level (whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level).
* If the victim casts spells, she loses access to one spell as if she had cast her highest-level, currently available spell. (If she has more than one spell at her highest level, she chooses which she loses.) In addition, when she next prepares spells or regains spell slots, she gets one less spell slot at her highest spell level."
Thats a hell of a lot simpler, you don't have to re-calculate skills, you don't have lose any feats, class features, and you don't lose xp (which is very important to xp-using classes such as those with item creation feats/spells).
a very different beast. Since Andy Collins proposed the negative level mechanic rather than level loss to raise dead in his "home games", and since he is a Lead 4E designer, I think its safe we will see some variant of this in 4E. You can read Andy's blog about it HERE
|
|
Let's explore Flanksteak's dying world. He has 11 chances in 20 to stabilize or better so it's pretty good odds that he'll roll 10 or better in three rounds. There is only 5% chance of him 'leaping' forth from beyond the grave and wailing on Blarg.
I think you may have it backwards:
3) If you’re dying at the end of your turn, roll 1d20.
Lower than 10: You get worse. If you get this result three times before you are healed or stabilized (as per the Heal skill), you die.
10-19: No change.
20: You get better! You wake up with hit points equal to one-quarter your full normal hit points.
So you only stabilize on a 20 or when someone heals you in some way.
Three rolls of 1-10 and you die.
It seems once you go down you could be dead within 3 rounds regardless of how far negative you happen to be.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Look again.
In one case (lose a level) you lose things like skills, feats, class features, hit dice, and XP. In the case I outlined, the addition of a negative level simplifies to From www.d20srd.org:
"A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained:
* -1 on all skill checks and ability checks.
* -1 on attack rolls and saving throws.
* -5 hit points.
* -1 effective level (whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level).
* If the victim casts spells, she loses access to one spell as if she had cast her highest-level, currently available spell. (If she has more than one spell at her highest level, she chooses which she loses.) In addition, when she next prepares spells or regains spell slots, she gets one less spell slot at her highest spell level."Thats a hell of a lot simpler, you don't have to re-calculate skills, you don't have lose any feats, class features, and you don't lose xp (which is very important to xp-using classes such as those with item creation feats/spells).
a very different beast. Since Andy Collins proposed the negative level mechanic rather than level loss to raise dead in his "home games", and since he is a Lead 4E designer, I think its safe we will see some...
Thanks for the clarification!
I can't access the d20srd site from work, and relied on the Raise Dead spell as written.
I can see how much simpler this makes the math, but I'm on the fence about its in-game repercussions. Seems like the PC should be weakened a bit more after a Raise Dead spell is cast, especially since xp is linked to life energy for purposes of energy drain and some spells.
Yeah, I know. I keep hoping for reason and objective analysis but it seems to be drowned out by THIS JUST PLAIN SUCKS responses.
Oh well.
---------O!
We have such crystal sight in lands of fog-géd eyes! A pox on fools of l'quacity
and begg'rs of questions. Only ours, our minds
can stand and walk to reason now, merely.
And they shall march alone in hushéd awe
and dread, so blindly off a bluff. Fie. Fie!
Such pit'y have I for them, for they can not
ev'r see the alabaster arch--
...
Is that more or less how everyone feels? ;)
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Look again.
In one case (lose a level) you lose things like skills, feats, class features, hit dice, and XP. In the case I outlined, the addition of a negative level simplifies to From www.d20srd.org:
"A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained:
* -1 on all skill checks and ability checks.
* -1 on attack rolls and saving throws.
* -5 hit points.
* -1 effective level (whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level).
* If the victim casts spells, she loses access to one spell as if she had cast her highest-level, currently available spell. (If she has more than one spell at her highest level, she chooses which she loses.) In addition, when she next prepares spells or regains spell slots, she gets one less spell slot at her highest spell level."Thats a hell of a lot simpler, you don't have to re-calculate skills, you don't have lose any feats, class features, and you don't lose xp (which is very important to xp-using classes such as those with item creation feats/spells).
a very different beast. Since Andy Collins proposed the negative level mechanic rather than level loss to raise dead in his "home games", and since he is a Lead 4E designer, I think its safe we will see some...
Thanks for the clarification!
I can't access the d20srd site from work, and relied on the Raise Dead spell as written.
I can see how much simpler this makes the math, but I'm on the fence about its in-game repercussions. Seems like the PC should be weakened a bit more after a Raise Dead spell is cast, especially since xp is linked to life energy for purposes of energy drain and some spells.
So you only stabilize on a 20 or when someone heals you in some way.Three rolls of 1-10 and you die.
It seems once you go down you could be dead within 3 rounds regardless of how far negative you happen to be.
Exactly. I think I'm going to like this mechanic. It just seems odd to use negative hitpoints at all given the model.
Now we're speculating about totally different parts of the 4.0 rules, but one thing I could that could stop that tactic, or at least mostly stop it is if the cleric could heal players to 1/4 of their HP out of combat without wasting any resources. After all, 4th edition does promise that players will have "at-will" spells and powers. Some sort of limited healing could be part of that. If that's the case, trying to get a player to roll a natural 20 would qualify more as a waste of time instead of as rules abuse.Presumably, those kicks are inflicting damage of some kind. So, each time you do it, you drive the person closer to the negative hit point threshold, and once they pass it, they die.Err... then don't let the 20th level monk kick you? ;)
Yeah, you can't do this infinitely, but it's still one of those dumb metagamey things for which the DM will have to swat certain player-types. I guess I shouldn't complain because, after all, it is cathartic and makes for good exercise.
There is a power in StarWars:SAGA that allows you to trance out and next round get a auto-20 on your attack roll. During your trance if you get hit it is a crit. (you can abuse this power with the rogue's evade-a-crit ability, but that isn't the point here). If (and this is actually likely) SW:S influenced D&D4 to the point where an ability like this is in both games. So, you have the fighter trance out. Then, the cleric wails on the fighter (with a poorly damaging weapon). With that insta-crit the cleric heals his allies (including his chum that he just nailed) including any laying down in the negative hps. I can just see it now:
"Stop! Or I'll bust my friend in the head!"
I think there are two types of players.
Those who know like to use tactics and those who like to just storm into the room and fight.3rd edition clearly caters to thos who like to use tactics. Clever players who like to use tactics can take on encounters with CR far above their level.
But that is not for everyone. Many players probably just like to kick in the door, storm in and hack away at the monsters.
I think 4th edition clearly caters to those.Don't get me wrong, even if I do not care for the latter playstyle it is fun for those who like it and if 4th help to revify this, why not?
But this shows me again, that the 4th gaming philosophy is not for me.
Thats not really the feeling I'm getting from the design goals of 4th edition though I suppose it depends on your definition of tactics. I run a pretty combat 3.5 game and I kill players fairly often. Since I house ruled resurrection type magic out of existence their a pretty tactical bunch if they don't want to have to roll up a new character.
What this has come to mean is that the players do endless buffing. They work to identify threats before they are face to face with them and then they make the spell buff list. This is a list of usually 8-13 spells depending on how powerful the threat is perceived to be and wether the plan is to use everything good for this one fight and then go and sleep or if they plan to keep going.
The result is that first one player writes out all the buffs out on the battle mat including duration and game effects. Then the players take turns including their personal buff spells, everyone works out what their new stats are like, making sure that things like personal buffs are not stacking with party buffs illigally and then we move on to the combat. The problem is that working out this buff spell list takes about 50 minutes. So, prior to every combat we burn up nearly an hour of game time just prepping for battle.
Personally I'm more then willing to give up some 'tactics' in 4th edition if it means giving up this friggen accounting chore thats eating up around a 1/4 of every gaming session at this point and looks to do nothing but get worse as the players gain levels.
I still expect there to be choices and tactics in 4th just not some of the more onerous tactics. In fact I think that this will be something of a major focus on 4th edition - those posters that are complaining that 4th edition development spends to much time focusing on combat might have something of a point but if this is the case then I doubt that they'll fail to pay any attention to how combat works and tactics in combat.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
nope WWW.D20SRD.ORG is your friend.
Looks like semantics to me.Losing a level (as per current 3.5 rules) and gaining a negative level give the same result - you're one level lower than you were when you died.
When you get enough xp to go up a level in 3.5, you end up at the same level you were before you died. If you get enough xp to go up a level and you lose a negative level instead, you end up the same level you were before you died.
And in either case, you cannot regain your lost level/negative level with magic.
Hi, Larry. A couple of notes: (1) a 4th Level wizard with a negative level is not quite the same as a 3rd Level wizard. The saving throws, attack bonuses, amount of experience points they accumulate for EL 3 encounters, and so on, are all different.
(2) Stedd's house rule reference was to a negative level that went away when the character gained another level. That is, a 4th Level wizard with a negative level attains 10,000 xp and becomes a 5th Level wizard, free and clear. The rules-as-written provide that when a 4th Level wizard is raised, she comes back to life at 3rd Level. 3000 XP later, she becomes a 4th Level wizard.
Some of the alternatives that folks have mentioned sound interesting but the 4E mechanic has actually been play tested.
Is it so awful that it can't possibly be any good or should we first give it a try and see how it works?
I would rather not jump to conclusions too quickly.
Hi, CWM. Good to see you.
Given the original post at Wizards, I don't think that the proffered 3.5 suggestion has been play-tested at all. They're working on 4th Edition, and threw out a bone of "if you want to experience some of the flavor of this new system in 3.5, try this."
Now, you're right: people who spend at least eight hours a day in design and development are making these suggestions, so they shouldn't be casually dismissed. But people here know their campaigns, their players, and their own preferences, and I don't think it's unreasonable for them to adapt those suggestions to their own play.
For myself, I can tell, even without play-test, that a rule allowing characters to jump up from dying to 25% hit point total on a roll of 20 is a bad rule; it screws up the drama of dying. Characters at death's door are only likely to be in trouble now. The Radiant Servant doesn't need to get her butt over to the monk at -8 hp; he might spontaneously recover to a healthy hit point total.
Even raise dead only brings a person back to one hp per level.
And how are Action Points / the "lucky" Domain Power / the Diehard feat / other noodly rules bits going to interface with that d20 roll?
4th Edition is a different game. It has different world rules and a different feel. It's probably a perfectly nice game. (So is RoleMaster.) But it's a game I don't think I'll be playing, and this is definitely part of that game that I don't want in my current D&D campaign.
|
|
Now we're speculating about totally different parts of the 4.0 rules, but one thing I could that could stop that tactic, or at least mostly stop it is if the cleric could heal players to 1/4 of their HP out of combat without wasting any resources. After all, 4th edition does promise that players will have "at-will" spells and powers. Some sort of limited healing could be part of that. If that's the case, trying to get a player to roll a natural 20 would qualify more as a waste of time instead of as rules abuse.
This is my guess, too. I'd say the "come back at 1/4 hp" isn't such a big deal, because of some mechanic that lets PCs regain a certain amount of hp (maybe 1/4 max ...) after an encounter. Haven't we seen mention in the playtest reports of a party having to decide whether to push on or "take a short rest" after a combat to regain some of the their per/day or per/encounter abilities. I'd guess a minor shot of hp happens at the same time.
Thinking about hp more in the abstract, it doesn't bother me -- rolling a 20 would really just be someone regaining consciousness after a short nighty-night, struggling to their feet and pressing on despite the nasty head wound and blood pooling in their boots.
sta·bi·lize /ˈsteɪbəˌlaɪz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[stey-buh-lahyz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -lized, -liz·ing.
–verb (used with object) 1. to make or hold stable, firm, or steadfast.
2. to maintain at a given or unfluctuating level or quantity: The government will try to stabilize the cost of living.
So does that mean that the roll of 11-19 "No change" means stabilized? This is actually what I thought when I first read it, but that is ... too dumb even for Andy Collins.
I have this mental image of a hapless 4th Edition monster, hacking away for round after round at an 'unconcious and dying 4th edition PC' with its claws, unable to kill that character until it can reduce aforementioned character to -60 hp. Does that seem at all smurfy to anyone?
I know that 3.5 has 'coup de grace' rules, but on current form, I really wouldn't expect monsters to be allowed to do that in 4th Edition- I suspect that if there is a 'coup de grace' option in 4th Edition, it will be PC only.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
nope WWW.D20SRD.ORG is your friend.
Looks like semantics to me.Losing a level (as per current 3.5 rules) and gaining a negative level give the same result - you're one level lower than you were when you died.
When you get enough xp to go up a level in 3.5, you end up at the same level you were before you died. If you get enough xp to go up a level and you lose a negative level instead, you end up the same level you were before you died.
And in either case, you cannot regain your lost level/negative level with magic.
Hi, Larry. A couple of notes: (1) a 4th Level wizard with a negative level is not quite the same as a 3rd Level wizard. The saving throws, attack bonuses, amount of experience points they accumulate for EL 3 encounters, and so on, are all different.
(2) Stedd's house rule reference was to a negative level that went away when the character gained another level. That is, a 4th Level wizard with a negative level attains 10,000 xp and becomes a 5th Level wizard, free and clear. The rules-as-written provide that when a 4th Level wizard is raised, she comes back to life at 3rd Level. 3000 XP later, she becomes a 4th Level wizard.
Thanks, Chris.
This bit of info makes me like the 3.5 Raise Dead "lost level" even more. Having severe consequences attached to dying and being raised keeps our group on its toes.
Sorry, Stedd, but your house rule doesn't do it for me, although I see the logic of it being included in 4e based on the designer's preference.
|
|
sta·bi·lize /ˈsteɪbəˌlaɪz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[stey-buh-lahyz] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -lized, -liz·ing.
–verb (used with object) 1. to make or hold stable, firm, or steadfast.
2. to maintain at a given or unfluctuating level or quantity: The government will try to stabilize the cost of living.So does that mean that the roll of 11-19 "No change" means stabilized? This is actually what I thought when I first read it, but that is ... too dumb even for Andy Collins.
It would only be "stabilized" if there was no need for another roll, which there is. You keep rolling until you magically jump up with 1/4 hp, or you die.
|
|
I think there are two types of players. -snip-
The result is that first one player writes out all the buffs out on the battle mat including duration and game effects. Then the players take turns including their personal buff spells, everyone works out what their new stats are like, making sure that things like personal buffs are not stacking with party buffs illigally and then we move on to the combat. The problem is that working out this buff spell list takes about 50 minutes. So, prior to every combat we burn up nearly an hour of game time just prepping for battle.Personally I'm more then willing to give up...
To clarify: Tactics for me is mainly clever movement and positioning and using flanking and other tactics.
The house rule that I find works really well in some of my campaigns involves utilizing some of your hit points above 0. You see many are right when they say that it is very rare to be in the position of disabled. The way I found that seems to fix this problem was to use the 10% rule though in the opposite direction (example, a character having 50 hit points is brought down to 3 hp, with my house rule from 5 to 0 hp the character is disabled and able to do only one action. If the character decides that it is in their best interest to disengage than so be it, but if they decide to attack knowing darn well it will bring them down a hp, than that is also their right. If they decided to attack they find themselves 1 hp closer to death but only due to their own personal choice. This gives them room for some very interesting and possibly heroic possibilities).
I find this rule to be very progress in that as you gain more levels your 10% hp allotment grows as does the damage that stronger monster tend to dish out. This allows the disable rule to come into play more often.
I do use the -10 hp threshold to equal death but you can change that to be your constitution score or any other house rule you deem acceptable
It would only be "stabilized" if there was no need for another roll, which there is. You keep rolling until you magically jump up with 1/4 hp, or you die.
Right. Stabilization isn't something that you do on your own, it requires someone to do something for you (like a Heal check).
You could lie there unconscious for as long as you keep rolling 11-19s. But if you accumulate 3 01-10s during that time, you die.
It just seems odd to use negative hitpoints at all given the model.
I think that's to model the fact that, if someone is trying to make sure you stay dead, there is something they can do to accomplish that, and your ability to roll 11+ many times in a row won't save you.
Although come to think of it, that could be accomplished with a coup de grace mechanic. So maybe it's just for situations where 50 assassins hit you with arrows at once... (grin)
One more reason this rule makes no sense is that as written you could in all actuallity die more than once and be brough back to 25% of your hp. Now come on, that is not the D&D that I know and love and so once again I vote with my thumb down.
I have this mental image of a hapless 4th Edition monster, hacking away for round after round at an 'unconcious and dying 4th edition PC' with its claws, unable to kill that character until it can reduce aforementioned character to -60 hp. Does that seem at all smurfy to anyone?
Hey, you don't want some poor player to lose his character just because he happens to lose a fight to a deadly opponent, do you? That would be un-fun.
I know that 3.5 has 'coup de grace' rules, but on current form, I really wouldn't expect monsters to be allowed to do that in 4th Edition- I suspect that if there is a 'coup de grace' option in 4th Edition, it will be PC only.
I don't know where players will find a sense of accomplishment when the rules so egregiously stack the deck in their favor. It's like "winning" a marathon by being carried across the finish line. Glory and rewards without accomplishment.
And this applies not only to nonhuman monsters, but to human or humanoid opponents as well. Opponent warlords, wizards, etc. also drop dead at 0 hp. So, PC's effectively have 50% more hit points, automatically, than their opponents of the same level.
It brings to mind those "big-game hunts" they have for rich tourists in Africa. Get driven out a few miles into the jungle where you will have the chance to shoot a "big game" animal that's been raised in captivity, declawed and defanged, and drugged ten minutes before being released for the Great White Hunter to shoot.
"Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition: Because You're Entitled To Succeed."