I want to applaud the decision of the designers to move away from the dead at -10 rule to the dead at -Constitution score rule (p.155 Alpha 3). The new rules are a definite improvement over the old system and this would hold even more strongly if they were coupled with extending the disabled condition from 0 to -Constitution bonus a la Monte Cook in Arcana Unearthed. I have played with these rules a while ago (though I no longer do for some time now), having taken them from the aforementioned Arcana Unearthed and they felt better than the standard 3.5E rules.
That said, I think these rules could still be improved upon further and therefore have been using a different set of rules for a long time now. Before judging how to improve the rules, though, it is prudent to establish the goals for a rule change:
1) To provide a greater negative hit point buffer against untimely death from unlucky rolls (particularly important at lower levels and when a monster crits)
2) To extend the range of the disabled condition to something more reasonable than just one hit point
3) To remove to some extent the certainty of the timing of death from bleeding when a character is dying and thus to increase tension in the game when a character goes down and make it a bigger priority for the rest of the party to stabilize him rather than say "yeah, we have X more rounds, let’s do something else first..."
4) To maintain some degree of verisimilitude and to avoid completely wacky outcomes (e.g. hopefully no 4E-like springing back to life at quarter hit points after a good stabilization roll ) (see note at the end)
5) To ensure that the mechanics mesh well with the standardized mechanical conventions established in 3.X edition
The original rule of death at -10 hit points essentially fully satisfies point 4 (which is on the list basically to say that new rules shouldn’t move away from that too far and they don’t: death at –Constitution score also satisfies point four). I will, therefore, start with the 5th point first. 3.X edition of D&D does not tend to use ability scores directly, but rather through the bonuses they provide (and these bonuses are frequently added to 10 to give us some resultant number). As a result, instead of using –Constitution score it would be more consistent to bring the death and dying rules in line with the established conventions of 3.X edition and make a rule that has characters die at negative hit points equal to 10 + Constitution bonus. The disabled range could then be Monte Cook’s –Constitution bonus, thus satisfying point 2. These rules (as does the ‘dead at –Con score’ rule) also slightly improve on the satisfaction of point 1 as compared to the original ‘dead at -10’ rules.
Point 3, however, remains largely unsatisfied by all these rules, because dying characters lose a predictable 1 hit point per round until they stabilize or die or take damage from external sources. In order to decrease predictability and the “we have 5 more rounds till we need to stabilize him, let’s attack the hydra for now instead” types of effects in the game, it would be better to randomize the amount of damage a dying character takes per round with a dice roll. A d6 die provides a significant amount of variability in the damage taken when dying (or disabled and taking a strenuous action) and makes the timing of the death more unpredictable, but if combined with the abovementioned rules, it would probably be too deadly. As such, using randomization of dying damage, it becomes necessary to increase the negative hit point buffer. Because 10 + ability bonus is almost a standard way to determine various numbers in 3.X edition, it is probably reasonable to extend the negative hit point buffer by extending the disabled condition from 0 to negative hit points equal to 10 + Con bonus and do the same thing for the dying condition, hence the character would die at negative hit points equal to 20 + 2 x Constitution bonus.
Summary:
Disabled: 0 to – (10 + Constitution bonus) hit points
Dead at: - (20 + 2 x Constitution bonus) hit points (note: this is similar to -[10 + Constitution score])
When dying (or disabled, but taking strenuous actions) a character loses 1d6 hit points per round
A simplified system less concerned with the consistency of the system with conventions would use:
Disabled: 0 to - Con score
Dead at: - 2 x Con score
Keep the rest the same
The last remaining thing to consider is stabilization. The d10 based stabilization is non-systemic compared to other mechanics in 3.5E. A Fortitude saving throw would be better suited to take over the stabilization roll function. The question then becomes how to set the DC. There are two basic options. Either a flat DC (e.g. DC 15, 20, 25, etc. [20 would probably be the most suitable, at least at lower levels]), or a DC that depends on the amount of damage taken beyond a certain threshold (perhaps beyond 0 hp, or -10 hp or -20hp or beyond the disabled/dying threshold). The fortitude save could require rolling a number equal to the negative hit points the character currently has, but that might be too easy, so perhaps it would be better to add 5 or 10 to the target number.
Sorry for the long post on the system I have been using in my games for a while now (for those interested, the Fort save DC I have taken is 20 + number of hit points beyond the disabled/dying threshold), but I wanted to elaborate on how I initially arrived at it.
I would like to see the 5 points I have used as my criteria addressed by a disabled, dying and dead system in the Pathfinder RPG, which of course won’t necessarily come up with the same system as I did (though, of course, if the Pathfinder RPG wants to adopt it, be my guest!) , but I would very much like any design of the system to go through these points one by one.
To be honest, the systemic consistency with 3.5E conventions in other sub-systems is less important to me than the randomization of dying damage (and strenuous action damage when disabled) and extending the disabled condition range, but I nonetheless feel that at least using a Fortitude save instead of the d10 roll to stabilize would be a welcome step.
The randomization of dying/strenuous damage could be viable even with the current death threshold of –Constitution score, but lower damage dice would have to be used. Using a d4 or a d3 would make it approximately equivalently deadly to using the d6 under my original system. Since a d3 is not reallya standard D&D die, a d4 would seem to be the most suitable.
(Note: I introduced the above-mentioned system a long time ago. I added point 4, after the release of information about death and dying in 4E, because prior to that it wouldn’t even have occurred to me that somebody would want to come up with such a wacky system, where people can suddenly regain a whole lot of hit points....)
We used to use Dead at (negative your normal HP total or negative your Constitution, whichever threshold was lower), dying at the end of the next turn for below (negative Constitution), and slowly dying with a chance to stabalize for anything below zero. Of course, that was a long long time ago.
I've never used negative HP.
I created a system years ago (1e?) from three other systems. Basically, HP = Fatigue (and minor cuts, abrasions, bruises, etc...), which means HP took the place of subdual damage (eliminating that silly system), and allowed characters to 'heal' (recover) much faster (Con Mod per hour).
I then used the Constitution score (much like Pathfinder did) for my real 'body damage'. This gave me two scores to keep track of, but I came up with this long before negative HP came around (which it takes the place of).
On the surface, it seems like unnecessary redundancy, giving the simplicity of the neg HP system, but it also allows me to do a few cool things that adds a layer of 'realism' to my games.
I use a 'paper-doll' to represent the characters, which lets me spread the Con Score around the body - VERY similar to old Runequest - and like RQ the total would add up to more then the Con score (but you can never take more hits then your score, no matter how it was spread around). This is the score that Crits count against (I also don't use Crits as additional dam, because that never made sense in my system, and would lead to instant kills in a lot of cases). So a single Crit is REALLY bad, because its doing some major damage directly to the PC's body, just as it ought to.
Although this is a level of complexity most people could do without, it allows me to add in some other stuff without any headaches - characters that use different types of armor in different locations (which RQ was great for) and allow players to use 'called shots' (that system I adapted from the Aftermath game). So even though it seems like a bit more work up-front, it provides a much more detailed combat experience with several new options. For instance, when you Crit, you know precisely what area you hit and what you did to it (if you do twice the dam score for that area, it winds up an amputation), and lets me apply special damge to the characters (like "you can't use your left arm now") without having to resort to an abstract system of 'disabled' or 'near death'.
I won't be changing my homebrew system anytime soon, because it adds far more then it costs, and it takes the place of several needless core systems. I have adapted it to PF though, and I'm considering adding layers of 'winded' to the HP rules - which are my Fatigue, and I use it for far more then just combat (like running, Spellcasting, or any sort of physcal exertion).
But I get a kick out of PF using Con for those extra 'real' HP after the 'other' HP is gone.... I've been doing that for years. :D
FOR-Saving Throw for Stabilization...
Well, we tried this approach, using a DC of 10 + 1 per 5 points of damage taken. This was to easy. So we thought a bit more about making a FOR-save to stabilize with result being not to use this approach. there are a couple of reasons:
1) setting the DC to low, makes stabilization too easy, espaciall for the tough guys (characters with good CON and a good FOR BSB-progression)
2) setting the DC to high, makes stabilization less easy for the tough guys possible but nearly impossible for others (such as wizards).
3) at higher levels, monsters dish out a lot of damage, which will result in much higher DC's with tough guys still having an edge or other characters. second the damage output would even be so high, that the character's usually die because of negative hp (even with the rule we are using: death at -CON-score)
In the end we kept the percentage roll for stabilization but made it CON % (not the flat 10% chance), but you can easily make it 2-times CON% or some such if you want your characters to have a better chance for stabilization
I've never used negative HP.
I created a system years ago (1e?) from three other systems. Basically, HP = Fatigue (and minor cuts, abrasions, bruises, etc...), which means HP took the place of subdual damage (eliminating that silly system), and allowed characters to 'heal' (recover) much faster (Con Mod per hour).
I then used the Constitution score (much like Pathfinder did) for my real 'body damage'. This gave me two scores to keep track of, but I came up with this long before negative HP came around (which it takes the place of).
On the surface, it seems like unnecessary redundancy, giving the simplicity of the neg HP system, but it also allows me to do a few cool things that adds a layer of 'realism' to my games.
I use a 'paper-doll' to represent the characters, which lets me spread the Con Score around the body - VERY similar to old Runequest - and like RQ the total would add up to more then the Con score (but you can never take more hits then your score, no matter how it was spread around). This is the score that Crits count against (I also don't use Crits as additional dam, because that never made sense in my system, and would lead to instant kills in a lot of cases). So a single Crit is REALLY bad, because its doing some major damage directly to the PC's body, just as it ought to.
Although this is a level of complexity most people could do without, it allows me to add in some other stuff without any headaches - characters that use different types of armor in different locations (which RQ was great for) and allow players to use 'called shots' (that system I adapted from the Aftermath game). So even though it seems like a bit more work up-front, it provides a much more detailed combat experience with several new options. For instance, when you Crit, you know precisely what area you hit and what you did to it (if you do twice the dam score for that area, it winds up an amputation), and lets me apply special damge to the characters (like "you can't use your left arm now")...
Your system is excellent, but I am near 100% certain that nothing along those lines has any chance of being implemented in the Pathfinder RPG. The reasons are backward compatibility and simplicity. That said, I personally love what you have done and perhaps if Pathfinder RPG 2nd edition comes along some time in the future, it will be less bound by 3.5E conventions and might adopt a similar system.
Note: I do feel that D&D/Pathfinder does need some kind of simple and abstract system to represent the effects of being wounded. This is actually also a matter of appeal to new gamers - new gamers frequently try to 'argue' with me at the table, that the monster I sent against them should have some penalties because it is already injured - it is a natural assumption to make and each time I have to explain that the system is highly abstract (and the next fight they start all over again). Complexity is thus not the only barrier to entry, but so are some unreasonable assumptions even if they lead to increased simplicity.
It is absolutely correct to say that Fortitude saves tend to favor physically tougher characters. However, there is a solution to that dilemma. It lies in making the 'disabled' range equal to the Fortitude saving throw bonus.
Disabled: 0 to -(Fortitude save) hit points
Dead at: -Y hit points
Roll a fortitude save to stabilize when dying. DC is set at current negative hit points plus X, where X depends on how difficult we want to make the save. Therefore:
Fort. DC: X + negative hit points
Standard range of X would be from 0 to 20, more reasonably from 5 to 15.
For extremely easy saves, set X at 0
For easy saves, set X at 5
For difficult saves, set X at 10
For extremely difficult saves, set X at 15
For impossible saves, set X at 20 (still possible with natural 20s)
What X would be reasonable would also depend on how we would set Y (the number of negative hit points upon reaching which the character dies).
This system makes saving throws equally difficult for all characters, because the DC depends linearly on negative hit points, but the point at which they start to save is based on their fortitude save.
Example
Fighter has a fortitude save of +10
Wizard has a fortitude save of +5
Therefore:
Fighter's disabled/dying threshold: -10 hit points
Wizard's disabled/dying threshold: -5 hit points
This means that a fighter only begins dying and thus only needs to start rolling to stabilize once he reaches -11 hit points. A wizard reaches this condition at -6 hit points.
For the sake of argument, let us say that the death threshold (the point at which a character dies) is set at -(Fortitude save + 10) hit points.
Therefore:
Fighter's death threshold: -20 hit points
Wizard's death threshold: -15 hit points
Let us also say, that in determining Fortitude save DC for stabilization when dying, we make X = 10
Therefore:
DC to Stabilize: 10 + negative hit points
Now consider:
An attack brings both the fighter and the wizard 5 hit points into the dying range. But a fighter's (at -11hp) dying range begins lower than the wizard's (at -6hp), so the DC is for them is different. The fighter is now at -15 hit points and has to reach DC 25 to stabilize, whereas the wizard is only at -10 hit points and thus only needs to reach DC 20. The fighter's fortitude save bonus is +10, so he has to roll a 15 to stabilize, whereas the wizard's fortitude save is +5, so he also has to roll a 15 to stabilize. This equality, of course, remain regardless of how many hit points deep into the dying range each character is, because the beginning of the dying range is dependent on the fortitude save bonus.
I want to applaud the decision of the designers to move away from the dead at -10 rule to the dead at -Constitution score rule (p.155 Alpha 3). The new rules are a definite improvement over the old system and this would hold even more strongly if they were coupled with extending the disabled condition from 0 to -Constitution bonus a la Monte Cook in Arcana Unearthed. I have played with these rules a while ago (though I no longer do for some time now), having taken them from the aforementioned Arcana Unearthed and they felt better than the standard 3.5E rules.
First of all, both of these systems make Constitution more important than was intended, which can skew game balance, especially at lower levels.
Secondly, whether the negative hit point barrier is a flat -10 or -Constitution, neither addresses the problem that either amount becomes insignificant at high levels anyway.
They are very much in the Pathfinder spirit, however. For all its improvements, Pathfinder throws challenge ratings off at low levels with its hit point boosts, while doing nothing to alleviate 3.5's problems at high levels. So either disabled/dying system should fit right in.
I want to applaud the decision of the designers to move away from the dead at -10 rule to the dead at -Constitution score rule (p.155 Alpha 3). The new rules are a definite improvement over the old system and this would hold even more strongly if they were coupled with extending the disabled condition from 0 to -Constitution bonus a la Monte Cook in Arcana Unearthed. I have played with these rules a while ago (though I no longer do for some time now), having taken them from the aforementioned Arcana Unearthed and they felt better than the standard 3.5E rules.First of all, both of these systems make Constitution more important than was intended, which can skew game balance, especially at lower levels.
Secondly, whether the negative hit point barrier is a flat -10 or -Constitution, neither addresses the problem that either amount becomes insignificant at high levels anyway.
They are very much in the Pathfinder spirit, however. For all its improvements, Pathfinder throws challenge ratings off at low levels with its hit point boosts, while doing nothing to alleviate 3.5's problems at high levels. So either disabled/dying system should fit right in.
It does make Constitution slightly more important than before, but ability scores are not balanced for a given character anyway, so this is a minor issue.
It is true that neither system scales with level, but again, this is not as important as it seems, since at higher levels characters have more hit points anyway and the variety of non-hit point attacks increases (save or die spells, ability damage, etcetera), so the relative need of a negative hit point buffer decreases. On another note, the -(Fortitude save bonus + 10) hit point death threshold system would scale with level to some extent.
Whereas Pathfinder does throw of challenge ratings at low levels, this is not a problem as long as it is clearly specified in the final version (and preferably sooner) to what extent this is the case: e.g. +2 to CR at levels 1-3, +1 thereafter (numbers used for illustrative purposes only).
Pathfinder does seek to address higher level issues for example through changing spells (notice: polymorph, death effects, etcetera). Of course, there are more higher-level issues to solve than lower level ones and we cannot expect all higher-level issues to be solved, when Pathfinder wants to maintain a significant degree of compatibility with D&D 3.5 edition.
I should note that I feel that there should also be an injured condition after a character loses a certain amount of hit points from his maximum. This could be set analogously to the death threshold, but in positive hit points and should impact a character's fighting ability (e.g. -4 to all rolls and the need to make concentration checks to cast spells). The jump from healthy to disabled is just too abrupt - there needs to be at least one intermediate state between the two.
I want to applaud the decision of the designers to move away from the dead at -10 rule to the dead at -Constitution score rule (p.155 Alpha 3).
Alpha 3, p.155 says: "If a dying creature has an amount of negative hit points equal to its Constitution score (or –10, whichever is lower), it dies". I always thought lower was used as normal people use it: four negative hit points is less than six negative hit points. I have a mathematical background but/and in my experience people seldom use lower to mean "more on the negative".
Have the developers clarified which one it is?
I want to applaud the decision of the designers to move away from the dead at -10 rule to the dead at -Constitution score rule (p.155 Alpha 3).Alpha 3, p.155 says: "If a dying creature has an amount of negative hit points equal to its Constitution score (or –10, whichever is lower), it dies". I always thought lower was used as normal people use it: four negative hit points is less than six negative hit points. I have a mathematical background but/and in my experience people seldom use lower to mean "more on the negative".
Have the developers clarified which one it is?
Mathematically speaking, you are, of course, correct as to what it means, but I think it is obvious the developers meant the opposite, as in the character in question dies at -10 or -Constitution score, whichever modulus is higher (so whichever is more negative).
"If a dying creature has an amount of negative hit points equal to its Constitution score (or –10, whichever is lower), it dies". I always thought lower was used as normal people use it: four negative hit points is less than six negative hit points. I have a mathematical background but/and in my experience people seldom use lower to mean "more on the negative".
A mathematically correct formulation would be: If a dying creature has an amount of hit points equal to its -Constitution score (or –10, whichever is lower), it dies.
This might, however, actually confuse more people.
I prefer the 'Death and Dying' rules from Unearthed Arcana. It automatically scales at higher levels, and both PCs and NPCs get time to actually have the 'disabled' condition, instead of just, you know, dying.
I prefer the 'Death and Dying' rules from Unearthed Arcana. It automatically scales at higher levels, and both PCs and NPCs get time to actually have the 'disabled' condition, instead of just, you know, dying.
I must say I am not very keen on these rules. They are effectively - Save or Die with every dip into negative hit points. I prefer a negative hit point buffer with ranges for disabled and dying conditions.
I must say I am not very keen on these rules. They are effectively - Save or Die with every dip into negative hit points. I prefer a negative hit point buffer with ranges for disabled and dying conditions.
They're more like 'save or dying'. You have to fail by a lot to actually die. I like them because they mean you're not going to just skip the negative buffer like tends to happen at high level. It also means you never go into negatives, so a Cure Minor will always get you back on your feet.
Well, they are save or die, it's just that the saving throw against the 'die' is pretty high. I prefer having a negative hit point buffer, though preferably greater than -10.
I am starting to lean towards the idea I presented above that (although not as standardized with the conventions of 3.X as simply adding an ability score modifier to 10) the ideal negative hit point buffer would be equal something along the lines of -(10 + Fortitude save bonus) with the fortitude save representing the disabled range and the 10 the additional dying range. The Fortitude save for the disabled range enables the usage of saving throws for stabilization rolls while maintaining standardized difficulty (see one of my above posts for details). The '10' for the dying range could be replaced by something else, perhaps Constitution score, or 10 + Constitution bonus or another time Fortitude save bonus or perhaps the racial hit point bonus (or hit points from virtual or racial hit dice if implemented) or a general hit point bonus or whatever, as long as the Fortitude save bonus represents the disabled range and stabilization saving throw difficulty is represented by X + negative hit points incurred, the system should work well.