They should have used a labeled picture to illustrate it, I think.
*no sarcasm intended*
-S
Almost ALL of the wording in the Beta is horrendously vague, garbled, or plain incomprehensible (just what exactly is the Weapon Swap feat for?). Jal Dorak has assured me that James Jacobs has assured him that there will be some serious editing for wording before the hardcover rules are released.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
How about:
"If a character's current hit points fall below zero, the character is dying. If the character's hit points fall below both negative 10 and the opposite of her constitution score, the character dies."
--Chris
who's still crusty enough to remember when your character simply died at 0.
"If a character's current hit points fall below zero, the character is dying. If the character's hit points fall below zero by a margin larger than his or her constitution score, the character dies. Howevever, if the character's constitution score is 9 or lower, he or she does not die until falling to -10 hp or below." A bit wordier, but hopefully a bit more clear.
"If a character's current hit points fall below zero, the character is dying. If the character's hit points fall below zero by a margin larger than his or her constitution score, the character dies. Howevever, if the character's constitution score is 9 or lower, he or she does not die until falling to -10 hp or below." A bit wordier, but hopefully a bit more clear.
Magnitude might be a good word to throw out there too.
But honestly, if it sends us running to a number theory book...
Magnitude might be a good word to throw out there too.
Hmmm... "order of magnitude" implies a factor of 10x (or 0.1x). "Magnitude" by itself is just "size or extent." Not sure there IS a good wording for this one. Maybe a table would be best?
Magnitude might be a good word to throw out there too.Hmmm... "order of magnitude" implies a factor of 10x (or 0.1x). "Magnitude" by itself is just "size or extent." Not sure there IS a good wording for this one. Maybe a table would be best?
Oh... My (admittedly sparse) knowledge of physics was that magnitude was used when describing an absolute value of distance from zero. While pertinent to the topic, it is quite clearly no better than the other terms here.
Okay, how about instead of "negative hit points" we create a NEW term, perhaps "death points".
When your character's hit points fall below zero, she accrues a number of death points (dp) equal to the positive integer value of hit points below zero. Each round, unless stabilized, the character adds one death point to their dp total. When the total dps equals the character's Con score, they die.
Of course, I'm kidding...
Actually, I would prefer to keep the death mark at -10. PCs are already tougher with the improved hit dice. No need to further the curve in favor of melee types with a -CON death mark. Just my opinion.
If Paizo decides to keep the -CON rule, an extra basic sentence would help.
The -Con score thing is an import from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved and has saved my players' characters' bacon many many times. >;p
That and hero points.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I can certainly see how -CON instead of -10 (or zero) can save PC lives. I can certainly see how action points can save PC lives.
There are a lot of other ways of saving PC lives. Adding 1, 2, or 3 pts of damage reduction to light, medium and heavy armors. Increasing PC attributes. Healing surges. giving PC's the better of two stats as a base for saving throws. Et cet.
The challenge is in finding where to put the safety net. Do we want PC's to be able to die by accident if the players get unlucky rolls in random encounters? Do we want 1st-Level characters to be on their guard against a pair of giant rats or a walking skeleton? If we give life-saving goodies to just the PC's, are we messing up CR ratings? If we give live-saving goodies to both the PC's and their foes, are we just extending all the battles?
The answers to these questions are the purview of individual DM's running individual campaigns.
"Every DM who makes life easier for his PC's than I do is a moron. And every DM who makes life harder for his players is a maniac. It's a wonder we get any gaming done at all, with all the maniacs and morons out there!" --w.a.t. George Carlin
Eh, I like my "death at negative Con score" better. :P
|
If the sum of your hit points and your Constitution score drops to zero or less... (?)
(Of course, I have been known to just say that damage beyond 0 hp is converted into Constitution damage. If you take Constitution damage in this way, you are dying. And as usual, if your Constitution drops to 0, you die. Of course, given that this can be deadlier than the normal system, I don't necessarily recommend it as an official rule.)
I am a huge fan of 0 HP means Con damage. First point of Con damage gives you a variation of the Shaken condition with only a move or standard action possible. Go to 0 Con you be dead dead dead.
I also like having a crit apply the normal damage range just it goes to Con instead and you get that Condition as above. Crits get NASTY.
Problem is this works against PCs more than critters.
"If a character has a Constitution score greater than 10, they may sustain a number of negative hit points equal to their constitution score before dying. If the Constitution score is less than or equal to 10, they may sustain up to 10 negative hit points before dying."
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Pardon for a slight derail for a rules question. Let's say that my 10th Level Ranger is knocked down to -9 hp, and the party wizard, desperate to do something to save my PC's life, casts "bear's endurance" on him. Is he still losing hit points? Once the spell wears off, is he stabilized?
Pardon for a slight derail for a rules question. Let's say that my 10th Level Ranger is knocked down to -9 hp, and the party wizard, desperate to do something to save my PC's life, casts "bear's endurance" on him. Is he still losing hit poits? Once the spell wears off, is he stabilized?
I'd personally rule that, if the spell bumped him to above 0 hp, he'd stop losing hp for the duration (since he'd no longer technically be "dying" just yet). However, once the duration lapsed, he'd go back to dying (and losing hp) unless he received some healing in the interim. So the net effect would be much like a "delay poison" spell, in a way. (An interesting NPC might be a hermit who got a bear's endurance at -9 hp, and now, years later, has an amulet of health which is the only thing keeping him from losing that last hp... of course, he'd heal hp for sleeping, so that gimmick wouldn't work after all. Pity.)
Other people would probably rule all that differently, of course. As far as I know, there's no "official" ruling.
Of course, he could have been wearing that amulet when he got Con drained down to 1 Con. In that case, he would die if he took the amulet off, regardless of how much time had elapsed.
Dude! That's awesome. I'm totally using that.
Bah! I remember when you died at 1hp! Wimps!
And then you had the 1e Tomb of Horrors, and Grimtooth's Traps. With those, you died at full hp.
|
Bah! I remember when you died at 1hp! Wimps!And then you had the 1e Tomb of Horrors, and Grimtooth's Traps. With those, you died at full hp.
Grimtooth's Traps rocked!
But that was back in the day when everyone was a trapsmith, had to keep their wits about them, and come equipped with the right gear.
You had to describe how you were doing things, instead of just pushing the Rogue ahead to make a skill check against a DC...
But that was back in the day when everyone was a trapsmith, had to keep their wits about them, and come equipped with the right gear.
You had to describe how you were doing things, instead of just pushing the Rogue ahead to make a skill check against a DC...
Oh i miss those days...
|
|
One of the editorials in 'Knights of the Dinner Table' was on this topic, when Jolly went to a con/demo, and sat down with a bunch of younger players, who would only have known the modern version of the game.
He was continually questioned over his choice of gear, such as hammers, iron spikes, wooden poles. "What's that for?", "What book are they in?", "How does that help?", "Why would you do that?".
He was genuinely surprised and concerned, that a generation of gamers seemed to have no knowledge of what was, to his generation, standard operating procedure. It was as if the 3.0 rules had codified everything to such an extent that, unless you were a Rogue, don't even bother looking at the dungeon-dressing. You won't find anything. Don't even bother trying to interact with the scenery, you'll automatically fail. They didn't seem to know they were allowed to do stuff.
On the other hand, there seems to be a lot of meta-gaming, and a sense of entitlement, with players memorising the Wealth-by-Level and XP charts, so they can browbeat their DM over what he is allowed to confront them with.
Throw them against a trap that isn't in the DMG (which, of course, they all bring to the table), and they scream about it being 'an inappropriate EL for their APL'.
My response to these players is;
"You bellow at the heavens for their ingratitude.
I'll be making myself useful, feeding a goblin into these cogs, and hammering pitons into these gas-jets."
(just what exactly is the Weapon Swap feat for?).To save money on magic weapons.
I got that part, but then why does the text say "weapons," if all you're doing is shifting one weapon to your off-hand, and why is the feat called "weapon swap" instead of "hand swap"? Or, alternatively, if you're supposedly physically switching two weapons, why wouldn't the trick work better if you had a hand free and one weapon? I mean, it makes no sense at all, the way it's written now.