|
Firstly, your section on “What Hit Points Represent” on page 141 is dreadfully short. All of us who have read the Gygaxian spiel on what a hit point is understand the abstract nature of hit points, but this short paragraph doesn’t say enough for new people who play this game. I recommend describing hit points meaning stamina, luck, skill, the ability to turn a solid blow into a glancing one, and so on.
Secondly, in your section on “Massive Damage”, this is a fixed DC Fortitude save that really should scale. Having to make a DC 15 Fortitude save when you exceed 50 hit points of damage really means at high levels not rolling a natural “1”. Please set this saving throw up to scale, of DC 15 + 2 per 10 hit points damage that exceed 50. It adds a small level of danger to higher level games.
As well, where is the (frequently used) optional rule that massive damage thresholds change with different sized creatures?
Something I also had an issue with for a long time is that dying creatures have a linear loss of hit points, and the stabilization check is not based on a d20 roll, making it not very intuitive, or exciting (as exciting as your dying character can get, in any case). If one of your compatriots is at –3 hit points, you have all the time in the world, right?
I would recommend that stabilization checks be changed to Fortitude saves. It means that characters of higher level are more likely to stabilize, but that’s okay. On the flip side, if a stabilization check fails, you could lose more than 1 hit point. I offer the following:
Stable Characters and Recovery
On the next turn after a character is reduced to negative hit points (but not dead) and on all subsequent turns, make a DC 20 Fortitude save. If they succeed, they are still unconscious but stable. If they fail, they lose 1 hit point. If they fail this save by 5 or more, they lose 2 hit points. If they fail by 10 or more, they lose 5 hit points. If they are stable, each hour you make a subsequent DC 20 Fortitude save to regain consciousness, and if you fail, you lose 1 hit point instead.
And let's just get rid of massive damage deaths all together. Not very heroic.
Seconded!
And I agree on the HP description. Extensive descriptions and examples would really help.
|
|
And let's just get rid of massive damage deaths all together. Not very heroic.
I sctually think the threat of death makes more heroic situations.
We ran a campaign that went up to 17th level -- the massive damage roll came into play maybe once per session, and since we used Action Points, there was very little real chance of someone dying (although one character did once, to a barbarian half-orc that was 15th level), the *idea* that someone could die influenced their decisions, made them cautious and fearful of the villains, and otherwise enhanced our game ...
What would you think of letting Endurance add to that check in some fashion? The feat is sort of the "poor man's feat," and a small bump could make it more useful. Diehard means autostable, so it wouldn't seem too out of line by offering say, a +2 to your Fort check to stabilize with its younger kin.
|
|
What would you think of letting Endurance add to that check in some fashion? The feat is sort of the "poor man's feat," and a small bump could make it more useful. Diehard means autostable, so it wouldn't seem too out of line by offering say, a +2 to your Fort check to stabilize with its younger kin.
Funny you should mention that! In my games, I give Endurance a +4 bonus to stabilization saving throws ...
|
What would you think of letting Endurance add to that check in some fashion? The feat is sort of the "poor man's feat," and a small bump could make it more useful. Diehard means autostable, so it wouldn't seem too out of line by offering say, a +2 to your Fort check to stabilize with its younger kin.Funny you should mention that! In my games, I give Endurance a +4 bonus to stabilization saving throws ...
Is Endurance even still around? People actually take it? Good lord why?
I suppose +4 to stabilize for a Fort Save would be ok (instead of the inelegant d% now). But I still doubt I would waste a feat on Endurance. Maybe someone else would though.
Is Endurance even still around? People actually take it? Good lord why?
I suppose +4 to stabilize for a Fort Save would be ok (instead of the inelegant d% now). But I still doubt I would waste a feat on Endurance. Maybe someone else would though.
I've no idea, but it is. I presume it has to do with backwards compatability, so perhaps the better option is just to add a few features to make it a little more worthwhile, and this would be in-theme.
Ehhh...
Shouldn't stabilization be as rules-light as possible?
The 4E method of "three failed stabilize rolls, you're dead," actually works pretty well for being so simple.
-Matt
I sctually think the threat of death makes more heroic situations.
We ran a campaign that went up to 17th level -- the massive damage roll came into play maybe once per session, and since we used Action Points, there was very little real chance of someone dying (although one character did once, to a barbarian half-orc that was 15th level), the *idea* that someone could die influenced their decisions, made them cautious and fearful of the villains, and otherwise enhanced our game ...
100% agreed!
Keep stabilization as a % roll - makes it far less modifiable/questionable than a d20 roll. For instance, can a bard inspire competence in someone making a stabilization check? Does Guidance give a +1 to that check?
I'm all for giving Endurance a boost though (and people still take it b/c it's free for Rangers Krome :)) - 20% chance to stabilize would be nice. Only probably is how it would stack with Lone Wolf (Rise of the Runelords Background Feat).
And HP definitely need to be well explained of course OP.
|
|
As far as HPs and stabilization go.
I think the 10% success rate is adequate. Allowing the Endurance feat to increase the success rate by 10% to 20% would be a nice feature to the seldom used endurance feat.
Allowing a scaled save DC for death by massive damage is a nice idea but it needs to be simple and easily remembered. I shudder at the thought of the game morphing into some strange cousin of "TableMaster"
The rules for death and dying are still adequate in my opinion. If you would like to add more suspense in these situations, keep a general tally on your characters hp totals during play when you deal damage that would drop them unconscious do not let them know how much damage was dealt. You instruct them to make stabilization rolls on their turn and manage their faltering hps yourself. They will squirm I guarantee.
Is Endurance even still around? People actually take it? Good lord why?
To sleep in Medium Armor (or Mithral Full Plate) without penalties.
|
|
The rules for death and dying are still adequate in my opinion. If you would like to add more suspense in these situations, keep a general tally on your characters hp totals during play when you deal damage that would drop them unconscious do not let them know how much damage was dealt. You instruct them to make stabilization rolls on their turn and manage their faltering hps yourself. They will squirm I guarantee.
You are right, and I have done that in past, but it's not something that should have to be managed by the DM.
There is already a variable for taking damage from monsters, which adds to the unknown. If you add that to dying, it keeps the suspense going. It doesn't have to be more deadly, just variable. Otherwise, a player is more likely to know their chances of survival in a dying state than in melee with a horrible beast.
And for the other poster's comment, I don't see why a bard's ability or a cleric's spell couldn't boost the chances of stabilizing. A Heal check stabilizes someone, as well as a 0-level spell. Seems reasonable to me to increase the odds of stabilizing with other abilities, if that's what's at their disposal...
I recommend describing hit points meaning stamina, luck, skill, the ability to turn a solid blow into a glancing one, and so on.
I'm sorry I have a problem with this statement, if hit points are a reflection of stamina, luck, skill and so on then what are healing spells healing? Luck healing? Healing the ability to avoid a blow? Skill healing? come on that seems pretty silly to me. I don't know what the answer is, I have considered using a vitality/ hit point type system but I don't think the description above makes any sense.
Keep stabilization as a % roll - makes it far less modifiable/questionable than a d20 roll. For instance, can a bard inspire competence in someone making a stabilization check? Does Guidance give a +1 to that check?
I'm all for giving Endurance a boost though (and people still take it b/c it's free for Rangers Krome :)) - 20% chance to stabilize would be nice. Only probably is how it would stack with Lone Wolf (Rise of the Runelords Background Feat).
And HP definitely need to be well explained of course OP.
No to the bard - the guy is unconscious, so he cannot hear and be inspired by the bard.
No to the Guidance since the implied benefit is foreknowledge of the outcome of the action you are rolling against, but the guy is unconscious and has no foreknowledge of the effort of his stabilization check.
As for me, I'm in the camp that it should never have been made a % roll in a game that calls itsef "D20 System".
I recommend describing hit points meaning stamina, luck, skill, the ability to turn a solid blow into a glancing one, and so on.
I'm sorry I have a problem with this statement, if hit points are a reflection of stamina, luck, skill and so on then what are healing spells healing? Luck healing? Healing the ability to avoid a blow? Skill healing? come on that seems pretty silly to me. I don't know what the answer is, I have considered using a vitality/ hit point type system but I don't think the description above makes any sense.
I have agreed with your objection since 1st edition.
I think that's why they call them "Cure X Wounds" instead of "Heal X Wounds"... :)
Seriously though, the healing thing is counterintuitive to the justification of HP as more than flesh and bone.
Why do big things, like giants, have more luck than little things like leprechauns? Why does T-Rex have more luck than a velociraptor?
Why do you keep losing luck when you're lying unconscious on the ground, bleeding out of the wound that dropped you to negative HP?
Even the Critical Hit funcitonality breaks the "HP as Luck" argument. OK, maybe you can say that I rolled so well that the ogre lost twice as much of his luck, but then why do axes take away even more luck than swords take away, and why are swords more likely to take away critical luck than axes are?
When D&D was originally thought of, back in the days it was evolving out of a tabletop miniature battle system, HP measured exactly what it was supposed to: flesh and bone and blood.
Then they added classes, and levels, and HP went up.
Then someone asked the inevitable question: "Why does my 4' tall dwarf have more HP than an Ancient Huge Red Dragon?"
Then someone gave the official party line that HP measures all that other stuff, and we all agreed that it was Good. With a capital G.
Then we suspended our disbelief, ignored things like healing/curing, critical hits, size, etc., and gaming was Good. With a capital G.
And thus has it been for all time.
|
|
Here's my take on HP for what its worth.
First off, let's just get this out of the way right off the top. This is a game. I don't hear players complaining about the lack of economic realism in Monopoly. HP are not setting out to accurately recreate the realistic struggles of life, injury and death. They are abstract for a reason.
Second, if HP were strictly a measure of "bone, flesh and blood" as opposed to a combination of flesh, skill, luck etc., why then are the helpless (regardless of HP) able to be killed in a single blow? (coup-de-grace) Or, using the RAW, killed by a single devastating blow? (death from massive damage) In a system where HP are solely representative of the ability to withstand raw physical punishment, your 15th level fighter could conceivably just stand there and let someone whack away with a great ax for a few rounds (maybe a whole bunch of rounds) til his HP were sufficiently depleted before he died. And this is less "silly"? That one human being can withstand immensely more physical punishment than another strictly based on his profession and experience?
Critical hits do represent luck. Lucky for the guy doing the hitting, unlucky for the guy getting hit.
As far as it being unrealistic that axes do more damage in a luck influenced version of HP, let me use an illustration. In the real world, I could kill someone with a pencil. I could whittle them down with many minor wounds or with a bit of skill and luck, I could kill them with a single blow. If I wanted to speed things up a bit I might use a knife or a bat. Again it might take a few blows or maybe one. I would however be more likely to kill them quickly with the knife/bat than the pencil. That is why weapons do different amounts of damage. It is the "potential" ability to kill you (and more quickly), more than it is just a strict measure of damage done per hit. If the guy I am attacking is also skillful, tough and lucky things might take even longer regardless of my weapon choice.
Our group uses or own complete set of rules for damage, dying and death. Our overriding desire for using our own rules is strictly for style. We want to better re-create the types of epic fantasy fights we read about, and more importantly, watch in film. We find it silly that you operate at 100% capability at 1 HP left, only suffering any impairment at 0 HP. We find it silly that one can rely on the moment of death coming at a precisely calculated time (-10 or -Con score). We have made changes that reflect the gradual wearing down of a combatants ability to fight and added in more mystery and unpredictability to the moment of death. This is not to say that our rules are better, or that the RAW is broken. We just prefer to play a different style.
I always think of a classic movie fight between to adversaries. These guys will pummel each other for minutes, landing vicious blows that in reality would have killed or seriously injured someone, and what do they look like? A little trickle of blood from the corner of the mouth or maybe the nose. 5 minutes of knife fighting? A few slashed shirts and a couple superficial flesh wounds. Then someone wipes the blood away and lands a "telling" blow, staggering the other fighter. He now fights with obvious disadvantage, but is he done? Oh no. He keeps fighting against the odds and in turn lands his own staggering blow. Both fighters, bloodied and injured, fight on even though both are fighting less effectively now. They fight it out a little longer before the victory is attained.
That is what HP mean to me. The representation of how hard someone is to kill and the slow attrition of ones ability to fight, not the amount of raw damage someone or something can withstand.
As for the healing. Have you noticed that the movie heroes rarely take more than a few minutes/hours to be back in pristine shape, ready to fight some more? They are either superhuman or they really didn't suffer all that much "real" damage in that last fight. Yet they were almost defeated.
It isn't all luck or all skill or all flesh, it is a combination of everything that makes something hard to kill. It isn't even the same "ratio" for all creatures.
Does this make sense?
Cheers
You could also consider the cure spells to restore 'vitality':
Healing small scratches, taking away the pain of some bigger ones, clearing the headache from a fatale blow, letting the combatant get better in shape to roll with some blows again.
Just my 0.02$
People are regularly revived with pitiful sparks of electricity and feeble fumbling with primitive tools in our emergency rooms, staff trying to find and stitch up internal damage. Magic should be able to bring back "dead" characters on a regular basis because it heals without need for such discrimination.