I'd like to open up this thread to opinions on handling dying characters.
Here are my opinions.
While I like the change to negative hp threshold being -10 or Con as it is a nod toward having higher level characters survive, I think that a character's negative hit point threshold should be tied to their level rather than Con. Con has plenty of things tied to it already, and the current rule reinforces the notion that the players "need" to have a good Con score. It would be nice if negative hps represent a character's survivability from an experience standpoint. Hence the level idea. The premise is that higher level characters should have a better chance of surviving negatives than lower level ones.
Currently, we use -10 - level to determine a PC's neg hp threshold. In other words, a level one PC dies at -11, and a 20th level PC dies at -30.
Also, I think that the dying state is too predictable. Added to the above rule, if when reaching negative hps, a character does not stabilize, he loses 1d4 hps, instead of just one.
Pleas discuss.
|
As a traditionalist in this matter, I am satisfied with the CONsistency, but don't have any issues with negative Con being death's door threshold. In my Pathfinder group, this has actually played fairly well.
Just as we have 5+ ways to roll our d6 dice to roll up characters, I'm comfortable with DMs houseruling the way they wish, as long as it remains consistent throughout play.
Just my 2cp - I know its not, maybe, what you were looking for though.
|
Sort of indifferent.
I don't know that it really adds a whole lot. It certainly doesn't detract so I can go with it.
Regardless I would house rule it the way we already do. -CON and that is it.
Mainly I think it depends upon what Pathfinder Society would want, cause I think this is an area most games house rule already, and probably will no matter what.
|
Our group plays with our own set of house rules for death and dying. We do not put a limit to the number of negative HP your character can reach.
At the start of a round that a character's HP are in the negative, they must make a FORT save versus a DC equal to that negative number (ie. a -15 HP total requires a DC 15 save).
If you save, you remain dying. The next round you lose another HP and make another save against the new tougher DC.
If you fail, you die.
If you roll a natural 19 or 20 on your save roll, you stabilize and do not lose anymore HP (or need to make any more saves versus dying).
It works very much like the 10% chance to stabilize and scales for high level characters since their FORT saves get better with level advancement.
Incidentally, we do not treat a roll of 1 as automatic failure. It is just considered a roll of 1 to which you add your FORT save. This makes it very hard for most characters to die, with say, -1 to -4 even at low levels.
These are but a portion of our rules but I thought you might be interested in this part specifically.
I extend the death threshold beyond -10 typically by the CON bonus. Extending it to the full CON seems excessive to me especially when we're talking about more than -25 point at higher levels. By that same token, I don't think extending that threshold by level is necessary since the defenses at higher level are already increasing.
The other thing I recently adopted was extending the STAGGERED condition beyond exactly zero HP to negative CON bonus as well. I thought I read that idea here, but I haven't been able to find it here by searching.
Interesting proposal. As is it sounds great to me, but some people would think of the 10+level "overpowered". Perhaps making it 5 + (Con modifier) + level would make it more agreeable to others as it rather implies a tradeoff.
All I'll say is that whichever method is chosen, it really should be as rules-light as possible. This is one part of the game where simplicity is desired.
-Matt
|
|
We use alternative death and dying rules, and everyone seems satisfied with them:
* When you're at negative hp, at the start of your turn you lose 1d3-1 hp. The third round you roll a 0, you get stabilized. They don't need to be consecutive. This replaces the standard stabilization roll.
* If you're brought to negative hp and get healed, you get a negative level.
|
|
Having read the Fort Save method of another poster, I find I like it even more than my d3-1. I'd make a natural 1 an automatic miss, though. It adds uncertainty and lessens the "well, if he is a -X, we still have Y turns before having to heal him".
I'll try it ;)
Our gaming group debated the roll of one being an automatic failure and we all decided that we didn't like that a high level character reduced to -1 HP could die just because of a unlucky roll. We are also similarly using a modified death from massive damage rule that eliminates the unlucky roll as well.
What I like about this method, as GM, is that the exact moment of death is hard to predict due to the lack of a final end point. One can continue to make saves for a long time but can just as easily fail at any given moment once the DC gets above your FORT save score.
Another idea for the roll of 1 is to treat it as a roll of -10 for the purpose of calculating your save. That might be more in line with your tastes. It removes the unlucky aspect to a degree but still makes rolling a 1 pretty harsh.
Incidentally, our group does not allow any game discussion of current HP totals* at all (positive or negative). Therefore once a player's character has been reduced to negative HP they aren't able to reveal anything to the other players about their survival chances. They simply make their saves each round until something happens. It really adds an element of suspense and urgency (as it should IMO) when a character goes down.
* Keep in mind, as I stated earlier, this is just a portion of the house rules we use re: death and dying so they are a little out of context.
Thanks for giving it try! Hope you like!
Here is an idea for a system that expands the disabled range, scales slightly with level and allows the use of Fortitude saves for stabilization without unduly penalizing physically weaker characters. The secret lies in making the 'disabled' range equal to the Fortitude saving throw bonus.
Disabled: 0 to -(Fortitude save bonus) hit points
Dead at: -(Fortitude save bonus + 10) hit points
Roll a fortitude save to stabilize when dying. DC is set at current negative hit points plus 10. Therefore:
Fortitude save DC: 10 + negative hit points
This system makes saving throws to stabilize 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
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.
Something we played around with.
dead at -(Con Score + Level)
We extended disabled all the way from 0hp on down to death, you lose 1d4 hp a round, and if you take a standard action, then you lose consciousness.
It allows for more staggering around half dead, last words and such.
|
|
This is OT since I'm not talking about things I think may be picked up for pathfinder, just talking about something my group likes.
One thing I took from fourth ed I loved, (and even then to make it something I love I had to modify it because 4e is so coddling to the players) is that -HP no longer counts down to death. when you hit negatives you drop, the only point of them is to give you a threshold after 0 to not be dead. When a character is in the negatives, they then roll to stabilize, if they don't they roll a d20, 1=death, 2-10= get worse, 11-19 stay the same, 20= you are at 0hp and stabilized. 3 rolls of get worse and you are dead.
The reason we love this is because it got rid of players counting the rounds till they died. When an ally falls in battle everyone should be like "Oh s$#+" instead the players are non-chalant, even if the characters are panicking because the players know that the character has x rounds left. the only time players ever seemed worried was if a hit took someone to -8 or -9. Now if a player falls everyone tries to get to them to save them because they could die the next round. much more suspenseful
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Regarding the orginal post:
I'd think that an unconscious body leaking blood is the one time when a character's class levels would not matter. In such a situation, given the choice between being a 15th Level bard when I'm awake, versus having the constitution of a horse, I'd prefer the latter.
But I wanted to thank you for raising the topic.
It looks like there are as many ways to do this as there are posters.
I'll say this... In my experience (currently at high level), the PCs often fall into the negatives of the -15 or more range and almost never less. My experience may be a bit skewed as we play the AoW, and monsters typically do massive amounts of damage in that campaign at the higher levels.
Hence in my experience, having your threshold scale with level keeps your negative threshold somewhat the same at all levels in relation to the threat faced.
I don't link it to your health/Constitution. That is represented on the positive side of hit points. As I see it, the name "negative hit points" is a misnomer, because at that point, it's just a formula to determine weather you are going to live or not. Hence the tie to level rather than other things like Con or Fort saves.
Higher level characters should be more apt to keep from dying than lower level ones.
With that said, I can certainly see other people's points of view, and really don't mind the current dying state rules. I do think the predictability of death should be taken into consideration. Me personally, I don't allow players to announce their current hit points, they can't speak if their player goes down, so the suspense is certainly there. But it might be nice to have a rule reflect this.
|
Here's what my group and I have been doing, and it works well within the confines of Pathfinder:
At zero hit points you become unconscious, and at -1 or lower hit point totals, you are now on death's door. You must roll below your Con score on a percentile (d100) in order to stabilize, and the maximum negative hit point total you can have before dying is your Con score as well.
I read some of your replies to using your level as a modifier. I think that your level is already figured into the equation because of hit points. That is directly tied to your level. The Con score makes a nice and easy mechanic because you only need to remember one number when you are dying. It also represents your bodily health.
The downfall here is that a weak character, such as an elf, might actually only have an 8 Con. It could happen that way. Then when reaching death's door, you are in serious trouble...
Anyway, this works well for us and is really simple. Enjoy.