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. 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.
That said, I think these rules could still be improved upon further. Before judging how to improve the rules, though, it is prudent to establish the goals for a rule change:
1) To provide a slightly 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 preserve the ablative nature of hit points even when they are negative. This is how hit points work in positive numbers and negative numbers should therefore be no different in this regard.
6) To ensure that the rule works well among the standardized rules framework already used for the game.
Point 3 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 loss of d4 or even d6 hit points instead of just 1 hit point per round provides a significant amount of variability in the damage taken when dying, or when disabled and taking a strenuous action, and makes the timing of the death more unpredictable, but if combined with the standard rules, it would probably be too deadly. As such, using randomization of dying damage, it becomes necessary to increase the negative hit point buffer.
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. Using Fortitude saves would be more consistent than the anachronistic d10, but normally Fortitude saves tend to favor physically tougher characters. However, there is a solution to that dilemma without unduly penalizing physically weaker characters. It lies in making the 'disabled' range equal to the Fortitude saving throw bonus.
Therefore:
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.
|
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. Using Fortitude saves would be more consistent than the anachronistic d10, but normally Fortitude saves tend to favor physically tougher characters. However, there is a solution to that dilemma without unduly penalizing physically weaker characters. It lies in making the 'disabled' range equal to the Fortitude saving throw bonus.
Therefore:
Disabled: 0 to -(Fortitude save bonus) hit points
Dead at: -(Fortitude save bonus + 10) hit points
OMG - that is awesome!!!
I have been using a similar system in my home games - but i have to say it's a little less elegant.
In mine, its a flat DC 20 fort save (which of course favors the warriors); and the DC increases by +1 each round he is unconscious (and fails the save); success wakes the character up at 0 hit points.
I think I actually prefer your idea that makes the DC relative.....
Like my system the warriors are favored; however in yours they are favored by the size of their range of "disabled", while mine provides them an easier save to wake conscious.
Robert
|
There is one interpretation I would like to see in regards to Disabled, Dying and Dead - and I'll get to it in a second.
But firstly and this is only for PCs and "special" NPCs:
Conditions:
- Disabled: from 0 hit points to -(Fort Save) or half-negative constitution score.
- Dying: -(Fort Save)/half-negative constitution score to -(Fort Save + 10)/constitution score.
- Dead: -(Fort Save + 10)/constitution score.
I like the idea of extending the Disabled/Dying condition and possibly extending the Dead limit for hale characters.
However, I would like to see the automatic unconsciousness taken away from the condition. If you are disabled, you must make a DC 15 Fortitude save otherwise become unconscious. If you are dying, you must make a DC 20 Fortitude save to remain conscious. If you are "Dead", you may make a DC 25 Fortitude save to remain conscious for 1d4/2d4 rounds before passing away. During this time, no healing can stop them from dying (although it would be interesting to have a special spell or even an expensively rare component that could bring them back from death - divinely harvested black lotus blossom possibly).
The aim here is to allow a PC/NPC to have their dying words, something that is both good for PCs (saves a speak with dead) as well as for NPCs as the somewhat stereotypical dying words revealing (or not revealing) a clue.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
|
There is one interpretation I would like to see in regards to Disabled, Dying and Dead - and I'll get to it in a second.
But firstly and this is only for PCs and "special" NPCs:
Conditions:
- Disabled: from 0 hit points to -(Fort Save) or half-negative constitution score.
- Dying: -(Fort Save)/half-negative constitution score to -(Fort Save + 10)/constitution score.
- Dead: -(Fort Save + 10)/constitution score.
I find these mechanics to be inconsistent with the system -- why such formulas as (X+Y)/Z? That's more like the Hero System stuff, and not D&D.
Although I *do* agree that these rules need to be revised, as I find the current mechanic to be weird, since percentile rolls are almost non-existent in PF. Also, your burly CON 24 warrior has the same chance to stabilize as the scrawny CON 5 wizard, which is just absurd.
Stabilization: I would go with Fort Save DC 15 + 1 per every negative HP (i.e. DC 22 when you're at -7).
Otherwise I'd keep the 'Dying' and 'Disabled' rules as they are in Beta (i.e. Disabled at 0 HPs, and Dead at -CON HPs).
Here is a system that I have been tinkering with. First of all it is a bit more complicated so please bear with me. The initial idea is based on the fact (well, my perception anyway) that the current negative hp window is too narrow for the rigors of even mid level play. Even with a successful reflex save a fighter or cleric could take 35 points of damage from a maximized fireball. A CR 5 troll that hits with both claws and rends will do 35 points of damage on average.
As such I have decided to expand the negative hp window to dead at –5 x Strength score. Why strength? I like the way it scales based on size. Also, I view negative hp as where the actual bone breaking, organ rupturing and general meat damage of combat occurs. (I suspect this where I will get the most disagreement for my system.)
(As an aside, I view positive hp as all of those resources that a PC puts into preventing meat damage in the first place.)
There are 5 thresholds; each includes how much damage a PC takes if he tries to anything besides breathing and how quickly he is dying. All checks (DCs) are for Fortitude saves. Optionally, one could use concentration checks for Stay or Regain Consciousness checks.
MW1 is basically somebody hopping around on one foot shouting “I’ve been hurt!” They are actually not hurt that badly and are extremely unlikely to die and only if they don’t receive treatment within 24 hours.
Mortally Wounded 1 (MW1) From 0 hp to –STR hp
 Move actions cause no damage
 Standard actions cause 1 point of damage
 No bleeding damage
 Stay or regain consciousness DC 4
 Death/Stabilization check DC 10 once per day
MW2 is similar to current 3e rules but less dire. A person in this condition could, through force of will, walk a mile or two to get treatment. Similar to a stab wound in non-vital areas.
Mortally Wounded 2 (MW2) From –STR hp to –2x STR hp
 Move actions cause 1 point of damage
 Standard actions cause 1d12 points of damage
 Bleeding damage 1 pt per round (until stabilized)
 Stay or regain consciousness DC 8
 Death/Stabilization check DC 15 once per hour
MW3 is when people get really worried. The victim is likely to be unconscious but can regain consciousness with sufficient willpower. Without treatment/stabilization will slip into MW4 in about a minute. This includes arterial bleeding, minor head wounds and amputations.
Mortally Wounded 3 (MW3) From –2xSTR hp to –3x STR hp
 Move actions cause 1d4 point of damage
 Standard actions cause 2d12 points of damage
 Bleeding damage 2 points per round
 Stay or regain consciousness DC 16
 Death/Stabilization check DC 20 once per 10 minutes
MW4 is very dangerous. The victim requires treatment ASAP and will only stay alive long enough for a trip to the hospital/cleric. This includes major head wounds, ruptured organs, bullet holes in the heart, etc.
Mortally Wounded 4 (MW4) From –3xSTR hp to –4x STR hp
 Move actions cause 1d8 point of damage
 Standard actions cause 3d12 points of damage
 Bleeding damage 1d3 points per round
 Stay or regain consciousness DC 32
 Death/Stabilization check DC 25 once per 1 minute
At MW5, without immediate treatment the victim will die. This is almost, but not quite as bad as being run over by a tank.
Mortally Wounded 5 (MW5) From –4xSTR hp to –5x STR hp
 Move actions cause 1d12 point of damage
 Standard actions cause 4d12 points of damage
 Bleeding damage 1d4 points per round
 Stay or regain consciousness DC 64
 Death/Stabilization check DC 30 once per 1 round
For a weak wizard with a STR of 6 these thresholds are –6, -12, -18, -24, and -30. For a fighter with STR 20 they are –20, -40, -60, -80, and -100. These numbers look big but PCs will want to stay out of the higher levels. Even if a PC doesn’t bleed out, they still have to make Death checks to avoid flat out dying.
Anyways, give it some thought and tell me what you think.
Sorry, but way too complicated for me. I just backported the 4E rules as they seemed 1) better than the 3.x rules and 2) simple enough.