If there's one thing I hate about 4E it is going unconscious and sitting there only able to roll a Death Saving Throw on my turn.
This system is designed to keep the players who go below 0 in the game, yet keep the suspense and tension related to death saving throws and the possibility of dying. When you drop to 0 HP, you do not go unconscious. Instead, you can continue to fight on, however, at the risk of injury or death.
The wound system using the Keith Baker "wounds as diseases" system that is floating around as I'm a huge fan of that. (Search for it on Enworld.org - I think there's a few threads there that have developed more on it).
Thoughts and comments are appreciated.
---------
In the unending exploration of the unknown and the fight against monsters, the heroes risk serious wounds or even death.
Wounded: When your hit points drop to 0 or fewer, you have suffered a serious blow that could potentially lead to semi-permanent injury, or even death. While wounded, you are not considered Bloodied.
Wound Saving Throw: When you are Wounded, you need to make a saving throw at the end of your turn each round. The more wound points you accrue throughout a battle, the higher the chance of you risking a serious injury and possibly even death.
Lower than 10: You accrue a Wound Point. Wound Points are marked in your Hit Point box and they do not go away until you take an extended rest.
10–19: No change.
20 or higher: You do not mark a Wound Point. Instead, immediately spend a healing surge. When you do so, you are considered to have 0 hit points, and then your healing surge restores hit points as normal. You are no longer considered Wounded. If you roll 20 or higher but have no healing surges, your condition doesn’t change.
Note: You or an ally can perform a Heal check to stabilize. If you are stabilized, your hit point total does not change, but you can stop making Wound Saving Throws until you take damage again.
End of Encounter: At the end of any encounter, check your hit point box to see if you have any Wound Points marked (remember, these do not go away until you have taken an extended rest and accumulate throughout the day). For each X marked as a Wound Point, roll that many d6s. So, for example, if you have 2 Xs in your hit point box, you would roll 2d6. If you have 4 Xs in your hit point box, you would roll 4d6.
Then, compare your result to the chart below:
10+ You have suffered an injury. (Use the injuries as diseases rules and determine an appropriate injury.)
15+ You are dead. Either die immediately (and have a few last words spitting blood from your mouth), or set up a scene with the DM where you die heroically saving a baby from a burning building or something.
I dunno about this. It seems like it adds complexity and risk for no real gain for the players. The current system allows time to save a fallen party member while encouraging the monsters to let him or her be.
In this system, not only does 'bloodied' vanish at 0 HP, which makes no sense, but the character is still a threat, and so very much subject to death by taking damage to negative bloodied.
On top of that, a player can die encounters later from the Wound Points. Imagine how annoying it would be to die cause you rolled over a 15 after a fight where you took no damage. And you add complexity from the injury rules.
I'm not seeing an improvement from the core system, just extra layers that I can't help but think will lead to many more PC deaths then would normally happen. It looks to me, also, that it makes 'squishy' PCs even more squishy, since they have a lower negative bloodied value, making them easier to kill once at zero if they don't get knocked out.
I dunno about this. It seems like it adds complexity and risk for no real gain for the players. The current system allows time to save a fallen party member while encouraging the monsters to let him or her be.
It's exactly the same as the current system, only you don't go unconscious and you determine death or injury at the end of an encounter. Other than that, it's exactly the same.
In this system, not only does 'bloodied' vanish at 0 HP, which makes no sense, but the character is still a threat, and so very much subject to death by taking damage to negative bloodied.
Right... First of all, you do not die at negative bloodied in this system. The only way to die is to roll 15+ on a wound check at the end of an encounter. So, _the player_ gets to choose how much of a threat or not they are. They can decide if it's worth risking fighting in the thick of combat, and retreating to a safer location.
In this system, they do not go unconscious, so tactics like Coup-De-Grace on the player are impossible - i.e. they are much safer.
On top of that, a player can die encounters later from the Wound Points. Imagine how annoying it would be to die cause you rolled over a 15 after a fight where you took no damage. And you add complexity from the injury rules.
This is the exact same system as 4E uses now. You roll over "Failed Death Saving Throws" until an extended rest. So, again... how is this more complex?
Those "wound points" represent _actual injury_ vs. vigor, stamina and endurance that Hit Points represent. So, it only makes sense (more sense than failed death saving throws actually) that they would continue with you until you took a serious rest (extended rest).
I'm not seeing an improvement from the core system, just extra layers that I can't help but think will lead to many more PC deaths then would normally happen. It looks to me, also, that it makes 'squishy' PCs even more squishy, since they have a lower negative bloodied value, making them easier to kill once at zero if they don't get knocked out.
I think you're mis-analyzing the system entirely. See my posts above for clarity. It's actually harder to die in this system (as the players have more options _during_ the battle and it'll usually take more than 3 failed saves to die. If you notice the math, it's only even close to possible to die if you have 3 (or more) wound points - and even then, the average is 11 on 3d6, which means you're more likely to suffer a serious injury than die.
And, lastly, in this system, your death can be more cinematic. It's not in the middle of the fight based on some random stuff going down. Chances are, you're dying because you chose to push your luck - maybe for something heroic. And, when you do and it turns out you die, you get to have a little say over how you die and it becomes the focus of the game at that point - instead of everyone worrying about themselves surviving the rest of the encounter.
Thanks for the feedback! You should re-examine my original post. Maybe it'll sink in better with this information.
This is the exact same system as 4E uses now. You roll over "Failed Death Saving Throws" until an extended rest. So, again... how is this more complex?
My PH says they go away after a rest (p 295). Was this changed to extended rest someplace else?
This is the exact same system as 4E uses now. You roll over "Failed Death Saving Throws" until an extended rest. So, again... how is this more complex?My PH says they go away after a rest (p 295). Was this changed to extended rest someplace else?
You are correct. Death saving throws reset at any rest, not just an extended rest.
You are correct. Death saving throws reset at any rest, not just an extended rest.This is the exact same system as 4E uses now. You roll over "Failed Death Saving Throws" until an extended rest. So, again... how is this more complex?My PH says they go away after a rest (p 295). Was this changed to extended rest someplace else?
Weird. It does only say "rest". We've been playing since 4E came out that Failed Death STs stay with you until an extended rest...
Thanks for the correction!
Wow... So unfortunately, I can't edit my original post to make this change. Argh...
I've added the revised version of the rules, including entire rules for injuries on my WotC blog since I can't seem to be able to edit my post here.
Yeah, I think posts can only be edited for a certain period after being posted, or before someone replies, or something like that...
In any case, the rules are looking good. My one concern does remain that PCs can't lose a combat. There is still certainly the potential for a combat to be difficult enough they wrack up certainly lethal injuries during it, but the fact there is no way for the enemy to win is somewhat problematic.
Matthew, there is certainly a way for the enemy to win: the PCs flee. This is a great option if several of the PCs are in the Wounded condition and are racking up Wound Points and they don't want to risk death over this particular conflict.
Thanks for the comments! Much appreciated.
Matthew, there is certainly a way for the enemy to win: the PCs flee. This is a great option if several of the PCs are in the Wounded condition and are racking up Wound Points and they don't want to risk death over this particular conflict.Yeah, I think posts can only be edited for a certain period after being posted, or before someone replies, or something like that...
In any case, the rules are looking good. My one concern does remain that PCs can't lose a combat. There is still certainly the potential for a combat to be difficult enough they wrack up certainly lethal injuries during it, but the fact there is no way for the enemy to win is somewhat problematic.
Well, yes - but that is entirely a player decision. If the players don't choose the lose, they can't lose. Even if the cost of victory is death, removing the tension of whether the PCs will succeed would rob the game of a key element, to me. Basically, you are changing the question from, "Can the PCs win this fight?" to "How many resources will the PCs expend to win this fight?"
Which is fine, if everyone is a fan of that approach - but at least for myself, I don't think I'd ever be willing to use a system that outright removes the possibility of failure.
I've been in games like that, by DM choice. The GM, who was an awesome storyteller, hated killing players. So, no one ever died. Something happened to make sure that a character would live. It was a Shadowrun game, so people started being real dumb. Running through machine gun fire and the like, knowing, at the end of the day, they'd be fine. In effect, the removal of risk negated the quality of the story, since combat became fool around time.
Until, finally, he whacked someone. And then the game got much much better. The risk was back, the storytelling was made better by it, and game improved.
Personally, as someone who has never minded character death, I'd hate dying *after* the fight to something like internal bleeding, instead of in the fight. It's less dramatic and to me, less fun, to die when the enemy is already defeated.
On a side note, is fleeing automatically a failure? Unless, by the flight, the enemy is allowed to accomplish it's goal, fleeing can be a valid tactical choice, allowing the opposition to be slowly defeated in small groups.
we called it a retro offensive: an enemy who couldnt for one reason or another be pinned down, send two small teams ahead, get their attention, once engaged, fall back in stages, enemey follows, thinking that they are doing well, the teams lead them right into a sizable ambush.
And once raise dead rituals become available it's barely a gamble.
And for the same reasoning, I often include much higher CR creatures in areas where the adventures may travel from time to time, just to let them know there is always something bigger or tougher than their current ego may be able to handle. I often use skill challenges or signs/warnings that they may be asking for the wrong fight.
But fear of death, or defeating insurmountable odds, is food for epic stories should they survive. And yes, sometimes they will fail.
But fear of death, or defeating insurmountable odds, is food for epic stories should they survive. And yes, sometimes they will fail.
Did you guys read the rules? PCs can still die in this system. It simply occurs after the fight and because the PCs chose to "stick it out" despite being in dire straights.
Did you guys read the rules? PCs can still die in this system. It simply occurs after the fight and because the PCs chose to "stick it out" despite being in dire straights.
But fear of death, or defeating insurmountable odds, is food for epic stories should they survive. And yes, sometimes they will fail.
I don't think the complaint is that they won't die, but that they won't die in the fight. That means the monsters can't win unless the PC's run. The party dropping dead after the fight is less exciting than individuals dropping during the heat of combat where they have to choose whether to keep fighting, to heal a fallen comrade, or to run and save themselves.
Think of Fellowship of the Ring in the mines of Moria. Frodo got dropped by the troll spear and the party chose to pick his body up and get out of there while trying to cover a retreat. That whole scene looses something if Frodo just takes the shot and keeps fighting, then collapses once they start running.
I don't think most DM's want to kill the PC's, but the threat needs to be there, not just a question of odds after the monsters are dead.
I don't think the complaint is that they won't die, but that they won't die in the fight. That means the monsters can't win unless the PC's run. The party dropping dead after the fight is less exciting than individuals dropping during the heat of combat where they have to choose whether to keep fighting, to heal a fallen comrade, or to run and save themselves.
I disagree. I think it's more exciting to keep fighting on, knowing you will die. Knowing you have taken a mortal wound, you fight on for a cause. Think Boromir's last stand, if you want to go with the Lord of the Rings references.
Which is more exciting, Boromir getting hit with an arrow and going unconscious, or him getting hit with an arrow and pulling it out and fighting on, knowing he will die?
Think of Fellowship of the Ring in the mines of Moria. Frodo got dropped by the troll spear and the party chose to pick his body up and get out of there while trying to cover a retreat. That whole scene looses something if Frodo just takes the shot and keeps fighting, then collapses once they start running.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LklWE_8yudE
Dude. Watch the clip. Frodo didn't go unconscious. He got "Stunned". He is still alive and they come over and grant him a save and he gets up.
I don't think most DM's want to kill the PC's, but the threat needs to be there, not just a question of odds after the monsters are dead.
It should be in the PCs hands when they choose to die for a cause, and if they are risking their PC's death, it should be for a meaningful outcome.
It should be in the PCs hands when they choose to die for a cause, and if they are risking their PC's death, it should be for a meaningful outcome.
I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just trying to explain why the other posters and myself aren't on board with these rules. They don't seem to fit the kinds of games we run or play. It may be cinematic to die after the fight on occasion, so maybe I'll allow a character some last words, but I still prefer the characters to be dropped in the fight.
BTW, I think both references are open to interpretation. Maybe they forced Frodo to use a surge. And Boromir was conscious, but he wasn't fighting those orcs that kept running by.
Michael, I am somewhat surprised by your defensiveness here. You came here, with the statement that "thoughts and comments are appreciated." Many posters, at this point, have offered up one key issue - that they feel the completely inability to die in combat is not what they are looking for in the game.
Hey Matthew,
You're totally right man. Apologies all around.
I'm defending a preferred playstyle vs. another's preferred playstyle and that was totally not the intent of this thread and it's kind of devolved into that. I got wrapped up in the overall scope of the mechanics instead of focusing on the consequences of the mechanics in play.
Anyways, I do appreciate all the comments on the actual mechanics, and it's something to definitely consider. Once I get around to playtesting the system, I know I have some stuff to keep an eye out for (players never dying "during combat") because of the points you guys have made.
All the feedback is much appreciated (and doubly so for Matthew putting me back on track!).
Thanks, guys.
Michael